#368 TEACHING TRUE ADVANCED LOGIC; the second year of logic taught to all science majors in hopes and order for them to better think straight and clear// Logic by Archimedes Plutonium This is AP's #368 published book of science published on
141 views
Skip to first unread message
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 8, 2025, 9:43:16 PM12/8/25
to Plutonium Atom Universe
#368 TEACHING TRUE ADVANCED LOGIC; the second year of logic taught to all science majors in hopes and order for them to better think straight and clear// Logic by Archimedes Plutonium This is AP's #368 published book of science published on
324 views
Subscribe
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Sep 18, 2025, 12:50:14 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
*TEACHING TRUE ADVANCED LOGIC; the second year of logic taught to all
science majors in hopes and order for them to better think straight and
clear// Logic*
by Archimedes Plutonium
This is AP's #367 published book of science published on Internet,
Plutonium-Atom-Universe,
PAU newsgroup is this.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Preface: At least a decade now, I have been harping that all science
students in colleges and university take 2 years of Logic in order to help
them think straight and clear. But I have a huge problem with that wish.
Since there are no logic textbooks available today that have the simple
connectors of logic, all the 4 simple connectors correct, then studying
logic in college and university when they use error filled logic textbooks
may damage their education rather than improve it. In that light, I write
textbooks #366 Teaching True Logic and #367 Teaching True Advanced Logic.
Because AP corrects the logic of Boole and Jevons of 19th century, for they
erred in all 4 of the simple connectors-- AND, OR, Equal-Not, If-->then,
that AP considers himself to be the father-of-modern-logic.
Cover Picture: My iphone picture of AP's equations of Electromagnetic Laws.
In accordance to "All is Atom, and Atoms are nothing but electricity and
magnetism".
----------------------------------
Table to Contents
----------------------------------
--------------
Text
--------------
Archimedes Plutonium May 3, 2025, 1:27:05 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe
newsgroup.
*TEACHING TRUE ADVANCED LOGIC; the second year of logic taught to all
science majors in hopes and order for them to better think straight and
clear// Logic*
by Archimedes Plutonium
This is AP's #367 published book of science published on Internet,
Plutonium-Atom-Universe,
PAU newsgroup is this.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
There I was from 1991 to 2015 correcting all the Logic connectors
of Old Logic and writing a book calling for the suspension of teaching
Logic in all schools across the world until they corrected their textbooks.
Then from 2015 to present day May 2025, I have been harping on the idea
that all scientists should take 2 years of College-University Logic classes
in order to get their science degree. Trouble with that idea, is there are
no textbooks of Logic free of massive errors. No point in two years of
College logic from textbooks that have all 4 of the simple connectors of
Logic in gross error. With that idea in mind I devote my #351 book--
TEACHING TRUE LOGIC and this my #353 book to supplying Colleges and
Universities two textbooks free of massive errors.
Archimedes Plutonium Apr 15, 2025, 4:59:49 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe
newsgroup.
So, for the past 5 years I have been harping on Colleges and Universities
who keep passing out degrees in science, yet those persons unable to think
straight and clear.
And to help solve this problem, they are forced to take 2 years of Logic in
College. In hopes that they will have the chance of Thinking Straight and
Thinking Clearly.
But, well, I cannot insist that colleges and univerrsities do that when
humanity never wrote a Logic textbook that was all Correct.
We have the ugly situation in the world that no Logic textbook ever got all
4 of the Simple Logic connectors correct. The Boole and Jevons textbook on
logic which is still used today has all 4 connectors wrong.
So I cannot really insist on students taking Logic when there are no Logic
textbooks in existence and thus I write the 2 textbooks for students to
take.
Archimedes Plutonium Apr 17, 2025, 12:47:01 AM to Plutonium Atom Universe
newsgroup.
Marvelous that I can start this textbook written in story book format, even
before I finish the other logic book.
The most important idea in all of science, in all of the universe in fact
is the Atomic Theory. And the application of Logic upon the Atomic Theory
is always in demand, throughout time.
This syllogism is the single most important fact and idea in all of
science, for it tells us of our past, our present and of our future.
ATOMIC THEORY SYLLOGISM
------- Facts and definitions of Atom Totality ------
1) All Matter is one of 114 Chemical Elements of the Periodic Table of
Chemical Elements. This is the definition of Matter and Matter has rest
mass.
2) The 114 Chemical Elements are each Atoms, and a atom is defined as
having three components --- Protons, Muons, Neutrons for which these three
components engage in the Faraday and Ampere law and Capacitor law and other
Electromagnetic Laws.
3) The Proton is a coil torus and all the protons form a single torus, with
muons inside this proton torus act as bar magnets thrusting through the
proton torus in the Faraday law producing new electricity and
electromagnetic radiation.
4) The electricity and electromagnetic radiation produced by proton-muons
is storaged in neutrons as parallel plate capacitors. But some of the
radiation is emitted out of the atom such as starshine and sunshine.
Emitted out as EM radiation but still connected with the atom of origin
until absorbed by a new atom.
5) Stars and Sun shine not from fusion but from Faraday law, and it is the
Faraday law that builds stars and planets and other astronomical bodies. As
the storage of electricity in Faraday law proton-muon builds up neutrons to
become new hydrogen atoms or other atoms.
---------- Facts and definitions of Space where few if any matter exists
-----
6) What is not matter, is empty space full of Electromagnetic Radiation
pencil ellipses of Light Waves and subatomic particles traveling through
the Cosmos. The empty space of a plutonium atom matches the empty space
seen in Astronomy where there are few galaxies, and stars.
Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden gold leaf experiment points to empty space
similar to astronomy empty space.
7) EM radiation is a circuit, although a pencil-ellipse, it is always
connected with the atom that gave it birth, until the radiation is absorbed
in other atoms.
8) Space can be empty of Atoms, but is always containing electromagnetic
radiation, pencil ellipses of Light waves going at the speed of light in
closed loop pencil ellipses always connected with the Atom of origin or the
Atom it is absorbed by.
9) Subatomic particles that escape an atom, are always connected with its
original atom via the EM radiation is a closed loop, until the subatomic
particle is absorbed by a new atom.
10) All subatomic particles or EM energy outside a Atom are all connected
to their atom of origin until absorbed by a new atom and then connected to
the new atom.
------- Growth in an Atom Totality -----
11) Growth in Atom Totality is caused by Faraday and Ampere law and
Capacitor law, especially in Faraday law where a thrusting bar magnet
through a coil of wire produces new electricity the 0.5MeV Dirac magnetic
monopoles which have rest mass but also in the EM radiation given off in
Faraday law. This is a conversion of Space into new mass. And the Sun and
stars shine from Faraday law, not fusion. As each atom is composed of
protons which has muons inside the proton torus doing the Faraday law.
12) In Astronomy, the galaxies form rings which is a small part of a Cosmic
Proton torus and the galaxies form Cosmic Muons thrusting through the
Cosmic Proton producing electricity and radiation. We see and measure this
in the form of cosmic gamma rays. Astronomy sees this as the Ring of
Galaxies in 3rd layer as reported by Caltech. Plutonium Atom Totality has
94 x 840 = 78960 Cosmic Proton Rings and we are beginning to see just 2 or
3 of these rings in our corner of the Plutonium Atom Totality. The muons
inside this Cosmic Proton torus are a bar magnet that is 94 x 105 = 9870
connected Cosmic Muon Chain inside the Cosmic Proton. We seem to have a
nexus of galaxies in that some are moving perpendicular to one another in
the Ring in the 3rd layer.
13) Chemistry sees this as the concentration of high atomic number elements
in ore deposits as a direct result of Faraday law growth. Elements created
as ores in planets, moons and asteroids.
----- Concluding the Atom Totality is a single big atom of plutonium ------
14) The Universe itself has mass and matter.
15) Hence the Universe is one of the 114 chemical elements, and the
plutonium atom fits the special numbers of math and physics such as pi =
3.14... as 22/7 and e = 2.718... as 19/7, the Fine Structure Constant, the
best fit.
16) The Atom Totality is different from the atoms it contains inside the
Atom Totality, simply as a mass difference. For a Plutonium atom found
inside the Plutonium Atom Totality is many times exponentially smaller mass.
17) The Atom Totality must be a single Atom, for the growth pattern is
Atoms giving birth to new atoms via Faraday law. The Universe cannot be a
molecule for the growth pattern is not set up to create molecules.
18) The Atom Totality must be true, otherwise the Atomic Theory is a mere
and meager rule and not a law or theory of science. Laws and theories of
science are Universal, while a rule of science is sometimes correct, often
wrong.
19) The Atom Totality as a Law and Theory of science propounds the
axiomatic principle of science--- All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but
electricity and magnetism. Meaning that all science reduces to the laws of
electromagnetism.
----- Purpose of Life in an Atom Totality -------
20) Purpose of life in an Atom Totality is to nucleosynthesize heavy
elements impossible to nucleosynthesize in stars or supernova. Life was not
needed in prior Atom Totalities of helium up to lead as Faraday Law could
build an atom twice the atomic number and spontaneous fission into the
newly created Atom Totality. But life in Atom Totalities were required to
create new Atom Totalities beyond lead. This would mean that life,
intelligent life to do nucleosynthesis, existed for billions and billions
of years long before planet Earth and humans arrived in the Plutonium Atom
Totality. Whether life lives after spontaneous fission into a new Atom
Totality is unknown at this time. I am guessing life lives through the
birth of a new Atom Totality.
21) As Life nucleosynthesizes Element 192 it will __spontaneously fission__
into a Curium Atom Totality. Life is uniformly spread throughout the
Universe and its mission is to create the next Atom Totality.
22) As Element 192 is formed by bombarding Curium with other Curium atoms
until two fuse together to briefly form Element 192 which immediately
decays into the Curium Atom Totality in equal parts, one curium atom being
particle the other being wave (one being electricity rest mass, the other
curium atom being magnetism energy). The need for the Atom Totality to be
an even proton number-- atomic number--- is so that the spontaneous fission
creates two equal atoms. One to give the rest mass Curium Atom Totality and
the other to give the energy of the Curium Atom Totality.
23) If humanity saves itself from extinction and oblivion by making Europa
our permanent new home in the next 1,000 years, because our Sun has gone
Red Giant phase and will swallow Earth in due course. Then on Europa, after
we become settled in, our mission there will be to build cyclotrons to
bombard curium atoms into other curium atoms hoping to get two to fuse and
nucleosynthesize element 192 and create the New Curium Atom Totality. We
will likely have competitors in billions of other solar systems in the
Universe. It is a race to create God-- Curium Atom Totality.
ATOM
Archimedes Plutonium Apr 17, 2025, 8:26:56 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe
newsgroup.
So in this book of Advanced Logic, I want to apply Logic to questions and
problems of physics and other topics and show how Logic when used well;
yields great results.
These are some of the problems and challenges I will discuss.
1) How to unify the 4 forces of physics.
2) How to solve and rethink the Uncertainty Principle.
3) How does Superdeterminism fit into physics.
4) Making Pauli Exclusion Principle well understood.
5) Complamentarity Principle made more clear.
6) Why does motion of muon inside a proton torus have perpetual motion at
nearly the speed of light and yet pertual motion outside the Atom is
nonexistent.
7) Why does the Universe have a fastest speed--- that of Light.
8) Why the purpose of life is to make new atoms.
9) Explaining that cells are to biology what atoms are to physics.
10) In sociology, why there is so much pain and suffering in the world.
These and many more will be analyzed by the application of Logic, showing
us that by careful thinking we solve problems.
Archimedes Plutonium Apr 18, 2025, 12:47:04 AM to Plutonium Atom Universe
newsgroup.
In Advanced Logic, as we analyze each of the Quantum Mechanics principles,
we can get much guidance to Feynman's favorite principle-- the Uncertainty
Principle. For it haunted Feynman throughout his life. And I focus on this
principle because it is Logic that helps us pick apart the Uncertainty
Principle and exposes it as a sham.
The only reason we have Quantum Uncertainty in the Double Slit Experiment
is not because Uncertainty exists in Nature. No, the problem here is that
physicists had few if any logical marbles to assess what is happening in
the Double Slit Experiment, and sadly, my hero Feynman did not have enough
logical marbles either.
You see, if you view the photon or Light Wave or the Dirac Magnetic
Monopole-- that 0.5MeV particle, view them as closed looped pencil ellipses
always connected with its source until absorbed by another atom, then all
the mysteries of the Double Slit Experiment and the Uncertainty Principle
vanish. All vanishes when Logic tells us the shape and manner of a Photon
or the 0.5MeV particle. And thus the Uncertainty Principle is also hauled
out into the trash.
So will other Quantum Principles endure the same fate? Complamentarity,
Duality, Pauli Exclusion??? Are these principles safe or are they going to
end up like Uncertainty????
This is why I keep harping on colleges and universities to force science
students to take 2 years of College Logic, and the reason I am writing
these two textbooks to furnish colleges with true logic, not the Old Moron
Logic (Boole & Jevons) now being taught.
Archimedes Plutonium Apr 18, 2025, 2:01:24 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe
newsgroup.
So we have Superposition Principle and can easily see it is the reverse of
Pauli Exclusion Principle. Much like multiply is the reverse of divide.
But what about the Complamentarity-Duality Principle-- the particle versus
wave or better yet-- electricity versus magnetism, what is the reverse of
Duality?????
And here I have to say, the Magnetic Monopole is the reverse of Duality.
But how does Advanced Logic explain that???? One of the toughest
explanations and test of Logic, you can imagine. Why does the 0.5MeV
particle, the one Thomson discovered in 1897 and mistakenly thought it was
the Atom's electron, no, it was Dirac's magnetic monopole and that the Muon
is the true electron of Atoms, stuck inside a proton torus doing the
Faraday law with the proton torus.
So I am going to have to muster all my logic skills to make sense of why
Magnetic Monopoles are the reverse of Quantum Complamentarity-Duality.
Archimedes Plutonium Apr 18, 2025, 4:12:32 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe
newsgroup.
They say a picture speaks a thousand words. We can say that a story book is
a thousand times easier to understand and to learn from than a textbook.
But also, a story book is surely a thousand times easier to write.
Why a industrious person could probably read this story book on Advanced
Logic in one sitting, yet surely unable to read a Logic textbook in one
sitting and learn much from it.
Let me tell you the story of how I discovered through Advanced Logic that
the Muon was the true electron of Atoms. It is a beautiful story in the
simplicity and ease. Unlike the story of how I discovered the Atom Totality
Theory which took almost 2 decades, while my discovery of Muon as true
electron took months between the years 2016 and 2017.
So I was writing my 8th edition of Atom Totality in 2016. I had been
released from hospital in April 2016 from Liposarcoma cancer surgery. And
one would think, that a person's science career would faulter after cancer
surgery, but for me, the opposite happened. I exploded in ideas and energy
to write.
I wanted a chapter in my 8th edition Atom Totality to list all well known
subatomic particles and perhaps make connections. So I got to proton at 938
MeV and neutron at 940 MeV and then I got to muon at 105 MeV.
I am a mathematician by training, and instantly in my mind knew that 9 x
105 equals exactly 945. Exactly!!!! Well, 938 and 940 are not exactly equal
to 945. But I had written a TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbook recently in
2016-2017 and had a chapter in it about what physicists call Sigma Error.
This is a concept in which we realize that all measurements of physics have
background interference in getting exact measures. We can come close to
reality but off by a tiny bit of measurement.
Understanding of the practice of Sigma Error. An example goes far better in
making clear what sigma error is. For example, you have measurements of the
mass of a proton at 938MeV and a neutron measured at 940MeV. Now you see
the mass of the muon is 105MeV. And so what pops up in your mind is that if
we multiply 9 x 105, it comes to be 945 and the sigma error of 945/938 =
0.7% and the sigma error of 945/940 = 0.5%, means we can say, since both
approach a error of 0.5%, we can interpret that as meaning the proton and
neutron are built from 9 muons exactly. It is simply that the background
noise we do measuring throws the numbers off by a tiny tiny bit. And that
we are comfortable in saying physically a proton is 9 muons is what is
concluded.
So there I was in 2016, coming to a great new discovery, that 9 muons
constructed form a Proton or a Neutron.
But, well, the great new theory was not there in 2016 but had to wait
months later into 2017, for my mind to understand and realize, not that a
Proton and Neutron were constructed and built from 9 Muons, but that the
actual Proton was not 938 or 945, but was rather instead 840 MeV and that
one muon is inside the 840 MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law with the
Proton torus.
My mind realized in 2016 that a Proton or Neutron were built and composed
of 9 muons. But not until 2017 did the great discovery emerge. The Proton
is 8 Muons, and one of the Muons is the electron of Atoms doing the Faraday
Law with proton torus.
Looking back now, I deeply regret that it took me nearly a year to come to
the realization that the Proton was not built from 9 muons but from 8 and
that 1 of the Muons is the true electron of atoms.
Without Logic, especially Advanced Logic, you can be a scientist,
collecting data, doing experiments, doing graphs and advanced mathematics
and calculus, but without Logic, the most crucial moment in time for a
scientist is to correctly interpret what is going on in his/her science
that they spent years pouring over. Without a correct logical
interpretation, that someone outside of the field of study and experiments
could come along and in 10 minutes of Logical thought, give a correct
interpretation of your science you invested a decade in doing, and that the
person with 10 minutes of reflection--- gets 90% of the credit, while you
get honorable mention and 10% of the credit.
So, it is obvious to me, every scientist in College or University needs 2
years of Logic. It is no guarantee that you will correctly interpret your
ten years of work, but at least, it gives you a far better chance of
correct interpretation than if you never took Logic.
Scientists before the year 2016 were not required or forced to take 2 years
of College Logic and it shows so badly, so dramatically in so called famous
scientists. Rutherford-Bohr-Gieger-Marsden did not have enough Logic to
realize --- ____Atoms have no nucleus____. For when the alpha particles
bounced back in the gold leaf experiment at a faster speed than ingoing
alpha particles, Logically, is not a proof of a nucleus, but rather instead
the opposite--- a proof that a atom has no nucleus. I shall tell this story
later.
Another scientist who is over-rated by a-lot is Einstein. He would have
benefited greatly if he had taken Logic in school. For Einstein wanted to
unify the 4 forces of physics (1) strong nuclear (2) weak nuclear (3)
electromagnetism and (4) gravity. He spent decades trying to unify those 4
forces before finally giving up. Yet in his giving up hope of a
unification, the small mind of Einstein thought he could add to the
knowledge of the force of gravity in his so called General Relativity.
On the other hand, if Einstein had taken Logic in college, his few logical
marbles would likely have told him --- Albert--- it is worthless and crazy
to think General Relativity is true because only after you unify gravity
with the other forces can you actually tell what gravity is. And so today,
year 2025, Einstein in physics was nothing but a failure in large part. He
deserves credit for the photoelectric effect, provided he did not steal
that from other physicists for he did steal E = mc^2 from the Russian
physicist Nikolay Umov 1873. In phsyics, Einstein was a dwarf midget in the
pantheon of physics, and all because he lacked Logic marbles.
Archimedes Plutonium Apr 18, 2025, 11:12:50 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe
newsgroup.
So in writing this story telling textbook : ADVANCED LOGIC, I am going to
personally assign my self the task of solving, via Logic, on whether the
Complamentary-Duality Principle is the reverse of the Magnetic Monopole.
And to help me do that chore, I am going to tell the story of my discovery
of the Unification of 4 Forces of Physics and how that was accomplished.
For to solve Magnetic Monopoles are the reverse of Complamentarity-Duality
I am going to try a similar tool to solve the problem.
My Unification of 4 Forces of Physics
------------------------------------------------------------
This story happened in about 5 years time in discovery in the mid 1990s. At
that time I was living in New Hampshire and had discovered the Atom
Totality theory in 1990 and by 1991 set myself to the task of solving every
outstanding unsolved Math Conjecture such as Fermat's Last Theorem or 4
Color Mapping, or infinitude of perfect numbers and about 10 or 11 others.
Then in 1993 came the Internet and Usenet where I could post my discoveries
in sci.physics and sci.math.
So the proofs of these 11 math conjectures went really well in 1991 and I
started to post all 11 of my proofs of outstanding math conjectures like
the Riemann Hypothesis, and especially Fermat's Last Theorem as I had a
competitor rival in Princeton trying to beat AP to a proof of FLT. 35 years
later, I am sure that AP's proof of FLT is the true and valid proof while
the Princeton University proof of FLT is fake and will be trashed sometime
in the future.
But during the period of 1993 to 2000, I was resolute in an idea, that the
4 forces had to be all part of the Perfect Force. One of the four forces
has the most perfect particle-- the photon, the Light Wave and having the
most perfect particle that the other 3 forces had to be offshoots of the
perfect force --- Electromagnetic Force.
So now, in 2025, I want to solve Magnetic Monopole is the reverse of
Complamentarity-Duality. Not a perfect force, but rather the Geometry of
Duality versus the geometry of Monopole.
The Proton is a torus geometry.
Earth is a dipole with North and South magnetic field lines of force.
So what is the geometry of a magnetic monopole --- logically should unlock
the secrets of Duality is the reverse of Magnetic Monopole.
Archimedes Plutonium Apr 19, 2025, 3:21:05 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe
newsgroup.
The Story of How I found the true electron of Atoms as the muon and not the
0.5MeV particle of Thomson of 1897 is a story of noticing that 105 x 9 =
945. And although it took me almost a year to realize the Proton was not
945 MeV but rather instead it was 840 MeV and that the Muon, the true
electron of Atoms was inside the Proton torus doing the Faraday Law with
the Proton torus, was a beautiful example of Advanced Logical Reasoning.
The Story of How I found the Unification of the 4 Forces of Physics is
another beautiful example of Applied Advanced Logical Reasoning. That story
happened sometime between 1991 and 1997. Many posts in Usenet, sci.physics,
and sci.math can pinpoint the date more accurately where I set up a Logical
Mechanism of Reasoning. That Logical Mechanism is that--- within 4
Forces--- (1) Strong Nuclear (2) Weak Nuclear (3) Electromagnetic (4)
gravity ---- within those 4 forces, one of them has a feature of "being
perfect and having some perfect particle". Find the force which is
"perfect" and thus the other 3 are ____not perfect___. So the Unification
force is the perfect force. Well, if you studied Physics you quickly learn
in the first year of studies that the Electromagnetic Force has a perfect
particle--- the photon or some prefer to think of it as the Light Wave---
fastest speed possible with no rest mass is a perfect particle. That means
Strong nuclear, Weak nuclear and gravity are all aspects of
Electromagnetism.
But, as the years went on after 1997, such as the discovery that the Proton
was 840 MeV and in the geometry shape of a Torus, that Atoms have ____No
Nucleus____. Since Atoms have no nucleus, obviously they have ____no Strong
Nuclear force___. So my 1991 through 1997 Unification of Forces of Physics
became a Unification of 3 Forces after 2017. Unification of
Electromagnetism with Weak Nuclear and gravity. After 2017, the Weak
Nuclear Force has a bad name for atoms have no nucleus and should be called
the Radioactivity Force as the atom has instabilities and trying to adjust
itself to a more stable configuration. And after 2017, the Force of Gravity
such as on planet Earth by the Sun is seen as a exercise of Faraday Law,
where the Sun shoots photons aft of Earth-- pushing Earth, and fore of
Earth pulling Earth in its gravity magnetism Field track forcing Earth to
revolve around the Sun. So gravity reduces to Faraday Law. In fact, with
the Unification of Forces, all of Physics is an exercise in reduction to
the Laws of Electromagnetism.
But now, here in 2025, as I write this textbook on Advanced Logic, I am
going to take the opportunity of teaching Advanced Logic by actually
resolving the issue of whether Magnetic Monopoles are the reverse of
Complamentarity-Duality in Quantum Mechanics.
So as the student reads this textbook, can witness at first hand how I take
Logic and solve a major question of Physics. Is Magnetic Monopole the
reverse of Complamentarity-Duality in Physics.
Taking one clue from Unification of 4 Forces, look for some feature that
can relate Magnetic Monopole to Duality. The feature of "being perfect"
will not do here. But then another feature which is geometry will do. What
is the geometry of Magnetic Monopole compared to geometry of Duality????
This is what Advanced Logic does in tackling science. It attacks science
from some vantage point to pry and unlock its secrets.
Taking another clue is that the Proton geometry is that of a Torus.
So what is the geometry of Magnetic Monopole???? Is it one plate of 2
parallel plates that form a capacitor?????
The Force of Gravity reduced to being a form of Faraday Law. The Old
Maxwell Equations of 1860s are wrong and incorrect for Gauss's law said no
magnetic monopoles exist, but the other Maxwell laws are also filled in
error. AP gives us the true laws of electromagnetism. And so we have to
question if Magnetic Monopole geometry comes out of one of the laws of
Electromagnetism.
The 6 AP-Electromagnetic Equations and the 7 Laws of Physics and all
sciences
0) domain law as Atomic Theory
1) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
2) V = C*B*E New Ohm's law, law of electricity
3) V' = (C*B*E)' Capacitor-Transformer law
4) (V/C*E)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
5) (V/(B*E))' = C' Faraday law
6) (V/(C*B))' = E' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
and DeBroglie pilot wave
Archimedes Plutonium Apr 20, 2025, 3:56:35 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe
newsgroup.
I had better write my history of my discovery of the Unification of the 4
Forces in detail, because I know human foibles and human behavior to not
tell the exacting truth. And I am sure someone in the future will mess it
up so much that it is unrecognizable and false throughout. So I better take
the time out to write how Archimedes Plutonium unified the 4 forces of
Physics.
On Saturday, April 19, 2025 at 3:21:05 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
The Story of How I found the Unification of the 4 Forces of Physics is
another beautiful example of Applied Advanced Logical Reasoning. That story
happened sometime between 1991 and 1997. Many posts in Usenet, sci.physics,
and sci.math can pinpoint the date more accurately where I set up a Logical
Mechanism of Reasoning. That Logical Mechanism is that--- within 4
Forces--- (1) Strong Nuclear (2) Weak Nuclear (3) Electromagnetic (4)
gravity ---- within those 4 forces, one of them has a feature of "being
perfect and having some perfect particle". Find the force which is
"perfect" and thus the other 3 are ____not perfect___. So the Unification
force is the perfect force. Well, if you studied Physics you quickly learn
in the first year of studies that the Electromagnetic Force has a perfect
particle--- the photon or some prefer to think of it as the Light Wave---
fastest speed possible with no rest mass is a perfect particle. That means
Strong nuclear, Weak nuclear and gravity are all aspects of
Electromagnetism.
But, as the years went on after 1997, such as the discovery that the Proton
was 840 MeV and in the geometry shape of a Torus, that Atoms have ____No
Nucleus____. Since Atoms have no nucleus, obviously they have ____no Strong
Nuclear force___. So my 1991 through 1997 Unification of Forces of Physics
became a Unification of 3 Forces after 2017. Unification of
Electromagnetism with Weak Nuclear and gravity. After 2017, the Weak
Nuclear Force has a bad name for atoms have no nucleus and should be called
the Radioactivity Force as the atom has instabilities and trying to adjust
itself to a more stable configuration. And after 2017, the Force of Gravity
such as on planet Earth by the Sun is seen as a exercise of Faraday Law,
where the Sun shoots photons aft of Earth-- pushing Earth, and fore of
Earth pulling Earth in its gravity magnetism Field track forcing Earth to
revolve around the Sun. So gravity reduces to Faraday Law. In fact, with
the Unification of Forces, all of Physics is an exercise in reduction to
the Laws of Electromagnetism.
But now, here in 2025, as I write this textbook on Advanced Logic, I am
going to take the opportunity of teaching Advanced Logic by actually
resolving the issue of whether Magnetic Monopoles are the reverse of
Complamentarity-Duality in Quantum Mechanics.
So as the student reads this textbook, can witness at first hand how I take
Logic and solve a major question of Physics. Is Magnetic Monopole the
reverse of Complamentarity-Duality in Physics.
From 1991-1995-1996, I was not focused so much on Unification of 4 Forces
as I was focusing on DNA being a part of Photons of Light Waves. If anyone
makes a Google search of "perfect particle" with name Plutonium, there are
hundreds and hundreds of posts of Archimedes Plutonium in sci.physics and
sci.math from 1993 to the early 2000, and 2001 time frame with titles and
text of Perfect DNA. What I am trying to say here, is that I was not
focused on Unification of Forces with the underlying mechanism of the
Photon being a "perfect particle" and allows the 4 forces to just be
Coulomb or Electromagnetic force; the other 3 forces being a manifestation
of the Electromagnetic force.
In the November 4, 1995 post below, my focus of attention with the Concept
of Perfect was biology, not on unification of 4 forces. I remember I left
Unification straggling behind in years 1991 through 2001, and concentrated
on "perfect DNA". Using that concept of "Perfect Particle" to unify biology
to physics felt more important to me from 1991-2001. So I just barely
mentioned the mechanism of "perfect particle as unification of 4 forces" in
the post of
DNA = photon. 1/2 DNA = neutrino
2m views (somehow the hatemongers of sci.math and sci.physics et al
controlled the viewers meter so that they made it look like a post was read
and appreciated by only 2 viewers when in reality over 2 million viewers
looked at this post) (Proof of what I say is easy to discern because many
of my posts to sci.math and sci.physics display 0 or 1 view, yet the post
itself has responses by 3, 5, 10 or more replies by different persons, yet
the view meter says 0 or 1 view.) (Which is a lesson not in Advanced Logic
but just plain regular normal Logic.)
Archimedes Plutonium
Nov 4, 1995, 2:00:00 AM
Long time ago around 1993 I wanted to Neutrinolize the Maxwell
Equations. Little progress since 1993. I am sure that superconductivity
is the splitting of photon messengers to tell the electrons to move
into neutrinos which tell the electrons to move, hence no electrical
resistance.
Little progress because there is zip of a mental picture, until this
morning today of 4 Nov '95. Some progress was made this month of Nov
already in the fact that a tiny rest mass for the neutrino would allow
for binding energy of 2 neutrinos to form 1 photon.
This morning I came to a pretty working analogy which may be much more
than just an analogy. It may be the whole truth about neutrinos and
photons and DNA and RNA. The title could have just as well been RNA =
photon.
Like Faraday who needed some working models, his lines of force, in
order to extract the science laws behind the workings. So also, I need
some mental scaffolding to attack the Neutrinolizing of the Maxwell
Equations. Heretofore all I had was paltry tidbits of facts of neutrino
and photon spin , speed unsure of, rest mass unsure of, true it was a
transverse wave.
But now I have some real meat and potatoes to chew. Consider the
transverse wave of the photon, perhaps it is just a more perfect DNA or
RNA strand which when need be divides to give information and
reassembles back together. Thus, neutrinos are 1/2 of a photon strand
and the neutrino is just a more perfect 1/2 of a DNA or RNA strand. If
all of this is true to a degree, such as Faraday's Lines of Force
enabled him to intuit his electromagnetism. Then this analogy that
photons are assembled neutrinos and that neutrinos are biological
strands of DNA or RNA only on a more perfect degree, then, more can be
made of what goes on in the Coulomb Interaction and what goes on in the
neutrino behavior. If this is true then it would suggest that the
neutrino and the photon indeed have rest mass both. If this is true
then the electro part of the wave and the magnetism part of the wave of
a photon is the analogous to the helix chain as the electro part and
the binding guanine-cystosine etc those things connecting 1/2 strands
of DNA and RNA are the magnetism part of a photon. A neutrino thus is
a 1/2 strand of a photon looking to pair up with another 1/2 strand.
Thus physics and biology converge completely!!!
Another pretty implication if the above is true is that magnetism
would have "different" connectors just as DNA has the 4 connectors of
cytosine- guanine and adenine-thymine. Also, since the DNA is double
helix like a spiral staircase of two intertwined chains connected like
steps with those 4 base pairs would go a long way in seeing what a
photon is.
___Note___:: most of these posts below were posted to Sci.Physics or
Sci.Math google newsgroups.
Archimedes Plutonium
Nov 5, 1995, 2:00:00 AM
In article <47gpif$5...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> Little progress because there is zip of a mental picture, until this
> morning today of 4 Nov '95. Some progress was made this month of Nov
> already in the fact that a tiny rest mass for the neutrino would allow
> for binding energy of 2 neutrinos to form 1 photon.
Perhaps for the first time biology will lead the way into the purest
of physics. Let me speak freely for a change. Suppose you want to think
about the neutrino or the photon as an entity. Like as if on the back
porch in a lawn chair discussing the photon or neutrino. What can we
say about them. Let us compare such a conversation say with talking
about a maple tree and a apple tree, or say between animals say cats
and dogs. There is many things we can talk about and picture. On the
other hand, back to the subject of talking about the photon and
neutrino we are left with paltry if we exclude experiments. That is we
are almost talking about a "point" in math. What is there to describe
for a "point", a photon, or a neutrino. Not much at all.
Since I am the author of the Plutonium Atom Totality where our
observable universe is 2 electrons, the 94th and 93rd, look around and
this is an electron. Then, obviously I would be the last to say that a
photon is merely a transverse wave, a disturbance in the
electromagnetic field, a electric component at 90 degrees to a magnetic
component whose rest mass is guessed to be zero and it travels at c in
vacuo. And much less of a description for the neutrino. On that back
porch or lawn chair if I were to talk about say dogs the description
could go on for days and days. Talking about describing the photon and
or neutrino the description ends in a matter of minutes.
However if I were to discuss DNA or RNA the description can last
longer than a lifetime. And talking about a description of the 94th and
93rd electron observable universe is endless.
So, what in all the world is closest as a description of the photon
or neutrino. There is nothing in physics itself which can help in this
unknown territory. So the wise person goes to whatever there is in the
world which can help into making progress. The photon looks awfully
suspicious to the workings and internal composition to DNA double helix
of biology, where a half of DNA is the neutrino. I cannot think of
anything else in the physical or biological world which can offer some
insight into the description of the photon beyond its essential
descriptions of mass, speed, spin etc.
Like Faraday who needed models for analogy, I need something to lead
a charge into Neutrinolizing the Maxwell Equations. I believe I have
found that something to picture this morning of 4Nov95 and it offers a
model of assembling a photon out of neutrinos plus tell what the
Coulomb Interaction inner workings are.
This is all so very beautiful because it entails that physics is just
a more perfect biology. Thus as biology progresses it in effect will
become a light particle in speed and perfect assemblage of 2 neutrinos.
This newest theory of mine even helps my previous Strong Nuclear =
Hydrogen Atom Systems (hyasys) because it explains the strong nuclear
interaction as a picture where nuclear electrons exchange neutrinos at
close range with the protons and that the strong nuclear is merely the
reassembling of, the zipping together of neutrinos which holds the
protons together. Thus Coulombic force of a normal electron zipping
together neutrinos takes exponentially more time and enormous distance
whereas the nucleus is short range distance and exponentially short in
time.
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups:
sci.bio.technology,sci.bio.misc,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: New Laws of Biology: Schroedinger Equation of Biology, 1 of 4
Date: 27 Jan 1996 23:42:43 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College
Lines: 118
Message-ID: (4eed9j$o...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
In article (4ee4i0$4...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> > Does the HIV virus hide in the nucleus of the cell or the cytoplasm
> > or both?
The above question sparked my latest cascade of new biology laws.
Truthfully they are not new to me but rather they are extensions and
elaborations of old ideas within me, say circa 1987. Only now do they
come forth in full blossom. I use the Usenet as my personal science
notebook. If only Archimedes I, me, in ancient Greek times had had a
Usenet instead of relying on dispersion writing to my friends in hopes
that the dispersion would give longevity to my theories and
discoveries.
Few people on earth will ever have a direct pipeline to the godhead--
the nucleus of 231PU. When they do it is the welling forth of genius.
Ramanujan had a direct wire to the nucleus, and now I have it. It is
good that the Usenet is instant publishing for the world can witness at
first hand what it means to be "plagued with genius mind and
supergenius mind". Just my proof of the Riemann Hypothesis would merit
me being the greatest math genius since Ramanujan but as anyone can spy
from my homepage, the Riemann Hypothesis is just a tidbit in my
collection. To be blessed with genius, means that the mind is inundated
with thoughts, so many at some times that I have to filter all else
going on around me-- out. And to be possessed by genius cares little to
nothing if I had gone to school at all in the subjects of my genius for
the genius busts out. In fact the more preparation and schooling in a
subject are enemies of the genius creativity. So without further ado
let me hammer out my new theories or better called Laws of biology. All
of these laws stem from superdeterminism. Let me emphasize that. All of
these new laws of biology draw their meaning from the QM of the Bell
Inequality and the solution thereof in Superdeterminism.
Law 1 of 4: which I will call the Schroedinger Equations of Biology.
Remember the pyramid of food chain where the plants compose the most
area of the base of the pyramid. Well, we here today in 1996 need to
modernize that marvellous concept and put it into Law form. Well, I
have this new theory, actually old but now that I have the One Atom
Everything theory, this new theory makes sense. I prefer to call it a
law.
Law of Biological Geometry. We know the geometry of the Earth, roughly
a spheroid. Instead of the pyramid, we will make it more accurate and
instead of Food we will replace it with Energy systems. We will use the
cell as the lowest energy system.
I need to talk about boundaries, not as hard fast boundaries but as
like in a bell shaped Gaussian curve, take what is most under the bell
curve, say 99% of the biosphere.
It is tough to realize that these critters deep in the Earth eating
rocks is essential to the rest of life so I will not include them.
Although I should, but then to become exact I must throw in the entire
rest of the universe, but that is not practical. So let us take the
geometry of the biosphere as a hollow spheroid extending from the soil
deep up to so many kilometers into the Earths atmosphere. I will call
it a Hollow Spheroid. Thus, I give meaning to the triangle food chain
of life with that of a geometrical Hollow Spheroid.
Now, pattern the plant kingdom as the first rung of the Food Chain or
Food Web. We remember this in the triangle as the basic and largest
portion of the triangle because the animals above it depend on the
plants for food. Someone should be able to roughly give some number in
terms of say cell count or space occupied by the cells of the biosphere
by the plants. Now mapp the animal kingdom and lastly mapp the disease
kingdom (for lack of a better name), again by both Cell Count and by
Cell Volume occupied of the biosphere. The disease kingdom are those
organisms which parasitize and kill animals and plants such as AIDS
virus or Dutch elm disease. Again there is no 100% categorizing here,
but let us be pragmatic and use the Bell shaped curve of 98% or 99% and
be satisfied with that and not be delayed or halted by the 1 or 2
percent which does not fit the scheme. Here is where the law number 1
comes in. First some concepts though.
Concept 1: The biosphere is a two way relationship a dualism. Plant
Kingdom gets energy from the Sun and Animal Kingdom gets energy from
plants. The Animal Kingdom is dependant on the plants for food; the
Plant Kingdom is dependant on the animals for mobility, mobility of
seed scatter, fertilizer, pollination. Duality and dependence are
concepts. This is sort of a magnified larger picture of the
wave-particle duality. You could say that the Plant-Animal Kingdoms is
the wave-particle duality writ in biology. Another analogy, recently I
said that if a photon were stopped and allowed to be inspected then it
is seen to be 2 neutrinos who are put together the same as the DNA coil
of life, ie, a photon is a DNA string actually and when a photon is in
motion it is perfect DNA, but when the photon is stopped or comes to
rest it is actual true life DNA.
Concept 2: The energy received by Earth from the Sun for the
maintenance of life is calculable. I will omit the cosmic rays and
consider them as part of the bell curve and part of the 1% omitted.
Concept 3: The carbon dioxide-oxygen atmosphere of the Earth is in a
narrow band to support life. One can reasonable find what this band is
where it is a constraint on life. And not by accident but by
coincidence the see-saw duality of plants-animals comes into see-saw in
the CO2 and O2 proportions.
Concept 4: The temperature of the Earth is in a narrow band to support
life. One can reasonable find what this temperature band is where if
beyond then life will boil away and if too low then life if frozen out.
Concept 5: A stabilization number can be gleaned from where both a
geometrical volume occupied by the Plant Kingdom of the biosphere and
that occupied by the Animal Kingdom and the Disease Kingdom. Likewise a
cell count in place of volume occupied can be gleaned. I call these
numbers the stabilization numbers.
New Law number 1 of 4 of Biology: Schroedinger Equation of Biology: The
stabilization number should correlate directly with the (1) energy
recieved in the biosphere (hollow spheroid) (2) gases of the atmosphere
and (3) temperature range of life.
This is the first time biology will be mathematized. If these laws end
up where I expect them to, then the science of biology will have math
as strong as what QM has math.
--- end quoting old posts of mine of 1995 and 1996 about Photons being
perfect DNA ---
--- quoting posts of 1996 displaying the idea that a Unification Force of
the other 3 forces had a particular and specific element of "perfection, a
perfect particle-- the photon --- that the other 3 forces had no
perfection" ----
Is electric field = negative charge; magnetic field = positive
0 views (again the Google viewer meter was tampered with by hatemongers who
wanted to make the impression no-one read AP posts when in fact millions
read the post) (Easily proven true because many of my posts showed 0 views
yet had many replies.)
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 18, 1996, 2:00:00 AM
In article <4deqtj$u...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> Magnetism is simply electric charge in motion. So it may be that
> electricity and magnetism are primitive concepts and as basic to
> physics as add and subtract or multiply and divide are to math.
>
> Now today I hit upon a really new idea but the experiments to date
> seem not to favor it. The idea is that charge is merely electricity and
> magnetism itself. Thus positive charge of a proton is merely
> electricity and negative charge of an electron is magnetism. So perhaps
> charge is some composite phenomenon of physics. Think of say power
> function of factorial are not primitive concepts of math for they are
> both fancy forms of multiplication where multiplication is basic and
> primitive.
>
> Perhaps what we consider as positive charge and negative charge are
> merely electricity and magnetism in a composite state. This would be
> nice for my newest idea that 0 charge is really composite bundled
> positive and negative charge wherein absolute 0 charge is never
> attainable just as absolute 0 K is temperature is never attainable.
> Thus the neutron is really a tiny finite charged particle close to 0
> but not 0, say .0000001 negative charge. This has already been
> experimentally verified that the neutron has a tiny surface charge.
Perhaps charge of positive and negative is just a different way of
looking at electric field and magnetic field. Thus the photon is a
transverse wave of electric field and magnetic field. But that is the
wave, what about the particle photon? Well, I think that my tuition is
very good here. I think that the particle photon is not a electric
field and magnetic field but is a positive charge and negative charge
inside of it-- at this point I do not want to say a hydrogen atom but
with the possibility that experiments can be set up where a beam of
laser light creates new hydrogen atoms out of some of the light waves.
Anyone heard of new hydrogen created in say lightning bolts or laser
beams?
Unification of Gravity with Electromagnetism; SPRING Theory
Archimedes Plutonium
Mar 20, 1996, 2:00:00 AM
In article <4inki7$i...@hg.oro.net>
tes...@oro.net (Ross Tessien) writes:
> This concept of springs is in essence what I have been talking about.
> What is bizarre, is that AP calls ether a fake in the same breath as
> he/she/it lauds the concept of springs being valid concepts of the
> reality of sub atomic matter. Perhaps he hasn't read any articles on
> sonoluminescence where "incompressible" water acts as a spring. Without
> some form of fluid to communicate the wave energy, you get no spring
> theory.
>
> I am continually amazed by the insight that comes from such a blind mind
> prone to such anti social tactics. Here AP, you have hit on an idea I
> personally think is destined to supercede current views where a
> different force is invoked for every occaision. Amazingly, though, you
> forgot that springs in three dimensions require a springy material to
> transmit that energy and the common name for that substance is an ether
> or an aether. I had some hope that you might be able to have some
> insight and some intelegence, but perhaps this is just parroting
> information conceived of by others and that is why you failed to note
> this important point.
>
> Ross Tessien
> There exist in nature, no attractive forces.
The beauty of Spring and Superspring theory is that it unifies
gravity to electromagnetism.
Gravity was merely an algorithm, a 'Effect' of Electromagnetism.
Gravity is a fake theory just as Newtonian Mechanics is a fakery.
Newtonian Mechanics fails for small objects moving at high speeds.
Gravity fails for very cold and very hot objects. Gravity fails in
thermoplasmas of stars and it fails in the superfluid helium and lower
temperatures. Gravity fails in the Sun, evinced by the orbit of
Mercury, and it fails in Jupiter where metallic hydrogen and superfluid
helium abound.
Electromagnetism is all. EM is the true and correct force laws. The
mass in gravity is the charge in Coulomb law because mass = spring and
charge = spring. The underlying unification of the algorithm of gravity
to EM is the fact that a Spring is an inverse square law, a harmonic
oscillator.
So why is gravity an inverse square law with mass in terms, identical
in mathematical form to Coulomb's Law. Answer: because all Matter at
the most fundamental nature is a 'Spring'. I had posted from two
physics journals already. The reason I did so was because that
knowledge was already in the literature.
Charge is a Spring; Matter is a Spring; Mass is a Spring; Wave Nature
is a Spring. The spring found in a ballpoint pen is a simple machine
type of spring. Springs are as complex as the DNA spring all the way up
to the very complex spring of a perfect DNA, a perfect spring that of a
Neutrino or Photon. A photon has a Particle Nature, but also a Wave
Nature. That wave nature is just a perfect spring. So now we can start
to dismiss the words and concepts of "Matter", "Mass", "Wave", "Charge"
because they are all aspects of one thing, the Spring theory in
physics. Charge will have to be thought out more than the others of
mass, wave, matter.
The first proof of the Spring and Superspring theories is already
in. The fact that the mathematics of gravity and Coulomb law are
identical in mathematical form bespeaks of the underlying sameness at a
more fundamental physical nature. The fact that the most Simple
Physical Machine of a Spring is an inverse square law bespeaks of the
proof that the underlying nature of gravity and Coulomb law are Springs
of design. Echoing Ross Tessien, when physics is in the wilderness or
in the weeds then a whole bunch of terms come into parlance, such as
Wave Nature, Mass, Matter, Charge, etc. And all of these phony terms
are given an aura of independent existence and an aura of fundamental
basic irreducibility. That happens when physics is just new to an
arena. Only centuries later is someone able to corral all these loose
and phony terms into the real and true underlying structure.
It was hoped that string and superstring (note the "t") theories was
and would be able to unify gravity and EM. But the string theories were
just a mathematical construct of a worthless ability to do much of
anything in physics. I will not throw out the mathematics of string
theory. Instead I will throw out the strings and replace them with a
Simple Physics Machine that of springs. Using the mathematics of string
and superstring theories and tweaking here a bit of a tweak there with
the math I will produce something of magnificent use in physics. With
Spring and SuperSpring theories I envision predicting all the masses of
the fundamental particles. I envision using SuperSpring theory to
unravel the compositeness of a photon into 2 neutrinos.
Physics to those who know her well, has taught us that it is foolish
to totally rubbish past theories, instead, as the truth be known, we
are eclectic and take the best out of the old ideas and use those parts
to build the better theory. Thus, I would be foolish to say that all of
String theories were rubbish, instead, I am wise enough to know that
our Creator put string theory on our tables not for us to trash the
whole exercise, but rather to lead us into higher ground
--- end quoting two posts of 1996 showing where I had a Electromagnetic
Force unification with the other 3 forces, simply due to the fact that the
Photon is a perfect particle, and since the other 3 forces had no perfect
particle, that they must be manifestations of the Coulomb or
Electromagnetic force ----
It is well that I read what I wrote some 30 years earlier, for already, I
benefit and gain from that rereading in helping me to solve that Magnetic
Monopole is the reverse of Complamentarity-Duality. Notice in my Jan 18,
1996, 2:00:00 AM post, I assign the negative charge as being electricity
itself and assign the positive charge as being wholescale magnetism. Would
it not be nice to throw out Charge, positive and negative altogether and
simply say "electric flow" instead of saying "negative charge" , or saying
"magnetic field" instead of saying "positive charge". And this harmonizes
with the idea that the Protons form a torus with Muons inside doing the
Faraday law. Protons in Old Physics are assigned positive charge. In New
Physics, the protons are all neutral bodies but the Muons inside the proton
torus are active thrusting bar magnets of huge magnetic field in Faraday's
Law. So here we begin to see where Old Physics assigns protons as postive
charge, ignorant of the wider deeper view that negative charge is a mask to
mean flow of electricity while positive charge is another mask that means a
magnetic field in the area of the proton.
Archimedes Plutonium Apr 20, 2025, 4:11:57 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe
newsgroup.
In the Google archive of sci.physics searching for "perfect DNA" using the
quote signs to get a fine search, I pull up 270 hits with these being the
last set of hits.
Archimedes Plutonium
*FAQ* biophysics , 5_10 ; requested by
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 17:13:53 +0200 (MET DST) From: Anthony Potts
<po...@afsmail.cern.ch> X-
8/7/96
Archimedes Plutonium
*FAQ* biophysics , 5_09 ; requested by
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 17:13:53 +0200 (MET DST) From: Anthony Potts
<po...@afsmail.cern.ch> X-
8/7/96
Archimedes Plutonium
*FAQ* biophysics , 5_08 ; requested by
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 17:13:53 +0200 (MET DST) From: Anthony Potts
<po...@afsmail.cern.ch> X-
8/7/96
Archimedes Plutonium
16.2 Spring theory; reader requested
In article <4su1fI$c...@ccshst05.uoguelph.ca> dev...@uoguelph.ca (David L
Evens) writes: > [A
7/23/96
Archimedes Plutonium
16.3 Spring theory; reader requested
as the DNA spring all the way up to the very complex spring of a perfect
DNA, a perfect spring that of a Neutrino or Photon. A photon has a Particle
Nature, but also a Wave Nature. That wave
7/23/96
Archimedes Plutonium
Neutrinolizing the Maxwell Equations, must include
it is DNA or RNA and how strands attach to form a full DNA from 1/2 DNA. In
1995 I conjectured that the DNA molecule is a stopped photon, implying that
photons have a tiny rest mass and when
7/17/96
Archimedes Plutonium
Paul Brown
Biology spearheads physics; particle-wave duality is . . .
it is DNA or RNA. When in motion a photon is perfect DNA but when stopped
is living DNA and this is how life begins on planets and or asteroids. Now
then, as of recently I am in need of working
6/8/96
Archimedes Plutonium
, …
John Chunko
Unification of Gravity with Electromagnetism; SPRING Theory
as the DNA spring all the way up > to the very complex spring of a perfect
DNA, a perfect spring that of a > Neutrino or Photon. A photon has a
Particle Nature, but also a Wave > Nature
3/22/96
Michael Pitzel
, …
Archimedes Plutonium
Why Spring theory will defeat String theories
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote: >In article
<4iev6s$8r3@
3/22/96
Archimedes Plutonium
, …
djs...@peaka.net
Is electric field = negative charge; magnetic field = positive
In article <4deqtj$u...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu
(Archimedes
2/3/96
Archimedes Plutonium
, …
Dr. Thomas Porter
New Laws of Biology: Schroedinger Equation of Biology, 1 of 4
In article <4ee4i0$4...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu
(Archimedes
2/4/96
Archimedes Plutonium
, …
Kareem Kazkaz
NEUTRINOLIZING THE MAXWELL EQUATIONS, M.E., D.E., Weyl E.
--- start of a email message to me in 1994 --- The spinorial form of the
Maxwell equations in vacuum
12/7/95
Archimedes Plutonium
, …
Peter D. Engels
First life; DNA + RNA = 1 Photon = 2 Neutrinos
have viewed DNA as the simplist of machine of life. That of all the Natural
machines of physics none is as complex as the DNA machine, except if you
make the assertion that light itself
11/22/95
Archimedes Plutonium
DNA = photon. 1/2 DNA = neutrino
Long time ago around 1993 I wanted to Neutrinolize the Maxwell Equations.
Little progress since 1993.
11/5/95
--- end quoting a Google search in sci.physics of "perfect DNA" ----
Archimedes Plutonium Apr 20, 2025, 4:28:44 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe
newsgroup.
Correction to my previous post that should be 260 hits by Google, not 270,
in a search of "perfect DNA" in sci.physics.
Now I Google search "perfect particle" (remember the quote signs to get a
finer search. I search "perfect particle" because I would have used that
construct in my mind in Unification of 4 Forces. I would have called
perfect DNA when doing biology and not the Unification of 4 Forces.
So under that search in sci.physics of "perfect particle" I end up getting
207 hits as opposed to 260 for "perfect DNA".
Archimedes Plutonium
Unification of Forces of Physics; comparing AP's to that of Standard-Model
& Quark
9/21/03
Archimedes Plutonium
, …
Bill Vajk
Internet censorship Re: Unification of Forces of Physics; comparing AP's to
that of Standard-Model & Quark
9/21/03
Archimedes Plutonium
, …
Raziel
Fusion poisons; why fission has none
"dl...@aol.com (formerly)" wrote: > Dear Archimedes Plutonium: > >
"Archimedes
9/8/03
Archimedes Plutonium
, …
the_ultimate_samurai
how water formed on Earth: cosmic rays of 10^10 MeV or more and Fly's Eye
experiment
10/13/01
Archimedes Plutonium
,
Jos Bergervoet
Coulomb-Unification of forces predicts the nonexistence of Higgs particle
Since discovering the Coulomb unification of the 4 forces of physics in the
summer of 2001, I have
9/29/01
Archimedes Plutonium
, …
Dipl. Ing. Andrija Radovic
Proton decay linked to antigravity force??
Sat, 04 Aug 2001 13:36:19 -0500 Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > In a Coulomb
Unification forces are
9/14/01
Archimedes Plutonium
, …
The Scarlet Manuka
Coulomb Unification of the 4 forces of Physics
Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:27:01 -0500 Archimedes Plutonium wrote: (big snip) > In
my Coulomb Unification
6/26/01
Archimedes Plutonium
, …
Magnus Nyborg
The true Titius-Bode Rule and its physical foundation
a more perfect DNA ----------------------------------------------------
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) Newsgroups:
alt.sci.physics
6/29/97
Archimedes Plutonium
*FAQ* biophysics , 5_08 ; requested by
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 17:13:53 +0200 (MET DST) From: Anthony Potts
<po...@afsmail.cern.ch> X-
8/7/96
laj...@eskimo.com
, …
Doug Merritt
Do I belong in sci.physics?
I feel inadequate on sci.physics. I don't have "proof" that Einstein or
Quantum
3/16/96
Archimedes Plutonium
, …
Peter D. Engels
First life; DNA + RNA = 1 Photon = 2 Neutrinos
is almost perfect > and the photon writ large is so out of shape but it is
"life". Like a > chariot of olden times is a means of transportation, a jet
airplane is > a means
11/22/95
--- end quoting the last hits of a Google search of "perfect particle" ----
What the Google archive of sci.physics shows and what my own personal
archive of posts to sci.math and sci.physics shows is that I spent the time
period of 1993 through 2001 doing mostly Perfect DNA, and only by 2001 do I
emphatically state the Unification of 4 Forces as a Coulomb,
Electromagnetic Unification because EM has the perfect particle of the
photon (Light Wave), and the strongnuclear, weaknuclear and gravity forces
were simple manifestations of EM force, the unifier force.
I often wrote most of my posts to sci.math, and not sci.physics. I better
check to see the situation of a Google search for "perfect DNA" and
"perfect particle" in sci.math yields.
Archimedes Plutonium Apr 20, 2025, 4:41:11 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe
newsgroup.
zzzzzzzz
Alright I wanted to be thorough. I checked sci.math in a Google search of
"perfect DNA" and it comes up with 176 hits while "perfect particle" (for 4
force unification) comes up with 133 hits. Comparing that to sci.physics
which came up with 260 versus 207 hits.
In my memory, I recall now that the concept of "perfect" was used by me for
DNA, for biology, that the DNA molecule is linked to Light Waves which
links biology directly to Physics, and in the time period of 1991 through
2001, I felt perfect DNA was a far more important endeavor to establish
than was the establishment of the Unification of 4 Forces with EM and its
perfect-particle the photon. For I knew that many many scientists since
after 1860s were trying to unify the 4 forces of physics, all of which
failed. I knew that this great mass of failure of unification can wait a
bit longer, and that I should plunge into a "perfect DNA" first in 1995
rather than plunge into a "perfect particle" unification of forces in 1995.
Unification of forces can wait on the backburner, and better I attack
perfect-DNA first.
AP, King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 20, 2025, 8:53:36 PM (13 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
From 1991 onto 2001, I spent most of my time on "perfect DNA" being
Photons, Light Waves. Then finally by year 2001, I made a concerted effort
to solve the Unification of 4 Forces of Physics as the "perfect particle"
force, where the other three forces were imperfect in comparison, hence
Electromagnetism-Coulomb force as the unifying force and the others were
manifestations of Coulomb EM laws.
Here are a few posts in sci.physics and sci.math that stand out in my
Unification of 4 forces.
From: arc_pl...@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.particle,sci.math
Subject: Re: Fourier Transform Theorem + Light is a disturbance in the
Electromagnetic Field
Date: 15 Jul 1999 03:55:04 GMT
Organization: new theory with new explanation of how forces of physics work
Lines: 88
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (7mjm2o$4nr$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
References: (378AAB0E...@dgsys.com> (7mfr70$9vg$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(378B7CB5...@jhuapl.edu> (7mh1ep$u09$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(7miel5$h5p$1...@dartvax.dartmoue> (7miv73$sd0$2...@dartvax.dartmouth.ed>
(7mjgnp$3kh$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
In article (7mjgnp$3kh$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
arc_pl...@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> The next realm is that of weak-nuclear. Trouble here is that
> physicists do not have the full force. They are missing the Dirac
> radioactivity component of the weak nuclear force so I will not dwell
Read Dirac's book DIRECTIONS IN PHYSICS
> upon this. I renamed Dirac's radioactivity with Radioactive Spontaneous
> Neutron/cosmic ray etc Materialization RSNM. But this force is well
> known for radioactive decay for it is radioactivity itself
A full forces of the weak nuclear are this:
RSNM + weak nuclear = Radioactivities force
And the four known forces are complementary and fit into such a scheme
as this
strong nuclear + gravity = radioactivities + EM
>
> The next realm is the strong nuclear force.
In my earlier post tonight I made no mention of how the strong
nuclear force is a form of radioactivity. Using my HYASYS theory that
the neutron is a energetic hydrogen atom system, and that the electron
out of the neutron when in the nucleus has a special behaviour which I
call a 'nuclear electron'. It is not like a normal electron because a
normal electron is mostly space and little mass. One could equate this
in terms of energies
proton mass + proton space = electron mass + electron space
A neutron in a nucleus what happens is that the electron inside the
neutron travels all over the nucleus holding the protons together. That
is the exchange particle interaction viewpoint of QED, but that is
wrong and needs a radioactivity viewpoint. Let me see if I can envision
a radioactivity viewpoint.
The neutron in a nucleus is composed of a energetic hydrogen atom
system HYASYS. So the neutron radioactively decays into a proton,
nuclear electron and other particles. This decay or transmutation
causes a contraction of the wave which causes a bending of the nuclear
space. Since the energies of nuclear electrons and the decay of a
neutron are so enormously larger than the decay of a photon for EM
forces, thus we see the enormous difference in force strengths for the
strong-nuclear force as compared to Coulomb force. The decay of a
neutron in such a small space as that occupied by a nucleus results in
an enormous bending of space to the point where you would say that the
region of the nucleus is a mere point and has little to no space at
all. Whereas the bending of space resulting from the radioactive decay
of a photon into neutrinos is a tiny bending of space by contrast to
the strong nuclear force.
One could say that where there is little space and a lot of matter
there resides the strongest forces, in contrast to where there is a lot
of space and little matter there resides weak forces.
So in summary of a new picture of what the strong-nuclear force is.
It is the radioactive decay of neutrons into protons, nuclear-electrons
and other particles. Because the neutron decays it contracts the wave
of the region where it decays. This contraction of the wave is a
bending of space in that region. The bending is enormous compared to
say the decay of a photon and its bending of space or the decay of a
neutrino and gravity resulting.
Recently it was discovered that some neutrons in atoms orbit not in
the nucleus but sort of outside the nucleus. There has not been any
satisfactory explanation for these outside the nucleus neutrons. But my
theory may shed light upon these floating outside the nucleus neutrons
in that they are radioactive decayed neutrons emitted and about to
return to the nucleus proper to decay again to reform a strong nuclear
force reaction.
In this radioactive decay theory of forces, unlike the exchange
particle interaction view, decay is statistical and thus a neutron
outside the nucleus had just undergone decay and was collecting itself
together into another proper neutron and returning back into the
nucleus to make another statistical decay.
In the exchange particle interaction view of forces, the forces of
physics are smooth, orderly, perfect and universal. In the radioactive
decay view of forces, the forces of physics are statistical and not
perfect but rather has blemishes and strange happenings now and then,
and this would be called quantum tunnelling.
Subject:
Re: Unifying the 4 forces into 1 Re: Deriving the
force of gravity in
Atom Totality
Date:
Mon, 07 May 2001 11:34:25 -0500
From:
Archimedes Plutonium (plut...@willinet.net>
Organization:
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
Newsgroups:
sci.physics.electromag, sci.physics, sci.astro,
sci.physics.particle
I note that the "establishment physics" was caught up in a falsehood.
They believed that they had unified the WeakNuclear force to the
Electromagnetic Force. However, that program never gained any
"real or good" predictions, only some stupid predictions of neutral
currents and illusive and undiscovered particles. They hailed and
cheered at what they called a unification of Weak to EM force.
A unification of the forces of physics, I put it to you, would unify all
four forces at once and not sit idle for years by just merely unifying
2 of the 4 forces.
My unification, in contrast, unifies all 4 forces at once.
Establishment physics from 1960-2001 came up with their alleged
unification of the WeakNuclear Force to that of Electromagnetic
Force with their so called "breaking of symmetry mechanism".
I unify the 4 forces by seeing that there is one force that stands out
from the other 3 forces. Coulomb's EM stands out in that it is both
repel and attract. Then I see that the other 3 forces are one-sided.
StrongNuclear and WeakNuclear and Gravity are all one sided--ie--
either repel or attract but not both.
Thus, I apply just a wee-bit of reasoning. Would not EM be the only
complete force and that the other 3 forces are also EM but blindly
not seen by humans as EM? That when you combine StrongNuclear
with WeakNuclear SN + WN that the end result is just a more
powerful Coulomb force? Yes indeed. That SN is the attract portion
and that WN is the repel portion. And that SN + WN = Coulomb force.
But that leaves Gravity all by itself with only attract and no
repel. But recently it was discovered in astronomy that supernova
have acceleration or antigravity. Antigravity is repel.
Now I as yet cannot see clearly as to how the 6 lobes of 5f6 of
231Pu can have 3 of the lobes moving in one direction and 3 in the
opposite direction such that the dots of the electron dot cloud of
3 lobes would be gravity and the dots of the electron dot cloud of the
other 3 lobes would be antigravity.
If it can be shown that the galactic walls of Geller & Huchra contain
the stars that possess antigravity then that would be ample evidence
that these walls comprise a different lobe of the 5f6 than the lobe
which the Milky Way Galaxy is contained within.
My point is this. If you think you can unify the 4 forces of physics via
some mechanism such as symmetry breaking but that mechanism is only good
for 2
of the 4 forces and never seems to be able to touch
Strong Nuclear or Gravity. Well, the chances are that your symmetry breaking
mechanism and alleged unification is a dud and a failure.
My mechanism is to say that Coulomb is the one and only perfect force
because it is complete and thus the unification of the other 3 is to say
that they are also Coulomb forces. That adding StrongNuclear to
WeakNuclear gives another Coulomb force only a more powerful Coulomb force.
And that gravity added to antigravity is another Coulomb force and the
weakest
form of Coulomb force. It is a sort of "localized Coulomb point" force,
what is
known in chemistry as a van der Waals force. Can
you have a van der Waals force inside an atom with its 6 lobes of the
5f6? I think very clearly and easily you can have a van der Waals type
force of the 6 lobes of 5f6.
Thus I say only the Coulomb force is a complete force law because it is
both attract and repel. Then I look at StrongNuclear and WeakNuclear
and realize that one is attract and the other repel and that by combining
the
two into one I have another Coulomb force only this time
of a greater magnitude than the "regular Coulomb" force.
I explain this greater magnitude by calling it a Nuclear Coulomb Force
and giving the picture that when a neutron resides in the nucleus of an
atom, it contains a *nuclear electron* inside the neutron which spills out
and
travels amongst the protons of the nucleus holding those
protons together (my theory of HYASYS).
Quest to Unify the 4 forces of physics
0 views (Again, so many of my posts in sci.physics and sci.math were marked
with 0 views even though respondents with replies were in those threads,
and I just chalked that up to hatemongers controlling posts to Usenet with
fiddling with the view meter.)
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
May 27, 2001, 4:34:11 PM
to
The quest for unification, to unify the 4 forces of physics has become a
challenge of physics for most of the 20th century. I am going to review
this quest and to offer a solution. I am going to review the history of
physics for the unification of the 4 forces and I am going to review my
own history of unification. Before I review my own history, I want to
talk about this quest.
Quest for Unification
Why was there this quest? There was no practical problem
that required a unification. In fact there was nothing to even suggest
that a Unification existed. Unification of the 4 forces of physics was
not a practical quest as is the quest for a room temperature
superconductor or the quest for controlled fusion reactor.
Was the quest out of some human desire to make everything "one". Only
the number one is artistically satisfying and that 4 forces is ugly or 3
forces or 2 forces are also ugly. Some artistic beauty can only be
achieved with 1 force and that numerous forces must be made into
"one"? Was it some religious subconscious drive to make
multi-gods into a one-god? That humans could not be happy
with 4 forces of Nature but had to hammer them into one force.
Not until recently have I asked myself this important question as to why
unify? Does a unification exist and for what reason?
Physics History of Unification:
There is a long history of the unification of the 4 forces.
Many players have played this game and some notable ones such as
Einstein who spent much of his latter life in the pursuit of a
unification. But I do not believe Einstein started at step one logic of
asking --does a unification exist and why should such a unification
exist? The Physics history for
the Unification of the 4 Forces is mostly that of a mechanism called
Symmetry Breaking. The concept that a force of physics is a
'broken-symmetry'. This Symmetry
Breaking concept occupies much of modern physics even though it is
mostly wrong. Nobel prizes were given out to
such mystical physics as "neutral currents" and the alleged
unification of weak-nuclear force to electromagnetic force.
I blame myself for not starting at step one in my pursuit of the
Unification of the forces. I did not ask myself whether a Unification
exists or does not exist. When I discovered the Atom Totality theory in
1990, I was too busy with other important items to concern myself with
gravity and the Unification of the 4 forces. In the early 1990s I was
thinking that the Atom Totality theory would easily solve the mystery of
what gravity was. The theory of Atom Totality easily solved what
mathematics was-- in that everything mathematical was a reflection of
what atoms 'are' and what atoms 'do'. For example, the Atom Totality
has a belt dimension-- to fit a belt around the 231Pu
totality. It is the number of subshells that fit inside a shell.
There are in collapsed wavefunction 22 subshells in a total
of 7 collapsed wavefunction shells. This is the mathematical number pi
in rational form 22/7 and the reason that pi is transcendental
irrational is because it is a special number of the Atom Totality for it
is always growing larger. The point to be recognized in this example is
that mathematics is derivative or reflection of what atoms are and what
atoms are doing. We have a subject of mathematics only because atoms are
everything and the universe itself is one big atom.
With that in mind from the years 1990 to about 1995, I was looking for
the force of gravity to be some artifact or some special niche of 231Pu.
To be able to explain the underlying significance of pi for mathematics
as to explain in similar fashion the underlying significance of gravity
to the other 3 forces of physics. Thus around 1990-1995,
(my Internet posts can narrow down the precise dates for anyone wanting
precise dates, but here I am just writing about how I remember
my-own-history, and a caveat, we
often (even the best of us) exaggerate or bend or distort
or own history, but I am trying to be truthful about my history even
though my memory is not wholly accurate).
I do remember that I never started my own Unification with step one of
asking whether a Unification exists and makes sense or whether 4
independent forces makes more sense and that a unification is never
possible.
And just recently I have probed into the question of whether a
Unification makes more sense rather than 4 independent existing forces
that are non-unifiable. I asked the question of whether the 4 quantum
variables of (1)
momentum (2) position (3) energy (4) time are independent
and nonunifiable? Whether the Universe needs not Unification but rather
Dualism and that to require a unification of the 4 forces is like
requiring the momentum,
position, energy, time all be unified into just one parameter.
Physics has Quantum Mechanics dualism of Particle-Wave. Why has the 20th
century been running off to hell-in-a-
handbasket over unification of the 4 forces, why not a unification of
particle-wave?
Quantum Mechanics suggests that Dualism and not Unification is the order
of the universe. That would suggest that physics has 2 forces that are
independent and nonunifiable. That this quest of making the 4 forces
into just 1 force is non-science.
Recently I have been asking and probing logical-step-one of the Quest
for unification. Does a Unification exist? And why
would it exist? Recently I have tried to equate *purpose* to
force. A Universe that has 4 independent and nonunifiable forces is like
a universe that has 4 independent purposes going on simultaneously.
Purpose such as in Goal. So a quest for unification would translate into
a Universe that has one end goal in mind, or one big purpose. For the
Atom
Totality theory, a one purpose or one goal makes alot of sense in that
atoms nucleosynthesize to make new atoms and so the one goal in an Atom
Totality is to create ever new heavier elements and the universe itself
being one of these new heavy elements.
So, in the early 1990s I was looking to make gravity just
another common familar type of characteristic that the 5f6 of 231Pu
would have. It would have say a Van der Waals type of force and thus I
was trying to make the force of gravity a form of EM of van der Waals.
And I was trying to ascribe the characteristics of the lobes of the 5f6
as being the force of gravity.
But now, the Spring of year 2001, I am beginning to think that a
Unification of the 4 forces does not exist. That a Dualism of forces
exists. That QM cannot be made lower than the number 2. That you cannot
turn Particle-Wave duality into a 1. That the 2 of Particle to Wave is
the lowest unification possible. And that we should call it a
Dualization of the 4 forces of physics and not a unification because
unification is nonexistent.
The 4 forces of physics:
(1) StrongNuclear SN (2) WeakNuclear WN
(3) Electromagnetic EM (4) Gravity
The 4 Quantum Mechanics components:
(1) Momentum (2) Position
(3) Energy (4) Time
These 4 QM components can be dualized to Particle-Wave.
Likewise for the 4 forces. They can be dualized to EM-gravity.
We combine StrongNuclear to WeakNuclear and the result is a superstrong
Electromagnetic force. This makes sense in that SN and WN have about the
same force strengths, only major difference is that SN is attract and WN
is repel.
That leaves gravity out as an odd-thing.
Question: Can we say that the QM dualism of Particle-Wave is a symmetry
breaking? If so, is there a Gravity-Antigravity force in the Universe?
Are there really
5 forces and not just 4 forces and that Gravity is coupled to
antigravity in the same way that SN couples to WN.
Does a Unification exist in that all the forces are just EM, and that
they appear broken up (symmetry breaking) in the nucleus with SN and WN
and appear broken up in the far regions of the electrons in the form of
Gravity and Antigravity?
The thing different about my thinking of the Unification of 4 forces
from 1990 through 2000 was that I never started at logical-step-one of
asking whether a unification exists and makes more sense than say 2
forces or 3 or 4 or more. In the decade of the 1990s, I was too hopeful
and too optimistic that the Atom Totality theory would just easily pop
out an answer of what gravity really was and to unify the 4 forces. Here
in the Spring of year 2001, I need to start afresh with this Unification
Quest by asking logical question number one-- does a unification make
more sense and does it exist?
Perhaps a Dualism of forces makes more sense than a Unification of
forces and that the EM force to gravity is
what Particle-Wave is to Quantum Mechanics. Perhaps the force of gravity
is the Symmetry Breaking of the force of
EM in that you get attract only and no repel component.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
May 28, 2001, 1:56:39 PM
to
Question: why are there 4 parameters of (1) momentum,
(2) position, (3) energy, (4) time, or are there really only
2 parameters of (1) particle (2) wave?
Question: Particle-Wave, is that one entity or is that 2
entities. By entity, I mean independent existence?
Is it that Particle-Wave is one entity and that momentum-
position and energy-time are two ways of looking at
particle-wave?
A scheme such as this:
momentum-position
/
/
particle-wave
\
\ energy-time
In this scheme, we have only particle-wave as fundamental
and that momentum-position is one way to look at particle
-wave and energy-time is another look at particle-wave.
In this scheme the momentum-position; energy-time does
not constitute 4 independent entities but rather 1 entity.
And that Particle-Wave is not 2 entities but 1 entity.
We can think of an analogy: of mowing the lawn where the
lawn is Particle-Wave and that if we mow the lawn vertically
in rows we are doing it momentum-position, and if we
chose to mow the lawn horizontally we are doing it energy-
time. The lawn is one entity and likewise particle-wave is
one entity, and whether you chose to view particle-wave
as per momentum-position or chose to view particle-wave
as energy-time is up to the observer.
Another analogy: in mathematics you can begin mathematics not with just one
number, say the number 1.
Rather instead, you need two numbers to begin mathematics. You need the
number 0 so that you have a gauge of distance between 0 and 1 and thereby
create number 2, and number 3 etc. If handed just one single solitary
number and asked to start all of mathematics, you cannot go. You need two
numbers of 0, 1. Likewise for physics. Particle-Wave is not 2 independent
entities but a single dualistic entity.
The above is important as to the 4 known forces of physics. Are the 4
forces able to be unified into 1 force? Or are the 4 forces just one
Particle-Wave type of duality?
Possible Unifications or Dualizations:
(a) The 4 forces are all just one force and that one force is
Coulomb's EM force. StrongNuclear + WeakNuclear when combined as one force
becomes a superstrong Coulomb force for nuclei of atoms with its neutrons
spilling out
'nuclear electrons' that inhabit the short range distance of
the nucleus holding protons to other protons. Thus the
SN + WN is just a stronger version of the Coulomb force.
Then we have the "regular Coulomb" force. And finally we
have the Gravity + Antigravity for the weakest and mildest
form of Coulomb force. This Antigravity force is just beginning to be
observed in the natural universe by astronomers who see supernova as
accelerating. In this unification, only the Coulomb force exists and the
other forces such as SN and WN and gravity and antigravity are
forms of Coulomb only in different realms of the atom.
(b) The 4 forces are not able to be unified and will remain
independent just as the 4 QM parameters of momentum,
position, energy, time are independent. Are the QM
parameters independent? If so, then a strong argument
can be made that the 4 forces of Nature are mirror reflections of these 4
QM parameters and because they
are independent and never able to be unified means that the 4 forces are
just as independent and never able to be
unified.
(c) The 4 forces are unified but not to the extent that
only Coulomb's EM remains. The 4 forces, like the Particle-
Wave duality removes the StrongNuclear and WeakNuclear
but keeps the Coulomb EM and gravity. In this scenario,
particle of the Particle-Wave duality becomes Coulomb's EM and the wave of
Particle-Wave duality becomes the force of gravity. In this scenario,
Symmetry Breaking occurs and
is a staple physics concept. In this scenario, StrongNuclear
and WeakNuclear are a nuclear-Coulomb's force with nuclear-electrons
holding together protons. There is no
Antigravity in this scenario, there is however a symmetry
breaking of Coulomb's law to create a new force that is
gravity. Symmetry breaking in that you have a Coulomb's
law that is attract only, and no repel component.
Thus the Particle-Wave duality becomes a Coulomb-Gravity
force duality. Immediate question comes to mind here. Is the wave of the
Particle-Wave duality a form of symmetry-
breaking of "the particle"? If so, then the candidate (c) is
more likely true than candidates (a) or (b).
However, recent astronomy work has discovered supernova as accelerating and
that the new force of Antigravity appears to be true and exists. Because of
this recent astronomy findings of a new force of antigravity, suggests that
the unification of the 4 forces is more likely to suggest candidate (a) as
the winner.
Candidate (a) suggests that all forces of physics are Coulomb EM forces. It
is just that they have different strength levels in different regions of
the atom. In the nucleus of an atom we would have a Coulomb force of
combining SN with WN and explained by a 'nuclear electron'.
In the region of protons holding together the electrons
we have our normal and regular Coulomb force. And for the
region of the electrons themselves, we can have an electron in the
Collapsed Wavefunction or in the Uncollapsed Wavefunction. We can have an
electron as a tiny ball moving in a copper wire to form electricity or we
can have this same electron as a dot-cloud pattern. The difference between
an electron as a dot-cloud or the same
electron as one ball is the unification of the force of Gravity to
Antigravity. Thus, all forces are just a Coulomb force and we have 3
different regions of the atom that
Coulomb's EM force governs. The nuclear region with a unification of SN +
WN to create a superstrong Coulomb's
force and the regular Coulomb's force of protons holding
together the electrons of an atom, and finally the mildest
or weakest form of Coulomb's EM force-- the difference between an electron
in ball-like-form and that same electron in a dot-cloud array form.
I am reviewing the film THE MECHANICAL UNIVERSE, in particular episode 29
The Electric Field, 1985. I am reviewing it in that I am hoping it will
cast my mind into
insights.
Coulomb Unification of 4 forces compared to GellMann-Glashow-Salam-Weinberg
0 views
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 22, 2001, 2:01:36 AM
to
GellMann-Glashow-Salam-Weinberg are classification schemes, and really
not theory. Theirs is no more of a theory than Linnaeus was to biology.
Classify every species in biology. Theirs is no more a theory than
was Mendeleev classifying the chemical elements. The theory that
solved Mendeleev was the Schrodinger Equation of Quantum Mechanics.
GellMann-Glashow-Salam-Weinberg are models and poor models for
they seldom predict anything, especially restmass. They never predicted
that the neutrino has rest mass. They never predicted that the neutrino
oscillates or radioactive decays. Their models never predicted anything
about the StrongNuclear Force. Nor could their models help us to
understand the isotopic table of elements. Their models never linked the
StrongNuclear Force nor gravity. In fact, their model made a wider rift
between the force of gravity and the other forces.
Their model was born of a mathematical trick. Whether the trick of
symmetry breaking for the Standard Model or the trick of
finding an algrebra for the Quark theory. In other words--
mathematical but not physical reality. Cute math tricks as all
classification-schemes end up.
And it is too bad that many people have elevated these
math tricks to the status of physics. Linneaus never was so
arrogant as to think his classifying was a theory-of-science.
And Mendeleev was never so arrogant as to think that his
ordering of the chemical elements hinted of missing elements
was a science theory, for the ordering of cards is not the
underlying science.
Yet in the 20th century GellMann-Glashow-Salam-Weinberg
have become so arrogant as to demand that mathematical tricks and
algebra and classification schemes are physics theory. Their
mathematical tricks help to discern the underlying true physics
but their tricks are not the physics reality. Scientists have a
word that describes their work. They call it scaffolding. It is not
a model but less than a model. It is scaffolding. Part of
the blame for this flood of fake physics for the 20th century
elevated to the heights of physics was the Cold War period of
history where paranoa permeated science and politics and where
nations wanted to build big machines and needed physicists
with goofy ideas that would facilitate and justify the erection
of huge physics machines such as CERN. Giving Nobel
prizes to GellMann, Glashow, Salam,Weinberg would have
been like giving science awards to the phlogiston machine
peddlers or the alchemists.
COULOMB UNIFICATION of the 4 forces starts not with
classification scheme and then tossing in some cute and
fanciful mathematical trickery such as Weinberg's symmetry
breaking or GellMann's hair-twirling algebras.
Coulomb Unification starts at first beginnings and asks whether
a unification exists or does not exist and why. Then it asks
question number 2. If all the forces must be unified as one force
which of the 4 forces is the most perfect and most beautiful force.
Once we answer that question we then require and insist that the
other 3 forces are also forms of this most perfect and beautiful
force.
That force that is the most perfect of the 4 forces is the Coulomb
force. And thus, we strive to make the other 3 forces also
a Coulomb Force.
In the GellMann-Glashow-Salam-Weinberg models they claim to
have unified 2 of the 4 forces of physics. And they use as a crutch
the idea that they cannot unify StrongNuclear or gravity because
only the Big Bang energies can do that. A crutch. It is not a
unification of the 4 forces into 1 force but rather a burying of
the problem of unification into the Big Bang.
Coulomb Unification reminds me of another science theory history.
The history of the Special Relativity. It was Poincare when after
looking at Lorentz transformations and noticing that the Maxwell
Equations are unchanged under a Lorentz transformation declared
the Theory of Special Relativity. In other words, Poincare noticed
the perfectness and beauty of the Maxwell Equations and said that
all of physics should have the properties of the Maxwell Equations.
This method of science is sort of a Reverse Occam's Razor-- when
required to unify a number of objects the best procedure is to
find the most perfect of those objects and then require the others
to become that object.
Let us suppose Poincare was alive today in the year 2001 and
asked to solve the unification of the 4 forces of physics. Suppose
the physics Genie was let out of the Magical bottle to give aid to
Poincare.
Suppose the Genie tells Poincare that the correct path to unification
is the similar path that Poincare used to discover Special Relativity.
This resurrected Poincare would then examine the 4 forces of
physics and hunt for the "most perfect" most beautiful of those
4 forces and then require the other 3 forces be turned into forms
of this perfect force. Thus he would make 4 forces as 1 force
which is the Coulomb force.
Renzo's profile photo
Renzo
Jul 22, 2001, 1:09:47 PM
I agree a lot of what you said. I'm sure you did not say "classifications"
(or
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 23, 2001, 1:32:29 AM
to
Bob, often it is best to wait several centuries before writing about
the history of physics of other sciences. One of the classic
examples is the Leiden Jar history. It took several centuries
for scientists to realize and appreciate the importance that
Leiden Jars had on the development of physics. Only
centuries after the Leyden Jars was their importance to
physics history fully appreciated.
Bob, I wonder if anyone has written a History of Physics book
covering 1950 to 2000 with emphasis on the
GellMann-Glashow-Salam-Weinberg models and the socio
-political need during the Cold War of 1950-2000. The
need for politicians and countries of Europe to justify their
building of CERN and other big machines of physics.
So you have countries who want to build big machines
of physics in order to increase economic spending and
provide good jobs for their countries. And you want to
appear "ahead" of the Communists in the Cold War.
But to do that you need some group of scientists with a
theory, no matter how inane or bad the theory is, as long as
it serves to go ahead with building of the big machines and
justifies the building of these big machines. And you
bring in the Nobel prize to validate the physicists who
justifies the building of CERN.
I was born in 1950 and unable to watch closely the
history of big machines compared to the history of
physics theory from 1950 to 2000.
I would wager that the history of physics from 1950 to
2000 concerning the Standard Model and Quark theory
had more to do with politics and economics rather than
physics truth and physics reality.
That the acceptance of the Standard Model and Quark theory
had more to do with building CERN and getting the money to
build huge particle machines than any search for physics truth.
That the awarding of Nobel prizes had more to do with
justifying the expense of building and operating CERN than
it had for recognition of physics achievement.
That the history of Standard Model and Quark theory
had more to do with the politics and economics of the Cold
War era of 1950 than it had to do with physics. Rarely
do we see the entanglement of physics and the socio-
economic and political environment as we do in the
history of Standard Model and Quark theory.
One aspect of that history that I hope some historian goes
into detail. The history of "neutral currents". Was neutral
currents a on the spot con-artist fabrication in order to
facilitate the awarding of a Nobel prize? Most realized that
the Standard Model had no experimental prediction and
could not win a Nobel. So along comes someone who
injects the Standard Model with "neutral currents" just to
console the Nobel Committee.
I am sure some physicists who were consciously aware of
that history from 1950 -2000 for they lived through it. And
could not help but notice the constant interactions between
government politics, big machine construction, Cold War,
economic boost by CERN. The people involved were more
concerned about money and politics and not concerned about
whether they got the physics correct.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 23, 2001, 1:56:22 AM
to
Sun, 22 Jul 2001 20:09:47 +0200 Renzo wrote:
> I agree a lot of what you said. I'm sure you did not say "classifications"
> (or classifications of symmetries) are useless, but that they are not
> theory, in the sense that they don't predict anything (for example I
> wouldn't call "prediction" the statement that there must be a further
> particle besides the known ones, because we need not fill a place left
free
> in our "classification" so that to fill all the symmetries. That is a
useful
> guess, not a prediction in the sense of the Galileo's scientific method).
> I think that is roughly what "Archimedes Plutonium" is stating.
I concur. There is no denying that GellMann played around with algebras
until
he found an algebra that could "somewhat fit" the known particles
of his time. This practice is classifying but not telling us "
how things work". Classification is a tool, not a theory.
>
> Yes, the effort to give nuclear forces the structure that QED has, is very
> unsatisfactory, even though QCD were able to give some predictions (or
> correction factors on known quantities) after crazy renormalizetion-like
> procedures . Besides I don't think such predictions exist (but I'm not
> sure).
When you want to unify the 4 forces of physics. It seems dumb to start
by looking for some "mathematical trick" that links the 4 forces. GellMann
with his algebra trick. Or Weinberg with his symmetry-breaking trick.
Or even the trick of "renormalization".
No, to get solve physics, it seems we have to understand the physics first
and then apply mathematics, not the other way around. And to get that
physics-understanding, it seems that the use of Logic is more important
than the playing around with mathematical tricks.
If you want to Unify the 4 forces, what would be more natural than to
ask the question of which of those 4 forces is the most perfect and then
Logically to say that the other 3 forces must then be shaped into that
perfect force form.
Look at the 4 forces of physics. The Coulomb force is the most perfect.
That means the StrongNuclear and WeakNuclear when combined as one
forms another Coulomb force -- a Nuclear Coulomb force with nuclear-
electrons. That leaves only gravity remaining. Since there is no repel
gravity then hypothesize antigravity exists in Nature.
There, you have unified all 4 forces of physics by looking for the most
perfect force and demanding the other 3 forces are combined in such a
manner as to be a Coulomb force.
Physicists give a lot of lip-service to Logic and things such as Occam's
Razor or Reverse-Occam's Razor, but when it comes time for physicists
to actually use and apply logic, they so often do not. And instead they
fall victim to dumb things such as playing mathematical tricks and
mathematical games. And they thence impose those mathematical games
by pretentiously saying they are the underlying physics. Physicists
should use and apply Logic before they spend their days and years
wrapped up in their mathematical trickery cacoons.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 23, 2001, 2:42:58 AM
to
I do not know how far back in time the Standard Model and
Quark theory extend. Whether they existed while Joe McCarthy's
Communist witchhunts went on.
But we can sense some "feeding off" of GellMann-Glashow-Salam-Weinberg
with the politics of Joe
McCarthyism.
The mood of those times was one of distrust and paranoia. And we
see that not only in politics but also in physics theories born of that
generation.
The paranoia and distrust would have physicists latching onto
mathematical games and math tricks rather than be daring and seek
the underlying physics truth and reality. Like artwork of a period has
a detectable trend to it, same also one can find a trend or fashion to
physics of the 1950 to 2000 period. A fashion of relying upon
mathematical games rather than physical mechanisms. We see that
in the proliferation of multi-dimensions, of strings, of
renormalization,
of symmetry-breaking, of algrebras and worst of all the over application
of General Relativity. From 1950 to 2000, the playing of mathematical
games in physics was more important than the actual physics itself.
The distrust and paranoia in the political arena spilled over into the
physics arena. And instead of Logic being the main tool of physicists,
the distrust and paranoia was so huge during the Cold War, that
even physicists locked themselves up into a corner and relied mostly
on the tool of Mathematical-Games. And these mathematical
games and math tricks then were foisted upon physics as science theory.
We can tell what timeperiod some art was created just by the look and
texture and the way it was painted and what was painted, for the art had
a socio-economic background in which it was created.
Likewise, we can appreciate the feel and texture and traits of physics
theories created from 1950-1990. They were born mostly of
mathematical games and mathematical tricks. They were imbued with
the theme that mathematics was more important then even physics.
These theories even projected the idea that physics would end and
mathematics takes over. From 1950 to 1990 the theories of physics
born then even despised Logic and tossed out Logic and put
mathematical games as the best tool to knowing and understanding
and discovering physics.
I probably could write the best history of physics book from the
years 1950 to 1990 although I was not following that history, than
all those physicists who were older than myself and actually watched
and lived through that time period. For they cannot distinguish between
fake physics and real physics and they cannot see a bigger picture of
physics within a socio-economic complex.
Archimedes Plutonium
Jun 28, 2002, 7:31:51 PM
to
Fri, 28 Jun 2002 11:22:40 +0200 Nico Benschop <n.ben...@chello.nl>
wrote:
(snip)
> > (Also, if I was in your killfile then how - oh, never mind.) ..[*]
> > Cheers, John R Ramsden (j...@adslate.com)
>
> Re[*]: killfile keyword for 'author' vs. 'subject'
>
> > > To this day I do not know why Pertti befriended me. Perhaps he
> > > liked the Atom Totality theory but was never going to admit it
> > > publicly. [...]
>
> I suppose we'll never know (but I can guess;-) -- NB
Part of the answer for why Pertti befriended me was because after the
mid1990s
I was looking to find the Unification of the Forces of Physics. And I
was not ruling out Clifford Algebras as some sort of help. Clifford
Algebras applied to an Atom Totality theory. Some of my old posts of
the late 1990s shows where I tried to apply Clifford Algebras.
I was thinking that Clifford Algebras may accentuate the linking of
gravity to
EM. I suspect Pertti may have been excited over an application of
Clifford Algebra to unify the forces of physics. But as the late 1990s
turned into 2000
and 2001, I de-emphasized Clifford Algebra and most all other
mathematics.
I believe I discovered the Unification of Forces of Physics in 2001.
And it uses no fancy mathematics. It says simply that all forces are
Coulomb forces in this
scheme:
Coulomb
/ \
/ \
strongnuclear weaknuclear
/ \
/ \
gravity antigravity
Forces are paired for they are broken symmetry. The current accepted
view is that
EM is paired with weaknuclear in the Standard Model. I believe the
Standard Model is all fake. The Standard Model does not even recognize
a Cosmic antigravity force, which is to be expected since antigravity
was only discovered in the closing years of the 20th century.
Pertti befriended me because he sensed that the Atom Totality theory
would either elevate in importance the Clifford Algebras or send the
Clifford Algebras back to remoteness.
Chapt4 implications: FBP proves Big Bang is false #39 FUSION BARRIER
PRINCIPLE, 2nd ed
0 views
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Aug 12, 2011, 11:26:32 AM
to
In my last post on this topic, I remarked that FBP seemed to be
independent of knowing whether the Cosmos comes from an Atom Totality
or comes from a Big Bang. Usually in science when someone
blurts out a independence or disconnect, they usually are wrong. So
after posting that #38, I went to thinking, and sure enough I easily
found the connection and thus dependence. And this will likely lead to
what one can call a Logical proof that the Big Bang theory is false, a
fake and
thoroughly incorrect. It is another syllogism proof, where my other
syllogism stems from the statement of the Atomic theory, this
syllogism
stems from the statement of Unification of Forces in Physics.
Either Physics has a Unification of Forces or it does not have such.
If it has such a unification, then one of the forces of physics is the
root foundation or unit basis vector and all the other forces are
multiples of the unit basis vector.
In Physics, of the four forces, one is more perfect force than the
other three, and it is simple and easy to recognize which one of those
is the more perfect because the Coulomb force or EM has a particle
that is the most perfect particle in all of physics-- the light wave
or photon. The Strong Nuclear, the Weak Nuclear, the gravity forces,
none of these three have a "perfect particle" of interaction. Only the
EM force has the perfect particle of the photon.
That means the EM force is what the other three forces reduce to in a
Unification of Forces.
This is critical and crucial to the Fusion Barrier Principle since the
proof of FBP relies on the idea that every input energy is reduced to
the Faraday law which is entangled with the Coulomb law in the inside
of the Tokamak and the output energy is the difference between Faraday
law versus Coulomb law, and that outcome is that the Faraday law
requires always 1/3 more in energy content than ever the Coulomb law,
hence breakeven is at most 2/3 breakeven.
But the Unification of Forces also destroys the Big Bang theory, for
there cannot be a Unification of Forces given the tenets of the Big
Bang theory. There was a silly and rather phony book written in the
20th century about the Big Bang titled something about "The First
Three Minutes" and the author if memory is correct was Weinberg,
anyway, the flaw and fakeness of that is we knew so very little about
the physical universe and what the true theory for the universe was in
the 20th century, for we just got started in telescopes and to think
that some tin-badge physicist could pin down the theory of the Cosmos
to its first three minutes is the height of arrogance and
crackpottery. One would think that being a physicist should give a
person a sense of
balance of thought that since the Cosmos was just beginning to be
explored by telescopes newly designed and installed, and not even
placed in outer space orbit to get away from Earth atmosphere
distortions, that one would think a physicist would have had enough
common sense not to write nor to publish a arrogant parcel titled
"First Three Minutes". But many in science are too much like
politicians that their minds only think of the "moment" and not
thinking clearly of "truth and reality and the future."
But let me indicate how the Unification of Forces as a Coulomb Force
eliminates the Big Bang theory as the "big joke theory". And let me
just use that 20th century gaffe of a book "The First Three Minutes"
Somewhere in that wonky wag book, the Big Bang supposedly creates the
force of EM, whether it be the 1.5 minutes after the Big Bang or maybe
the 4th minute after the Big Bang, but somewhere in that tale by
Weinberg is the EM force created for the first time. So that
obviously, the Big Bang is Big Baloney for the EM force cannot be the
Unification force of physics and that the photon is not a perfect
particle of physics, yet it is a perfect particle of physics. What
Weinberg teaches us mostly about physics, is that we should always
apply good commonsense before we write a knuckleheaded book on
physics. Weinberg should have known that astronomy was primitive in
the 20th century where we just began to learn about galaxies for the
first time, and so a book on the first three minutes is the height of
hypocrisy. And I would bet that Weinberg to this day, probably even
believes that fusion energy can go beyond breakeven.
Now I am sort of worried about including this new syllogism in this
book of FBP, but since it was discovered in this book, I think I will
keep it here.
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Chapt4 implications: FBP connected to Unification of Forces #40 FUSION
BARRIER PRINCIPLE, 2nd ed
0 views
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Aug 14, 2011, 11:38:16 AM
to
It should not strike us as strange or odd that the Fusion Barrier
Principle is tied up with the Unification theory of the Forces of
Physics. None of us should balk and complain about that idea of
linkage and all of us should readily accept it.
The Coulomb Unification of Forces of Physics not only proves the
Fusion Barrier Principle, but as was explained in the last post, that
a Unification of Forces of Physics proves the Big Bang to be a big-
fake. In the Big Bang theory, the Coulomb force was created afterwards
of the Big Bang Event. In the Atom Totality theory, Coulomb was
present always. Atoms are EM; atoms are Coulomb.
The fact that the EM Coulomb law is the perfect law of physics with
the perfect particle-- the light wave, allows for the proof of the FBP
in that we can total the input energy as Faraday's Law, and the fusion
event energy as Coulomb's law, wherein Faraday's law requires always
1/3 more energy content and thus the breakeven can never exceed 2/3.
So why would the science community at present still endorse the Big
Bang, since it does not even give the correct answer as to fusion
breakeven? The answer probably lies in the
interface of science with the other human interests of religion. The
Big Bang theory is the most acceptable theory to the present day
churches and religion organizations. The Big Bang is religion imposing
into science. The Atom Totality is reason, rationale, commonsense and
the mounting evidence. People in religion hate it when a scientist
tells them that god is an Atom, a big Atom. The atomic theory has
always been hated from ancient times forward. All of Democritus's and
Epicurus writings on the Atomic theory were burned by religious
fanatics and luckily Titus Lucretius with De Rerum Natura escaped the
conflagration of the true science from religious fanatics. In our
modern day time, we still have the battle of true science-- Atom
Totality pitted against the religion fanatics of Big Bang ilk,
although the fight is far less intense, but we can see that fight in
the huge amount of fanatics that have tried to bounce Archimedes
Plutonium off the usenet science groups, to no avail. So the Usenet
science newsgroups are to modern day science what De Rerum Natura was
to Ancient Greece and the Atomic theory.
In the Big Bang theory, you can have anything true and demand all
things be true because in a Big Bang explosion, the explosion itself
is nonscience and so we should have fusion energy harnessed. In an
Atom Totatlity, the Universe is an ordered, principled entity that has
structural limitations. One of those limits is the ability to reach
energy breakeven and that it occurs for fission but not for fusion.
So that when the next bigger tokamak is built, is not because of good
science, but because of poor and lousy science coupled with religious
fervor.
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
--- end quoting some posts to sci.physics, sci.math Usenet from 1993 to
present day April 2025 talking about AP's Unification of the 4 Forces of
Physics via the logical mechanism of what force has the most perfect
particle ---
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 20, 2025, 10:49:08 PM (13 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
In Logic, whether basic or advanced, there is always a urgent need to
well-define our concepts, and many if not most errors are due to a lack of
precise well defining.
So we must well define Complamentarity-Duality Principle. Here I use
Halliday and Resnick's definition. Note: I spell Complamentarity while
others spell it Complementarity and Compliment which to me is confusing
with the definition of compliment in ordinary language, and to assuage this
confusion I just spell it with an "a" instead of "e" or "i".
Halliday & Resnick, PHYSICS, Part 2, Extended Version, 1986, page 1162.
--- quoting H&R ---
Niels Bohr, who not only played a major role in the development of quantum
mechanics but also served as its major philosopher and interpreter, has
shown the way with his principle of complementarity, which states: The wave
and the particle aspects of a quantum entity are both necessary for a
complete description. However, both aspects cannot be revealed
simultaneously in a single experiment. The aspect that is revealed is
determined by the nature of the experiment being done.
--- end quoting H&R---
There is the Particle - Wave complament-duals.
There is the Energy- Time complament-duals.
There is the Position-Momentum complament-duals.
There is my favorite, the Electricity-Magnetism complament-duals.
So in this textbook, not only do I tell many stories of physics and relate
them to Advanced Logic, but I set up a exercise assignment of homework for
myself. I want to solve, logically, if Magnetic Monopole is a reverse
principle to Complamentarity-duality principle.
It is easy to see that Superposition Principle is the reverse principle of
Pauli Exclusion.
It is easy to see that the Faraday Law of Electromagnetism is the reverse
law of Ampere-Maxwell Law.
It is easy to see that in Calculus that the Derivative is reverse of
Integral.
In this book, I want to achieve the understanding on whether the Principle
of Magnetic Monopoles is the reverse of Complamentarity Duality Principle.
I carefully note, that all College and University physics classrooms teach
Maxwell Equations and where Gauss law of magnetism falsely preaches no
magnetic monopoles exist. So I am writing this book, even though physics
classrooms across Earth have not even understood that magnetic monopoles
exist; they are abundant because the 0.5MeV particle is the magnetic
monopole and the Muon is the true atom of electrons.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 21, 2025, 11:43:28 PM (12 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Sunday, April 20, 2025 at 10:49:08 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snipped)
It is easy to see that Superposition Principle is the reverse principle of
Pauli Exclusion.
It is easy to see that the Faraday Law of Electromagnetism is the reverse
law of Ampere-Maxwell Law.
It is easy to see that in Calculus that the Derivative is reverse of
Integral.
It is easy to see that subtraction is the reverse of addition, and that
division is the reverse of multiplication.
In this book, I want to achieve the understanding on whether the Principle
of Magnetic Monopoles is the reverse of Complamentarity Duality Principle.
At the moment I am tackling this issue be trying to fathom the Geometry of
the Magnetic Monopole, for in biology and chemistry, geometry tells us the
function.
Now, putting Logical Thought to action--- is not the reverse of Duality
which is two, is the reverse of two be one???? Dual is two, mono is one.
But I need more substance than just saying monopole is one while duality is
two.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 21, 2025, 11:53:50 PM (12 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Chapter on Equivalence or Equality
When I reach this chapter in my storytelling I must remember to show the
equivalence of the Atomic Theory AP style and the Axiom Principle over all
of science.
Atomic Theory: as listed earlier in this book goes like this. All Matter
has rest mass and is one of 114 different chemical elements of the Periodic
Table of Chemical Elements, and the Universe itself has rest mass, hence
the entire universe is a plutonium atom totality.
Axiom Principle over all Sciences: All is Atom, and Atoms are nothing but
electricity and magnetism.
I am going to show how Advanced Logic proves those two are equivalent.
This brings back memories to when I was 20 years old or thereabouts, and a
student at Univ.Cincinnati in 1970 studying thermodynamics. And in the
thermodynamics textbook the author was proving that a statement A of the
2nd Law Thermodynamics was equivalent to another statement B. And the
method he goes about doing this proof of equivalence, is the author shows
that A implies B. Then starting with B, argues that B implies A. And thus
he can end up by saying A = B.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 22, 2025, 12:11:26 AM (12 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Now in this book, I need to discuss Old Physics view of the Light
Wave-Photon compared to the New Physics view of the Light Wave with the
magnetic monopole being the 0.5MeV particle.
Up front, I have to admit I neglected to clarify what the reason for
existence of the Photon-Light Wave is in New Physics. I do remember what it
is in Old Physics.
In Old Physics they had silly nonsense that they called the Standard Model.
This nonsense called Standard Model comes from thinking that math algebras
is the substance of particle physics, obeying algebra. It was a fiction
which won fame and fortune to many in Old Physics with Nobel prizes for
nonsense. I typical thread of nonsense was the EightFold Way and it
harbored silly terminology of Symmetry-Breaking.
A outstanding piece of nonsense in the Standard Model covered in math
algebra was the Two Tennis ball players. Where the proton is one player and
the electron floating around outside the proton in the nucleus were both
playing tennis and what the Coulomb force of attraction was seen in this
analogy is that the electron and proton stayed together because they were
hitting a tennis ball--- the photon back and forth and thus the Coulomb
force of attraction. They called the photon the "mediating particle" and
for the Strong nuclear or Weak nuclear force they had a different
"mediating particles".
This analogy of tennis ball players was the only education tool for
Standard Model, that I am familiar with.
But in New Physics, atoms have ___no nucleus___ and so there is no
strong-nuclear force. The protons form into a torus with muons inside as a
long chain acting as bar magnet and doing the Faraday Law. What the
proton-muon produce is electricity and in the form of 1 eV all the way up
to 0.5MeV magnetic monopoles.
So in New Physics, we have the photon not as mediating particle between
proton and electron but as a byproduct of the Faraday Law.
AP, King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 22, 2025, 12:18:53 AM (12 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Speaking of the Tennis Ball analogy for Standard Model of Old Physics, I
wrote this to sci.physics in 2018.
Who gave the tennis analogy to Standard Model?
9 views (this more likely is 9 million views, once the stalker creeps are
kept off the control panel, such as that Swiss oaf when Google was running
in Usenet)
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 15, 2020, 8:36:36 PM
to
I am trying to find out what physicist first gave us the Tennis Playing
Analogy for the Standard Model. What holds the proton to electron is two
tennis players occupied with hitting the photon (tennis ball) back and
forth. I do not have the time to read Heinz Pagels "The Cosmic Code" cover
to cover if he was the one. Perhaps someone else gave that analogy.
Quoting Wikipedia on gluon--
Gluon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Composition Elementary particle
Statistics Bosonic
Interactions Strong interaction
Symbol g
Theorized Murray Gell-Mann (1962)[1]
Discovered e+e− → Υ(9.46) → 3g: 1978 at DORIS (DESY) by PLUTO experiments
(see diagram 2 and recollection[2])
and
e+e− → qqg: 1979 at PETRA (DESY) by TASSO, MARK-J, JADE and PLUTO
experiments (see diagram 1 and review[3])
Types 8
Mass 0 (theoretical value)[4]
< 1.3 meV/
c
2
c^{2} (experimental limit) [5][4]
Electric charge 0 e[4]
Color charge octet (8 linearly independent types)
Spin 1
Standard Model of particle physics
Standard Model of Elementary Particles.svg
Elementary particles of the Standard Model
A gluon (/ˈɡluːɒn/) is an elementary particle that acts as the exchange
particle (or gauge boson) for the strong force between quarks. It is
analogous to the exchange of photons in the electromagnetic force between
two charged particles.[6] In layman's terms, they "glue" quarks together,
forming hadrons such as protons and neutrons.
--- end quote Wikipedia on gluon ---
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 15, 2020, 11:58:18 PM
to
posted in the newsgroup: plutonium-atom-universe of AP
true theory of Physics of Elementary Particles and what can we learn from
the con-artistry Standard Model
History of the Con-artistry called Standard Model of Physics
Well, let me start by saying it is better to have a goofy, phony model than
to have nothing. Science abhors a vacuum.
But then, the rest of the story is rather sadly a gigantic kook, con
artistry of where physicists want fame and money no matter the price of how
truth and logic are trampled under.
It is an old story played over and over again. Scientists who lack
abilities to do science concoct any means possible to gain spotlight, fame
and fortune, at the expense of truth.
Much of the story of the Standard Model is rather shrouded in fog. For one
reason in particular, there never was any truth to the model.
I do remember quite clearly that Dr. Feynman became hostile adverse to the
Model, saying words to the effect-- how does this algebra playing around
tie into actual physical reality. But the force of Feynman was not
sufficient to stop the rampage of so many kook physicists denying them of
fame and fortune, at the expense of truth of science. And of course, the
other great physicist of that era-- Dirac was too shy of a personality to
sublime the kook crowd.
In science, in physics, the drive to fame and fortune out weigh the drive
to truth and reality.
But, as I said, it is better to have a fake theory, than no theory at all.
Now I was looking for the analogy of a tennis game where the two players
are hitting a tennis ball back and forth as the analogy of the proton and
electron and what keeps them bound together as the electromagnetic force
and the tennis ball is called a gluon which is the photon and that the EM
force is considered to be a EM interaction with the photon as the
"mediating particle". And this Standard Model gets to make names for new
concepts regardless of whether they have any physical reality:
1) Interactiong
2) gluon
3) mediating particle
4) coupling
5) quark
6) charm, up, down, strangeness etc etc
A whole bunch of terms despite the fact, they have no physical reality.
So how did Old Physics get suckered into this sham, fakery, this con-artist
physics? Well it starts with a vacuum of a theory, and then kooks with no
physics wisdom filling that vacuum.
This was about 1969 starting with Gell-Mann then Glashow and Weinberg that
the Standard Model gets cemented in place.
And basically all the Standard Model is -- is a analogy of Tennis players
with a gluon keeping the players together. To think a major theory of
Physics is all based upon a analogy.
But an analogy cannot keep a theory in place for long, especially a phony
fake theory, unless it had some math to keep everyone busily distracted.
And that math is Algebra.
There is nothing better for a phony science theory than to distract and
keep others busy from the real truth. So, Algebra was used. I suspect the
Four Fold Way was the silly algebra.
But in my own research, I find that the Volume of the Parallelepiped, look
it up yourself, can be got of its volume by a matrix algebra determinant.
It looks something like this:
Volume of Parallelepiped =
a_1 b_1 c_1
V = det a_2 b_2 c_2
a_3 b_3 c_3
That is an algebra for obtaining the volume of a parallelepiped
And it does not take much imagination to put oneself back in 1950s with
young physicists mouths watering and craving for physics fame and fortune,
greedy for that, and looking upon the volume of a geometry figure being
given by a algebra of matrix.
One can imagine these greedy hungry physicists thinking in a kookish way,
that if we fill the a_1 with "up" and the a_2 as "down" and the c_1 as
"charm", and the b_1 as "strangeness" etc etc. That one is doing actual
physics, when in reality they are not, but just wanting fame and fortune at
the expense of truth and physics reality.
So, the real truth of Elementary Particles is not the Standard Model, but
is what AP found in 2016-2017, that the proton is a 8 winding coil of
840MeV and the real electron is the muon as a 1 winding ring of 105MeV, and
the two are Faraday's law of muon as bar magnet thrusting through the 8
winding proton coil producing electricity of magnetic monopoles. Some of
those monopoles can be as much as 0.5MeV, what J.J. Thomson thought was the
electron but was mistaken for it was Dirac's magnetic monopole he
discovered in 1897.
So, we see here the difference between a TRUE THEORY of physics, for it is
not based on some analogy, but based upon an actual proven law of physics--
Faraday Law.
That protons and muons and monopoles have jobs, tasks, functions in the
Faraday Law and Ampere Law that comprises a true theory of Elementary
Particles. Not some silly stupid kook Algebra with its tennis ball game
analogy.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 22, 2025, 12:37:05 AM (12 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I want to speak below about my constant weaving in and out of different
topics. I will coordinate this storytelling in the edits. But like a
storybook, I will keep suspense and curiosity waiting. Telling a good story
is like eating food. We quickly get tired if every meal is chicken and so
we want variety and "newness". This is why so many textbook style writing
is boring for kids, they want to move on to something new. Weaving keeps
attention. Like the recent NATURE show on PBS, Katavi with hippos, lions
and crocodiles. They have weaving in out of the animals, and they have 3
episodes spread over 3 weeks, and the curiousity of what happens to Arthur
the lion is a "dying to know curiosity". Just like this book, I bring up
Tennis Ball as photons and 50 pages later, bring it back front and center
stage again.
I want this Logic textbook written in story telling format, be so
compelling to students, that they stay up all night long absorbed and
fascinated. The first science book to be "dying to know curiosity".
On Tuesday, April 22, 2025 at 12:18:53 AM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Speaking of the Tennis Ball analogy for Standard Model of Old Physics, I
wrote this to sci.physics in 2020.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 22, 2025, 1:54:04 PM (11 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Old Physics view of the Atom and subatomic particles
(1) It had a nucleus of proton balls together with neutron balls making a
large ball nucleus. The proton ball repelled other proton balls but the
neutrons kept the proton balls together.
(2) The electron was a very tiny ball something of the magnitude of 1880
smaller of a ball than the proton ball and the electron zipped around the
outside of the nucleus at nearly the speed of light in orbital shells.
(3) The function of the proton was just being a ball.
(4) The function of the neutron was just being a ball.
(5) The function of the electron was just being a tiny ball.
(6) The photon-Light Wave was a mediating particle in the Coulomb law, a
particle that is like a tennis ball played by the Proton player and
Electron Player hitting the photon back and forth and thus keeping the
proton and electron in a steady orbit.
(7) The function of the Photon was to keep proton balls and electron balls
in a steady orbit.
New Physics view of the Atom and subatomic particles
(1) Each atom of the 114 Chemical Elements has a specific number of
Protons, and these protons form a single torus that make up the central
region of the Atom. Hydrogen has a proton torus of 1 x 840 windings, helium
has 2 x 840 windings and plutonium has a single proton torus of 94 x 840
windings.
(2) Inside each proton torus is an equal number of Muons as electrons of
atoms forming a chain of muons which speed round and round inside the
Proton torus. Hydrogen has 1 muon, helium has 2 muons linked together has
chain, plutonium has 94 muons in a chain thrusting through the proton torus
doing the Faraday law.
(3) Outside the Proton torus are Neutrons in the shape of parallel plate
capacitors storing the electricity produced by Proton + Muons.
(4) The function of proton is the coil in Faraday law.
(5) The function of muon electrons is the bar magnet in Faraday law.
(6) The function of neutrons is capacitor to store electricity of the
Faraday law.
(7) The photon-Light Wave is the electrical energy produced by Faraday law,
all the way from 1 eV to 0.5MeV in energy.
(8) The function of the photon-Light Wave is the creation process of
building new atoms and new particles.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 22, 2025, 5:36:29 PM (11 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
This should be an early chapter in this book, for equality needs to be the
first connector of Logic for the remaining connectors of Logic need
equality for their truth table.
On Monday, April 21, 2025 at 11:53:50 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Chapter on Equivalence or Equality
When I reach this chapter in my storytelling I must remember to show the
equivalence of the Atomic Theory AP style and the Axiom Principle over all
of science.
Atomic Theory: as listed earlier in this book goes like this. All Matter
has rest mass and is one of 114 different chemical elements of the Periodic
Table of Chemical Elements, and the Universe itself has rest mass, hence
the entire universe is a plutonium atom totality.
Axiom Principle over all Sciences: All is Atom, and Atoms are nothing but
electricity and magnetism.
I am going to show how Advanced Logic proves those two are equivalent.
As I mentioned before, to prove two statements are equal (some prefer
equivalence) is to prove in two steps that A is a subset of B, and then B
is a subset of A then you can boast that the two statements are identical
same equality. Even though it looks like at first glance the two statements
are far apart.
Statement A is " All is Atom, and Atoms are nothing but electricity and
magnetism".
Statement B is " All Matter has rest mass and is one of 114 different
chemical elements of the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements, and the
Universe itself has rest mass, hence the entire universe is a plutonium
atom totality" .
TENTATIVE PROOF OF EQUALITY
First I show B is a subset of A.
Statement B can be paraphrased (reduced) to the statement that the Universe
is one big atom of plutonium and inside this big atom are more atoms of
smaller size. Statement A can be reduced to the Universe is containing many
atoms of electricity and magnetism, and that the sum total of these atoms
is a atom itself, a Atom Totality. This establishes B subset of A.
Secondly, I must show A is a subset of B.
Statement A includes the Faraday law, one of many laws of electromagnetic
theory. The Faraday law is moving bar magnet of rest mass through a coil of
rest mass produces magnetic monopoles of rest mass that yields a current of
electricity. Electricity and magnetism can come from rest mass matter.
Statement B says matter with rest mass is one of 114 different chemical
elements of the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements. The entire Universe
has rest mass matter and rest mass matter inside the Universe are one of
114 different elements. The rest mass of matter producing electricity and
magnetism in Statement A is the same rest mass matter in Statement B. This
establishes A is subset of B.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 22, 2025, 8:56:29 PM (11 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Tuesday, April 22, 2025 at 5:36:29 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
This should be an early chapter in this book, for equality needs to be the
first connector of Logic for the remaining connectors of Logic need
equality for their truth table.
On Monday, April 21, 2025 at 11:53:50 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Chapter on Equivalence or Equality
When I reach this chapter in my storytelling I must remember to show the
equivalence of the Atomic Theory AP style and the Axiom Principle over all
of science.
Atomic Theory: as listed earlier in this book goes like this. All Matter
has rest mass and is one of 114 different chemical elements of the Periodic
Table of Chemical Elements, and the Universe itself has rest mass, hence
the entire universe is a plutonium atom totality.
Axiom Principle over all Sciences: All is Atom, and Atoms are nothing but
electricity and magnetism.
I am going to show how Advanced Logic proves those two are equivalent.
As I mentioned before, to prove two statements are equal (some prefer
equivalence) is to prove in two steps that A is a subset of B, and then B
is a subset of A then you can boast that the two statements are identical
same equality. Even though it looks like at first glance the two statements
are far apart.
Statement A is " All is Atom, and Atoms are nothing but electricity and
magnetism".
Statement B is " All Matter has rest mass and is one of 114 different
chemical elements of the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements, and the
Universe itself has rest mass, hence the entire universe is a plutonium
atom totality" .
TENTATIVE PROOF OF EQUALITY
First I show B is a subset of A.
Statement B can be paraphrased (reduced) to the statement that the Universe
is one big atom of plutonium and inside this big atom are more atoms of
smaller size. Statement A can be reduced to the Universe is containing many
atoms of electricity and magnetism, and that the sum total of these atoms
is a atom itself, a Atom Totality. This establishes B subset of A.
Secondly, I must show A is a subset of B.
Statement A includes the Faraday law, one of many laws of electromagnetic
theory. The Faraday law is moving bar magnet of rest mass through a coil of
rest mass produces magnetic monopoles of rest mass that yields a current of
electricity. Electricity and magnetism can __only come__ from rest mass
matter. Statement B says matter with rest mass is one of 114 different
chemical elements of the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements. The entire
Universe has rest mass matter and rest mass matter inside the Universe are
one of 114 different elements. The rest mass of matter producing
electricity and magnetism in Statement A is the same rest mass matter in
Statement B. This establishes A is subset of B.
EM radiation itself in empty space cannot produce electricity and
magnetism. And all subatomic particles are tied to their parent atom until
absorbed by a new atom. Basically the idea here is that all magnetism and
electricity is produced by rest-mass particles-- ie -- atoms. The coil in
Faraday law is atoms or atom, and the bar magnet in Faraday law is atoms or
atom. Showing that A is a subset of B is showing that Faraday law is a
subset of A and that B is a subset of Faraday Law.
Still a tentative proof, and only when I am satisfied that it flows
naturally in my mind. Still too rough at the moment.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 23, 2025, 2:18:40 PM (10 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I need a chapter on "Electric field" explaining how it is different from
"Electric Current". And I need far more clarity as to what Electric Field
is , as students are confused between electric current and Electric field.
In a book of Advanced Logic, I must endeavor to make Electric Field and
Electric Current as clear as possible. And after I write this clarity, I
must go back and edit the many books where I have Electric Field in the
weeds of non-clarity.
The historical problem here was Old Physics said there is no magnetic
monopole. New Physics shows us there is the magnetic monopole and we have
to change much of the units of Old Physics.
In my 137th book, I wrote these ideas on Electric Field. Introduction to
AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1
by Archimedes Plutonium
81) Angular Momentum is really Electric Field, and Force per meter as
strength of force is really Magnetic Field.
89) Truth about gravity as mechanism is the Sun creates a magnetic field
track, and the planets follow in that path of the field track at their
distance from the Sun, and what pushes and pulls the planets in those
magnetic field tracks is the electric field which is angular momentum, as
electricity shoot from the Sun pushing and pulling the planet along in its
magnetic field track.
In my 145th book, I wrote these ideas of Electric Field. TEACHING TRUE
PHYSICS// Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
by Archimedes Plutonium
I suspect the Electric field is the same thing as angular momentum and is
not the Voltage. What makes me say that is because Linear Momentum is a
total physics fiction. The Universe has no linear momentum, for everything
goes around in a closed circuit. Since there is only Angular Momentum (by
the way, another logical proof that the universe is a single atom totality
for atoms are circular entities), since there is only Angular Momentum,
then it is a safe bet that Electric field E -field is Angular Momentum and
not Voltage.
In my 146th book, I wrote these ideas of Electric Field. TEACHING TRUE
PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3
by Archimedes Plutonium
PHYSICS LAWS
1) Facts of chemistry and physics
2) Voltage V = kg*m^2/(A*s^3)
3) Amount of Current C = A*s = magnetic monopoles
4) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /(A*s^2)
5) Electric Field E = kg m^2/(A*s)
6) V = C*B*E New Ohm's law, law of electricity
7) V' = (C*B*E)' Capacitor Law of Physics
8) (V/C*E)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
9) (V/(B*E))' = C' Faraday law
10) (V/(C*B))' = E' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
It is the Magnetic field with B= kg/A*s^2, while Electric field (or angular
momentum) is E = kg*m^2/A*s so as to make Voltage work out, after
multiplying B*E by A, as kg*m^2/A*s^3. Now we do get a kg^2 but because
mass is scalar we just denote it as kg end result.
Force of course as F= kg*(m/s^2), Energy as E = kg (m^2/s^2), Pressure =
kg/(m*s^2)
So the student can see, these 4 concepts all separated from one another by
a meter, whether in denominator or in the numerator.
Since all forces are EM, and according to Physics Primal Axiom Principle--
All is Atom, and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. Then, we
should be able to unify force with pressure with energy with voltage. And
of course, voltage must play a key role since all forces are EM. But here
we can safely say that Magnetic Field is likely to be the unifier.
Notice Magnetic field has just kg, and current A and seconds^2. The s^2 is
in force, energy, pressure. I am sure the Magnetic field is the unifier.
electric current = A and where we also write 1/A = i electric current for
current divided into 1 is still current.
Quantity of Electricity, Coulomb = C = A*s ( not the silly daffy + or -
charge but a wire of magnetic monopoles)
New Ohm's law is Voltage = C*B*E
Angular momentum L = m^2/(C*s)
Magnetic Field is B = kg /A*s^2
Electric Field is E = kg*m^2/ C*s
Voltage = kg*m^2 /A*s^3
velocity or speed = m/s
acceleration = m/s^2
angular momentum = m^2/(C)s
frequency = 1/s
Force = kg*m/s^2
Pressure = (i)kg / m*s^2
Energy = kg*m^2 / A*s^2
Power, or radiant flux = Energy times frequency, = (i) kg*m^2 / s^3
Magnetic Field = kg /A*s^2 = kg /C*s
Amount or quantity of current = Coulomb = A*s = wire ( not the silly daffy
+ or - charge, but an actual wire of magnetic monopoles)
Voltage = kg*m^2 /A*s^3 = kg*m^2 /C*s^2
Pressure = (i)kg/m*s^2
Force = (i)kg*m/s^2
Power = (i)kg*m^2/s^3
Resistance = B*E = kg*m^2/A^2*s^3
Capacitance = A^2*s^4/ kg*m^2
velocity or speed = m/s
acceleration = m/s^2
angular momentum L = kg m^2/(C)s
frequency = 1/s
Force = (i)kg*m/s^2
Pressure = (i)kg / m*s^2
Energy = (i)kg*m^2 / s^2
Power, or radiant flux = Energy times frequency, = (i)kg*m^2 / s^3
Now these units are electricity and magnetism units
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Quantity of Electricity, Coulomb = C = A*s
Voltage is the (a) Electric Potential, the (b) Potential Difference and (c)
Electromotive Force and all of which has the Units of W/A = kg*m^2/A*s^3
Capacitance = farad = C/V = A^2*s^4 / kg*m^2
Electrical Resistance = ohm = kg*m^2 /A^2*s^3
Conductance = A/V = A^2*s^3 / kg*m^2
Magnetic Flux = V*s = kg*m^2 /A*s^2
Magnetic Field = tesla = kg /A*s^2
Resistance = kg*m^2/A^2*s^3
Inductance = kg*m^2 /A^2*s^2
82) Angular Momentum is really Electric Field, and Force per meter as
strength of force is really Magnetic Field.
102) A whole-scale revision of Units of Old Physics, for they missed a
current term A in Newton's F=ma, and a Coulomb term in Electric Field as
kg*m^2/C*s, where C =A*s.
In my 151st book, I wrote these ideas of the Electric Field. TEACHING TRUE
PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4
by Archimedes Plutonium
So, this is our first geometrical picture of the Magnetic Monopole and we
see the algebraic picture of magnetic field and electric field below as no
difference between the two concepts is that electric field has a meters^2
in numerator and so does magnetic field have meters^2 in numerator. So what
makes them different? The only thing to make them different is one is at 90
degrees perpendicular to the other. They both have to be the same algebraic
units in order for them to compose a light wave.
Magnetic Field B = m^2/ A*s^2 = m^2/ C*s
Electric Field is E = m^2/ A*s^2 = m^2/ C*s
So how do we geometrically construct a magnetic field and a electric field
to be a magnetic monopole.
Answer: The answer comes from a very astonishing place, a place that no-one
in Old Physics would ever think of, even in their wildest imagination. The
place is biology of the DNA molecule.
Electric Field is E = m^2/ A*s^2 = m^2/ C*s
So what is Electric Field? Is it a force or a energy? E = m^2/ A*s^2 looks
to be that of energy. But E = m^2/ C*s looks to be that of force.
And here we are going to leave it as that Electric field and the Magnetic
field are both forces and energy all at once. This would be another duality
to add to our list of dualities of particle to wave duality, of electricity
to magnetism duality. And let me add some dualities of mathematics for the
cube is a duality of octahedron in regular polyhedron, and that addition is
the duality of subtraction.
In the case of Magnetic field and Electric field, both being the same units
and where both have A*s^2 or have C*s in denominator. That both fields are
force and are energy at the same time, depending on whether you are using
the denominator as A*s^2 for energy or as C*s for force since C, Coulomb is
force. This is especially true for Magnetic field has the same units as
Electric field and the magnetic field is known for its "Lines of Force".
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 23, 2025, 2:35:01 PM (10 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Wednesday, April 23, 2025 at 2:18:40 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
The difficulty in correcting Electric Field of Old Physics, is they had no
magnetic monopole and so their units were wrong and mistaken.
In Old Physics, it was difficult to even explain the difference of Electric
Current and that of Electric Field when no magnetic monopole exists for Old
Physics.
I am looking for ultimate clarity so that I can teach a High School
student-- this is what Electric Current is and this is what Electric Field
is. And I believe the best way to do that is through the Faraday law of Sun
and Earth gravity force.
I need a chapter on "Electric field" explaining how it is different from
"Electric Current". And I need far more clarity as to what Electric Field
is , as students are confused between electric current and Electric field.
In a book of Advanced Logic, I must endeavor to make Electric Field and
Electric Current as clear as possible. And after I write this clarity, I
must go back and edit the many books where I have Electric Field in the
weeds of non-clarity.
The historical problem here was Old Physics said there is no magnetic
monopole. New Physics shows us there is the magnetic monopole and we have
to change much of the units of Old Physics.
In my 137th book, I wrote these ideas on Electric Field. Introduction to
AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1
by Archimedes Plutonium
81) Angular Momentum is really Electric Field, and Force per meter as
strength of force is really Magnetic Field.
89) Truth about gravity as mechanism is the Sun creates a magnetic field
track, and the planets follow in that path of the field track at their
distance from the Sun, and what pushes and pulls the planets in those
magnetic field tracks is the electric field which is angular momentum, as
electricity shot from the Sun pushing and pulling the planet along in its
magnetic field track.
So here is the explanation of Gravity of how Sun holds onto Earth in a
Magnetic Field track. But is the Sun shooting Electric Current __fore and
aft___ into Earth pulling and pushing Earth in that Magnetic Field track,
or, is it the Electric Field of the Sun that pushes Earth in the Magnetic
Field track???
So here I may have made mistakes in my earlier writings of book 137th.
I probably will have a massive editing job once I make clear what Electric
Field is. And I am not looking forward to any of that editing.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 23, 2025, 2:54:17 PM (10 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Wednesday, April 23, 2025 at 2:18:40 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(massive snip)
V = C*B*E New Ohm's law, law of electricity
New Ohm's law forms the basis for all the Electromagnetic Theory Laws. By
taking the derivative of V, then C then B then E in turn, form new laws in
differential equation format. C' is Faraday law, and B' is Ampere law and
E' is Coulomb law. V' is Capacitor law.
I was thinking that since the primal essence of Atomic Theory is the shape
of the proton as torus, that the torus geometry should be in the
Mathematical Equation form of V = C*B*E and instead of voltage we are
talking of Volume of torus.
Looking at Wikipeda torus formulas in Cartesian coordinates. I see these
formulas.
(sqaure root (x^2 + y^2) - R)^2 + z^2 = r^2 which turns into a quartic
equation of this.
(x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + R^2 - r^2)^2 = 4R^2(x^2 + y^2) where, when R greater r
we have ring torus; R= r no hole torus and R less than r spindle torus.
What I am exploring here is that the Geometry form of V = C*B*E is a torus
geometry. And that, not only are protons as toruses but that Light Waves
with their B field and E field are toruses in 3rd dimension. So that as a
Visible Light Wave hits the surface of a plant, it is a long stretched out
torus, a pencil ellipse torus.
So what I am going to try to show in this book Advanced Logic is that
Voltage = C*B*E is the same as (x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + R^2 - r^2)^2 = 4R^2(x^2 +
y^2).
AP, King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 23, 2025, 5:00:25 PM (10 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
More on solving Electric Field.
In my 271st book, I wrote these ideas on the Electric Field. Recalibrating
physics units to one another, Calculus derivative, velocity, New Ohm's law
// physics-math
by Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 16, 2024, 9:11:56 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
It is appealing to have magnetic field units be (1/A)(meters/second) and
for electric field units be (A)(meters/second) for that makes Voltage be
units of energy in the V = A*(B*E).
And where we get the vector cross product using sine for BxE as the area of
parallelogram (the parallelogram rule of physics) of (BxE), or using the
angle complament of the sine angle we find the vector dot product of B*E to
have the same value as cross product. This complamentarity of magnetism to
electricity; of sine to cosine; of vector cross product to vector dot
product, compelling reason to see the A, Ampere in magnetic field is
inverse to A in the electric field.
And this ties in well with the calculus of mathematics that the angular
momentum derivative with respect to time is energy so that the highest
dimension in both math and physics when we speak of geometry dimension is
3rd dimension. So that voltage units as Ampere current * meters^2/seconds^2
fits all logical points of interest.
And in turn, we then obtain superconductivity into the Voltage equation
where the Resistance is the term (B*E) and when the sine angle is 90
degrees -- subsequently cosine is thus 0 degrees, both with a value of 1 or
superconductivity capable. We interpret that as meaning the flow of
electricity as magnetic monopoles is passing through a material where the
magnetism and electricity are perfectly aligned at 90 degrees. The more the
angle is not 90 degrees the more resistance is involved.
That leaves me to straighten out a very difficult problem of the units of
Ampere and Coulomb. And it is here that is most saddening to Old Physics.
For they used "charge" to quell all questions of theory, but never defined
the two precisely. It is a current no doubt, but the trouble is, it is both
wave and particle. How do you define electricity as a wave? How do you have
an equation of how many waves of EM spectrum superpositioned on one another
then collapse into a particle of 0.5MeV go to compose a unit of
electricity. So you measure Ampere as particle or wave, same question for
Coulomb.
Old Physics was a world absent of magnetic monopoles, and being absent, you
can be sure it was full of mistakes on units such as Electric Field,
Magnetic Field, Voltage and other units.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 23, 2025, 7:27:40 PM (10 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
In Advanced Logic, let us have a chapter devoted to the volume of Torus as
being Voltage.
When R greater than r of a torus interior (square root (x^2 + y^2) - R)^2 +
z^2 < r^2 the Surface Area is A = (2pi*r)(2pi*R) = 4pi^2 Rr
and the volume is V = (pi*r^2)(2pi*R) = 2pi^2*R*r^2.
Contrast with cylinder, A = 2pi*r^2 + 2pi*r*h and V = pi*r^2 *h.
However, I am looking for what I call a Ellipse, a pencil-ellipse torus,
Torus, instead of these circular toruses.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 23, 2025, 11:45:02 PM (10 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
In Advanced Logic, every major Principle of Science needs to be reviewed
and see if it can be linked with another principle of science. If it can,
then this is supporting evidence it is a true principle, if not, like
Uncertainty Principle cannot be linked up, is cause for concern that the
principle is fake.
Back in year 2017, I was lucky to discover that the true electron of Atoms
was the Muon and not the 0.5MeV particle which was the Dirac magnetic
monopole. And soon, in 2017 I realized the proton was a torus with muons
inside doing the Faraday law and that is how stars and sun shine, not from
fusion but from Faraday Law. And in 2017 upon this realization, I needed a
speed and a configuration geometry of the Faraday law.
I kept running into the question of the design of the Proton torus with
Muons inside doing the Faraday law and how much electricity is produced in
all hydrogen atoms, all helium atoms, etc.
It was not long in 2017 that I discovered, some would say invented the
Maximum Electricity Principle of a Proton torus with muons inside. Many
times I needed to invoke this Principle. And I accepted it as another one
of those "Nature seeks perfection" ideas. I discovered the unification of 4
forces as a EM unification for EM has the "most perfect particle-- the
photon-light wave. You are not going to have a unification of forces to a
force without the most perfect particle. Here was another discovery
invoking that Nature seeks perfection, that the Photon is "perfect DNA".
So in year 2017 with the discovery of how stars and sun shine from Faraday
law, I needed to have a principle of how Faraday law is conducted inside
each and every Proton torus, the speed of muons, the shape of muons and the
amount of electricity production. And so in 2017 was the Maximum
Electricity Production Principle inside of proton torus borne.
In this book, I want to link Maximum Electricity Production Principle to
other principles of physics.
is maximum electricity production a mirror image formula of New Ohm's Law
V=iBL
25 views
Subscribe
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Sep 2, 2018, 1:15:56 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 11:35:50 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
Electric generator how to maximize Re: Hund's Rule is a part of Ampere's Law
Quoting liberally for much of this is clear educational
Source: Edison Tech . Org
In the most basic sense a generator/dynamo is one magnet rotating while
inside the influence of another magnet's magnetic field. You cannot see a
magnetic field, but it is often illustrated using lines of flux. In the
illustration above lines of magnetic flux would follow the lines created by
the iron filings.
The generator/dynamo is made up of stationary magnets (stator) which create
a powerful magnetic field, and a rotating magnet (rotor) which distorts and
cuts through the magnetic lines of flux of the stator. When the rotor cuts
through lines of magnetic flux it makes electricity.
But why?
Due to Faraday's Law of Induction if you take a wire and move it back and
forth in a magnetic field, the field pushes on electrons in the metal.
Copper has 27 electrons, the last two in the orbit are easily pushed on to
the next atom. This movement of electrons is electrical flow.
On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 11:40:08 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
Re: stop and give a long lecture Re: Hund's Rule is a part of Ampere's Law
Again quoting EdisonTechCenter.org for their writing style is superior as
educational—
If you take a lot of wire such as in a coil and move it in the field, you
create a more powerful "flow" of electrons. The strength of your generator
depends on:
"l"-Length of the conductor in the magnetic field
"v"-Velocity of the conductor (speed of the rotor)
"B"-Strength of the electromagnetic field
You can do calculations using this formula: e = B x l x v
On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 11:47:52 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
Electric generator how to maximize Re: Hund's Rule is a part of Ampere's Law
Sorry the iphone is often tricky to handle on copy paste of posts
I was trying to capture the lucid writings of generator in
EdisonTechCenter.org
Quoting—
If you take a lot of wire such as in a coil and move it in the field, you
create a more powerful "flow" of electrons. The strength of your generator
depends on:
Much of this I already knew but some i did not.
I knew the amount of windings increase increases current. And the more snug
fit of coil to magnet increases electricity and the faster the thrust
increases electricity
AP
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2018 22:36:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: EdisonTechCenter.org website lists "e = B x L x v" which looks
similar to AP-Maxwell equation of V = iBL , New Ohms law
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2018 05:36:05 +0000
EdisonTechCenter.org website lists "e = B x L x v" which looks similar to
AP-Maxwell equation of V = iBL , New Ohms law
Again quoting EdisonTechCenter.org for their writing style is superior as
educational—
If you take a lot of wire such as in a coil and move it in the field, you
create a more powerful "flow" of electrons. The strength of your generator
depends on:
"l"-Length of the conductor in the magnetic field
"v"-Velocity of the conductor (speed of the rotor)
"B"-Strength of the electromagnetic field
You can do calculations using this formula: e = B x l x v
One of the reasons I wanted to quote this website so liberally is that it
has the above formula for maximum production of electricity. And that
formula is so very very close to the AP-Maxwell Equation of New Ohm's Law.
Quoting from my 2017 textbook Atom Totality:
Resistance = kg*m^2 /A^2*s^3
electric current = i = A
Angular momentum L = m^2/(A*s)
Magnetic Field = kg /A*s^2
Voltage = kg*m^2 /A*s^3
So we have V = iR as the Old Ohm's law, the New Ohm's law would be
V = i*B*L , you see, when we multiply the units i*B*L above, we end up with
the units of voltage shown above.
What this means is that Resistance was two concepts all lumped together as
one concept, for it was a angular momentum multiply Magnetic Field. Because
R was two concepts in one, the higher the current messed up the
angular-momentum of the Resistance and thus not a universal law. But now
that the Ohm's law is really V = i*B*L it becomes a universal physics law
of Nature.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Sep 2, 2018, 1:16:33 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2018 22:44:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: profound insight into EM theory// lists "e = B x L x v" which looks
similar to AP-Maxwell equation of V = iBL , New Ohms law
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2018 05:44:13 +0000
profound insight into EM theory// lists "e = B x L x v" which looks similar
to AP-Maxwell equation of V = iBL , New Ohms law
- show quoted text -
So here is a super super intriguing question that needs an answer. If the
correct Electromagnetism formula that forms the basis of the EM theory is
of the form A = B*C*D. Then, does that mean that the highest, most
efficient generator of physics of EM must also have an equation whose math
form is A' = B'*C'*D'
If one applies much thought to that question, can easily see it is a
profound insight into physics. The the maximum electricity of a generator
follows exactly in the footsteps of the formula that forms EM theory.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Sep 4, 2018, 12:46:02 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2018 14:31:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: bring in PV = nRT Re: profound insight into EM theory// lists "e =
B
x L x v" which looks similar to AP-Maxwell equation of V = iBL , New Ohms
law
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2018 21:31:37 +0000
bring in PV = nRT Re: profound insight into EM theory// lists "e = B x L x
v" which looks similar to AP-Maxwell equation of V = iBL , New Ohms law
- show quoted text -
Let me take a break here in the action and repeat an old post of mine
concerning another Physics formula that looks like A = B*C*D
--- quoting textbook Atom Totality 2017 ---
But now, let me speak about the Unification of Thermodynamics with the EM
theory. No such unification was ever possible so long as physics had just
one force law, F = ma. But now that physics has two force laws, F = dq/dt (
a current), then a unification is possible. Consider force as having to be
a duality definition, where you have two different definitions but
necessary. For electricity is dual to magnetism, each is different but both
necessary for any event involving electricity or magnetism. Both are always
present, but both are different.
And the easiest way to proceed in the Unification of Thermodynamics is via
the Chemistry Ideal Gas Law.
PV = nRT
What I propose to do here, is show that PV = nRT is just the same as the
New Physics New Ohm's Law of V = iBL.
And the reasoning behind that, is that PV = nRT is just the same as V = iBL
only the symbols and parameters were translated.
So all I need do is show that
PV = (nR)T
is the same as
V = iBL
The logic behind this, is that charge becomes a macroscopic issue in ideal
gas law
Voltage is what? Is it Pressure or Volume?
Temperature T is what? Is it the Magnetic Field B or is it the angular
momentum L?
So, I start with what I am most sure of at the moment. That current i is
(nR).
Is voltage more like pressure or more like volume? Tough question
If voltage is pressure, then I need 1/Volume on the other side as
(nR)*T*(1/V)
So, which makes more "physical sense" an inverse volume or an inverse
pressure?
Which will physics allow? Will physics allow volume to be inverted and
retain physical sense, or will physics allow pressure to be inverted and
retain physical sense?
Volume is in brief, side*side*side, and can that have a physical meaning as
1/(side*side*side)
Or does Pressure inverted as 1/P retain physical meaning?
The units of pressure are kg/m*s^2, which easily reminds one of the units
of the Magnetic Field B= kg/A*s^2
So, let me start over.
(nR)T = PV
Thus, Pressure is the analog of Magnetic Field, and Volume is the analog of
L, angular momentum
That leaves us with (nR) once inverted as 1/(nR) is the analog of i, the
electric current.
And finally, Temperature T in Ideal Gas Law of Chemistry is the same as
Voltage of New Ohm's law.
Thus we have
Voltage = i * B * L
and
Temperature = (1/nR) * P * V as the best-true way of writing Ideal Gas
Law, because now, we see that this law is All of Thermodynamics in one
single equation.
At a young age we realize, and do not have to be taught, that Space is 3rd
dimension, so that you have length, width and depth. Three things to make
Space.
Now the three should be in the most general of science formulas or math of
science.
We have the three in New Ohm's law V= i*B*L for we have three things on the
right-side of equation. Voltage is where three things come together.
And so important is V=iBL that it forms all the forces of physics. In a
sense V=iBL and its calculus forms the math of most of physics.
So, there is something magical about having three things form something.
Atomic theory has three things forming atoms-- electron, proton, photon
(neutron is just a composite of electron, proton,photon). But with
electron, proton, photon we form all the atoms (consider a neutrino as a
special type of photon).
In general, in principle, three things form a fourth thing. Electrons,
protons, photons forms atoms. Current, Magnetic Field, Angular Momentum,
forms Voltage.
So, we have New Ohm's law
V= iBL
we have Chemistry's Ideal Gas Law
PV = (nR)T
that law can be better written as
T = (1/nR) * P * V
where the Temperature is the analog of voltage, it is not voltage itself,
but a analog, a look-alike.
The (1/nR) is the analog of current dq/dt.
The pressure P is the analog of Magnetic Field , where one is kg/m*s^2,
other is kg/A*s^2.
The V volume is the analog of L, angular momentum in EM theory.
What I am doing is unifying Thermodynamics with that of EM theory of
physics, but first I need to show that the Ideal Gas Law is V= iBL, so that
thermodynamics is just a special way of looking at electricity and
magnetism. By "special way" I mean where we have force as both F = ma and F
= dQ/dt.
Will the 2nd law of thermodynamics be true after we have unification?
Surprizingly, with a small change in how we view the 2nd Law, it is true,
and much stronger than even before.
One way of stating the 2nd law of Thermodynamics-- entropy or disorder
always increases, another way, heat always flows from hot to cold, another
way, limitations on perpetual motion.
Each one of those can be found stronger and more clear, with this
unification.
Heat always flows from hot to cold, yet we can hold a cold laser or x ray
beam flowing from cold aiming at a star-- a hot body. Here is where we have
cold to hot heat flow, and have to realize the use of F= dQ/ds rather than
F =ma
No perpetual motion is untrue, for the electrons inside stable atoms are
perpetual motion. Here again, we must distinguish between F= ma and F =
dQ/ds.
--- end quoting textbook Atom Totality 2017 ---
AP
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 24, 2025, 3:25:23 PM (9 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Some of my history involving the Maximum Electricity Production Principle
of muons inside proton torus doing the Faraday Law.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:26:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Mass and Magnetism and Charge
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 04:26:16 +0000
Mass and Magnetism and Charge
On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 6:40:19 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> So what in physics can be the rootstock. Can Magnetism be the rootstock?
Could magnetism in that it is always dipole be mass.
>
> And so, you have a dipole moment with polar lines of force and you tack
onto that polar lines of force, attraction force only and you tack on a
equatorial lines of force, a rotation that causes charge, electric charge.
You started out with magnetism and dressed it up with equator spin and now
you have an electron.
>
> I do not think this is going to work unless i can include the massive
proton.
>
> AP
Table of Elementary Particles and deriving their rest-mass AP/Maxwell
theory/ textbook, 7th ed.
small discrepancy 951 versus 938 Re: Proton = 9 muons; the 205 Rule of
restmass /textbook 7th ed
Now I am not too worried about the numbers not coming out exactly perfect
in that:
in MeV
Proton has 938.3
Electron has .51
Muon has 105.7
and that 9 times 105.7 is 951.3 MeV. It would be nice that we had say 945
with 105 so that 9 times would be exactly 945.
I am not worried because a Muon is a neutrino tube with a energetic gamma
ray inside to form a muon. So what rest mass does a neutrino tube have to
account for the discrepancy of 951 to 938, a discrepancy of 13 MeV.
Time for me to see how to package 9 Muons to compose 1 Proton.
We start with the idea that the electron is a packaged photon running
around inside a neutrino. Think of the neutrino as the sac holding a photon
and the two together is 1 electron. This electron would be in the shape of
a torus tube of a longitudinal wave holding inside a 4 vector Double
transverse wave of the photon.
AP
On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 4:49:51 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
How Attraction Force as the only Magnetic Force tells us more about
particles, mass, spin and the Maxwell theory
Some days back, I did an experiment with magnets to confirm if the
SuperMagnete German company claiming attraction of magnets is 5-10% greater
than any repulse in magnets. I got in my experiment 7%.
All I needed was a difference, a attraction that was larger than repulsion,
to claim that Magnetism only comes in Attraction Force. What we think of as
repulsion is a DSSO, Denial of Same Space Occupancy, the Pauli Exclusion
Principle.
On Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 3:19:04 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Wonderful experiment by SuperMagnete, Germany, they get 5-10% attraction
magnetism greater than repel// I got 7%
On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 11:44:34 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
5prepage38// Experimental Proof that Real Proton= 833 MeV while Real
Electron is muon 105 MeV
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2017 22:57:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: crackpot Higgs boson was just 105 Sigma particles Re: the theory of
9s as the Wavefunction number Re: prePage38, 5-3, 9Muons= 1Proton/
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 06:57:08 +0000
crackpot Higgs boson was just 105 Sigma particles Re: the theory of 9s as
the Wavefunction number Re: prePage38, 5-3, 9Muons= 1Proton/
Alright now, it is past my bedtime, but some days my curiosity is so
perked.
So, lets look at the ultimate crackpot physics particle in terms of wasted
time, wasted money, wasted lifetime in physics. You know it-- the Higgs
boson.
So, what did they find? They found a particle of 125,000 MeV/c^2 rest mass
and 0 charge.
Now, divide 125000 by 105 and we get 1190 approx.
Now, look in Halliday & Resnick 1986, table of particles, A27 for any
particle of 1190 and we see that the Sigma particle is 1192 MeV with 0
charge.
So, what did all that wasted money and time and lifetime of crackpot
physicists find with the Higgs? They found that their machine can
conglomerate 1190 Muons into a packet which is that of 105 Sigma particles
for a rest mass of 125000 MeV.
In other words, the crackpots observed a packet of 105 Sigma Particles.
Please, do not let these crackpot physicists waste the time, money, and
lifetime of more physicists.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 12:38:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: particle in the 840 MeV range? Re: the theory of 9s as the
Wavefunction number
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 20:38:45 +0000
particle in the 840 MeV range? Re: the theory of 9s as the Wavefunction
number
- show quoted text -
Now in Halliday & Resnick's classic textbook-- PHYSICS, part 2, extended
version, 1986, page A27, "The Particles of Physics" is a page that should
have been revised every 3 years hence forward by the Physics community.
Instead of wasting time, wasting money, wasting life careers in chasing
after crackpot ideas of Higgs boson, the physics community should have
spent time every year with looking to revise and improve that table.
And the Glaring question that sticks out-- why no rest mass of any particle
between 548 eta meson and 938 proton and why no particle between 939
neutron and 1116 Lambda in MeV rest mass.
Why no particles.
So I looked to see if anyone has tried to continue the work of H&R in a
table that is up to date.
In Wikipedia, I could find none.
But in Wikipedia, they classify the particles as to Generation, three
generations so the electron, muon, tau is three generations. The neutrinos
are in three generations.
Now, how does the 9 Model theory as 9 is the number for Schrodinger
collapsed and uncollapsed wavefunction. Well if you notice 3x3 = 9. The
number 3 is psi, so psi^2 is 9
So, the Leptons have 3 members, the neutrinos have 3 members, the Atom has
3 members-- proton, electron, photon (neutron = proton+electron+photon),
(photon = neutrino)
Now the reason I asked why not keep the H&R table up to date is because a
proof of the 9-Theory hinges on the idea that the Real-Electron= 1Muon and
that a proton is just 8Muons.
Every particle of rest mass is a stacking of muons. If the stacking is even
number means it is positive charge +1, if the stacking is odd number means
it is -1 charge.
This leaves the question of what in the world is the "little electron" the
-1 charge with rest mass .5MeV? What is that particle? I do not fully know
at this moment other than to say it is a carrier particle to take away the
-1 charge. Somehow, the electron exists as both a muon and a .5MeV
particle, but the electron that is inside a hydrogen atom is not the .5
electron but the 105 Muon. So when a proton is read off of energy 940 MeV,
it is really just 840 for the proton with the muon at 105.
So, what I need is a huge experiment to be undertaken-- probing a proton to
see if it is a conglomeration of Muons, 8 Muons to compose the proton and
thus 8x105 = 840 MeV. Has physics ever witnessed a 840 MeV particle, and it
would have a +1 charge.
This is why I ask, why is there no particle of restmass below 940 in the
800 range and none above in the 1040 range.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 13:12:30 -0800 (PST)
Subject: REAL PROTON = 833 MeV Re: particle in the 840 MeV range? Re: the
theory of 9s as the Wavefunction number
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 21:12:30 +0000
REAL PROTON = 833 MeV Re: particle in the 840 MeV range? Re: the theory of
9s as the Wavefunction number
- show quoted text -
Alright, Wikipedia has it stashed away in the List of Baryons, and they
have almost the same as Halliday & Resnick
proton 938
neutron 939
Lambda 1115
Sigma 1189
Sigma 1192
Sigma 1197
Now Wikipedia has a piss poor table on the mesons, virtually unreadable. So
I have to look at individual mesons
The eta-meson 547 MeV
another eta-meson 957 MeV
So here, what it is telling me, is that no REST MASS particle between 547
and the proton at 938.
What I need is that the REAL-PROTON is actually rest mass of 835-840 approx
The REAL-ELECTRON is the muon at 105 MeV
So far, it is looking good, extremely good for the 9 Theory of the
Schrodinger Wave Equation. That the 938 Rest Mass of the old proton and the
939 of the old neutron are actually 833 proton + 105 muon for REAL PROTON
and 834proton + 105 muon for REAL NEUTRON rest mass.
The reason no particle in the 800 range is because that is the REAL PROTON
AP
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 14:01:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: REAL PROTON = 833 MeV Re: particle in the 840 MeV range? Re: the
theory of 9s as the Wavefunction number
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 22:01:08 +0000
REAL PROTON = 833 MeV Re: particle in the 840 MeV range? Re: the theory of
9s as the Wavefunction number
Now to prove this theory that the REAL PROTON is approx 833 MeV is to find
a particle of that rest mass
And no better place to look than -- how are muons formed
AP
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 14:18:07 -0800 (PST)
Subject: REAL PROTON = 833 MeV Re: particle in the 840 MeV range? Re: the
theory of 9s as the Wavefunction number
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 22:18:08 +0000
REAL PROTON = 833 MeV Re: particle in the 840 MeV range? Re: the theory of
9s as the Wavefunction number
So how are muons produced in order to prove the Real-Proton is 833 MeV
Wikipedia says they are produced mostly in linear accelerators from baryons
and that implies from 940 protons and neutrons
So we can easily summon a Statistical proof that in order to produce muons
you are cutting apart a 938 proton yielding a 833 proton along with 105
muon.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 07:49:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: until we experimentally measure the maximum electricity coil mass
of
magnet versus mass coil Re:.. writing the definitive textbook on Physics,
seeing that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 14:49:48 +0000
until we experimentally measure the maximum electricity coil mass of magnet
versus mass coil Re:.. writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing
that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up
On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 3:37:40 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> No it is not a mistake on my part as a friend pointed out.
>
> I know angular momentum is kg*meter*meter/ seconds
>
> But what is distance inside a atom
>
We have the electron-dot-cloud and how does one make out distance in that
setting.
So I looked into calling it the Angular Energy 1/2mv^2 the counterpart of
Kinetic Energy
For in the equation of motion Y = mx + b
The integral is (m/2)x^2 + bx
And so, is the "x^2" distance or mass
> So for electrons and protons angular momentum can be seen as
mass*mass*frequency
>
> Linear momentum is mass*velocity
>
> For large objects we have distance and area. For atomic and molecular we
have mass^2
>
Source-- Feynman's Lecture on Physics
Table 2-3. Elementary Interactions
Coupling Strength* Law
Photon to charged particles ~10 -2 Law known
Gravity to all energy ~10 -40 Law known
radioactive decay ~10 -5 Law partially known
Mesons to baryons ~1 Law unknown (some rules known)
*The strength is a dimensionless measure of the coupling constant involved
in each interaction ( ~ means approximately equal to).
So Feynman says approx 1/100 for EM versus Strong-Nuclear
When we have muon = electron and .5MeV = magnetic monopole, using Y = mx+b
We have (m/2) x^2 + bx integral
Since muon = 105 and proton = 840 MeV we have 1/8*1/8*1/2 = 1/128
So did Feynman mean 1/100 or better yet 1/128
I have asked for experimental evidence of Maximum Electric Coil in Faraday
Law wherein we measure the mass of the coil versus mass of the bar Magnet.
Therein, is there a ratio of 1 to 8 also?
We do see a ratio of 1 to 8 in Lewis Structure of energy levels, for Lewis
went on the idea of 2S plus 2P orbitals are same energy level and thus
Lewis had his atoms surrounded by 8 electrons. The AP structure is far
different than Lewis in the AP structure is Faraday law with proton as coil
and electron = muon = bar magnet.
So here I need experimental proof that 8 or 1/8 is a relationship of
Maximum coil to bar magnet in Faraday's Law.
> That was not a mistake on my part, yesterday, but a reconciliation of Y
=mx+b is linear momentum but the integral is angular momentum and the
(m/2)x^2 +bx that x^2 is not meters^2 but mass^2
>
>
It is easy to see that linear momentum mv when taking the integral is
1/2mv^2 is Linear Kinetic Energy and then taking the derivative of Linear
Kinetic Energy is momentum mv
So taking the integral of angular momentum kg*v*frequency is what sort of
energy? So thus, I proposed that angular momentum inside atoms was
mass^2*frequency in Y= mx+b
AP
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 09:08:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Radio waves are longitudinal cycloid waves Re: New experiment,
does a
1/2 circle also produce a Cycloid
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2018 16:08:35 +0000
Radio waves are longitudinal cycloid waves Re: New experiment, does a 1/2
circle also produce a Cycloid
On Sunday, July 8, 2018 at 2:46:29 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Experiment. Get two used plastic yoghurt lids. With one cut in 1/2. Now
mark the full lid and 1/2 lid. Roll them. Do we get a cycloid for both?
Let us call all of this Wave Theory. And I never imagined I would be
tinkering around with wave theory--considering it is so primitive and
fundamental. Yet, here I am, because, well, most scientists have little to
no logic abilities.
I guess, when a person is borne, and who later grows up to be a scientist,
no matter who, he or she is, is cloaked in a veil of "subjectivity"
throughout their science careers, with only a few moments " in objective,
logical true science". One can only assume that scenario-- objective true
logical and real science, only rarely takes place.
And only great truths of science-- atomic theory, last, but then examine
that history. It took nearly 3,000 years to firmly establish itself. Which
is not a testament to -- humans make good scientists-- not a testament at
all, but rather an indication that science truth takes thousands of years.
Now we can write the history of science by the inventions and the
technology that is existing, and divorce ourselves from the history of
science ideas. When we do that, we can say-- oh well, humanity is a
magnificent achiever-- but, maybe the verdict is out on that for perhaps
our inventions are hurdling us to our extinction, as we extinct so many
species we inhabit this planet with. Read a few days ago that the "wild
banana" in Nature is all but extinct, left to only 5 living plants.
But I am surprised I am on this topic of Waves, and Wave theory, for you
would think, the theory would be all settled with no major mistakes. But
alas, huge mistakes.
So, what I am tackling is the idea that if the insides of Atoms is mostly
all about performance of the Faraday law by muons and protons to create a
new and larger atom by creating magnetic monopoles, if that is the major
role of existence of atoms, then the Wave theory has to originate from such
a activity and structure. Wave theory has to be a outcome of that
structure. And that structure geometry is a torus, for a torus does --
Maximum Electricity. That is tantamount to maximum magnetic monopole
creation. That is what Atoms are all about-- making new atoms. And to
achieve that goal, the geometry of Faraday Law is a torus and that geometry
would dictate -- what is a Wave.
So, we have Four different types of waves, although one can say that a
sinusoid wave is a elongation of a Semicircle wave and let me write those
two as this Semicircle/sinusoid. That leaves the world with just Three
types of waves. Longitudinal , Semicircle/sinusoid, Cycloid.
Longitudinal Wave || |||| || |||| compression rarefaction
Semicircle/sinusoid-- which I believe are fictional-- Nature does not
produce them for they require too much energy to sustain and if created
look like this
^v^v^v^v^v
Cycloid Wave-- whenever we see a wave that is not Longitudinal, then it is
Cycloid which looks like this
---^^^----
The Cycloid Wave requires a medium (forget all about the Michelson Morley
experiment and forget about Aether) Because the Cycloid Wave requires an
aether and exists in empty space because EM composes empty space. Space is
not empty, maybe empty of rest mass matter, but Space itself is EM Lines of
Force. So, what the Cycloid Wave is , is a packet of energy that is
transmitted down a guide-ray ( a DeBroglie type of guide) which is a EM
Line of Force. What Faraday called Lines of Force, such as a magnet has
lines of force. So a cycloid wave is a packet of energy and it has to move
in space. What it does is latch onto a nearby guide-ray of EM and that
packet of energy goes traveling down that guide ray
----^^^^----> cycloid wave is the ^^^^ and the guide-ray is -------> EM
line of force
Now if you examine the Cycloid Wave closely of its ^^^^^^^^
You can see it is all crests no trough as in the semicircle/sinusoid
However, you can be deceived on thinking that the crest of one to the crest
of the next -- that in between space-- you can be fooled into thinking it
is a trough
^ one crest, adjoins the next crest ^
^^
And that -- in between crests-- can fool you into thinking it is a trough.
So when you see water ripples, you can be fooled into thinking it is
sinusoid but in truth is just crest packed upon more crests.
Now the proof that Cycloid Wave is the only other existing wave from
Longitudinal is a energy proof.
For a packet of energy to move from point A to point B via either Cycloid
or Sinusoid, the amount of energy used to get packet from A to B is large
amount consumed if Sinusoid. But if it is Cycloid, it consumes little
energy to move it from A to B.
That is why my garden hose shows only Cycloid. If I injected huge amounts
of energy along the garden hose (guiding ray), I may eventually inject so
huge amount that a sinusoid starts to appear, only because such huge amount
of energy was placed into the system that the Cycloid wave interferes with
other cycloid waves. So that a sinusoid wave is just a interference pattern
of a highly energized cycloid wave system.
Another proof is that light waves bend when going from air into water. Can
a semicircle/sinusoid bend? No. But a cycloid wave can bend-- for
refraction is the idea that the guide-ray is a different guide ray in
different mediums (index of refraction). Semicircle/sinusoid have no guide
rays.
Now, a question never asked in Old Physics is ,-- does sound waves,
longitudinal wave bend or refract from air to water? It has been a long
time since I was in a swimming pool. I do recall that the sounds are
different underwater than in air. It would be interesting to try to
experiment with this. Have a pool all by yourself so little disturbance and
have a record player going and as calm as possible go underwater and see if
"sound is bent".
Longitudinal Waves do not need a guide ray. So I am guessing sound waves
are not refracted.
This leaves us with the all important Light Waves as Cycloid waves. I have
always been bothered by radio waves compared to light waves, both of course
being EM waves. How can such long wavelengths be small energy compared to
high energy then short wavelengths. Can Cycloid wave explain that the
easiest? I believe so, and what happens here, is that Radio waves are
cycloid waves that are not transverse but are cycloid into longitudinal--
for that would explain why Radio waves are so penetrating, while light
waves infrared ultraviolet are easily stopped. Because cycloid waves in
Radio waves are at the region in which EM cycloid waves transform into
longitudinal waves. We can call radio waves-- low energy long wavelengths
we can call the longitudinal EM spectrum.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 19:10:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Feynman’s thesis was Least Action// AP’s thesis is Principle of
Maximum Electricity to grow any and all atoms
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2018 02:10:14 +0000
Feynman’s thesis was Least Action// AP’s thesis is Principle of Maximum
Electricity to grow any and all atoms
Feynman—
THE PRINCIPLE OF LEAST ACTION IN QUANTUM MECHANICS. A generalization of
quantum mechanics is given in which the central mathematical concept is the
analogue of the action in classical mechanics. It is therefore applicable
to mechanical systems whose equations of motion cannot be put into
Hamiltonian form.
AP’s thesis is Maximum electricity to grow any and all atoms, Principle of
Maximum Electricity
AP— the interior of every atom is a muon as a Faraday law bar magnet with
attendant proton as coil producing magnetic monopoles that grow the atom
into a higher atomic number.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 01:07:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: anatomy of why Feynman did not discover Light Wave was cycloid,
never sinusoid Re: Feynman’s thesis was Least Action// AP’s thesis is
Maximum Electricity to grow any and all atoms
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2018 08:07:44 +0000
anatomy of why Feynman did not discover Light Wave was cycloid, never
sinusoid Re: Feynman’s thesis was Least Action// AP’s thesis is Maximum
Electricity to grow any and all atoms
Anatomy of why Feynman did not discover Light Wave was cycloid, never
sinusoid
- hide quoted text -
On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 2:11:56 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Here is another proof that the light wave must be a cycloid that obeys
Feynman’s Least Action Principle thus not possibly be a sinusoid
>
> —- source Wikipedia
>
> (Bernoulli)
>
> Given two points A and B in a vertical plane, what is the curve traced
out by a point acted on only by gravity, which starts at A and reaches B in
the shortest time.
>
> He published his solution in the journal in May of the following year,
and noted that the solution is the same curve as Huygens's tautochrone
curve. After deriving the differential equation for the curve by the method
given below, he went on to show that it does yield a cycloid.
Alright, I am not going to criticize Feynman for he gave much to physics,
especially his Least Action, for it is a big big principle and in a sense,
the reverse of Maximum Electricity that I so heavily depend on for the
major principle in all of physics.
The criticism that could be lodged on Feynman is that he adored Least
Action, much like I adore Maximum Electricity. And it is almost assured
that Feynman knew of the Bernoulli challenge to find the curve of shortest
time, for that was Least Action. So Feynman knew that, and why then, would
he not have linked that up with Light Waves, for if cycloid was shortest
time, surely the Light Wave would not be sinusoid but rather cycloid.
So I discovered this fact of physics just in the past week. And if I had
been Feynman, I too, would not have discovered this fact, because the
discovery of Light Wave = cycloid, needs that special geometry link up.
You see, in the anatomy of the discovery that Light is a cycloid wave, took
me from knowing that the proton and muon doing Faraday's law inside of
every atom where the muon is the bar magnet and proton is the coil, wound
so that the proton alone is a 1/2 torus but when the muon is paired and the
attendant protons are paired they form a full torus. A torus is a circle
and a torus goes for Maximum Electricity.
So, if I had been Feynman, I would have adored Least Action and known about
the cycloid as shortest time-- so, knowing that-- by all means Logical--
you can take the next step== Light is a cycloid wave.
But that is not the path to that discovery. The path was-- protons and
muons form toruses. Toruses are circles and the motion of circles is a
cycloid motion. That was my discovery path. I had to see circle motion of
toruses, and toruses would not be doing sinusoid motion, no, not at all.
So here we see that you need a large geometry picture before your mind can
make the big discovery. It cannot be a -- hint sort of leading to
discovery. It has to be more of a -- well-- sinusoid just does not make any
sense in this circumstance, let me look at cycloid.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 11:05:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Hoping to solve all the counterintuitive of Special Relativity--
light top speed is constant etc
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2018 18:05:22 +0000
Hoping to solve all the counterintuitive of Special Relativity-- light top
speed is constant etc
Alright I have an opportunity of solving all the conundrums, the
counterintuitive ideas of Special Relativity, with the Atom Totality theory
and the Maximum Electricity Principle, that inside each atom the proton and
its muon are doing the Faraday Law to grow the atom bigger.
Already, I solved the counterintuitive "Slow Light" that the news media has
spread as disinformation-- as false bogus news. Out of one side of the
mouth-- physics cranks say light is a constant top speed 3*10^8 m/s, yet
out of the other side of the mouth these cranks think light has been slowed
down in various apparatus. What is truly going on is the apparatus has
trapped light, and that light is being bounced around, just as light is
bent when going from air to water. Bounced around is not slowing down--
just scattered and reflected all going at the same constant top speed. So
here is a matter of just proper words. We cannot say "light is slowed down"
but rather must say, light is trapped. Trapped as in a capacitor traps and
stores electricity, magnetic monopoles, or light.
Now here is a list of ideas that are counterintuitive to most every human,
with everyday experiences. And I believe I can explain away, satisfactorily
every one of these, so that they make total sense, commonsense.
1) a Top Speed and no speeds faster
2) the Top Speed is constant, so that the item with the top-speed maintains
top speed unless it is absorbed
3) Space, length, distance contraction
4) Time dilation, time slows down
So now, those four, and maybe more, are in need of modern day understanding
with the Atom Totality and its Maximum Electricity Principle (the reverse
of this principle is Least Action Principle).
AP
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 14:45:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 2.1-Hund's Rule explained in New Physics from a blueprint of
Maximum Electricity
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 21:45:55 +0000
Hund's Rule explained in New Physics from a blueprint of Maximum Electricity
Alright, I need to get this Hund's Rule firmly incorporated inside the
concept of Maximum Electricity as the internal arrangement of all atoms, to
make maximum electricity using Faraday's law.
The geometry of orbitals is correct as given by physics and chemistry, that
is not in question. What is in question is why Hund's Rule? As in nitrogen,
why not fill up the P_x rather than enter P_y and P_z before filling up
P_x? If maximum electricity is a full 1 torus then it makes sense to not
have Hund's Rule.
So, to answer why Hund's Rule and why it is maximum electricity, we must go
down to the electron= muon at 105MeV and the attendant proton = 840 MeV and
visualize them as coils of wire. So the muon is 1 Winding while the
attendant-proton is 8 windings. To make maximum electricity-- those
magnetic monopoles and the .5MeV particle is one such monopole. To make
maximum electricity, it is best the Windings be as numerous as possible.
So when we have nitrogen we have 3 valence muons. We have 3 attendant
protons so we have 3*1 = 3 and 3*8 = 24 or in total 27 Windings. And Hund's
Rule says that these 3 valence muons and attendant protons much rather go
separate into P_x, P_y, P_z.
Could it be the way they are wound? Just a physical impossibility for the
nitrogen 3 valence muons and attendant protons to join together?
If we look at boron, B2 molecule, its one valence muon in each B, bonds
covalently and fills P_x. But if we look at N atom, it obeys Hund's Rule.
So, Hund's Rule must be a rule of impossibility involving direction of
spin. That the atomic blueprint of all atoms is Maximum Electricity, and
for some reason, every atom with its P orbital must produce muons and
protons of same spin before producing muons and protons of opposite spin to
fill up the P orbital. In the case of B2 boron molecule, their lone valence
muon with attendant proton are two separate atoms and thus, outside a
singular atom's blueprint that they can fill up the P_x.
So, I wonder if the attendant proton is all to blame for this impossibility
in Hund's Rule. The proton is the most massive and has the 8 windings so in
nitrogen we need 8*3 = 24 Windings by 3 protons, before we fill the P as in
neon with 3 protons of opposite spin windings.
So, is there something in AP-Maxwell Equations that hints or suggests that
spin has to be oriented in space before actually filling space. So in
Hund's Rule, we have a orientation problem first, before we can fill space
secondly.
AP
Is maximum electricity production a mirror image formula of New Ohm's Law
V=iBL
So here is a super super intriguing question that needs an answer. If the
correct Electromagnetism formula that forms the basis of the EM theory is
of the form A = B*C*D. Then, does that mean that the highest, most
efficient generator of physics of EM must also have an equation whose math
form is A' = B'*C'*D'
If one applies much thought to that question, can easily see it is a
profound insight into physics. The the maximum electricity of a generator
follows exactly in the footsteps of the formula that forms EM theory.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Sep 4, 2018, 12:46:02 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2018 14:31:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: bring in PV = nRT Re: profound insight into EM theory// lists "e =
B
x L x v" which looks similar to AP-Maxwell equation of V = iBL , New Ohms
law
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2018 21:31:37 +0000
bring in PV = nRT Re: profound insight into EM theory// lists "e = B x L x
v" which looks similar to AP-Maxwell equation of V = iBL , New Ohms law
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 24, 2025, 4:55:57 PM (9 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Since the ideas below originated in this book #353 of Advanced Logic, I
should include them in this book
Especially the idea that in Advanced Logic, we look at the Pythagorean
Theorem and see that it starts with the most Primitive Pythagorean Triple
with 3,4,5.
To a Logical Person, the most Primitive Triple should start with 1 and 2,
not with 3. So the Logical Person then says--- well, what changes so that 1
and 2 become the most Primitive Entity Structure in Geometry???? I do not
mind if I change to a Isosceles Trapezoid. But, better yet that L shaped
formation inside a square will do the trick just fine.
The new AP-Pythagorean Theorem of Geometry-Mathematics.
Not only is this a new theorem of mathematics but also a new proof of the
Ancient Greek Pythagorean Theorem.
Before I begin, I want to lay 90% of the credit for this discovery to my
#353 book of science ongoing at this moment.
#353 TEACHING TRUE ADVANCED LOGIC, by Archimedes Plutonium.
Last night, in bed still, I was thinking of my book Advanced Logic and the
Pythagorean Theorem and how its most Primitive Pythagorean Triple is 3,4,5.
So, what does that have to do with Advanced Logic????
Simple answer. Logically, 1 starts the Counting Numbers and so, by ADVANCED
LOGIC, the Pythagorean Theorem and its Generalizations should start with 1,
not with 3.
So what is the Most Primitive Pythagorean Structure that starts not with 3
as in 3,4,5 right-triangle, but with the first Counting Number 1????
Logically we never start with 0 for that is physically and geometrically
"nothing". Logically we append 0 to Decimal Grid Systems as a reference
frame, much like Special Relativity in Physics is "frames of reference". So
in Decimal 10 Grid, the smallest Grid, it has exactly 100 numbers .1, .2,
.3, .. , 9.9, 10.0 as we do not count 0, we append 0 to 10 Grid.
AP-Pythagorean Theorem named after me as AP.
1,2,2,3 is the first Primitive Quad in 2D
Next comes.
2,4,4,6
Next comes.
4, 8, 8, 12
etc etc.
So cut out four squares for 1,2,2,3 and they are 1 square, 4 squares, 4
squares, 9 squares when you count area to lengths of side 1,2,2,3.
Now we can rearrange the four squares to form a Pythagorean style of
trapezoid figure instead of a right triangle 3,4,5.
/___\ where the two slant sides are the 2 and 2 while top is 1 square and
bottom is 3 square.
But I prefer the interpretation to be more of not a trapezoid but that of
simply taking the 1,2,2 out of the 1,2,2,3 and reassembling the 1,2,2
inside the 3 x3 = 9 square
This geometry is something I waxed and waxed on in sci.math decades ago.
Talking about a L shape addition.
You see algebra is 1^2 + 2^2 + 2^2 = 3^2
The 3^2 is pictured this.
MMM
MMM
MMM
The 2^2 is pictured in two styles.
MM
MM
or as
M
M
MM
The 1^2 is pictured as this.
M
When you take the 2^2 combined with 2^2 you have this.
MMM
MMM
....MM
You see, you are missing the corner point and once you include it you have
the full picture of 1^2 + 2^2 + 2^2 = 3^2
This piecing together is a alternative Proof of the Ancient Greek
Pythagorean Theorem.
And notice that we have an infinitude of Quad Primitive Entities as we
merely double the predecessor to form the successor.
1,2,2,3
2,4,4,6
4, 8, 8, 12
8, 16,16,24
etc etc
Now this Quad Structure takes in the smallest counting numbers of 1, and 2,
while Pythagorean Theorem can only start at 3 with 3,4,5. And we can reduce
that to a AP proof of square 5^2 and show that 3^2 and 4^2 form the L shape
add on to have 5 unit squares on one side of the L shape and 4 unit squares
on the other side of the L shape to bring the 4^2 up to par with 5^2.
Most everyone reading this is familar with the Geometry proof of Ancient
Greek Pythagorus that uses no words but pictures. See Wikipedia showing
that proof.
But the AP-Pythagorean Theorem is also a Proof that does not need any
words, just a picture of a L shaped add on.
Now the AP-Pythagorean Theorem is not bounded to 2D only, for it is more
general than the Ancient Greek Pythagorean theorem that was restricted to
only 2D.
No, the AP Theorem is far more general as I go into 3rd Dimension with
cubes, unit cubes and the Smallest 3D Primitive Entity starts with 1 cube
as Advanced Logic would dictate.
1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3
When I cube those lengths I get 1,1,1,8, 8, 8, 27
There are an infinitude of 3D Quad Primitive Entities.
1,1,1,2,2,2,3
2,2,2,4,4,4,6
4,4,4,8,8,8,12
etc etc
A proof of the above is as simple as Mathematical Induction. Take for
instance
2,2,2,4,4,4,6
which in 3D is 8,8,8, 64,64,64, 216
8+8+8+64+64+64 does equal 216.
Now, the great great application of the AP-Pythagorean Theorem is to show
that Fermat's Last Theorem is proven true by AP starting 1991 where AP
showed that 2 and 4 are special numbers in that 2*2 = 2+2 = 4 in order to
ever even have 3,4,5 as the smallest Pythagorean Triple.
And that Andrew Wiles fake proof of Fermat's Last Theorem along with Andrew
Beal con-art advertisement of a Beal Prize for anyone who solves ---
Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem--- which AP also did in 1991 with AP's
proof of Fermat's Last Theorem with the specialness of 2*2 = 2+2 = 4, the
only numbers in all of mathematics with those special properties of
addition is the same as multiplication allowing for solutions of A^2 +B^2 =
C^2 but not allowing solutions in counting numbers of A^3 + B^3 = C^3.
Note to Readers. Look above at those doubling structures, and see for
yourself the essence that 2 plays in having solutions in 2D and in 3D.
Andrew Wiles, backed up by Andrew Beal are fraudsters of math and math
history, seeking fame and fortune but never the truth and reality of
science.
P.S. I need to include this into my TEACHING TRUE ADVANCED LOGIC book, also.
AP, King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 25, 2025, 12:45:32 AM (9 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
For those wanting more details of the AP proof of Fermat's Last Theorem and
the Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem, I invite interested persons to see
my 6th published book of science for details.
--- quoting from my 6th book of science ---
World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math
proof series, book 5
by Archimedes Plutonium
This is AP's 6th published book of science published on Internet,
Plutonium-Atom-Universe,
PAU newsgroup is this.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Preface:
Truthful proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem// including the fake Euler proof
in exp3 and Wiles fake proof.
Recap summary: In 1993 I proved Fermat's Last Theorem with a pure algebra
proof, arguing that because of the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2
= 4 that this special feature of a unique number 4, allows for there to
exist solutions to A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That the number 4 is a basis vector
allowing more solutions to exist in exponent 2. But since there is no
number with N+N+N = N*N*N that exists, there cannot be a solution in exp3
and the same argument for higher exponents. In 2014, I went and proved
Generalized FLT by using "condensed rectangles". Once I had proven
Generalized, then Regular FLT comes out of that proof as a simple
corollary. So I had two proofs of Regular FLT, pure algebra and a corollary
from Generalized FLT. Then recently in 2019, I sought to find a pure
algebra proof of Generalized FLT, and I believe I accomplished that also by
showing solutions to Generalized FLT also come from the special number 4
where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4. Amazing how so much math comes from the
specialness of 4, where I argue that a Vector Space of multiplication
provides the Generalized FLT of A^x + B^y = C^z.
Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last
Theorem type of equations.
As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both
are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the
text).
--- end quoting from my 6th book ---
AP, King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 25, 2025, 7:25:05 PM (8 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
The total Logical ignorance of Terry Tao, UCLA, who seeks fame and fortune
but not math truth, not science truth. And Terry is symptomatic of the
uglieness in math education, where they graduate without any Logic in their
head, but empty of logic marbles.
Terry Tao
Apr 15, 1994, 3:28:38 PM sci.math
to
In article <2ois3u$b...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.P...@dartmouth.edu
(Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>In article <36...@armltd.uucp>
> On math definition I take a pragmatic view. Definitions as labels are
>rather safe. But definitions that are processes must be checked-out.
>And it is not black or white as to whether one definition is a label or
>a process.
>I see math as a byproduct of physics, and I am against those who see
>math as immutable, absolutist, and separate from physics.
I guess this means "infinite integers" goes into the trash can, hmm?
After all, there is no physical justification for the process of "adding
1 endlessly".
P.S. The mass of the universe is greater than the mass of a electron
cloud. So the Plutonium Atom Totality goes bye-bye too.
Any comments, Ludwig?
--
Terry Tao Math Dept., Princeton University (t...@math.princeton.edu)
"Dear Mr. President. There are too many states. Please eliminate three.
I am not a crackpot." - Grandpa "Abraham" Simpson
AP writes:: Terry the failure of math-- you forgot to define infinity
"adding 1 endlessly", but I took logic in College and circa 2009 well
defined what infinity was with a borderline. Something that you were too
stupid in math to ever recognize or do something about.
As to Terry's ignorance of Atomic Theory and physics:
Here is a lesson in Logical hate spew, where a professor of math has no
marbles of Logic.
So depraved of Logical marbles for Terry Tao that he cannot admit the truth
of conics-- slant cut is Oval, not ellipse for you need a cylinder for the
symmetry to have a slant cut be ellipse.
The hole in the head of Terry Tao, math dept. UCLA, is that Terry does not
understand what Logic is, and probably never studied it.
A-lot has changed and been refined since 1994 on the Atom Totality. That by
2017, the Cosmic Proton torus with Cosmic Muons inside doing the Faraday
law is beginning to be seen by Astronomers with Caltech's "ring in 3rd
layer". So then stars as dots in the electron dot cloud is no longer a
viable view of the Atom Totality.
Instead, the view has shifted and the Logic Applied is to the Atomic Theory
statement (by Feynman and others). Of course, Terry as usual is deaf, dumb
and silent, chasing after his fame and fortune in math, but never truth in
math or science.
You cannot have a Atomic Theory when you leave out of the argument the
universe itself. If the Universe is a single big Atom, then the Atomic
Theory by Democritus, by Feynman, by AP is a science theory for it governs
everything. If the Universe itself is not a atom, but only other items in
the Cosmos, then the Atomic theory is not a theory but a rule of thumb,
works in most cases but not in all cases.
All of this flys far far over the head of Boietian proletariat Terry Tao,
the caveman of mathematics, searching for logic in a cave at UCLA.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 27, 2025, 12:35:27 AM (7 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, well, Logic is several characteristics and traits some of which
are these traits.
1) Thorough and complete.
2) Seeking patterns and structure.
3) No contradictions allowed but only consistency allowed.
Many months ago I wrote many conjectures about how many irrational numbers
versus rational numbers that triangles had. Right triangles, obtuse
triangles, acute triangles, and recently isosceles trapezoids. Most, if not
all of those conjectures were shown false with a counterexample.
But the questions of how many irrational number entities exist in triangles
or other figures of geometry is still and open question, at least in my
mind anyway. Perhaps this quest of irrational abundance was proven in some
remote math journal decades ago.
I do remember reading about a German mathematician saying something like---
"that is an irrational angle".
Why am I so concerned about the "amount of irrationals"? Because the true
numbers of mathematics are all Decimal Grid Numbers and no irrationals
exist in true math, nor do negative numbers exist. No negative numbers
exist as a Logical Observation, you cannot remove more that what exists. So
that Old Math was infested by fools who could never persuade themselves
that they missed an Axiom of Mathematics--- Subtraction, or removal can
only happen if the lowest subtraction is 0. That is--- you cannot remove
(subtract) more than what is available. This sounds like Old Math is more
kookish than fiction writers who make up gremlins, hobgoblins, ghosts and
witches.
But Irrationals are another set (bag) of numbers that do not exist, for the
simple reason that infinity has a borderline and once you reach it
1*10^604, your numbers end also with nothing but zeroes after that
(specifically 1*10^1208 of algebraic completion). Even some Rational
Numbers are fiction like 1/3 =0.333333..... is fiction or 0.9999...... is
utter ghastly fiction.
All true numbers of mathematics end in a string of 000s to the rightward of
the decimal point.
I have a Logic Proof of this from Calculus, for you cannot have a proof of
Fundamental Theorem of Calculus FTC, without the numbers being Decimal Grid
Numbers. You need empty space between one number and the next number and
you need all those numbers that exist end in 000s to the right of the
decimal point. This allows all numbers of mathematics (out to algebraic
completion 10^1208) to have a midpoint, an exacting midpoint. There is no
exacting midpoint for 1/3 or 2/3 or 1/7 or sqrt2 or sqrt3 or sqrt5, etc.
You must have the numbers of math allow for a proof of FTC.
So that is why I am keen on traits of geometry figures like triangles,
trapezoids, squares, rectangles, circles, ellipses, ovals etc etc.
So how many features of Triangles are there???? Here we ask the question of
Advanced Logic of thoroughness and completeness. The total number of
features assigned with numbers.
There are 3 sides of length to a triangle. There are 3 interior angles to a
triangle. There are 3 altitudes for each triangle. That makes 9 features in
all for any and every triangle.
Now we ask the question of Logic of pattern and structure. Can all 9
features be Rational Numbers that end in 000s to the rightward of the
Decimal Point??? I know the Primitive Pythagorean Triple of 3, 4, 5 Right
Triangle are three Counting Numbers, but are the 3 angles represented by
numbers that end in 000s rightward of the decimal point? And what about the
3 altitudes of this triangle?
Now, already I see a huge mistake in Old Math with angles. For it is known
that the summation of angles of all triangles is a sum that adds up to 180
degrees. It must be a Decimal Grid Number for it ends in 000s rightward of
decimal point. But there is a theorem in math that the addition of any
collection of numbers is going to end up being a irrational number if any
of its numbers is irrational. Addition does not remove the irrational
summation to becoming rational ending in 000s rightward of decimal point.
And so we have a contradiction with the entire subject of Old Math
trigonometry, where the only Decimal Grid Numbers are sine and cosine of 60
and 30 to equal 0.5, and that of 0, 90 and 180 degrees ending up as 0 or 1,
and all the rest of trigonometry values being Irrational values.
Trigonometry angles and all values except for 0.5, 0 and 1 is not a
consistent science but a contradictory Old Math pile of garbage.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 27, 2025, 11:58:16 AM (6 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright let me revise that.
On Sunday, April 27, 2025 at 12:35:27 AM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Alright, well, Logic is several characteristics and traits some of which
are these traits.
1) Thorough and complete.
2) Seeking patterns and structure.
3) No contradictions allowed but only consistency allowed.
1) Asking questions-- if not of others then questioning yourself. Wanting
answers.
2) Being accurate and precise, which usually means well-defining ideas.
3) Being focused and concentrating energy on projects. Not scatterbrained.
4) Thorough and complete.
5) Seeking patterns and the structure of Nature.
6) No contradictions allowed, but only Consistency allowed.
7) Arriving at answers and those answers consistent with known facts and
allowing answers to other problems outside our project.
These are some of the character traits of Logic, but also of mathematics.
We can add the Scientific Method to the above list.
Now, I started a project many months ago by making conjectures over the
amount of Irrational numbers to be found in triangles and other geometry
figures. So that is a project and let me go through all 7 of the above
traits.
The starting Question is what are the true numbers of mathematics that
gives us true geometry? Are the Reals trash numbers? Are the Decimal Grid
Numbers the true numbers and how does geometry look like with Decimal Grid
Numbers.
So we need a Well Defined set of numbers called Decimal Grid Numbers.
10 Grid is 0, .1, .2, .3, .4, . . . , 9.9, 10.0
100 Grid is 0, .01, .02, .03, .04, .05, . . . , 99.98, 99.99, 100.00
1000 Grid is 0, .001, .002, .003, . . . , 999.997, 999.998, 999.999,
1000.000
The reader should see the pattern here and be able to fill in what the 10^4
Grid is.
Now one should notice a unique feature of Decimal Grid Numbers, a feature
that the Reals never had. Is empty space in between one number and the next
number. In Reals, they are a continuum, and the people of Old Math
expressed the continuum by saying ---- between any two given numbers there
always exists another number. Meaning that a line in Old Math had no gaps
or holes or empty space between one point and the next point but filled up
with more points.
As you can see in the Grids above of 10 Grid or 100 Grid or 1000 Grid there
are always holes in between one number and the next number and this is
called Discrete Numbers, while Reals are a continuum.
Besides being Discrete there is another Trait of Grid Numbers that the
Reals never had. The ability of Grid Numbers to always have a midpoint. And
this is because Grid Numbers all of them end in 000s digits rightward of
the decimal point.
Being discrete and always having a midpoint are crucial if you want to have
Calculus. You cannot have calculus if your numbers are a continuum and lack
the ability to always have a midpoint.
But before I get to midpoint capable, I need to well define another concept
in New Math. Old Math was so sloppy they overlooked defining well that of
"finite versus infinite". A perfect subject to talk about in Advanced Logic.
Next time,..... a well defined finite versus infinite.
AP, King of Science and Logic
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 27, 2025, 5:01:49 PM (6 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Sunday, April 27, 2025 at 11:58:16 AM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Characteristic traits of Logic
1) Asking questions-- if not of others then questioning yourself. Wanting
answers.
2) Being accurate and precise, which usually means well-defining ideas.
3) Being focused and concentrating energy on projects. Not scatterbrained.
4) Thorough and complete.
5) Seeking patterns and the structure of Nature.
6) No contradictions allowed, but only Consistency allowed.
7) Arriving at answers and those answers consistent with known facts and
allowing answers to other problems outside our project.
These are some of the character traits of Logic, but also of mathematics.
We can add the Scientific Method to the above list.
Well Defined Numbers for math and geometry
So we need a Well Defined set of numbers called Decimal Grid Numbers.
10 Grid is 0, .1, .2, .3, .4, . . . , 9.9, 10.0
100 Grid is 0, .01, .02, .03, .04, .05, . . . , 99.98, 99.99, 100.00
1000 Grid is 0, .001, .002, .003, . . . , 999.997, 999.998, 999.999,
1000.000
The reader should see the pattern here and be able to fill in what the 10^4
Grid is.
Now one should notice a unique feature of Decimal Grid Numbers, a feature
that the Reals never had. Is empty space in between one number and the next
number. In Reals, they are a continuum, and the people of Old Math
expressed the continuum by saying ---- between any two given numbers there
always exists another number. Meaning that a line in Old Math had no gaps
or holes or empty space between one point and the next point but filled up
with more points.
As you can see in the Grids above of 10 Grid or 100 Grid or 1000 Grid there
are always holes in between one number and the next number and this is
called Discrete Numbers, while Reals are a continuum.
Besides being Discrete there is another Trait of Grid Numbers that the
Reals never had. The ability of Grid Numbers to always have a midpoint. And
this is because Grid Numbers all of them end in 000s digits rightward of
the decimal point.
Being discrete and always having a midpoint are crucial if you want to have
Calculus. You cannot have calculus if your numbers are a continuum and lack
the ability to always have a midpoint.
But before I get to midpoint capable, I need to well define another concept
in New Math. Old Math was so sloppy they overlooked defining well that of
"finite versus infinite". A perfect subject to talk about in Advanced Logic.
Next time,..... a well defined finite versus infinite.
So, I have Well Defined Numbers in Decimal Grid Numbers, and next I need to
Well Define what is meant by "finite compared to infinite". And this really
exposes the pitiful and petty mind set of almost every mathematician. How
they think that they can define finite as "not infinite and ending" and
define infinite as "not finite and not ending". This shows why all
mathematicians need two years of College Logic from AP before given a
degree in mathematics to at least try to think straight and think clearly.
Give me any number you want, and ask me if it is finite or infinite. My
answer is that to Well Define Finite versus Infinite requires out of
necessity a Borderline between them. This is how geography works to tell if
you are in France or in Germany. There are borderlines between the two. The
same situation applies to mathematics. A borderline exists wherein in are
on one side and you are finite, and on the other side you are infinite.
A long time ago, a mathematician named Huygens noticed a figure called the
Tractrix and it has a marvellous feature--- it forms a infinite reaching
curve but has finite area under the curve. So that means we can pinpoint
where the infinity borderline lies by comparing the Tractrix to a circle.
Concept that Infinity = a borderline between finite and infinite was
discovered by AP 2009. Simple beautiful idea-- there must be a borderline
between finite and infinite, otherwise, all is just one and the same, and
not two different concepts. And so I defined the concept of infinity itself
as this border crossing.
Borderline between finite and infinity
Now this mistake in not having a correct Infinity in math, affects the
Calculus by a large measure, a large degree. It is impossible to have a
correct calculus, when you do not understand what is infinity.
This is one of the biggest mistakes in all of pure mathematics for it
affects all other mathematics that use infinity. Of course the other
sciences, especially physics rarely needs to know what the correct proper
infinity is. However, it does show up frequently in the best physics--
quantum electrodynamics, in which it is
often used to eliminate infinities that crop up in calculations. This
physics math procedure is called Renormalization-- getting rid of the
infinities.
The trouble with Old Math, is, well, they were terribly shoddy in logic, in
thinking straight and clear. For a logical person, knows, that if you have
a concept of finite versus infinite, the only way to handle those two
concepts is to realize a border must go between them so that you can tell
if any given number is finite or infinite. Otherwise, there is no infinity,
if there is no borderline.
There is only one way you can have a concept of finite, by having a
concept of infinity, and the only way you can have both, is that a
borderline exists between them.
I have pinpointed that borderline from tractrix-circle analysis, from
algebraic analysis of algebraic completeness, and from angles of
regular polyhedra. The borderline in microinfinity is 1*10^-604 and in
macroinfinity is 1*10^604.
Yes, infinity borderline comes in pairs--- infinity for tiny numbers and
infinity for large numbers.
The easiest way to see the borderline is to see where pi digits ends in a
three zero digits in a row.
3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286
208998628034825342117067982148086513282306647093844609550582231725359408128481
117450284102701938521105559644622948954930381964428810975665933446128475648233
786783165271201909145648566923460348610454326648213393607260249141273724587006
606315588174881520920962829254091715364367892590360011330530548820466521384146
951941511609433057270365759591953092186117381932611793105118548074462379962749
567351885752724891227938183011949129833673362440656643086021394946395224737190
702179860943702770539217176293176752384674818467669405132000
Since the Universe 3rd dimension, one would suspect that where pi digits
are there first three digits in a row of 000, that such would be the
borderline at infinity.
Now, for physics, that infinity is 1*10^604 for large and 1*10^-604 for the
small, makes perfect sense, since in physics, it is extremely, extremely
difficult to find anything above 10^200 or smaller than 10^-200, to give
the reader a sense of proportion.
When the tractrix compared to the associated circle area under reaches the
three zero digits in a row in circle of pi, that gives the tractrix enough
time to catch up to the circle area for once, and thus---- tractrix reaches
infinity borderline.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 27, 2025, 6:20:01 PM (6 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So, I well-defined the numbers of mathematics and geometry and I
well-defined what finite and infinite means.
Now I ask the Question of the idea that a Triangle has 9 parameters of
which 3 side lengths, and 3 angles and 3 altitudes. I ask the question of a
Project as to how many of those 9 parameters can be Decimal Grid Numbers
and how many can be Irrationals of Reals? For we look at Trigonometry and
see only three angles provide us with Decimal Grid Numbers of 0, 1 and 0.5
for angles 0, 90, 180, 30 and 60 degrees. All the rest of trigonometry is a
ocean of irrational numbers.
In geometry we have the Pythagorean Theorem A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for such
primitive triples of 3,4,5 and those are decimal grid numbers, but the
angles are not decimal grid numbers except for 90 degrees. The altitudes
for 3,4,5 are two decimal grid numbers of 3 and 4, but the altitude from 90
degree angle goes by height = sqrt(p*q) where p and q are the two parts
split by the height from the 90 degree angle.
So in the 3,4,5 right triangle the three resultant triangles are all
proportional and similar allowing us to derive the height of 90 degree
angle to hypotenuse.
short leg middle triangle/ hypot middle triangle = short leg big triangle/
hypot big triangle
becomes
height /4 = 3/5
becomes
height = 4*3/5 = 12/5 =2.4
Now going back to retrieve the p and q in sqrt(p*q) where 9 = 2.4^2 + p^2
becomes 9-5.76 = p^2 becomes 1.8. Subtracting from 5 we get q = 3.2.
Checking to see if correct sqrt (1.8*3.2) does equal 2.4.
I get the feeling that the height maximizes the value of sqrt(p*q). This
maybe relevant to maximum electricity production in Faraday law on torus
geometry.
So all three heights for the 3,4,5 right triangle are Decimal Grid Number
heights. That leaves remaining the three angles of 3,4,5.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 27, 2025, 6:40:10 PM (6 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Now looking up the angles of 3,4,5 they are 90, 53.13 and 36.87 degrees and
are rational numbers.
But the trouble lies in sin(53.13) = 0.799998928.... And cos(53.13) =
0.600001429.....
So, what is the scoop. The trigonometry values are Irrational Real numbers
while the angles are Rational Reals.
So I go to my Logic table for guidance and maybe I am asking the wrong
Question on this Project of Triangle Parameters, those 9 parameters, and
start all over with asking a set of better questions.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 27, 2025, 7:42:10 PM (6 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Sunday, April 27, 2025 at 7:30:22 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Now of course I am writing this as a lesson in Advanced Logic, to show the
reader/student how to think straight and think clearly in science and life
in general.
I started with asking questions--- how many irrationals can I expect to
find in triangle parameters? Can I expect at least one Irrational number
from the Reals in the 9 parameters of the right triangle 3,4,5??? Maybe 2
of the 9 parameters are Irrational Reals?
But it turns out that all 9 parameters are Decimal Grid Numbers.
So I go back to the starting questions of the 9 parameters and ask
myself--- am I logical or illogical on this Project of amount of
Irrationals???? Apparently I am illogical, and should start over again.
Start from square base 1 with a better new question.
Better New Question
Can all 9 parameters of triangles be only Decimal Grid Numbers??
And to start this question-project off, start it off with the recognition
that the valid geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
requires the numbers of mathematics be Discrete with empty space in between
one number and the next number, but also that the true numbers of
mathematics always have a Midpoint when divided by 2.
So for example--- the Decimal Grid Numbers, all of them end in 000s digits
rightward of the decimal point even numbers like 0.3333..... or 1/7 or
sqrt2 stop as a number with the 603rd digit place value for the infinity
borderline is 1*10^604 with its inverse 1*10^-604.
What is it about numbers that once they encounter a string of nothing but
zeros such as 0.2500000..... = 1/4, that this Decimal Grid Number has an
exacting Midpoint of 0.125 and that number in turn has an exacting Midpoint
of 0.0625.
While in Reals with their Irrationals never have an exacting Midpoint, nor
do many of the Rational Reals, like 1/3 =0.333.... or 1/7 or 2/3 or 1/11
have exacting midpoints????
So of the Reals, all of the Irrationals and many (perhaps 50%) of Rational
Reals are not capable of forming exacting Midpoints. Making what??? Making
that over 75% of Reals are incapable of forming an Exacting Midpoint in
order for Calculus to exist.
Because Reals are not discrete and because most of Reals cannot form
exacting Midpoints, that Reals are junk numbers, incapable of giving
Calculus.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 28, 2025, 2:15:50 PM (5 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
This is the moment for the Physicist researching Black Holes to ask him/her
self are they Logical, or an idiot???
This is the moment for the Physicist researching Big Bang to ask him/her
self are they Logical, or an idiot??
On Sunday, April 27, 2025 at 7:42:10 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
On Sunday, April 27, 2025 at 7:30:22 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Now of course I am writing this as a lesson in Advanced Logic, to show the
reader/student how to think straight and think clearly in science and life
in general.
I started with asking questions--- how many irrationals can I expect to
find in triangle parameters? Can I expect at least one Irrational number
from the Reals in the 9 parameters of the right triangle 3,4,5??? Maybe 2
of the 9 parameters are Irrational Reals?
But it turns out that all 9 parameters are Decimal Grid Numbers.
So I go back to the starting questions of the 9 parameters and ask
myself--- am I logical or illogical on this Project of amount of
Irrationals???? Apparently I am illogical, and should start over again.
Start from square base 1 with a better new question.
This is the moment for the Physicist who thinks the Sun and stars shine
from fusion when it is really the Faraday Law to ask him/her self are they
Logical, or an idiot???
This is the moment for the Physicist who thinks the true electron of Atoms
is the 0.5MeV particle when neutron is close to 945 MeV, and that 9 Muons
to equilibrate implies the Muon is the true electron of Atoms to ask
him/her self are they Logical, or an idiot??
This is the moment for the Geophysicist who thinks "convection currents in
Earth cause Continental Drift" when the cores of Earth are in motion
creating motor vibrations and wiggling the continents to move; to ask
him/her self are they Logical, or an idiot??
This is the moment for the biologist who thinks "DNA is not related to the
geometry of the Light Wave with its Magnetic Field perpendicular to
Electric Field"; to ask him/her self are they Logical, or an idiot??
This is the moment for the paleontologist who thinks "a cat can evolve
teeth (saber tooth tiger) where those teeth get in the way of everything
the cat wants to do in life"; to ask him/her self are they Logical, or an
idiot?? At least, you fool, check with DNA if the teeth are walrus tusks.
Better New Question
Can all 9 parameters of triangles be only Decimal Grid Numbers??
This is the moment for AP to think of never again using any Reals at all,
in any math problem, for the Reals do not allow for Calculus to exist. By
continuing to use Reals, that AP is not logical and is an idiot.
The ___Best___ new question for AP, is ___notice that the Decimal Grid
Numbers are able to be told an Exacting Amount of them at all times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead of chasing after fake fraud numbers like Reals and their
irrationals and rationals. Why waste the time.
If we ask any Math Professor (who really is a kook and not a scientist).
15 year old: Dr. Math how many Reals between 1 and 2???
Math Professor: Why that is easy, there are an infinitude of Reals between
1 and 2.
15 year old: Dr. Math how many Reals between 0 and infinity??
Math Professor: Why there are an infinity of Reals between 0 and infinity.
15 year old: Dr. Math how many Reals between 0.1 and 0.2???
Math Professor: Why that is easy, there are an infinitude of Reals between
0.1 and 0.2.
-----------------------------
15 year old: AP how many numbers between 1 and 2???
AP: Why that is easy, and depends on the Grid System you are in. Are you
in 10 Grid youngster?? For the Decimal 10 Grid is
0, .1, .2, .3, .... ,9.8, 9.9, 10.0. And between 1 and 2 lies these numbers
and no more.
1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 2.0. So, counting 1 and 2
there are exactly 11 numbers, not counting 1 or 2 there are 9 numbers.
15 year old: AP how many numbers between 0 and infinity??
AP: Well, that is a question that no-one in Old Math had enough brains to
answer for they never well-defined what they meant by "infinity". In New
Math, infinity is where the tractrix area finally matches for the first
time the quarter circle area and that takes place with pi digits having
three zero digits in a row at the 603 digits rightward of the decimal point
the 10^603 place value with 1*10^604 being the final Borderline. So to
answer you question how many numbers exist from 0 to infinity is a answer
that All Mathematicians Must be able to answer exactly. Exactly in 10^603
Grid there are 10^1206 Numbers Existing. If we imagine that the 10 Grid is
the only Grid to exist in mathematics, and think of the number 10 as being
the infinity borderline, then there exists in total 100 numbers in the
entire world if 10 was infinity borderline.
15 year old: AP how many Decimal Grid Numbers between 0.1 and 0.2???
AP: In 10 Grid, there exists no numbers between 0.1 and 0.2 but empty
space. If we allow for 100 Grid then there are 9 numbers as these 0.10,
0.11, 0.12, 0.13, 0.14, 0.15, 0.16, 0.17, 0.18, 0.19, 0.20
AP: You see the trouble with Old Math, is they never have Well Defined
concepts like "infinity", and they never took Logic in school to think
straight and think clearly. The whole entire point of Numbers is to count
them and tell their Quantity Size. Only Math Professor Kooks have answers
to quantity with infinity amount.
And to start this question-project off, start it off with the recognition
that the valid geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
requires the numbers of mathematics be Discrete with empty space in between
one number and the next number, but also that the true numbers of
mathematics always have a Midpoint when divided by 2.
So for example--- the Decimal Grid Numbers, all of them end in 000s digits
rightward of the decimal point even numbers like 0.3333..... or 1/7 or
sqrt2 stop as a number with the 603rd digit place value for the infinity
borderline is 1*10^604 with its inverse 1*10^-604.
What is it about numbers that once they encounter a string of nothing but
zeros such as 0.2500000..... = 1/4, that this Decimal Grid Number has an
exacting Midpoint of 0.125 and that number in turn has an exacting Midpoint
of 0.0625.
While in Reals with their Irrationals never have an exacting Midpoint, nor
do many of the Rational Reals, like 1/3 =0.333.... or 1/7 or 2/3 or 1/11
have exacting midpoints????
So of the Reals, all of the Irrationals and many (perhaps 50%) of Rational
Reals are not capable of forming exacting Midpoints. Making what??? Making
that over 75% of Reals are incapable of forming an Exacting Midpoint in
order for Calculus to exist.
Because Reals are not discrete and because most of Reals cannot form
exacting Midpoints, that Reals are junk numbers, incapable of giving
Calculus.
So, I add a new feature to the list--- Able to always give a Number Size to
the Numbers you use in mathematics.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 28, 2025, 3:47:20 PM (5 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
In order to have Calculus exist or not exist--- you need the Numbers of
mathematics be discrete numbers with empty space from one number to the
next number. To have Calculus exist, you need empty space between numbers
and you need every number of mathematics to have an Exacting Midpoint. You
cannot have exacting Midpoints on any Irrational Number of Reals. And many
of the Rational Reals like 0.333... or 0.111... or 0.9999..... etc etc have
no exacting Midpoint.
But there is Logically a New Feature that must exist for the True Numbers
of Mathematics--- the feature that you can always state the Quantity of
Numbers involved in a Project. In New Math, every function of a specific
Grid System can be told how many numbers are involved. This is unheard of
in Old Math where the answer is always--- an infinity of numbers. In New
True Math, the answer is a specific Grid System with a specific finite
number answer.
Now, we check that idea up against Physics, for math is but a tiny tool of
Physics. Should we be able to tell the Quantity of Atoms in the total
Universe??? Yes, we should given the idea that we can state the specific
quantity of Numbers that exist in any project of mathematics.
So the total number of Numbers in mathematics is 10^603 times 10^603 =
10^1206. Does Physics have a count on the total number of Atoms in the
Cosmos???
Well the 231Pu Atom Totality has a proton-torus of windings of 94 x 840
=78960 windings.
In Physics we have the Coulomb Law, and its mathematics is that of
Factorial. A atom of 231Pu has 231 protons plus neutrons and they each
interact with one another every second.
The Coulomb Interaction of 231 particles has a mathematics of Factorial.
So we have 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x , . . .229 x 230 x 231 and that large number
turns out to be 1.79 * 10^447
100! =9.33 * 10¹⁵⁷
244! = 1.406*10^478
253! = 5.1734609926400789218043308997295e+499
290! = 6.031 *10^589
294! = 4.414*10^599
295! = 1.302 *10^602
296! = 3.855 *10^604
300! = 3.0605751221644063603537046129727e+614
450! = 1.733*10^1000
525! = 6.89*10^1201
526! = 3.624*10^1204
530! = 2.827*10^1215
19^(22x22) = 8.2554901045277384397095530071882e+618
22^(22x22) = 5.4022853245302743024619692001681e+649
I am looking for what Atoms in the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements has
a proton+neutron count of 526??? Provided such an atom was
nucleosynthesized in a lab on Earth.
I see Flerovium element 114 having 114 protons and 290Fl having 176
neutrons, and lasting approximately 19 seconds half-life. This element has
a Coulomb Interactions of its protons with neutrons of 290! = 6.031 *10^589.
Oganesson element 118 with 294Og of 0.7 ms half-life.
Ununennium element 119 never made yet.
AP, King of Science and Logic
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 28, 2025, 7:38:41 PM (5 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So from January to April 2025, I was playing this game of asking how many
irrationals were in a triangle which has 9 parameters. The 3 side lengths,
the 3 angles and the 3 altitude lengths. I was constantly reminded that
trigonometry has an Ocean full of irrational numbers and so then that
suggests the 9 parameters of triangles should have boatloads full of
irrationals. That was a logical project. Or was it??? Was it all a
illogical project, much like what most every physicist, scientist,
mathematician and even logicians waste their lifetime upon--- illogical
projects.
I had known for a decade now, that Calculus can exist only when the True
Numbers of Mathematics are discrete and have empty space in between one
number and the next number. I had also known that Calculus to exist
requires every number have an Exact Midpoint, and that means every true
number of mathematics ends in zero digits 000s rightward of the decimal
point. That means every Irrational number of Reals is a fiction and kook
number and every Rational Number that does not end in 000s rightward is a
fiction kook number.
And only the Decimal Grid Numbers can be the true numbers of mathematics in
order for a Calculus to exist. So from January to April 2025 I was playing
this project game of how many irrational Reals do triangles have when
trigonometry has a Ocean full of irrational Reals. And I finally solved
that project today. For the reason trigonometry is full of Irrational Reals
is because Old Math thinks pi is an Irrational Real but in New Math, pi
ends at the 601, 602, 603 digit place value in three zeroes in a row and
that is the infinity borderline where math numbers no longer are math
numbers beyond 10^603. The reason trigonometry is an ocean of Irrational
Reals is the same reason that Old Math thought pi is irrational. For a
circle built from angles of right triangles uses pi measure in sine and
cosine and trigonometry functions. In New Math, our Trigonometry Tables are
full of Decimal Grid Numbers only, and not a single irrational Real number
exists in New Math Trigonometry.
But a surprising feature of mathematics comes from the project of 9
parameters in triangles. A surprising third feature to include with the
other two features of True Numbers (1) be discrete with empty space (2)
always have a midpoint as ending zero digits rightward of decimal point and
now, a third characteristic feature. The true numbers of mathematics have
the feature of being able to know and list all the numbers of a function
space. So in 10 Grid there exists a maximum of 100 numbers in total. Now if
we use 10 Grid but borrow from 1000 Grid, means the space of total numbers
is 1000 x 1000 =1,000,000 total numbers in that space.
I did not know or realize that the True Numbers of Mathematics allow for a
mathematician to always tell you the total amount of numbers in the Space
of that function. Until now, I never thought that such as crucial for the
Calculus to exist, but apparently it is crucial, just as discrete and
midpoints is crucial.
AP, King of Science & Logic
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 29, 2025, 6:33:09 PM (4 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I am going to construct a "Logic Method" similar to the physics and other
science's "Scientific Method". The Logic Method will be commensurate of the
Scientific Method. Keeping in mind that Physics is above Logic and
Mathematics. But Logic is above Mathematics. So the Physics Scientific
Method is above the Logic Method, but the Logic Method is above the
Method-of-Mathematics.
Scientific Method:
1) Observation and Ask a Question
2) Do Background Research
3) Construct a Hypothesis
4) Test your Hypothesis by doing a Experiment
5) Analyze your data
6) Interpret the data and draw a Conclusion
7) Communicate and publish your results
8) Retest the Experiment and Conclusion
AP, King of Science & Logic
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 29, 2025, 6:51:38 PM (4 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So, AP is writing 2 textbooks for all scientists to take in College before
they can earn their degree in science or math or logic (many schools have
their logic combined with philosophy department).
And this Advanced Logic textbook talks about examples in most of the
sciences. And spells out a Method similar to the Scientific Method, a
method of Logic.
A method that can be used throughout life and not only in science.
From AP's viewpoint of scientists and mathematicians across the world, I
would say 90% are failures of logical thought and this book is my hope of
making that 90% aware of their shortcomings.
Of course Logic itself as taught in College and Universities is the filled
with error of Boole & Jevons logic textbooks for which they got all 4 of
the most simple Logic connectors all wrong. They could not even get AND,
OR, IF-->Then, Equal-Not correct. My first textbook of Logic remedies that
problem. This 2nd textbook of mine pushes Logic to where it is a tool in
all sciences and life in general.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 30, 2025, 12:58:36 PM (3 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I am going to weave together the Scientific Method with Pragmatism with
Logic Method. the Logic Method is wholly a creation by AP. While both the
Scientific Method and the aims of Pragmatism were known before AP.
--- quoting in parts from my 100th book---
Pragmatism, the only Philosophy I loved // Teaching True Logic series, book
4
By Archimedes Plutonium
This is AP's 100th published book of science published on Internet,
Plutonium-Atom-Universe,
PAU newsgroup is this.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Preface: I need to give credit to the philosophy of Pragmatism, the only
philosophy that I know of that is based on science. Credit for my discovery
of the Plutonium Atom Totality in 1990, came in part, partially due to a
passage of the Pragmatist Charles Sanders Peirce in Peirce's Cosmology:
Peirce's The Architecture of Theories...
Pragmatism
knowledge wisdom is the doing
Meaning is the use
Truth is what works
4) Knowledge is in the "doing". Truth is what works, and "works in the long
run". Meaning or understanding is in the "use". Wisdom is "habits of what
works".
These are several known pragmatist definitions:
Truth is what _works_ and works in the long run.
Knowledge and education is in the _doing_ the hands on experience.
Meaning is what future actions are implied.
Ideas for pragmatist are tools, instruments, weapons for purposeful action
Let me add a new one to the Pragmatist list of definitions:
Happiness, or being Happy is order and organization of one's life.
(1) Reality for a Pragmatist-- facts and data, only material and eye
witness facts and data. And here we have to go down to "reliable sources"
if not a on the scene seeing for oneself. Even then, there maybe a magician
in the report. So a Pragmatist is very tough on what is fact and data of
reality. One of the recent researches of mine is Sleep and hypnosis, and I
find that no hypnosis exists, never has and never will. Because if I wanted
to sleep using hypnosis, I cannot. Hence, hypnosis is not a science but a
sham, a magician trick.
(2) Ideas and the Meaning of those Ideas, for pragmatist are tools,
instruments, weapons for purposeful future action. We must include concepts
and definitions as ideas and Meaning. So we have in the first two Tenets of
Pragmatism, we have facts, data, definitions and concepts. Now we must put
those four-- facts, data, definitions, concepts into motion, and the last
two tenets of Pragmatism do just that.
So, in (1) and (2) I have covered the first two laws of the Maxwell
Equations and need only the last two laws to form a Analog.
(3) Wisdom, Knowledge and Education is in the _doing_ the hands on
experience. For a Pragmatist, that boils down to just one word- experiment.
(4) Truth is what _works_ and works in the long run. Truth for the
Pragmatist is boiled down to be a "Law of Physics or Science". Because it
is science laws that work in the long run. So when we speak about truth in
the world, we are really talking about laws of science.
--- end quoting in parts from my 100th book---
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 30, 2025, 2:31:33 PM (3 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So I woke up today, Wednesday (funny how days of the week are capitalized
no matter where they appear in a sentence) 30Apr2025 and finding myself
doing a Logic syllogism. I thought that such would be impossible in dream
sleep. But, I have never caught myself waking up by doing a math
multiplication or math calculation.
Anyway, I am going to tie together the Scientific Method with Pragmatism
philosophy with my new invention of Logic Method in this textbook of
Advanced Logic.
(1) Reality for a Pragmatist-- observation, facts and data, definitions and
concepts.
(2) Ideas and the Meaning of those Ideas, for pragmatist are tools,
instruments, weapons for purposeful future action.
(3) Action in life for a pragmatist is important for it is action that
leads to change and leads to understanding and knowledge. Action and
Curiosity are intermingled.
(4) Truth is what _works_ and works in the long run. Truth for the
Pragmatist is boiled down to be a "Law of Physics or Science". Because it
is science laws that work in the long run. So when we speak about truth in
the world, we are really talking about laws of science.
(5) Knowledge and Education is in the _doing_ the hands on Experience. For
a Pragmatist, that boils down to science in the - Experiment.
(6) Happiness comes when one has order and organization in life.
(7) Wisdom is having insight into what actions likely produce desired
results.
AP, King of Science & Logic
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 30, 2025, 7:45:09 PM (3 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Now this is a fine time to have a chapter on the four methods of science
and of living life in general. I place these in an order of Physics is top
science, biology (pragmatism) next, lower down is Logic but logic is higher
as a language than is mathematics.
Scientific Method:
1) Observation and Ask a Question
2) Do Background Research
3) Construct a Hypothesis
4) Test your Hypothesis by doing a Experiment
5) Analyze your data
6) Interpret the data and draw a Conclusion
7) Communicate and publish your results
8) Retest the Experiment and Conclusion
Method of Pragmatism
(1) Reality for a Pragmatist-- observations, facts and data, definitions
and concepts-ideas.
(2) Life for a pragmatist is a long unending sequence of problem solving.
Only way to escape this guantlet is death.
(3) Ideas and the Meaning of those Ideas, for pragmatist are tools,
instruments, weapons for purposeful future action.
(4) Action in life for a pragmatist is important for it is action that
leads to change and leads to understanding and knowledge. Action and
Curiosity are intermingled. Action to a pragmatist is what motion is to a
physicist.
(5) Truth is what _works_ and works in the long run. Truth for the
Pragmatist is boiled down to be a "Law of Physics or Science". Because it
is science laws that work in the long run. So when we speak about truth in
the world, we are really talking about laws of science.
(6) Knowledge and Education is in the _doing_ the hands on Experience. For
a Pragmatist, that boils down to science in the - Experiment. Sitting in
school at desk and reading then being tested is education but not as good
of an education is actual hands on living what the book talks about.
(7) Happiness comes when one has __order and organization__ in life.
(8) Wisdom is having insight into what actions likely produce desired
results.
Logic Method
1) Asking questions-- if not of others then questioning yourself. Wanting
answers.
2) Being accurate and precise, which usually means well-defining ideas.
3) Being focused and concentrating energy on projects. Not scatterbrained.
4) Thorough and complete.
5) Able in mathematics and science, to always give a number size to the
project or program or space you are working in.
6) Seeking patterns and the structure of Nature.
7) No contradictions allowed, but only Consistency allowed.
8) Arriving at answers and those answers consistent with known facts and
allowing answers to other problems outside our project.
Method of Mathematics
1) True numbers forming a algebra and true geometry forming shapes and
figures.
2) Precision and accuracy, the hallmarks of mathematics.
3) Axioms and principles that are not proven but accepted.
4) Operators of mathematics the most simple of which are add, subtract,
multiply, divide, integral, derivative.
5) Step wise deductions of logic to form proofs called theorems.
6) No contradictions ever allowed.
7) Internal consistency of definitions and theorems.
8) All true theorems are able to connect with other theorems of math and do
not exist in isolation.
Notice I have 8 features for each method in the light of the idea that
Physics has the others as subsets.
I list them in order to refine and compare.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 30, 2025, 8:11:39 PM (3 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I likely will have to revise my 100th book of science "Pragmatism, the only
philosophy I loved" for some of the thoughts and writings of Advanced Logic
will contradict what I said in my 100th book. But that is fine and dandy
for that is the method of science--- always changes and revision, no
escaping it.
And this book of Advanced Logic will I am hopeful -- finally make
Philosophy be about science and eliminate all supernatural from the field.
Logic as a subject along with Pragmatism will be the mainstays of the
College and University Philosophy department and all supernatural subjects
thrown out. I was 18 and 19 years old going off to the University of
Cincinnati and in their bookstore I bought my first philosophy book. When I
first read philosophy and the book I first was
"The New World of Philosophy" by Abraham Kaplan. I even have the price tag
in the bottom right corner saying $2.20. My oh my, inflation has really
spiralled upwards. I remember buying it, but most of all, I remember I was
so engrossed with learning what philosophies there were, that I remember
going to the bathroom at home, and not emerging until after I had read the
entire chapter on Pragmatism. That engrossed was I in this new found
knowledge.
The book has 9 chapters discussing:
1) Pragmatism
2) Analytic Philosophy
3) Existentialism
4) Freud and Modern Philosophy
5) Communism
6) Buddhism
7) Chinese Philosophy
8) Indian Philosophy
9) Zen
I remember Kaplan saying in introduction that he bypassed Christianity
because it is so familar to everyone in the West.
So, here I ask the logical question, for I know Christianity is based on a
supernatural. But I do not recall if Buddhism, Chinese Philosophy, Indian
Philosophy, and Zen harbor supernaturals???? I know Christianity harbors a
plethora of supernaturals-- angels, devil, God, son-of-god.
By supernatural I mean anti-science.
To me, all religions with a supernatural are "Cults".
And just tonight on the PBS Newshour (another excellent product of the
world which Alzheimers blackened and decayed brain of Trump is trying to
get rid of) on the PBS Newshour was discussed the Supreme Court decision of
allowing Catholic churches in Oklahoma and the rest of the USA have schools
alongside public schools and funded by the State as charter schools.
To me, the Catholic schools do not teach proper biology with Darwin
Evolution and that achievements in science are rare among Catholics and
obviously so, when the Catholic church education hates science.
To me, religion in education is cult education. No better than drinking
kool-aid from a punch bowl in South America. (Maybe I should not have said
that-- but at my age it is imperative for me to express my full voice).
AP, King of Science & Logic
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 30, 2025, 11:27:02 PM (3 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Now I am pacing myself just fine here in this textbook. I reckon with the 4
methods, --- science, pragmatism, logic, math that I reached the midpoint
of this textbook which is written in story book style. I have many projects
open in the first half of this book and once I resolve the 4 Methods and
then push on, that I will answer all those "open questions".
P.S. I wrote in many of my earlier books that religion is where science has
no answer, as yet, and so in comes religion to start a first guess of what
is going on. Much like human history of ancient times, we say rain and had
no science, so we invent a Rain God. We saw lightning and heard thunder and
had no explanation so we invent a God for that. But as science grows and
grows, there are less and less needs to have religion make an answer. As a
philosopher once said "Gods and Goddesses come and go, but the Atom
endures".
AP
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 1, 2025, 12:36:59 PM (2 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Wednesday, April 30, 2025 at 8:11:39 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
I likely will have to revise my 100th book of science "Pragmatism, the only
philosophy I loved" for some of the thoughts and writings of Advanced Logic
will contradict what I said in my 100th book. But that is fine and dandy
for that is the method of science--- always changes and revision, no
escaping it.
And this book of Advanced Logic will I am hopeful -- finally make
Philosophy be about science and eliminate all supernatural from the field.
Logic as a subject along with Pragmatism will be the mainstays of the
College and University Philosophy department and all supernatural subjects
thrown out. I was 18 and 19 years old going off to the University of
Cincinnati and in their bookstore I bought my first philosophy book. When I
first read philosophy and the book I first was
"The New World of Philosophy" by Abraham Kaplan. I even have the price tag
in the bottom right corner saying $2.20. My oh my, inflation has really
spiralled upwards. I remember buying it, but most of all, I remember I was
so engrossed with learning what philosophies there were, that I remember
going to the bathroom at home, and not emerging until after I had read the
entire chapter on Pragmatism. That engrossed was I in this new found
knowledge.
The book has 9 chapters discussing:
1) Pragmatism
2) Analytic Philosophy
3) Existentialism
4) Freud and Modern Philosophy
5) Communism
6) Buddhism
7) Chinese Philosophy
8) Indian Philosophy
9) Zen
During the past several decades I would come to add two more philosophies
to Kaplan's list above. I would add Stoicism and Reincarnation.
And now, in this book of Advanced Logic, I am going to analyze those two
new additions. And clean up the house of philosophy for it badly needs
cleaning up as it is full of nonsense, full of what I can best describe as
---- Cults and of Attitude--- and not bodies of knowledge or wisdom.
I remember Kaplan saying in introduction that he bypassed Christianity
because it is so familar to everyone in the West.
So, here I ask the logical question, for I know Christianity is based on a
supernatural. But I do not recall if Buddhism, Chinese Philosophy, Indian
Philosophy, and Zen harbor supernaturals???? I know Christianity harbors a
plethora of supernaturals-- angels, devil, God, son-of-god.
By supernatural I mean anti-science.
To me, all religions with a supernatural are "Cults".
And just tonight on the PBS Newshour (another excellent product of the
world which Alzheimers blackened and decayed brain of Trump is trying to
get rid of) on the PBS Newshour was discussed the Supreme Court decision of
allowing Catholic churches in Oklahoma and the rest of the USA have schools
alongside public schools and funded by the State as charter schools.
To me, the Catholic schools do not teach proper biology with Darwin
Evolution and that achievements in science are rare among Catholics and
obviously so, when the Catholic church education hates science.
To me, religion in education is cult education. No better than drinking
kool-aid from a punch bowl in South America. (Maybe I should not have said
that-- but at my age it is imperative for me to express my full voice).
_AP, King of Science & Logic
_AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 2, 2025, 3:29:50 PM (22 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, I am about--- at the midpoint of this textbook told in
story-telling fashion. This book will be, I am certain, the best and finest
book on Logic ever written for it is logically written.
I have to show the world of scientists, how to think straight and think
clearly by applying Advanced Logic.
So I opened the first half of this book with a large number of very
important questions. I reached the Midpoint where I characterize (1)
Physics, the (2) Scientific Method, the (3) Pragmatism Method, the (4)
Method of Logic and the (5) Method of Mathematics.
Now I refine all 5 of those methods. And in the refinement I place them in
correct sequence of order of largest to subsets of one another. There is a
big enormous question as to where Pragmatism fits in?? Is it a subset of
Scientific Method or a subset of Physics where Physics is top of the pile.
Then the second half of the book will answer definitively all the questions
raised, and even more new questions raised to round off this textbook. I am
having great fun in writing this book and showing the world what it means
to have a Logical Mind for I would estimate that 90% of scientists have
little logical marbles. And that nonscientists are even worse.
Almost every day in life, around us, we see illogic.
The BDO commercial on PBS has a symbol of LBDO like in "Libido".
One PBS commercial "Versions of the truth left out" when she meant to say
"Details of the truth left out" for Truth is monolithic.
One PBS commercial "More than what you need to know--- but what you need to
think about" for that is illogical in the fact that if you knew it in the
first place the second half of the sentence is superfluous. When he meant
to say "More than what you need to know but what to focus upon" because if
you knew something-- you need not have to "need to think about".
Illogic surrounds us each and every day, and colleges and universities are
not helping in pointing out and defeating illogic.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 2, 2025, 4:16:42 PM (21 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So I have 5 Methods and is wanting to refine and place in correct
sequential order. I am certain that Physics is on top and Mathematics is
last on bottom.
Physics Method
1) Atomic theory, started in Ancient Greek times-- Leucippus, Democritus,
Epicurus, Titus Lucretius Carus and others.
2) All is Atom, and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism, by AP
1990.
3) All matter is made up of one of the 114 Chemical Elements of the
Periodic Table, and the Universe itself is matter hence it is one of the
114 Elements and plutonium fits all the special numbers of physics and math
the best fit.
4) Sun and stars shine from Faraday Law for everything is nothing but
electricity and magnetism in the Laws of Electromagnetism. For the true
electron of atoms is the muon and not the 0.5MeV particle which is Dirac's
magnetic monopole. The Muon is stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the
Faraday law with proton torus where the muon is going around inside the
proton torus at nearly the speed of light producing maximum electricity.
5) Our Sun has gone into Red Giant phase and unless we move out to Europa,
a satellite of Jupiter, all of life on Earth goes extinct and into oblivion.
6) Overwhelming evidence that Sun shines from Faraday law not fusion is
accelerated ice-cap melt and that NASA recorded a 0.005% yearly increase in
Solar radiation in the decade of 2010 to 2020 and where 25% of all insect
biomass on Earth perished in that decade. Insects and plants have the
highest response to a ever increasing Sun gone Red Giant phase.
7) AP reckons we have a window of opportunity to make Europa our new home
in the next 1,000 years by cargo hauling all we need to start a permanent
colony by spaceships powered by lithium ion batteries (drone like spaceship
launched from North-Pole-Greenland to take advantage of Earth's Magnetic
Field lines of force) and then powered by ion thrusters in travelling to
Europa on the Solar Winds.
8) All of science that we learned and all of human achievements amount to
nothing, if we fail to make a new Earth--- Europa. All science and
knowledge and education and understanding amount to nothing if we go into
oblivion.
_Scientific Method:
_1) Observation and Ask a Question
2) Do Background Research
3) Construct a Hypothesis
4) Test your Hypothesis by doing a Experiment
5) Analyze your data
6) Interpret the data and draw a Conclusion
7) Communicate and publish your results
_8) Retest the Experiment and Conclusion
_Method of Pragmatism
_(1) Reality for a Pragmatist-- observations, facts and data, definitions
and concepts-ideas.
(2) Life for a pragmatist is a long unending sequence of problem solving.
Only way to escape this guantlet is death.
(3) Ideas and the Meaning of those Ideas, for pragmatist are tools,
instruments, weapons for purposeful future action.
(4) Action in life for a pragmatist is important for it is action that
leads to change and leads to understanding and knowledge. Action and
Curiosity are intermingled. Action to a pragmatist is what motion is to a
physicist.
(5) Truth is what _works_ and works in the long run. Truth for the
Pragmatist is boiled down to be a "Law of Physics or Science". Because it
is science laws that work in the long run. So when we speak about truth in
the world, we are really talking about laws of science.
(6) Knowledge and Education is in the _doing_ the hands on Experience. For
a Pragmatist, that boils down to science in the - Experiment. Sitting in
school at desk and reading then being tested is education but not as good
of an education is actual hands on living what the book talks about.
(7) Happiness comes when one has __order and organization__ in life.
_(8) Wisdom is having insight into what actions likely produce desired
results.
_Logic Method
_1) Asking questions-- if not of others then questioning yourself. Wanting
answers.
2) Being accurate and precise, which usually means well-defining ideas.
3) Being focused and concentrating energy on projects. Not scatterbrained.
4) Thorough and complete.
5) Able in mathematics and science, to always give a number size to the
project or program or space you are working in.
6) Seeking patterns and the structure of Nature.
7) No contradictions allowed, but only Consistency allowed.
_8) Arriving at answers and those answers consistent with known facts and
allowing answers to other problems outside our project.
_Method of Mathematics
_1) True numbers forming a algebra and true geometry forming shapes and
figures.
2) Precision and accuracy, the hallmarks of mathematics.
3) Axioms and principles that are not proven but accepted.
4) Operators of mathematics the most simple of which are add, subtract,
multiply, divide, integral, derivative.
5) Step wise deductions of logic to form proofs called theorems.
6) No contradictions ever allowed.
7) Internal consistency of definitions and theorems.
_8) All true theorems are able to connect with other theorems of math and
do not exist in isolation.
So I have the 5 Methods above, but need to refine every one of them and to
place into a proper sequence order. I do know Physics is first and top, and
mathematics is last and bottom, but it is the middle section I need to
properly sequence.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 2, 2025, 6:09:11 PM (19 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Friday, May 2, 2025 at 4:16:42 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
So I have 5 Methods and is wanting to refine and place in correct
sequential order. I am certain that Physics is on top and Mathematics is
last on bottom.
_Physics Method
_1) Atomic theory, started in Ancient Greek times-- Leucippus, Democritus,
Epicurus, Titus Lucretius Carus and others.
2) All is Atom, and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism, by AP
1990.
3) All matter is made up of one of the 114 Chemical Elements of the
Periodic Table, and the Universe itself is matter hence it is one of the
114 Elements and plutonium fits all the special numbers of physics and math
the best fit.
4) Sun and stars shine from Faraday Law for everything is nothing but
electricity and magnetism in the Laws of Electromagnetism. For the true
electron of atoms is the muon and not the 0.5MeV particle which is Dirac's
magnetic monopole. The Muon is stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the
Faraday law with proton torus where the muon is going around inside the
proton torus at nearly the speed of light producing maximum electricity.
5) Our Sun has gone into Red Giant phase and unless we move out to Europa,
a satellite of Jupiter, all of life on Earth goes extinct and into oblivion.
6) Overwhelming evidence that Sun shines from Faraday law not fusion is
accelerated ice-cap melt and that NASA recorded a 0.005% yearly increase in
Solar radiation in the decade of 2010 to 2020 and where 25% of all insect
biomass on Earth perished in that decade. Insects and plants have the
highest response to a ever increasing Sun gone Red Giant phase.
7) AP reckons we have a window of opportunity to make Europa our new home
in the next 1,000 years by cargo hauling all we need to start a permanent
colony by spaceships powered by lithium ion batteries (drone like spaceship
launched from North-Pole-Greenland to take advantage of Earth's Magnetic
Field lines of force) and then powered by ion thrusters in travelling to
Europa on the Solar Winds.
_8) All of science that we learned and all of human achievements amount to
nothing, if we fail to make a new Earth--- Europa. All science and
knowledge and education and understanding amount to nothing if we go into
oblivion.
9) The Universe in total is an Atom Totality of 231 Plutonium, a big atom
that contains microscopic Atoms. And this Atom Totality has its own
creation process known as Spontaneous Fission, SF. When within the Atom
Totality it forges and creates an Element of 192 it spontaneously fissions
into that new Element 96 Atom Totality.
10) The purpose of Life in any Atom Totality, is to make nucleosynthesis
for spontaneous fission. If humanity makes it to Europa to establish a new
Earth, a new home, then there we can look forward to do nucleosynthesis in
creating Element 192 which spontaneously fissions to make the new Atom
Totality Universe. I am not sure if the life that creates the next Universe
Atom Totality lives through the SF creation. I am sure that the purpose of
Life is to do nucleosynthesis for which stars cannot do that
nucleosynthesis.
AP
zzzzzzzzzz
plutonium dot archimedes at gmail dot com. Looking for a College or
University press to hardcover publish all 367+ AP books of science, likely
to become 500-600 maybe even 700 books by the time I die. E-books are too
prone to unbalanced-unhinged censor-editors, who can easily make your books
vanish by pulling a switch. Science should never have gatekeepers, who
thwart access to true science.
| /
| /
|/______ hardcover or paperback
PAU newsgroup is this.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 3, 2025, 1:57:21 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So there I was for the duration of 2015 to present day 2025 insisting that
scientists and mathematicians needed two years of college Logic in order to
hopefully think better, think straight and think clearly. Trouble was,
there was no textbook by 2025 that is free of massive errors. So why insist
on physicists, biologists, chemists, astronomers, geologists,
mathematicians and every scientist in taking college logic when there was
no textbook in logic free of massive errors????
My books #351 TEACHING TRUE LOGIC and #353 Advanced Logic fills this gap.
For decades now, I had thought my 5th published book would serve as a
introduction to logic, but it does not serve as a full textbook and thus
the reason for #351 and #353.
--- quoting from my 5th published book---
Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors//
Teaching True Logic series, book 1
by Archimedes Plutonium
This is AP's 5th published book of science published on Internet,
Plutonium-Atom-Universe,
PAU newsgroup is this.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Preface:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math
professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and
fix their errors.
The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND"
and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their
logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but
never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5
(addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in
Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of
statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value,
then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth
table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the
If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the
true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with
a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers
would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no
means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a
Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and
cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic
must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic
is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of
mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined.
And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method
of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only
lead to a probability end conclusion.
My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime
around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was
illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply
the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof
method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to
a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or,
If->Then, by 2015.
Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have
a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to
show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom
writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
--------------------------
Table of Contents
--------------------------
1) In all thy getting, get knowledge, but what good is knowledge if you
cannot think straight, think clearly.
2) The 4 connectors of Logic.
3) AP History on Logic, mostly that of 2015.
4) Lesson: Relating Math Algebra to that of the 4 connectors of Logic//
repeat add = multiply, and repeat subtract = divide.
5) Lesson: Concordance of true Logic to mathematics algebra axioms.
6) Lesson: Old Math missed 4 axioms and one of them helps to prove No
Negative Numbers exist.
7) Historical AP postscripts.
--- end quoting from my 5th published book ---
AP
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 4, 2025, 1:50:34 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I am weaving and interconnecting these 4 books as each relates to the other.
On Sunday, May 4, 2025 at 12:38:35 AM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
On Sunday, May 4, 2025 at 12:21:40 AM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
So I am doing all four of these books simultaneously and in conjuction of
one another since one feeds off the others.
#350 Teaching True Geometry
#351 Teaching True Logic
#352 Teaching True Calculus
#353 Advanced Logic
I am finding that an idea in Calculus ties into an idea in Advanced Logic,
and all four seem connected; so may as well do all four at once.
For example, in my Advanced Logic book I describe how I solved the
unification of 4 forces of physics by looking for the force with the most
perfect particle and it turns out to be the Light-Wave photon, and so the
other 3 forces were manifestions of the Electromagnetic Force. Then I also
spoke of the Light Wave as being "perfect" DNA for biology. So I played
around with the concept of "perfect" to discover new science.
And this concept of "perfect" sort of, kind of, plays a role in Calculus.
When I was in College and learning calculus for the first time, I was
enamored with the Polynomial function because it was the easiest function
to get a derivative and integral by playing with add or subtract 1 to
exponent, and I thought to myself in college back in 1968 how fantastic it
would be if the Polynomial were the only function and how that reduces
calculus to be super easy. In a sense, we can describe the Polynomial as
being the "perfect" function for Calculus, for no other functions are as
easy to do in calculus, governed by the Power rule.
So, this idea of Polynomial as the perfect function because it makes
calculus super easy, is a logical what I would describe imperative, a
logical imperative. That if you can reduce all of calculus to add or
subtract 1 from exponent, it must be true that the Polynomial is the only
valid function of calculus and mathematics.
This reminds me of another Logic Principle-- Occam's Razor where the most
simple of explanations is likely to be the true explanation.
The most simple of functions to do Calculus is the Polynomial function, and
it is easy to convert all other so called functions not polynomial into
being a polynomial via the Lagrange Interpolation technique.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 4, 2025, 2:31:27 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, I am at what I call the midpoint of Advanced Logic, where I ask
a-lot of questions, reach the midpoint and then answer all those prior
questions. I am fighting to place in Logical Order these 5 Methods as to
which is subset of which. I know for sure that Physics is first and
Mathematics is fifth, but I need to place Pragmatism in correct order.
Tentatively I have this ordering of subset--- (1) Physics, (2) Scientific
Method, (3) Pragmatism, (4) Logic, (5) Mathematics.
Now, what I am going to do is use and utilize one of the finest ideas in
all of philosophy and science ever raised and that is Occam's Razor. Which
in simple terms is a statement that says--- the most simple explanation is
often the true explanation of some event.
Is Occam's Razor science?? Or is it math probability, or logic, or
physics???
If you took math and logic, you learn that to prove ---one set is a subset
of a larger set by showing an element is in the larger set but not in the
smaller set. So of the 5 methods-- in order for me to place them in an
order, I need to find one outstanding principle in science that is
contained in only Physics and not in the other 4 methods. Then find a
principle that is contained in Scientific Method, but not in the other 3
methods. Then, find a principle contained in only Pragmatism but not in
Logic nor Mathematics. Then, find a principle contained in only Logic and
not mathematics. Once that is completed, I am assured of Logical Order of
the 5 Methods.
Now that sounds like a overbearing daunting task, but not so, for I chose a
principle --- Occam's Razor that spans all 5 Methods and thus, Occam's
Razor alone can place the 5 Methods in Logical Order.
And I must add to this conversation a recent discovery of the true numbers
of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers in the idea that they are
always able to tell you exactly how many numbers exist within a Space of
numbers or geometry. Unlike Reals of Old Math, the answer is always--
infinity. While in Decimal Grid Numbers, the 10 Grid has 100 numbers in
total (not counting 0) and in 100 Grid it has 10000 not counting 0, etc. So
the size of Space, true space can also be a measuring rod of the 5 Methods.
In Calculus, it all boils down to a cell in a grid system and not the
obnoxious and mindless Old Math Reals of ever more infinity. Numbers have
to count, and you cannot count in Old Math chock full of infinities every
where you look.
Physics Method
1) Atomic theory, started in Ancient Greek times-- Leucippus, Democritus,
Epicurus, Titus Lucretius Carus and others.
2) All is Atom, and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism, by AP
1990.
3) All matter is made up of one of the 114 Chemical Elements of the
Periodic Table, and the Universe itself is matter hence it is one of the
114 Elements and plutonium fits all the special numbers of physics and math
the best fit.
4) Sun and stars shine from Faraday Law for everything is nothing but
electricity and magnetism in the Laws of Electromagnetism. For the true
electron of atoms is the muon and not the 0.5MeV particle which is Dirac's
magnetic monopole. The Muon is stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the
Faraday law with proton torus where the muon is going around inside the
proton torus at nearly the speed of light producing maximum electricity.
5) Our Sun has gone into Red Giant phase and unless we move out to Europa,
a satellite of Jupiter, all of life on Earth goes extinct and into oblivion.
6) Overwhelming evidence that Sun shines from Faraday law not fusion is
accelerated ice-cap melt and that NASA recorded a 0.005% yearly increase in
Solar radiation in the decade of 2010 to 2020 and where 25% of all insect
biomass on Earth perished in that decade. Insects and plants have the
highest response to a ever increasing Sun gone Red Giant phase.
7) AP reckons we have a window of opportunity to make Europa our new home
in the next 1,000 years by cargo hauling all we need to start a permanent
colony by spaceships powered by lithium ion batteries (drone like spaceship
launched from North-Pole-Greenland to take advantage of Earth's Magnetic
Field lines of force) and then powered by ion thrusters in travelling to
Europa on the Solar Winds.
8) All of science that we learned and all of human achievements amount to
nothing, if we fail to make a new Earth--- Europa. All science and
knowledge and education and understanding amount to nothing if we go into
oblivion.
9) The Universe in total is an Atom Totality of 231 Plutonium, a big atom
that contains microscopic Atoms. And this Atom Totality has its own
creation process known as Spontaneous Fission, SF. When within the Atom
Totality it forges and creates an Element of 192 it spontaneously fissions
into that new Element 96 Atom Totality.
10) The purpose of Life in any Atom Totality, is to make nucleosynthesis
for spontaneous fission. If humanity makes it to Europa to establish a new
Earth, a new home, then there we can look forward to do nucleosynthesis in
creating Element 192 which spontaneously fissions to make the new Atom
Totality Universe. I am not sure if the life that creates the next Universe
Atom Totality lives through the SF creation. I am sure that the purpose of
Life is to do nucleosynthesis for which stars cannot do that
nucleosynthesis.
Scientific Method of the sciences other than Physics:
1) Observation and Ask a Question
2) Do Background Research
3) Construct a Hypothesis
4) Test your Hypothesis by doing a Experiment
5) Analyze your data
6) Interpret the data and draw a Conclusion
7) Communicate and publish your results
8) Retest the Experiment and Conclusion
Method of Pragmatism
(1) Is a Language of Action for the Scientific Method.
(2) Reality for a Pragmatist-- observations, facts and data, definitions
and concepts-ideas.
(3) Life for a pragmatist is a long unending sequence of problem solving.
Only way to escape this guantlet is death.
(4) Ideas and the Meaning of those Ideas, for pragmatist are tools,
instruments, weapons for purposeful future action.
(5) Action in life for a pragmatist is important for it is action that
leads to change and leads to understanding and knowledge. Action and
Curiosity are intermingled. Action to a pragmatist is what motion is to a
physicist.
(6) Truth is what _works_ and works in the long run. Truth for the
Pragmatist is boiled down to be a "Law of Physics or Science". Because it
is science laws that work in the long run. So when we speak about truth in
the world, we are really talking about laws of science.
(7) Knowledge and Education is in the _doing_ the hands on Experience. For
a Pragmatist, that boils down to science in the - Experiment. Sitting in
school at desk and reading then being tested is education but not as good
of an education is actual hands on living what the book talks about.
(8) Happiness comes when one has __order and organization__ in life.
(9) Wisdom is having insight into what actions likely produce desired
results.
Logic Method
1) Is a Language of statements and writing for the purpose of precision.
2) Asking questions-- if not of others then questioning yourself. Wanting
answers.
3) Being accurate and precise, which usually means well-defining ideas.
4) Being focused and concentrating energy on projects. Not scatterbrained.
5) Thorough and complete.
6) Able in mathematics and science, to always give a number size to the
project or program or space you are working in.
7) Seeking patterns and the structure of Nature.
8) No contradictions allowed, but only Consistency allowed.
9) Arriving at answers and those answers consistent with known facts and
allowing answers to other problems outside our project.
Method of Mathematics
1) Is a Language of numbers and geometry for the purpose of precision.
2) True numbers forming a algebra and true geometry forming shapes and
figures.
3) Precision and accuracy, the hallmarks of mathematics.
4) Axioms and principles that are not proven but accepted.
5) Operators of mathematics the most simple of which are add, subtract,
multiply, divide, integral, derivative.
6) Step wise deductions of logic to form proofs called theorems.
7) No contradictions ever allowed.
8) Internal consistency of definitions and theorems.
9) All true theorems are able to connect with other theorems of math and do
not exist in isolation.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 4, 2025, 3:15:48 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, Occam's Razor is --- the most Simple Explanation is likely to be
the True explanation for an event that occurred.
Now through the decades of 1990 to present 2025, I have discovered many
great fabulous ideas of science by the concept of "perfect".
(A) I unified the 4 forces of Physics by noting the EM force has the most
perfect particle of the Light Wave-Photon and thus Strong Nuclear, Weak
Nuclear, and gravity must be manifestations of EM force.
(B) I unified physics with biology by saying a Light Wave-Photon is that of
"perfect DNA" noticing that the DNA structural geometry is similar to the
electric-field perpendicular to magnetic-field in Light Waves.
(C) I solved the Calculus proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus has to
be, where the Polynomial is the only valid function in all of mathematics
and if not a polynomial, you can easily transform your contraption into
being a polynomial via the Lagrange Interpolation. Calculus reduced to
where you only add or subtract 1 in the exponent as the Power Rule, turning
Calculus into the easiest possible way is a program of what I call "perfect
perfection".
And so, here, in May 2025, I ask the question is the concept of "simple" in
Occam's Razor, synonomous with the concept of "perfect". Is Simple equal to
that of Perfect??????
The most Simple Explanation is the most Perfect Explanation and the True
Explanation for an event that occurred.
So, Physics has these principles.
(a) Speed of Light is fastest speed possible and a constant speed
(b) Least Action Principle
(c) Perpetual Motion of Light Wave for it has no rest mass
(d) Maximum Electricity Principle
(e) Perpetual Motion of Muon inside Proton torus of all Atoms
When we look at that list, certainly, the concept of Simple and Perfect
must be descriptions of (a,b,c,d,e).
And looking at that list, I begin to see that I need Pragmatism after
Physics in this order. For Pragmatism is action and you need action to do
the Scientific Method. Good news to philosophy departments around the world
for they need a department of philosophy to teach Pragmatism and then also
Logic in the department of philosophy. But philosophy departments need to
throw out all religions of supernatural for those are cults and not
knowledge. And throw out Existentialism, Communism, Analytic Philosophy,
Freud as being "Attitudes and Opinions".
Correct order:
(1) Physics
(2) Pragmatism
(3) Scientific Method for sciences other than physics
(4) Logic
(5) Math
Now it maybe strange that it is Logic guiding me to the correct order yet
it is 4th on the list. But that is alright for math is last and math does
have content in Occam's Razor, for after all, math has probability theory
and Occam's Razor is not a proof in math but a probability test.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 5, 2025, 12:29:15 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Sunday, May 4, 2025 at 2:31:27 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Alright Occam's Razor--- the most simple explanation is probably the true
explanation of a event.
I am using Occam's Razor to tell me how to place in order of set to subset
of the 5 Methods. And by discerning how much of a method is allied with
Occam's Razor, I can tell that order ranking--- which appears to be (1)
Physics (2) Pragmatism (3) Scientific Method (4) Logic (5) Mathematics.
Physics makes the most use of Occam's Razor and math the least use of
Occam's Razor. This Occam's Razor test allows me to place Pragmatism just
below that of Physics.
Now, let us examine the Physics Method and how much of a use of Occam's
Razor.
Physics Method
1) Atomic theory, started in Ancient Greek times-- Leucippus, Democritus,
Epicurus, Titus Lucretius Carus and others.
2) All is Atom, and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism, by AP
1990.
3) All matter is made up of one of the 114 Chemical Elements of the
Periodic Table, and the Universe itself is matter hence it is one of the
114 Elements and plutonium fits all the special numbers of physics and math
the best fit.
4) Sun and stars shine from Faraday Law for everything is nothing but
electricity and magnetism in the Laws of Electromagnetism. For the true
electron of atoms is the muon and not the 0.5MeV particle which is Dirac's
magnetic monopole. The Muon is stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the
Faraday law with proton torus where the muon is going around inside the
proton torus at nearly the speed of light producing maximum electricity.
5) Our Sun has gone into Red Giant phase and unless we move out to Europa,
a satellite of Jupiter, all of life on Earth goes extinct and into oblivion.
6) Overwhelming evidence that Sun shines from Faraday law not fusion is
accelerated ice-cap melt and that NASA recorded a 0.005% yearly increase in
Solar radiation in the decade of 2010 to 2020 and where 25% of all insect
biomass on Earth perished in that decade. Insects and plants have the
highest response to a ever increasing Sun gone Red Giant phase.
7) AP reckons we have a window of opportunity to make Europa our new home
in the next 1,000 years by cargo hauling all we need to start a permanent
colony by spaceships powered by lithium ion batteries (drone like spaceship
launched from North-Pole-Greenland to take advantage of Earth's Magnetic
Field lines of force) and then powered by ion thrusters in travelling to
Europa on the Solar Winds.
8) All of science that we learned and all of human achievements amount to
nothing, if we fail to make a new Earth--- Europa. All science and
knowledge and education and understanding amount to nothing if we go into
oblivion.
9) The Universe in total is an Atom Totality of 231 Plutonium, a big atom
that contains microscopic Atoms. And this Atom Totality has its own
creation process known as Spontaneous Fission, SF. When within the Atom
Totality it forges and creates an Element of 192 it spontaneously fissions
into that new Element 96 Atom Totality.
10) The purpose of Life in any Atom Totality, is to make nucleosynthesis
for spontaneous fission. If humanity makes it to Europa to establish a new
Earth, a new home, then there we can look forward to do nucleosynthesis in
creating Element 192 which spontaneously fissions to make the new Atom
Totality Universe. I am not sure if the life that creates the next Universe
Atom Totality lives through the SF creation. I am sure that the purpose of
Life is to do nucleosynthesis for which stars cannot do that
nucleosynthesis.
A-lot of use of Occam's Razor, for what could be more simple that the
Universe is a Atom, an Atom that creates more Atoms and creates Life in
order to make new Atoms and the Atom Totality itself. I dare any reader
read any other cosmology of the Creation of the Universe that is more
"simple" more "perfect" than the Physics of Atom Totality. Try the Big Bang
to see if that is more simple? Try the religions to see if they are more
"simple"?
Now let us inspect Pragmatism with Occam's Razor as test.
In Pragmatism, truth is what works and works for the long run. Could one
say that the "most simple explanation is likely the true explanation" be
the same as "truth is what works and works in the long run"?? Is not
"truth" for the Pragmatist, the same as "most simple explanation"? So we
put Pragmatism second in rank for it has much Occam's Razor but not as much
as Physics.
Method of Pragmatism
(1) Is a Language of Action for the Scientific Method.
(2) Reality for a Pragmatist-- observations, facts and data, definitions
and concepts-ideas.
(3) Life for a pragmatist is a long unending sequence of problem solving.
Only way to escape this guantlet is death.
(4) Ideas and the Meaning of those Ideas, for pragmatist are tools,
instruments, weapons for purposeful future action.
(5) Action in life for a pragmatist is important for it is action that
leads to change and leads to understanding and knowledge. Action and
Curiosity are intermingled. Action to a pragmatist is what motion is to a
physicist.
(6) Truth is what _works_ and works in the long run. Truth for the
Pragmatist is boiled down to be a "Law of Physics or Science". Because it
is science laws that work in the long run. So when we speak about truth in
the world, we are really talking about laws of science.
(7) Knowledge and Education is in the _doing_ the hands on Experience. For
a Pragmatist, that boils down to science in the - Experiment. Sitting in
school at desk and reading then being tested is education but not as good
of an education is actual hands on living what the book talks about.
(8) Happiness comes when one has __order and organization__ in life.
(9) Wisdom is having insight into what actions likely produce desired
results.
Now we inspect Scientific Method for Occam's Razor. In the step of
"Interpret the data and draw conclusion" is not that step the same as
Occam's Razor-- the most simple explanation is the true explanation??
The Pragmatism method has more than the Scientific Method of Occam's Razor
and so we rank it 3rd and above Logic and above Mathematics.
Scientific Method of the sciences other than Physics:
1) Observation and Ask a Question
2) Do Background Research
3) Construct a Hypothesis
4) Test your Hypothesis by doing a Experiment
5) Analyze your data
6) Interpret the data and draw a Conclusion
7) Communicate and publish your results
8) Retest the Experiment and Conclusion
Logic insists upon well-defined ideas and that is seeking simple and
perfect. Logic insists upon steps of deductive proof for mathematics and of
logic itself. Again a program of simple and perfect.
Logic Method
1) Is a Language of statements and writing for the purpose of precision.
2) Asking questions-- if not of others then questioning yourself. Wanting
answers.
3) Being accurate and precise, which usually means well-defining ideas.
4) Being focused and concentrating energy on projects. Not scatterbrained.
5) Thorough and complete.
6) Step-wise deductions leading to conclusions.
7) Able in mathematics and science, to always give a number size to the
project or program or space you are working in.
8) Seeking patterns and the structure of Nature.
9) No contradictions allowed, but only Consistency allowed.
10) Arriving at answers and those answers consistent with known facts and
allowing answers to other problems outside our project.
Occam's Razor--- the most simple explanation is often the true explanation
for an event; is not in mathematics other than to say that Probability
theory is in mathematics and Occam's Razor is itself a question of
probability. The Logic Method has Occam's Razor in making Well-Defined
concepts and in making deductive proofs, but Occam's Razor is not in
mathematics other than it has probability content.
Method of Mathematics
1) Is a Language of numbers and geometry for the purpose of precision.
2) True numbers forming a algebra and true geometry forming shapes and
figures.
3) Precision and accuracy, the hallmarks of mathematics.
4) Axioms and principles that are not proven but accepted.
5) Operators of mathematics the most simple of which are add, subtract,
multiply, divide, integral, derivative.
6) Step wise deductions of logic to form proofs called theorems.
7) No contradictions ever allowed.
8) Internal consistency of definitions and theorems.
9) All true theorems are able to connect with other theorems of math and do
not exist in isolation.
_AP
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 5, 2025, 4:11:31 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
In Occam's Razor, by the concept of "simple" they mean as few of
assumptions as possible. William of Ockham 1287-1347 says " Entia non sunt
multiplicanda praeter necessitatem " which means "Entities must not be
multiplied beyond necessity ". I state it as the most simple explanation is
often the true explanation.
I have found the concept of "perfect" helpful in discovery of new science
truths. Can I say that "simple" and "perfect" are equal to each other??
Maybe they are duals of each other and not equals.
Notice that Mathematics is split into the duals of geometry as shape and
numbers as quantity. And Numbers start with addition by adding of 1 in
mathematical induction to obtain all the counting numbers. Start with 0 add
1 and you have 1, then add 1 to 1 and you have 2, etc. Start with geometry
shape and you have a line for x axis and a perpendicular line for y-axis
and you have the Plane of xy, considered as multiplication, for area is x
times y. Logic does not start with addition for the truth table of AND as
addition is TTTF. Logic starts with the truth table of Equal-Not as TTTT
and that is multiplication.
So Geometry math starts with multiplication and Logic starts with
multiplication of Equal-Not.
Physics starts with multiplication in the Axiom Principle of All is Atom,
and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. For electricity is
perpendicular to magnetism and is thus multiplication.
What does Pragmatism start with??? For a Pragmatist, the Meaning of Ideas
are weapons for purposeful future action, which is multiplication, not
addition. For the Pragmatist-- work and action are centerfold and is
multiplication, not addition.
Mathematics does have multiplication in forming Geometry for the plane is
length times width, and the Calculus integral is area under polynomial
function graph.
The Scientific Method has multiplication in "construct a hypothesis" and
has addition in "retest your experiment".
AP
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 6, 2025, 12:26:05 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
--- quoting from my Autobiography ---
Now I must recount an important part of my academic life which started
here at USU. It is important because it would culminate with the Atom
Totality Theory. It was here at USU just before I would be airplaned to
Australia to teach math that I had resolved to turn biology into math. It
started immediately after I had my first real job relating to my math
degree. It is a story which is independent of my schooling. It is a story
of my self motivation. I had earned a math Teaching Certificate from Utah
State University in the Spring of 1974 and had secured a teaching position
in Australia. This self-motivation came out of the blue, perhaps as a mark
of my joy, my happiness that I wanted to celebrate, to toast my good luck
and to toast the future, that I embarked on an independent academic
project. I started on an independent quest for turning the biological
theory of evolution into pure math. It was directly after I knew I had my
first real job. I went to the bookstore of USU and wanted a book on
biological evolution. I would read it on the way down to Australia and
while in Australia. I was not satisfied with the current state of
biological evolution theory, for logically it said not much more than that
the "fittest fit". Perhaps some strains of Lamarckian theory are true? At
least Lamarckian is clearer logically. Before leaving USU to airplane to
Australia I wanted a biology text which amplified the theory of biological
evolution. I wanted a textbook to study well and deeply while in Australia.
So I went to the USU bookstore in the Spring of 1974 for that purpose of
buying a biology textbook to carry with me to Australia. I bought a biology
text titled CONCEPTS OF BIOLOGY a cultural perspective . Skimming this
yellow covered book, I judged it was the best for my purpose, and the bonus
was that it was small sized not one of these massive biology tomes of a
text. A true science theory is powerful in its capacity to predict the
future. Current biological evolution can give a plausible explanation for
the past, for what has already happened. But it is deficient and weak in
any capacity for future prediction. I wanted to convert biological
evolution into a simple idea, or set of ideas, which were strictly math.
This quest started in 0034 and would last, on and off, for 16 years. This
quest was initiated by my self motivation by buying and reading the book
CONCEPTS OF BIOLOGY a cultural perspective. And then later I bought a
history of science book The Ascent of Man which influenced me because I
loved the pictures in the book and the book emphasized quantum physics
alongside biology. The book The Ascent of Man displays and discusses the
theory of biological evolution like a beautiful painting. This book was
superb reading as a history of science and when I first read it, it so
engrossed me. I was dissatisfied with the biological theory of evolution
and wanted to turn it into math. This was the start of my quest for a
better theory of evolution, a math based theory which would subsume
biological evolution. The book CONCEPTS OF BIOLOGY a cultural perspective
would leave important impressions on me. The theme in the text which
repeated itself often was that the deepest understanding, the underlying
explanation of everything biological was reducible to what is going on
chemically. At the time I bought it, I did not like the chapter titled
"Fallout" for it sounded too much like nuclear war not a pure biology text.
Now with the perspective of the Protons, I so much like that word. This
biology text was written from the viewpoint of chemistry. It was an
overview of biology and it explicitly enunciated the biological theory of
evolution, calling it the Modern Synthesis. Stating the four mechanisms of
the Modern Synthesis as (1) mutation, (2) genetic recombination, (3)
differential reproductive success (which is a definition of natural
selection) and (4) reproductive isolation such as geographic isolation.
Mutation and genetic recombination are genotype sources of evolutionary
variability. Natural selection and reproductive isolation are phenotypic
adaptations. Natural selection is differential reproductive success of
genetic types, i.e., organisms with inferior traits leave on average fewer
offspring than do those with superior traits. Inferior and superior are
defined by the environment. Traits are initiated by mutation and
recombination. Environment serves as the ultimate test for the "fitness" of
variations. The term phenotype is used to describe a genetic trait as it is
detected by our senses. For the genotypes TT and Tt then the plant is still
tall, even though the short t is recessive. This biology text gave a good
overview of cell theory. The lasting impression I got from this text was
that all of biology is reducible to chemical explanation. With the help of
this book I was hoping to chart a course to convert the theory of
biological evolution into ideas of math. To give a math idea, or set of
math ideas which contained the theory of biological evolution. I wanted to
restate biological evolution, making it a math statement, a simple math
idea, simple like a circle or sphere have absolute symmetry or a
probability idea that things tend to a state of minimum energy
requirements. I planned to set aside time for myself, especially during
summer school vacation while in Australia to study these books well. To
study biology well. While in Australia, I read the biology text CONCEPTS OF
BIOLOGY a cultural perspective twice. I no longer have my copy and it is
out of print. I had the Dartmouth College library system run an
interlibrary loan on it. This biology text which I bought at Utah State in
0034, just before departing for my teaching job in Australia. I remember
the text was excellent in its implication that ultimately all of biology is
chemistry and it was the first attempt in a textbook, which I had perused,
of reducing as much of biology down to chemistry. I remember the last
chapter was titled "Fallout", and what a fateful title that was. The
dominant impression I got from this text was that all of biology is
reducible to a chemical explanation. It contained a discussion of atoms,
protons, electrons in the chapter on life. Flashingforward to 0050, these
impressions lay dormant in me for those 16 years. These impressions were
precursors to the Plutonium Atom Totality where life is a radioactive
fallout of what atoms do. I was airplaned to Australia in Autumn 1974
leaving Los Angeles. It seemed like a longer flight than the one from
Malaysia a year earlier. I could not get any sleep on this airplane and
remember the flight passengers were all US teachers with everyone spread
out for comfort, a disheveled crew of inexperienced teachers trying to get
some sleep, since it was a long flight. And by the end of the flight we
were sprayed with something like DDT upon approaching Australia for fruit
flies or pest introduction control. We landed in Sydney and given a free
hotel room, the Wentworth Hotel, and all the food we could eat for free at
the hotel. I mostly spent the time sleeping. This would be my only
acquaintance with Sydney, my one and only sightseeing of Sydney as I saw
the pretty seashell- shaped music building by the harbor.
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 6, 2025, 6:35:39 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
When I wrote my autobiography in the 1990s, I started year 0000 as 1940
when plutonium the element was discovered. I thought it fanciful back then
but see it now as just confusion and should take some time out and enter
only common ordinary dates to eliminate the confusion. For instance I wrote
0050 which would be the actual year 1990. So when I get some time, I will
straighten that out.
So I had to place in Logical Order the largest set and then the 4 subsets
of Physics in this order--- Physics, Pragmatism, Scientific Method, Logic,
Math. Where Physics is the largest set and has 4 subsets in descending
order with math last.
I arrived at that Logical Order by using Occam's Razor, where Physics is
chock full of Occam's Razor, next comes Pragmatism, then Scientific Method;
Logic has little of Occam's Razor and Math has no Occam's razor other than
that math is the home of Probability theory and Occam's Razor is a
probabilistic statement. Occam's Razor again is the idea--- the most simple
explanation of an event is likely the true explanation of the event.
So now, well I am going to Test that Logical Order of Physics, then
Pragmatism, then Scientific Method, then Logic, then Math, with a new
test--- that of Darwin Evolution theory to see if the Order pans out the
same again.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 6, 2025, 9:45:05 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
This book, certainly is going to be one of my very best books ever written
and showcases my strength in Logic abilities. In fact, there has never been
a book of science written that is Logically Written, until this book.
And it is funny, outright and downright funny that Boole and Jevons started
logic, our modern day logic but did not have the logical brains to even be
in logic for they messed up and screwed up on all 4 of the simple Logic
Connectors--- AND, OR, EQUAL-NOT, IF--> THEN. And every so called logician
after Boole and Jevons like that of Bertrand Russell, Tarski, Carnap,
Wittgenstein, Lowenheim Skolem, Godel, for if you cannot see the mistakes
and errors of Boole and Jevons and fix them; then you are not a logician
but a duped sucker.
So my first persuasion of the Ordering of Methods--- Physics to Pragmatism
to Scientific Method to Logic to Math was by using Occam's Razor of the
concept of "simple" as not a multiplication of assumptions. My second
persuasion is biology Darwin Evolution, and can we say that Evolution tries
to make a species be "perfect to the environment" it lives in? We can pin
"simple" to not multiplying assumptions. Can we pin "perfect" to biology
evolution of making the "Fittest Fit"???? I think we are allowed that
concession.
So working backwards from Math all the way up to Pragmatism and finally
Physics. I was attempting to mathematize the Darwin Evolution theory
starting 1972 and finally accomplished the task by late 1990 with the Atom
Totality theory. That is a span of 18 years. For the Atom Totality theory
tells us the Darwin Evolution theory is mathematically that of the Bell
Inequality mathematics which John Bell, himself describes as
"superdeterminism", a world in which we are fated to do what we do and
become what we become and has no room for probability. So Mathematics is
where probability theory was borne and lies in, but mathematics has only
probability theory to give to Darwin Evolution. We go to Logic next and it
is a tiny bit better than mathematics in relating to Darwin Evolution for
Logic finds the 4 variables listed previously as consistent. The 4
variables of (1) mutation, (2) genetic recombination, (3) differential
reproductive success (which is a definition of natural selection) and (4)
reproductive isolation such as geographic isolation.
Then we come to Scientific Method but it is extremely difficult to run
Darwin Evolution into a experiment, where our best approach is observation.
However the Scientific Method also looks at Bell's Inequality and what is
called "superdeterminism" and modern day novices like to call "Quantum
Entanglement". In fact, recently, NOVA showed a entire program on Quantum
Entanglement by astronomers.
Quantum Entanglement is bizarre but true science. In the experiment two
starting out Light Waves are entangled with one another from the same
source, then split apart where one goes to one side of the cosmos and the
other to the other side of the cosmos. Now, we play around with one of
those Light Waves by doing something upon it. And the question then is
raised, what about the other Light Wave??? Has changing one of the Light
Waves affected the other Light Wave even though it is far far away and
separate of one another. Experiments have shown that by changing one of the
Light Waves, causes a change in the other Light Wave. One way for Logic to
answer this conundrum is that Light Waves are in a closed loop circuit with
the source and so changes in one wave naturally changes the other Light
Wave in the same closed loop circuit. Quantum Entanglement is best seen as
"superdeterminism" the absence of "free-will", and so, how can you even
have Darwin Evolution in a Cosmos that has no free-will and hence no
probability for biological evolution????
So by the time we reach Scientific Method, we have experiments to tell us
the truth.
Then we reach Pragmatism and there the Truth is what works and works in the
long run. Pragmatism looks at Observations of Darwin Evolution and compares
with Quantum Entanglement. The Darwin evolution does not work but the
Quantum-Entanglement (superdeterminism) does work. Now we reach Physics and
Quantum Entanglement is a crowning achievement of modern day physics.
So when we analyze the 5 Methods from Occam's Razor the razor is plentiful
in Physics but almost absent in Mathematics. When we analyze the 5 Methods
by Darwin Evolution, the entire department of mathematics of Probability
theory is in action with Evolution but as we go up to Scientific Method,
Pragmatism, and finally Physics, we see a take-over of Darwin Evolution by
Superdeterminism.
AP, King of Science and Logic
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 7, 2025, 12:53:25 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Experiment is to a Physicist what Proof is to a Mathematician and what
Persuasion is to a Pragmatist
I thought I knew Pragmatism inside and out but am lacking of a word to
describe the convincing and persuading of someone of the truth. "Argument"
sounds too argumentative. Proof is too strong, and experiment is out of the
question. So unless I can find a better term for convincing another of the
truth, I will use the term "Persuasion" in Pragmatism.
So I have this order.
1) Physics and Experiment is the convincer
2) Pragmatism and Experimental Persuasion is the convincer
3) Scientific Method Experiment Results is the convincer
4) Logic Method and syllogism proof is the convincer
5) Math Method and proof is the convincer
So I went through these 5 Methods with Occam's Razor and Physics is
top-heavy in Occam's Razor while math is almost barren of Occam's razor
save for the fact that probability theory rests in the house of mathematics.
Then I went through these 5 Methods with biology Darwin's theory of
evolution. Math and Logic are decidely for or pro Darwin Evolution while
Scientific Method starts to split off from Evolution and instead install
Quantum Entanglement--Superdeterminism. And then Pragmatism with its Truth
is what works, adopts Superdeterminism and then Physics is all pro for
Quantum Entanglement- Superdeterminism.
Occam's Razor is about the concept of "simple" which can be construed as
that of "do not multiply assumptions".
What is Darwin's Biological Evolution? Can we construe Biological Evolution
as "creating a perfect plant or animal for the environment it lives in" ???
Let us say that Biological Evolution is a mechanism for creating a perfect
creature for the environment it finds itself.
And with that idea of "perfect" what can we say is perfect in physics and
what is perfect in the opposite spectrum-- mathematics???
In Physics the "perpetual motion" is a perfect mechanism in the muon
speeding around the proton torus to create electricity is a perfect
machine. Another perfection in Physics is the speed of Light Waves with no
rest mass that they forever travel at the constant fastest speed possible--
the speed of Light. That is perfection. So the Perpetual Motion of muon
inside a proton torus and the Speed of Light Waves are two items of
Perfection.
How about perfection in Math and Logic?? Or in Scientific Method and
Pragmatism???
In Math and Logic, there is no perfection because both Math and Logic have
to start with Axioms or assumptions which people agree upon and have no
persuasion other than being accepted as true. So the proof in math and the
syllogism (proof) in Logic all rest upon acceptance of axioms and
principles. So there is no "perfection" in math or logic. How about
Scientific Method? Here we have experiments which do reveal perfect speed
of Light Waves and perpetual motion of muons circling around inside proton
torus. Pragmatism accepts these experiments and hails them as "truth is
what works".
AP
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 7, 2025, 2:31:31 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, I have hit a gold mine here in my research, and is filled with joy
and happiness.
Let me explain slowly for I have the impulse of blurting it all out at once.
I used Two Ideas to test for Logical Order of that of Physics, Pragmatism,
Scientific Method, Logic, Mathematics. I used Occam's Razor and I used
secondly the Darwin theory of biological evolution to arrive at that order,
placing Physics first and Math as fifth or last.
Occam's Razor as this--- the most simple explanation is often the true
explanation for an event that has happened. That can be stated as --- do
not multiply assumptions when a few assumptions explains the event that
happened. And furthermore that can be reduced to the Physics principle of
Least Action. The motion of a particle in physics is always of Least
Action. Occam's Razor is Physics Least Action.
Now we look at mathematics where we look for --- Do Not Multiply
Assumptions.
And if I recall correctly, that Geometry alone in mathematics has 30
Axioms. Axioms such as "Two Points determine a Line" is fine. But there are
axioms in math that between any two points is an endless number of new
points to satisfy their definition of Reals-irrationals-rationals.
What I am saying in short--- Mathematics with its 30+ Axioms are Occam's
Razor bristling to the teeth in over-multiplication of assumptions.
Physics has 0 assumptions and its proofs are experiments
Mathematics has 30+ assumptions in every proof, and many of those 30+
assumptions are contradictory towards one another.
Ironic, that Physics is the most reliable truth teller, while math is the
least reliable truth teller. And this is plain to see, that in Physics
history, starting with year 1900 of Max Planck in Germany with blackbody
radiation realized that Physics was Quantized. Meaning that Physics was
discrete with holes in between one number and the next number. While in
year 1900 and beyond, math was deeply in a cesspool sewer of Continuous and
continuity, never able to rise above their cesspool that numbers of math
have to be Discrete as well as physics being discrete.
The assumptions in Physics--- is 0, zero for physics relies on Experiments
that are repeatable.
The assumptions in Math--- is at least 30+ for geometry and probably 30
more for algebra making 60+ assumptions. This reliance on assumptions
(called axioms) leaves math wide open to being fraud and full of error.
Now I have to go back to each description of the 5 Methods and update their
characteristics and features. And I can then easily see by just the amount
of Assumptions used in each Method places them in a specific order.
AP, King of Science & Logic
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 8, 2025, 1:05:06 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Looking in Eves & Newsom 1958, An Introduction to the Foundations and
Fundamental Concepts of Mathematics lists on pages 32-34 that of Geometry's
Euclid 23 definitions with 5 postulates (axioms) and 5 common notions for a
total of 33 assumptions.
Then looking at Harold Jacobs, 1987, GEOMETRY starting at page 647 through
653 lists 15 postulates and I am sure that there would be many more
definitions than what Euclid had of his 23.
So to say that modern geometry definitions plus postulates would easily
amount to over 50 would be considered as 50 assumptions.
After page 34 Eves & Newsom talk about errors in the Euclid axioms. But
glancing down the list of 33 assumptions by Euclid can spot numerous
errors. For example in the first definition of a point is that which has no
part. Is not true in math when we reach the infinity borderline of
1*10^-604 we can still go out to 1*10^-1208 rendering a geometry point of
some length, width, and depth.
Then there are no definitions or postulates in Euclid saying that empty
space exists between one point and the next point. And Euclid's 5th "common
notions" of "The whole is greater than the parts". Is questionable in
Quantum Mechanics of particle to wave duality, and even the Atom Totality
Universe containing atoms inside itself.
So if Geometry needs 50 assumptions, composed of definitions, postulates
and axioms, it is a safe bet that Algebra and Numbers need 50 assumptions
and that the whole of mathematics operates on at minimum 100 assumptions.
Just the nightmare situation of Occam's Razor that the science with as few
of assumptions is the prefered science. Physics operates solely on
Experiment and not any assumptions.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 8, 2025, 1:36:45 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, so, let me revise the 5 Methods from the insight that Mathematics
postulates and definitions increase the chances of error in mathematics as
they agree to postulates that may totally be fantasy and fiction and not
reality. A classic case of mathematics chugging along on 100 assumptions
which is exactly what Occam's Razor is opposed to.
Physics Method
1) Physics runs on Experimental-proof as its modus operandi.
2) Atomic theory, started in Ancient Greek times-- Leucippus, Democritus,
Epicurus, Titus Lucretius Carus and others.
3) All is Atom, and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism, by AP
1990.
4) All matter is made up of one of the 114 Chemical Elements of the
Periodic Table, and the Universe itself is matter hence it is one of the
114 Elements and plutonium fits all the special numbers of physics and math
the best fit.
5) Sun and stars shine from Faraday Law for everything is nothing but
electricity and magnetism in the Laws of Electromagnetism. For the true
electron of atoms is the muon and not the 0.5MeV particle which is Dirac's
magnetic monopole. The Muon is stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the
Faraday law with proton torus where the muon is going around inside the
proton torus at nearly the speed of light producing maximum electricity.
6) Our Sun has gone into Red Giant phase and unless we move out to Europa,
a satellite of Jupiter, all of life on Earth goes extinct and into oblivion.
7) Overwhelming evidence that Sun shines from Faraday law not fusion is
accelerated ice-cap melt and that NASA recorded a 0.005% yearly increase in
Solar radiation in the decade of 2010 to 2020 and where 25% of all insect
biomass on Earth perished in that decade. Insects and plants have the
highest response to a ever increasing Sun gone Red Giant phase.
8) AP reckons we have a window of opportunity to make Europa our new home
in the next 1,000 years by cargo hauling all we need to start a permanent
colony by spaceships powered by lithium ion batteries (drone like spaceship
launched from North-Pole-Greenland to take advantage of Earth's Magnetic
Field lines of force) and then powered by ion thrusters in travelling to
Europa on the Solar Winds.
9) All of science that we learned and all of human achievements amount to
nothing, if we fail to make a new Earth--- Europa. All science and
knowledge and education and understanding amount to nothing if we go into
oblivion.
10) The Universe in total is an Atom Totality of 231 Plutonium, a big atom
that contains microscopic Atoms. And this Atom Totality has its own
creation process known as Spontaneous Fission, SF. When within the Atom
Totality it forges and creates an Element of 192 it spontaneously fissions
into that new Element 96 Atom Totality.
11) The purpose of Life in any Atom Totality, is to make nucleosynthesis
for spontaneous fission. If humanity makes it to Europa to establish a new
Earth, a new home, then there we can look forward to do nucleosynthesis in
creating Element 192 which spontaneously fissions to make the new Atom
Totality Universe. I am not sure if the life that creates the next Universe
Atom Totality lives through the SF creation. I am sure that the purpose of
Life is to do nucleosynthesis for which stars cannot do that
nucleosynthesis.
Method of Pragmatism
(1) Is a Language of Action to do Experiments for the Scientific Method.
One can say that Pragmatism is the common language to conduct a experiment
of science.
(2) Reality for a Pragmatist-- observations, facts and data, definitions
and concepts-ideas.
(3) Life for a pragmatist is a long unending sequence of problem solving.
Only way to escape this guantlet is death.
(4) Ideas and the Meaning of those Ideas, for pragmatist are tools,
instruments, weapons for purposeful future action.
(5) Action in life for a pragmatist is important for it is action that
leads to change and leads to understanding and knowledge. Action and
Curiosity are intermingled. Action to a pragmatist is what motion is to a
physicist.
(6) Truth is what _works_ and works in the long run. Truth for the
Pragmatist is boiled down to be a "Law of Physics or Science". Because it
is science laws that work in the long run. So when we speak about truth in
the world, we are really talking about laws of science.
(7) Knowledge and Education is in the _doing_ the hands on Experience. For
a Pragmatist, that boils down to science in the - Experiment. Sitting in
school at desk and reading then being tested is education but not as good
of an education is actual hands on living what the book talks about.
(8) Happiness comes when one has __order and organization__ in life.
(9) Wisdom is having insight into what actions likely produce desired
results.
Scientific Method of the sciences other than Physics:
1) Observation and Ask a Question
2) Do Background Research
3) Construct a Hypothesis
4) Test your Hypothesis by doing a Experiment
5) Analyze your data
6) Interpret the data and draw a Conclusion
7) Communicate and publish your results
8) Retest the Experiment and Conclusion
Logic Method
1) Is a Language of statements and forming deductions from those statements
called syllogisms. Logic is the deduction framework used by mathematics
called proofs. Logic has two major purposes of precision statements and of
consistency of statements.
2) Asking questions-- if not of others then questioning yourself. Wanting
answers.
3) Being accurate and precise, which usually means well-defining ideas.
4) Being focused and concentrating energy on projects. Not scatterbrained.
5) Thorough and complete.
6) Step-wise deductions leading to conclusions.
7) Able in mathematics and science, to always give a number size to the
project or program or space you are working in.
8) Seeking patterns and the structure of Nature.
9) No contradictions allowed, but only Consistency allowed.
10) Arriving at answers and those answers consistent with known facts and
allowing answers to other problems outside our project.
Method of Mathematics
1) Is a Language of numbers and geometry for the purpose of precision.
2) Many assumptions are made in mathematics of about 50 for geometry of
definitions and postulates (axioms) and about 50 for algebra and numbers.
3) True numbers forming a algebra and true geometry forming shapes and
figures.
4) Precision and accuracy, the hallmarks of mathematics.
5) Axioms and principles that are not proven but accepted.
6) Operators of mathematics the most simple of which are add, subtract,
multiply, divide, integral, derivative.
7) Step wise deductions of logic to form proofs called theorems.
8) No contradictions ever allowed.
9) Internal consistency of definitions and theorems.
10) All true theorems are able to connect with other theorems of math and
do not exist in isolation.
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 8, 2025, 1:23:09 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Thursday, May 8, 2025 at 1:05:06 AM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Looking in Eves & Newsom 1958, An Introduction to the Foundations and
Fundamental Concepts of Mathematics lists on pages 32-34 that of Geometry's
Euclid 23 definitions with 5 postulates (axioms) and 5 common notions for a
total of 33 assumptions.
There is an interesting discussion on page 38 where Eves & Newsom berate
Euclid's postulates (axioms) in contending that the 2 intersecting circles
actually gives the point C to form the Equilateral Triangle ABC. And the
authors say that some form of "continuity axiom" is needed.
And on an earlier page of Eves & Newsom it appears that Aristotle should be
credited with Occam's Razor and not the 14th century theologian William of
Ockham.
--- quoting Eves & Newsom---
We observe that the first principles of Euclid's Elements fit quite well
the Aristotelian account of definitions, postulates, and axioms as given in
the previous section. It would also seem that Euclid strove to keep his
list of postulates and axioms to an irreducible minimum. This economy, too,
is in keeping with Aristotle's views, for in his Analytica posteriora he
says, "other things being equal, that proof is the better which proceeds
from the fewer postulates, or hypotheses, or propositions."
--- end quoting Eves & Newsom---
AP writes: I can just picture William of Ockham having to study Euclid
geometry and having to study Aristotle also, and coming across the idea
that "we must not multiply assumptions and that the proof with fewest
assumptions is to be prefered. And so Ockham is given the credit for the
Razor when in fact Aristotle originated the idea.
AP writes: So, well, how does Discrete Geometry answer the vexing question
of point C of two intersecting circles producing a Equilateral
Triangle????? And here we come into the idea, perhaps for the first time,
that mathematics and logic are poor and rusty in establishing truth in
science, being burdened with over 100 assumptions and asked to create and
place some more assumptions to prove C exists. And here is where going up
the ladder of Methods to Scientific Method then Pragmatism then Physics do
we straighten out the question posed by Eves & Newsom of point C in two
intersecting circles. For the method of Logic and Math seem to stall and
give out. For logic and math are not experimental sciences but Scientific
Method, Pragmatism, Physics are experimental sciences.
You see, ever since Aristotle onwards we have come to view mathematics,
unrightfully, as superior truth to science. We have come to view the math
deduction proof as superior to a science experiment when in reality, it is
the Math proof that is shaky and flimsy compared to the science experiment
that is well interpreted and well checked. And the reason for this
superiority of Science over Math and even Logic, is that, Physics seeks
truth and carries no assumptions what so ever, while Math and Logic carry
at least 100 assumptions on every adventure that math and logic take.
So, well Eves and Newsom on page 38 with their berating of point C is
unjustified, and how would Scientific Method, Pragmatism, and Physics
easily solve that question, and not have to go into some stultifying
obnoxious and painful quest into point intersection and continuity when
Discrete Geometry rules the world???? And the answer is cool cool simple
cool. Everytime the Ancient Greeks picked up a compass and ruler they were
physicists, pragmatists and scientists as doing a experiment and saw that
if the two circles intersected in one point that the centers of circles
were 2 radius apart, and if they shortened that, the two circles intersect
in 2 points, one being C.
We have looked upon mathematics ever since Euclid as almost being a
religion of truth and the math proof as some holy religion affair, when in
fact, math and logic saddled with over 100 assumptions, many of which are
very dirty and wrong, that the results of math are never as clean as the
results of science with their Experimental proof.
Then looking at Harold Jacobs, 1987, GEOMETRY starting at page 647 through
653 lists 15 postulates and I am sure that there would be many more
definitions than what Euclid had of his 23.
Now, that I have blasted Eves and Newsom with some illogic on their part---
by the way I was looking through Eves and Newsom and spotted a passage
where they say "any two distinct points....." and tried unsuccessfully to
find that passage in Eves and Newsom. For the moment that any scientist
writes "given any two distinct points..." rather than simply saying "given
any two points", is a failure of Logic and should start over with Logic 1,
before reading Logic 2. For if one says, given any two points, you never
need to add "distinct", because when you say given any 2 points, they are
automatically distinct, else the points are one and the same, and there is
no need to have to elaborate. I bring this up because there is a Canadian
stupid loser of logic as shown in sci.math with his failure of logic.
Whenever I see a logician or mathematician rant and rave on insisting to
include "two distinct points", signals to me that they are a complete
failure of math and logic at the get go.
Here is an example of Dan Christensen fumbling with the most simple of
logic reasoning, and yet Canada keeps allowing this misfit to dig deeper
into logic.
The stupid Dan Christensen always chokes up when it comes to logic or even
just plain commonsense with his 2 OR 1 = 3 and his AND as subtraction.
On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:08:09 AM UTC-6, Peter Percival wrote:
> Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:47:32 AM UTC-5, Archimedes
Plutonium wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 8:27:19 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen
wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:16:52 AM UTC-5, Archimedes
Plutonium wrote:
> >>>> PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of
logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra,
Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector
> >>>>
> >>>> The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any
two points lies a third new point.
> >>>
> >>> The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points."
> >>>
> >>
> >> What a monsterous fool you are
> >>
> >
> > OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it.
>
> And yet Mr Plutonium is right. Two points are distinct (else they would
> be one) and it is not necessary to say so.
>
Now I wanted to talk about Harold Jacobs textbook GEOMETRY page 551 and 552
on Cavalieri Postulate with respect to the fact that only AP of all living
mathematicians sees and admits that slant cut of cone is Oval, never
ellipse and that the entire rest of the mathematicians on Earth today, are
failures of math as they cannot admit the truth, --- slant cut of cone is
oval, not ellipse for you need a cylinder slant cut to deliver a ellipse.
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 8, 2025, 1:46:33 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Thursday, May 8, 2025 at 1:23:09 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(massively snipped)
Now I wanted to talk about Harold Jacobs textbook GEOMETRY page 551 and 552
on Cavalieri Postulate with respect to the fact that only AP of all living
mathematicians sees and admits that slant cut of cone is Oval, never
ellipse and that the entire rest of the mathematicians on Earth today, are
failures of math as they cannot admit the truth, --- slant cut of cone is
oval, not ellipse for you need a cylinder slant cut to deliver a ellipse.
I am going to use the Cavalieri Postulate as shown in Harold Jabobs book
slicing parallel planes into Cones and into Cylinders, with the end result
being that the Cavalieri Postulate is all wrong and scientific idiots like
Jimmy Wales, his band of fascist editors at Wikipedia and all math
professors who refuse to admit the truth--- slant cut of Cone is Oval,
never ellipse.
--- quoting Wikipedia on Conic Section, for Jimmy Wales with his fascist
editors never allow the truth of science into any of their entries of
science in Wikipedia, not even a simple geometry of slant cut of cone is
Oval, never ellipse---
The black boundaries of the colored regions are conic sections. Not shown
is the other half of the hyperbola, which is on the unshown other half of
the double cone.
--- end quoting Wikipedia on Conic Section---
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 8, 2025, 3:35:21 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright I reached the midpoint of this book and surpassed it and now on the
downslope side to answering all the questions posed in the first 1/2 of
this book. I surpassed the Logical Ordering of Physics, then Pragmatism,
then Scientific Method, then Logic, then finally Math in last place. I used
what Aristotle had invented and later known as Occam's Razor, that truth
comes best when we do not multiply assumptions. Physics and then Pragmatism
and then Scientific Method have no assumptions and their proof is
Experimental Proof. While Logic and Math require a boatload of assumptions
some 100 or more assumptions that goes into their deductive stepwise proof.
These assumptions are called definitions and postulates and axioms. And if
one of those definitions or postulates are false, then math and logic can
for centuries or milleniums keep building up so called proofs when in
reality they are falsehoods. We see that in history of math where in year
1900 Max Planck proved by Experiment that geometry is discrete and called
it Quantum Mechanics. Yet the buffoons of mathematics throughout the 1900s
kept digging deeper into the insane continuous and continuum as seen by
Paul Cohen with his mind-numbing Continuum Hypothesis.
Science Experiment proof is far far greater in truth value than ever is a
collection of definitions and postulates pushed along in a deductive
stepwise math and logic proof. The ease in which we can take a Experiment
of Science of compass and ruler and have 2 circles intersect in 2 points
and fetch a Equilateral triangle, yet the exasperating pain of math to have
a postulate that the circles in fact intersect at point C in Eves & Newsom.
Science Experiment easily proves slant cut of Cone is Oval, not the ellipse
that math professors propagandize on all college and university campuses,
just because those math professors have no logical marbles in their head,
and why should they for no college or university requires its scientists to
take two years of College Logic with AP's two logic textbooks for Logic 1
and this book Logic 2-- Advanced Logic.
So the experiment AP has talked about for some decade now is the rolling up
of a stiff paper into a cone and drop a Kerr or Mason lid inside and slant
it. You see one end is narrow while the other end crescent is wide---
meaning a Oval. For the slant cut of a cylinder is truly a ellipse. And a
Oval versus ellipse are far far different figures. Easy experiment that a
13 or 14 year old can do and prove slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse.
And to further show the superiority of Experiment Proof over that of Math
and Logic Deductive Proof with its 100 or more assumptions, is the
Cavalieri Postulate shown in Harold Jacobs's GEOMETRY 1987, pages 551 and
552.
Postulate 14
Cavalieri's Principle
Consider two geometric solids and a plane. If every plane parallel to this
plane that intersects one of the solids also intersects the other so that
the resulting cross sections have the same area, then the two solids have
the same volume.
So that here is a second Experiment which shows that either we have true
that of the Cavalieri Principle is true or we have true that the slant cut
is a ellipse of a cone, a conic section.
Obviously to Physics experiment, to Pragmatism experiment to Scientific
Method experiment that the parallel planar cuts into cone and cylinder that
only the cylinder delivers ellipses and the cone delivers only ovals.
The math professors who say ellipse is a Conic section are failures.
We keep the Cavalieri Postulate and throw out the math professors who think
slant cut of cone is ellipse.
AP, King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 8, 2025, 3:52:16 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Now on this 1/2 downslope where I answer all the open questions in the
first 1/2 of this book I need to talk about a new question. And one of the
reasons I am doing 4 books in a row #350 Teaching True Geometry, #351
Teaching True Logic, #352 Teaching True Calculus, and finally #353 Advanced
Logic, is that these 4 books mingle with each other, one helping the others.
In Teaching True Calculus, I present the reader with the world's first
valid proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. And that proof requires
the true numbers of mathematics be discrete in the Decimal Grid Numbers,
which creates what I call "cells" of rectangles on graph paper. So the
function graph is a polynomial function over individual cells.
In the 10 Grid the first cell is from x being 0 to 0.1, and the second cell
is from 0.1 to 0.2, and the y-value can be anything from 0 to 10 value.
And in that proof, a geometry proof, I show where the integral is a
rectangle inside that cell and over all the cells that the function covers.
Polynomials are the only allowed functions and if not a polynomial you must
convert your contraption into a polynomial using Lagrange Interpolation.
But, what I am worried about is the idea that a function can cross a single
cell in a shape where it is not one of these three shapes of ---- straight
across, or / or \.
Can the polynomial function cross a specific cell that is not in the shape
of --- or / or \. Could it say cross through that particular cell in the
shape of a W or a M.
The reason I am concerned about that is because the geometry proof is that
the integral is a rectangle in the cell, and the derivative comes about by
slicing the left wall of the rectangle or the right wall of the rectangle
into being a right triangle that becomes the derivative.
If any function crosses a cell that is in a different shape than ----- or /
or \, then I am in trouble with my proof of Fundamental Theorem of
Calculus. Let me explain further and also give the solution.
AP
May 9, 2025, 12:45:33 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
One of the 4 books in my series of #350 through #353 is a book on True
Calculus, and here I am using Advanced Logic to answer a question I never
answered in the past. I am asking if the Rectangle of the integral is
formed from the Midpoint of going from x = 0.1 to x = 0.2 in 10 Grid which
is 0.15 a point borrowed from 100 Grid. And that what the Polynomial
function graph does at 0.15. Does it do a ---- or a / or a \ but no other
geometry is allowed, in order for the integral and derivative are inverses
of one another. I did not address this problem in any of my prior writings.
And I suspect that Old Math, even though they never had a valid proof of
Fundamental Theorem of Calculus with their stupid limit analysis, that Old
Math had some alleged theorem that harkens back to the idea that the
Midpoint is crucial in each and every cell to form the top side of the
integral rectangle. In other words, in New Math, the midpoint in each cell
forms the top side of a rectangle that is the integral of that cell, and
from the midpoint we slice out a right triangle if upward slope derivative
from the left wall of the rectangle or if a downward slope at the midpoint
we slice out a right triangle from right wall of rectangle, and of course
if the function is flat line like x = 3 then there is no slope.
Even though Old Math was totally wrong on calculus with their fake proof
using limit analysis and their fake numbers of Reals and their mindless
insistence of continuity when discreteness is the true path, in all that
folly, Old Math should have come up with a theorem that bespeaks of the
idea that the integral of each cell is the midpoint forming the top side of
the rectangle area. I believe it is the Intermediate Value Theorem that
harkens back to New Math as the midpoint necessity.
The Intermediate Value Theorem : Suppose that f is continuous on the closed
interval [a,b] and let N be any number between f(a) and f(b), where f(a)
=/= f(b). Then there exists a number c in (a,b) such that f(c) = N.
(Stewart 2003)
Now I look to see Stewart's Old Math proof in his Calculus textbook of FTC
which comes in two parts to see if he needs the Intermediate Value Theorem,
for AP surely needs to know if the midpoint of a cell will garner the
integral rectangle. Looking at Stewart's fake analysis proof, he does use
the Extreme Value Theorem, which in a sense is a form of the Intermediate
Value Theorem.
The Extreme Value Theorem: If f is continuous on a closed interval [a,b],
then f attains an absolute maximum value f(c) and an absolute minimum value
f(d) at some numbers c and d in [a,b]. (Stewart 2003)
So, what I am saying here is that in New Math with a true proof of FTC,
there is the question of a midpoint in every cell of the polynomial
function and that midpoint forms the top side of the Integral rectangle.
And that Old Math, totally in the weeds with their fake calculus should
have some theorems that reflect the true need of a midpoint.
That each and every cell of Calculus in New Math has a midpoint and a
rectangle formed from that midpoint, and that the Function Polynomial
either goes like this ---- through the cell or like this / through the cell
or like this \ through the cell, one of those 3 choices and no other
choice. Here is where I suspect the Polynomial Function forces the function
to well-behave in each cell and not pull off something weird and strange
like doing this in a cell M or doing this in a cell W.
The mathematics of calculus is crucial to physics for the laws of
electromagnetism are laws of differential equations. And so a valid proof
of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, is essential. A geometry proof is
more sought for than a algebra analytic contraption that is "limit
analysis" and any math professor that thinks a limit analysis is a proof of
FTC should be drummed out of mathematics.
To do a valid FTC requires the numbers of mathematics be discrete with
holes and empty space between one number and the next. Requires the
functions of mathematics be only Polynomial functions and that the Graph
coordinate system have 1st Quadrant Only. There are ___ no Negative Numbers
in true math____.
And a proof of FTC tells us what in Old Math is terribly wrong and moronic.
I gave the proof, a geometry proof circa 2015.
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
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
| |
|____|
A
The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
so that it can be hinged at midpoint m, and swiveled down to form rectangle
for integral.
To this:
__m___
| |
| |
| |
---------
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.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 9, 2025, 1:05:31 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
As I said so many times before, Calculus is the pinnacle achievement of
mathematics and is the very most important math that Physics uses, for the
"All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism" Principle
of Physics is completely draped in the Calculus of Differential Equations
for the Laws of Electricity and Magnetism. Physics and Math meet in that of
Calculus.
Yet, Physics in Max Planck 1900 discovered Quantum Mechanics in that year
1900 and realized all of physics is discrete never continuous, yet the
foolish dumb goonclod mathematicians from 1900 to present day May 2025,
those foolish idiots of math still preach continuous, continuity, the
Continuum Hypothesis and every calculus classroom at colleges and
universities with continuity mind rot.
The world's first valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus occurred
when AP posted it to sci.math, sci.physics in 2015, a geometry proof that
looks like this.
Here is a picture of what you have
From this:
B
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
|A |
|____|
a b
The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
so that it can be hinged at m, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
integral. The area of the rectangle is the integral.
To this:
__m__
| |
| |
| |
---------
a b
So, we have two items in Calculus for this theorem, we have a derivative,
the straight line segment A to B with m in the middle. And we have the
rectangle area which we call the integral.
The essentials of Calculus are simply a rectangle in a Cell of Decimal Grid
Numbers along the x-axis and when you carve a right triangle out of that
rectangle right or left wall and swivel the right triangle up onto m the
midpoint the y-value of b becomes B and is the line segment that is the
derivative and forms the next point, after A that the polynomial function
graph intersects in that cell.
What I am exploring here in May 2025, is the need of a theorem before I do
the proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC. Yesterday I noticed
that Old Math with their invalid and stupid FTC using "limit analysis" that
Old Math needed to prove a form of the Intermediate Value Theorem as the
Extreme Value Theorem in order for Old Math phony FTC to become
established. In the same light, it appears that I need to prove that the
points I call "A" then "m" then "B" in the above valid proof of FTC are
__collinear___.
If I can prove that AmB are collinear, then I can prove that the Integral
rectangle is created from the midpoint "m" as the top side of the integral
rectangle.
So here, although Old Math's stupid "limit analysis" phony proof is trash,
it still is of some benefit in guiding me that I need to prove first that
when your true numbers of math are Decimal Grid Numbers that forms a long
chain of Cells along the x-axis, and the only valid function of math is the
Polynomial function which cuts through each Cell and that AmB have to be
collinear. Is to say that--- yes Old Math has a fake proof, but is still
useful as a guide to a true proof of FTC.
AP, King of Science and Logic
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 9, 2025, 1:32:15 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I am not sure, but I think the use of only Polynomial Functions in all of
math as the only valid function in math may save me from having to make a
theorem proof that AmB are collinear, and allow me to make just one solid
FTC proof without any "helper theorems".
Consider this geometry. Below I have drawn in Cell 1.0 to 1.1 for all the
10 Grid cells are 100 cells where each cell is separated by 0.1 distance
apart.
| |
| |
| |
1 1.1
So say we have the Function x^2 which is a polynomial by the way whose
derivative is 2x and integral (1/3)x^3.
So this function y--> x^2 starts at 0 and then meets up with the cell 1 to
1.1. As the function meets x= 1, its y-value which I called A in prior post
is going to be 1^2 = 1, while the function then crosses to meet x=1.1 and
the B value will be 1.1^2 =1.21.
But, the worry and question on the part of AP's mind, is whether the
midpoint of 1 to 1.1 as that of 1.05, whether that midpoint is collinear
with the line segment formed from (1,1) and (1.1, 1.21). For 1.05^2 =1.1025.
Can we picture that 1.1025 in (1.05, 1.1025) is collinear with (1,1) and
(1.1, 1.21).
I think we can in the idea that given any Polynomial Function, you can
divide it by straight line segments and end up with nothing but straight
line segments. In other words Polynomials as the only valid functions in
all of mathematics is because polynomials are nothing but a collection of
Straight Line segments.
I believe it is the idea that the Only Valid Functions in all of
mathematics has to be Polynomials because only they can guarantee "m" the
midpoint in every Cell of Decimal Grid Numbers is collinear with A and B.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 9, 2025, 1:53:30 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So I think and hope that Polynomial Functions as the only valid functions
allows me to proceed directly to the proof of FTC without having to build a
helper theorem in the geometry proof of FTC. Simply show the trapezoid with
derivative and rectangle for integral in a Cell.
But this economy of savings from helper theorems goes even further. In the
idea that the Power Rule in Calculus for Polynomial Functions is one of the
most exquisite and beautiful Rules in all of mathematics for its
simplicity. The Power Rule--- give me any polynomial function and its
derivative is subtract 1 from exponent and its integral is add 1 to
exponent. This was my eternal craving when a youngster of 18-19 years old
sitting in Calculus class at University of Cincinnati 1968-9, please...
please... why not make polynomials the only, the only valid function as to
reduce all of Calculus to this lovely beautiful simplicity of add or
subtract 1 from exponent, and that my textbook Fisher & Ziebur can be
shortened from 768 pages to being just 150 pages, that the Power Rule gives
Calculus.
Why make calculus a torture chamber with vomiting and nightmare when
calculus is really just add or subtract 1 from exponent was going through
the mind of the 19 year old AP in college. Why not make math the very
easiest of all the sciences-- even easier than Paleontology with its
asinine Smilodon of glued on walrus tusks.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 9, 2025, 9:08:32 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So let me examine this example for closer inspection. We have a polynomial
function crossing the 1st Quadrant Only of Y --> x^2. As it crosses x= 1 we
have a y = 1, and as it crosses x= 1.1 in the cell 1 to 1.1 of 10 Grid the
y value becomes 1.21.
On Friday, May 9, 2025 at 1:32:15 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
I am not sure, but I think the use of only Polynomial Functions in all of
math as the only valid function in math may save me from having to make a
theorem proof that AmB are collinear, and allow me to make just one solid
FTC proof without any "helper theorems".
Consider this geometry. Below I have drawn in Cell 1.0 to 1.1 for all the
10 Grid cells are 100 cells where each cell is separated by 0.1 distance
apart.
| |
| |
| |
1 1.1
So say we have the Function x^2 which is a polynomial by the way whose
derivative is 2x and integral (1/3)x^3.
So this function y--> x^2 starts at 0 and then meets up with the cell 1 to
1.1. As the function meets x= 1, its y-value which I called A in prior post
is going to be 1^2 = 1, while the function then crosses to meet x=1.1 and
the B value will be 1.1^2 =1.21.
But, the worry and question on the part of AP's mind, is whether the
midpoint of 1 to 1.1 as that of 1.05, whether that midpoint is collinear
with the line segment formed from (1,1) and (1.1, 1.21). For 1.05^2 =1.1025.
Can we picture that 1.1025 in (1.05, 1.1025) is collinear with (1,1) and
(1.1, 1.21).
I think we can in the idea that given any Polynomial Function, you can
divide it by straight line segments and end up with nothing but straight
line segments. In other words Polynomials as the only valid functions in
all of mathematics is because polynomials are nothing but a collection of
Straight Line segments.
I believe it is the idea that the Only Valid Functions in all of
mathematics has to be Polynomials because only they can guarantee "m" the
midpoint in every Cell of Decimal Grid Numbers is collinear with A and B.
The midpoint of this cell is x= 1.05 which is a number in 100 Grid not 10
Grid so we have some leeway as to y-value.
1.05^2 is 1.1025. We may just take that to be 1.1 since this is the 10 Grid.
So from x= 1, the y-value jumps to 1.21 in 100 Grid or 1.2 in 10 Grid.
So if we construct a rectangle at the coordinate points of (1, 0), (1.1, 0)
(1.1, 1.1) (1, 1.1) keeping everything in 10 Grid, our next question is
what sort of right triangle do we carve out of this rectangle and lift that
right triangle on the midpoint (1.05, 1.1) so that the vertex of right
triangle reaches the point (1.1, 1.2).
It appears to me I need the difference of 1.2 and 1.1 equals 0.1. One of
the legs of the right triangle I carve out of the left wall of that
rectangle (1, 0), (1.1, 0) (1.1, 1.1) (1, 1.1). One of the legs has to
be of length 0.05 and the other leg has to be of length 0.1.
So I do not see anything going wrong, and keeping in mind, i have leeway
since this is 10 Grid and can shorten numbers of the 100 Grid.
Now if I used Y --> x^3 for this example, then x= 1 would have y= 1 but x=
1.1 has y = 1.331 and if I insist on having only 10 Grid that would be 1.3,
and the midpoint 1.05 for Y--> x^3 is 1.157625 and if insisting 10 Grid
only would be 1.1.
And I am thinking ahead to say Y--> x^9 let us say, and would I be able to
carve out a right triangle to span the reach of 1.1^9. The derivative of
x^9 is 9x^8 and the integral is (1/10)x^10, and all of this done in the
name of checking to see if it works.
But I am reassured, for the case of Y--> x^9 the midpoint 1.05 becomes a
large number that builds a large rectangle so as to slice out a sufficient
right triangle to span 1.1^9.
And, well this exercise is all about whether the AP geometry proof of FTC
is workable and no errant behavior goes on that the midpoint cannot
establish a integral rectangle to supply a right-triangle that spans the
next point of the function graph.
And this is a remarkable huge difference between Old Math Calculus and New
Math Calculus for in Old Math Calculus the derivative is seen as a tangent
line to the function graph for any x value imposed. While for New Math
Calculus, the derivative ends up making the very next point of the function
graph as the right triangle vertex becomes that next point. And this is why
Calculus predicts motion in physics, for the derivative lands on the next
spot.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 10, 2025, 12:52:59 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright I am comfortable in using Advanced Logic to say that the midpoint
in each Cell of Calculus will deliver a rectangle top side for integral and
deliver a right triangle cut from either the left or right wall of
rectangle for a up slope or down slope respectively and no slope then the
top side of rectangle is the derivative no slope. I come to this conclusion
from simply example drawings and want to contribute a brand new Axiom or
Postulate to all of Mathematics and to Logic for they do not use the
Experiment Proof Method that Physics, Pragmatism and Scientific Method use
the Experimental Proof Method.
Earlier I talked about how many definitions and postulates (axioms) goes to
making up geometry or math algebra which sent me to the book by Eves &
Newsom and where I figured out that geometry has at least 50 assumptions
and algebra would have 50 at minimum making math have 100 assumptions at
minimum going into any proof in mathematics; the same goes for Logic. While
Physics, Pragmatism, Scientific Method have zero assumptions going into any
of their experiments to proof true in physics or science. The experiment if
done well and interpreting the results well is Experimental Proof and holds
a higher status of truth value than ever does a deduction proof in math or
logic, all because they surround themselves with at least 100 assumptions
in every proof. And as we saw on Max Planck in year 1900 with experimental
proof that Quantum Mechanics--- Discrete Mechanics rules Physics, that
mathematics geometry and algebra should be Discrete and never continuous.
Yet math to this day in May 2025 has the idiocy of continuum and
continuity, which makes it impossible for Old Math to have a valid proof of
Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
In Eves & Newsom's book, 1958, An Introduction to the Foundations and
Fundamental Concepts of Mathematics, the authors discuss on page 38 a
breakdown in the Euclid axioms of missing postulates to be able to prove
two circles intersect in point C to construct a equilateral triangle. The
authors say no Euclid axiom allows for point C to be an intersection point.
And the authors start to discuss that a axiom of continuity is needed.
I do not know if any mathematician has proposed a new Axiom that would
cover this breach in a proof. Maybe Eves and Newsom themselves offered a
axiom to cover the gap.
However, I do know for sure that AP can offer an axiom that would cover the
breach and gap in a proof of equilateral triangle construction.
And this AP axiom or postulate would also answer the question of whether I
need a "helper theorem" in the AP geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of
Calculus.
It is long noted in world history that someone said--- A picture speaks a
thousand words. Is it not a awful shame that all Euclid definitions and
postulates (axioms) are word written objects and none of them are pictures.
So AP offers a new Postulate that will cover the gap of circles
intersection and cover the gap of whether the midpoint in a Calculus cell
will produce the derivative next point from a sliced out right triangle of
the integral rectangle.
The AP Postulate: Whenever possible in a math problem or Proof or Logic
problem or Syllogism, is to get Experimental hands on tools to model the
problem and use the results in the proof itself.
So much of Ancient Greek mathematics was compass and ruler application. In
modern times I use graph paper, pencil, protractor, compass, ruler, plastic
toys, even slinky toys and thousands of tools to aid me in research.
So there is no need for Eves and Newsom and pen a word by word new axiom to
say that two equal circles can intersect in 2 points depending on the
distance from centers. There is no need for a word salad axiom for
continuity when geometry is all discrete.
The Ancient Greeks were so accustomed to using compass and ruler can could
obviously see the circles intersect.
And now in May 2025, AP needs to know if the midpoint in a Calculus Cell
will fetch the derivative endpoint? And I use this very same AP Axiom---
get out the tools and a "Picture speaks a Thousand Words", and the axiom
offers a Experimental Proof, not only for constructing the equilateral
triangle, but proving that the Midpoint of top-side of integral rectangle
will always slice out a correct right triangle from sides of rectangle to
produce the correct derivative.
AP, King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 10, 2025, 1:05:50 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I have often heard it say in classrooms and in books, that the Ancient
Greeks did not want to get their hands dirty in science experiments, but
sit around doing step wise math proofs. As a excuse to why the Greeks could
not find more truths of science.
But I counter that sentiment, by the fact that the Ancient Greeks were
overly reliant on their compass and ruler, which is the Scientific Method
of Experimental Proof.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 10, 2025, 1:25:19 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So you take the compass and draw two equal circles and note that you can
have 1 intersection point and many times with varying distance from centers
have 2 intersection points. And all these observations is good or even
better than word polemic definitions and postulates and should be counted
as much or even higher a status than a word salad definition or postulate.
I just used my AP Axiom-- get out the tools and observe the geometry
situation on that of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
Only Polynomials can be valid functions in all of mathematics. And
Polynomials of exponent 1 are straight lines such as Y --> mx +B the
standard formula of a straight line is a polynomial. And all the other
polynomials behave much like straightlines going through a Calculus Cell,
for the cells get smaller and smaller the higher the Grid is. The 10 Grid
has the largest cells for they are only 0.1 apart, while 100 Grid cell is
0.01 apart for the integral rectangle.
And using the AP Axiom of --- Experimental tools to model a math problem
serves as a truth function.
So we notice that the Midpoint of a Cell makes sure that the rectangle
formed in that Cell has a derivative right-triangle that will fetch the
next point as the function passes through the cell. AP can just invoke his
Axiom as a proof for Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
And the AP Axiom was already used in Ancient Greek times when a Picture
Proof of the Pythagorean Theorem was delivered, no words needed, just look
at two pictures and you can say A^2 + B^2 = C^2.
The same goes for AP's first valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of
Calculus, just like the Pythagorean Theorem can be stated by 2 pictures and
no words needed.
The world's greatest and most important proofs of all in mathematics, need
no words, just several pictures.
AP, King of Science and Logic
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 10, 2025, 11:54:38 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
When I was a 18-19 year old, I was at University of Cincinnati studying
Calculus, and I remember it was a 4 quarter coarse, meaning it was 1 and
1/3 year study. The only science course that took more than 1 year study at
UC. And in those 4 quarters, I still remember quite clearly in my mind were
two nagging questions that really bugged me. But I was there to learn not
start a argument and dispute. The words back then in 1968-9 was "chill out".
The first question was "Wow, I love polynomials because all you need to do
is add or subtract 1 to exponent to obtain the integral or derivative once
you fix the prefix number". And so, using Fisher & Ziebur textbook on
calculus, I awaited every polynomial example problem. I was in tune to
every example of a polynomial, and often Fisher & Ziebur would use a
trigonometry example to much displeasure and disgust on my part, or the
silly step function. So in my young and formative years of 18-19, I fell in
love with the polynomial function and hated to see any other function.
Which served me well some 2015 - 1968 = 47 years later as I make the only
valid function in all of mathematics be Polynomial Functions and any other
contraption like trigonometry must be converted to a polynomial over an
interval by the Lagrange Interpolation before even being admitted into math
consideration.
But there was a 2nd question on my mind in 1968-9 that also nagged me to
pieces and was saved for 47 years later. A second question that I dare not
pursue while 18-19 years old for again, others would say "chill out". And
the question goes like this. I see the function graph of a straightline
like that of Y--> mx +B and no problems with the derivative being "m". But
now I see a function graph of Y--> x^2 or say, x^3. And there I was at UC
in Calculus class, knowing the definition of derivative was dy/dx and
seeing the graph of x^2, and even worse x^3 where the function graph is
slow to rise near zero, but then at 2 or beyond 2 see that function rise
dramatically, and my mind says to me "Are you sure the derivative can
remember 2x for x^2 and remember 3x^2 for x^3 throught the range of those
two functions for both start out slowly in the graph and rise sharply once
they are beyond 2.
Somehow, my young mind was repulsed by the idea that derivative was dy/dx
and that functions like x^2 can remember to be 2x or worse yet x^3 can
remember to be 3x^2 throughout its graph. This second question that hung
with me for 47 years was also answered by me in 2015 and would overturn all
of Old Math calculus and expose it as phony baloney.
What preserves the 2x as derivative of x^2 and preserves the 3x^2 to be the
derivative of x^3 especially starting out near 0 and then 1, until finally
at 2 start to rise sharply, yet the derivative is defined as dy/dx. What
preserves the derivative even though is has different rates of rising
through its range, is that the dy/dx derivative is not a tangent line to
the graph at a point of the graph, no, that is for fools. Instead, what the
derivative as defined by dy/dx truly is, is a lifting of a right triangle
carved out of the side of the integral rectangle and swiveled from the
midpoint of top side of integral rectangle so that the vertex of this right
triangle then lands on to a point of the cell where the function graph says
it will land upon. This is why calculus is so Predictive of a math. given A
of the cell, we know the integral rectangle, and the derivative predicts
where B on y-axis will land.
The fools of Old Math thought the derivative is a tangent line to the
function graph at point B. The truth and reality, is that the derivative
forms point B and the derivative forms the point on the y-axis as the
function graph exits the Cell.
Here is a picture of what you have
From this, or the reverse:
B
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
|A |
|____|
a b
The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
so that it can be hinged at m, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
integral. The area of the rectangle is the integral.
To this or the reverse:
__m__
| |
| |
| |
---------
a b
So, we have two items in Calculus for this theorem, we have a derivative,
the straight line segment A to B with m in the middle. And we have the
rectangle area which we call the integral.
So at UC, I was taught the derivative is dy/dx, which is all well and true,
but I was taught the phony decayed calculus that the derivative is a
tangent line to the function graph-- no, no, hell no, for the Derivative is
a right triangle whose vertex point at B from midpoint of integral
rectangle is part of the function graph itself. This is why Calculus is
essential for physics, for it predicts B, given A.
No wonder that the derivative of x^2 as that of 2x or x^3 as 3x^2 can
maintain its true value even though the graph is slow from 0 to 2 and then
really rises fast. Because the derivative was Never a Tangent to the
Function Graph but was the actual machine in producing point B, given point
A.
So yes, yes, yes, to AP's new Axiom to include in all mathematics of both
Algebra and Geometry.
AP's Axiom that is missing in Euclid and modern day mathematics. For AP's
axiom would have saved the Eves & Newsom problem of producing the
equilateral triangle by two circles. And would have saved the muddle headed
invention of the mindless "limit analysis" with its attendent idiocy of a
derivative as a tangent line to function graph.
AP Axiom:: Whenever possible, get out hands on tools and model the math you
are working on and see for yourself, if the ideas match up to the hands on
model. In the case of equilateral triangle, yes the model shows two points
of intersection with the two circles. In the case of Calculus derivative,
yes the model shows that throughout the range of Y-->x^2 or to x^3 in 1st
Quadrant Only, that although the 2x derivative or 3x^2 derivative start out
slowly from 0 to 2 and rise sharply beyond 2, in fact beyond 1, is because
the derivative is a mechanism that given A, finds B, and is ___not a
tangent line to function graph___.
All modern day math professors, it would behoove them all to use AP Axiom
in every one of their proof or attempted proof.
AP, King of Science & Logic
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 10, 2025, 12:47:58 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Now to be truly honest, as a 18-19 year old at UC studying calculus from
Fisher & Ziebur, I never understood their proof of Fundamental Theorem of
Calculus. I must have read it 10 times and given up.
Reflecting on that experience now, some 47 years later, that is to be
expected. It is expected of any "phony science" that it is not
understandable for it is not true, and is a piece of garbage. And those who
think they know it, have it memorized. They memorized a mistake.
And we can see this phony calculus from comparing Stewart with Apostol,
with Strang, with Fisher & Ziebur, with Ellis & Gulick, with Stillwell. We
compare their Fundamental Theorem of Calculus FTC and their mindless notion
that the derivative is a Tangent line to function graph at a point B, or
their mindless chatter of what derivative and integral are.
Notice that in the proof of FTC Stewart uses Extreme Value Theorem once in
his 2 part proof, while Fisher & Ziebur and Strang use Mean Value theorem,
and Strang uses it more than once. The reason for this variance is because
Calculus is geometry, and requires a geometry proof, not some tongue tied
phony baloney limit analysis. Both the Reader and I, almost every day we
get out of bed, analyze ten to a hundred items-- what is the weather, what
is the breakfast food. We are not proving anything in analysis, no, we
simply are analyzing to proceed forward in the day. Yet math professors of
calculus never take Logic in school, the majority of them, and so they are
easily duped into thinking that by analyzing something is the same as
proving something.
The reason Stewart uses Extreme Value Theorem and Squeeze theorem in his
part 1 FTC while Strang uses Mean Value Theorem in both parts of FTC, is
because neither has a valid proof of FTC, just some jumbo dumbo talkity
talk analysis. Apostol does his FTC in two parts and chases after
derivative as Tangent lines to function graph, and Apostol writes "Although
these facts may seem geometrically evident when we examine a particular
case, analytic proofs require a deeper investigation of the concept of
continuity."
In other words, Apostol has no proof, just analytic what the poet Lewis
Carrol calls Jabberwocky. For it is impossible to have a proof of FTC when
your dumb mind thinks the derivative is a tangent line to the function
graph at point B, when in reality, the derivative is the actual production
of point B, given point A.
But AP cannot help but think and feel that the entire math enterprise
starting year 1900 when Max Planck found that physics is Discrete and not
continuous, yet the entire flock and herd of fools of math digging ever
deeper and more stupid continuity and continuum. One has to wonder how math
could have gotten anything correct in that century of continuity insanity.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 10, 2025, 1:52:36 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Logic and Math are never served well when they are under a fashion, a
craze, a fad and fetish that was continuity and continuum. When Max Planck
started Quantum Mechanics in year 1900, then math and logic should have
stood up and payed attention and made an effort to bring Discrete into
logic and math. This is the major lesson of logic to learn from the folly
of math. Instead, under Cohen the math community went into deeper and
deeper continuity insanity. The math community throughout the century of
1900s learning absolutely nothing from the Quantum Mechanics revolution
going on in physics. Math had become a cult in the 1900s.
And yet, AP's Axiom if discovered in year 1900 would have saved the math
community of its 100 years of continuity insanity.
If all math professors when doing the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus were
forced to make a drawing picture of the proof, that they would have
stumbled quickly on the idea that integral was rectangle and from that
rectangle you need to get to another point, B, from point A in a cell.
Someone would have enough brains in math to carve a right triangle out of
either the left wall or right wall of integral rectangle, lift it up at the
midpoint and where the right triangle vertex lands on point B.
But in a century where colleges and universities across the world assume
that math students vying to become math professors have already Logical
brains and need no training in logic to think straight or think clearly was
a grave mistake. As math professors memorize the error ridden Old Math
calculus where the fools thought a derivative is a tangent line to function
graph at a point B, when no, the derivative is the actual mechanism that
produces point B of the function graph.
So that Colleges and Universities throughout the world were producing math
professors, none of whom could think straight and think clearly for none
had even a foggy notion of Logical thinking, they all memorized a
Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, a invalid proof. They went through college
in memorization mode, not in clear logical thinking mode.
No wonder you have Max Planck in 1900 steer Physics to the truth of the
world--- it is discrete, not continuous. While the morons of math dig ever
deeper holes of continuum.
But there is a caution to the story. For the founders of modern logic--
Boole and Jevons with the The Laws of Thought 1854 which has all the 4 most
simple connectors of Logic-- Equal-Not, AND, OR, IF->Then, that Boole and
Jevons got all 4 of this simple connectors truth tables wrong.
So the question then becomes, what worth or value would it have been to
send all students vying to be scientists off to college logic classrooms
when Logic textbooks have their connectors filled with errors??? Here is
the case of the founders of modern logic --- Boole and Jevons, had no
logical brains to be founding modern logic, and may, I say may have been
better off if they never wrote anything on logic, leaving it up to AP
starting 1991 to correct those 4 logic connectors. For Boole and Jevons end
up having AND as subtraction with their truth table of TFFF. They end up
with two types of OR, when anyone with a logical brain knows that the 4
connectors cannot have variances, but be singular and monolithic. They have
Equal and Not as truth tables of 2 values and the other three connectors as
tables of 4 values, not having the logical intelligence to combine Equal
and Not together to make it a truth table of 4 values. They were ignorant
of logic in not realizing that If--> Then needed a truth table to allow for
"unknown" instead of just true and false, to serve in the case of
mathematics where 0 divided into a number is unknown or undefined.
No, so the founding fathers of modern logic, Boole and Jevons had no
logical brains to be founding Logic in the first place. At best, what can
be said of Boole and Jevons is not that they founded modern logic for they
had no logical brains to do that, but that they pushed the science of
logic-- the science of think straight and think clearly forward enough to
start to have Logic as a science.
AP remedies the situation of having no textbooks worthy of using in college
and universities by AP's #351 book Teaching True Logic and #353 Advanced
Logic.
AP is the founder of Modern Logic, not Boole and Jevons. Boole and Jevons
called for the need of having a Modern Logic, but never gave us what Modern
Logic actually is.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 13, 2025, 3:33:31 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Construct Equilateral Triangle Using the AP Axiom as quoted from Eves &
Newsom and then from Jacobs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On page 38 of Eves & Newsom, 1958, An Introduction To The Foundations And
Fundamental Concepts Of Mathematics the authors describe the Euclid proof
of construction of equilateral triangle and its missing axiom.
While, on page 2 of Jabobs, 1987, GEOMETRY, describes the same construction
of equilateral triangle but seems to bypass the need to make two equal
circles and the contention of whether C is an intersection point.
I quote both of these proofs as to explicitly show how affective is the AP
Axiom, the missing axiom of Euclid. And apparently missing in our modern
day time as that Jacobs has no axiom to tell Eves and Newsom that C is an
intersection point.
--- quoting Eves & Newsom book page 38---
On a given finite straight line to construct an equilateral triangle.
Fig. 9
Let AB be the given finite straight line.
Thus it is required to construct an equilateral triangle on the straight
line AB.
With center A and distance AB, let the circle BCD be described. [Postulate
3]
.... to be continued....
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 13, 2025, 5:07:40 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So now, here, on page 2 of Harold Jacobs GEOMETRY, he constructs a
equilateral triangle with just compass and ruler. A perfect example of the
AP Axiom in action.
And Jacobs is certainly not worried about the two tiny arcs meeting in
point C, for Jacobs does not draw full circles, just two tiny arcs. Yet
Eves and Newsom are terribly worried about whether there is an intersection
at all.
So is the Jacobs application a pure application of the AP Axiom, where we
do not even bother with making a full 2 circles, just tiny arcs.
And what if Jacobs had shown his construction to Eves and Newsom, would
they still have declared Euclid has a missing axiom????
Now Jacobs at the back of his book lists all the Postulates (Axioms) he
uses to prove his theorems. He lists 15 postulates. Scanning through that
list, the only axiom I can see that would assuage Eves and Newsom is
Postulate 13-- The Arc Addition Postulate If C is on AB, then mAC + mCB =
mACB.
Now that postulate in Jacobs may not directly assuage Eves and Newsom but
has the potential to make a theorem that does say that 2 equal circles
sharing the same radius intersect in only 2 points.
But AP asks, why bother with all these Word Salad Postulates when the AP
Axiom-Postulate dismisses all that yakkity yack by simply making a
experimental-model (Jacobs construction) and says it applies to the proof
as the missing axiom.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Aug 21, 2025, 5:29:35 PM (9 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Publish as #367 Advanced Logic and in a writing style easy to make into a
YouTube Lesson.
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Aug 22, 2025, 3:12:52 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
#367 book textbook.
Trouble in the world of Logic education is all the colleges and
universities, never had a professor of logic with a logical mind. For Boole
and Jevons made mistakes in all 4 of the most simple connectors of logic.
Leaving their logic be Error filled.
So, I need to write two textbooks that replace all the error filled junk
Logic books used round the world.
AP, King of Science and Logic
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
6:25 PM (5 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I really need to get these next two books published #366 on Logic and #367
on Advanced Logic. I am I so pressed to publish them??? Because I have been
harping for a decade long harping that all scientists need two years of
college-university classes in Logic to help them think straight and think
clearly.
However there is a catch here. For there exists No Correct Textbook on
Logic to teach to aspiring scientists. All the logic textbooks of the world
have all 4 of the simple connectors to logic all 4 wrong and full of error.
So what is the point in requiring Logic to get a degree in science, if no
logic is clean pure and true.
One could argue logically that if you take logic where the connectors are
false, may damage a science mind more than help it.
AP
zzzzzzzzzz
plutonium dot archimedes at gmail dot com. Looking for a College or
University press to hardcover publish all 367+ AP books of science, likely
to become 500-600 maybe even 700 books by the time I die. E-books are too
prone to unbalanced-unhinged censor-editors, who can easily make your books
vanish by pulling a switch. Science should never have gatekeepers, who
thwart access to true science.
| /
| /
|/______ hardcover or paperback
PAU newsgroup is this.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
324 views
Subscribe
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Sep 18, 2025, 12:50:14 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
*TEACHING TRUE ADVANCED LOGIC; the second year of logic taught to all
science majors in hopes and order for them to better think straight and
clear// Logic*
by Archimedes Plutonium
This is AP's #367 published book of science published on Internet,
Plutonium-Atom-Universe,
PAU newsgroup is this.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Preface: At least a decade now, I have been harping that all science
students in colleges and university take 2 years of Logic in order to help
them think straight and clear. But I have a huge problem with that wish.
Since there are no logic textbooks available today that have the simple
connectors of logic, all the 4 simple connectors correct, then studying
logic in college and university when they use error filled logic textbooks
may damage their education rather than improve it. In that light, I write
textbooks #366 Teaching True Logic and #367 Teaching True Advanced Logic.
Because AP corrects the logic of Boole and Jevons of 19th century, for they
erred in all 4 of the simple connectors-- AND, OR, Equal-Not, If-->then,
that AP considers himself to be the father-of-modern-logic.
Cover Picture: My iphone picture of AP's equations of Electromagnetic Laws.
In accordance to "All is Atom, and Atoms are nothing but electricity and
magnetism".
----------------------------------
Table to Contents
----------------------------------
--------------
Text
--------------
Archimedes Plutonium May 3, 2025, 1:27:05 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe
newsgroup.
*TEACHING TRUE ADVANCED LOGIC; the second year of logic taught to all
science majors in hopes and order for them to better think straight and
clear// Logic*
by Archimedes Plutonium
This is AP's #367 published book of science published on Internet,
Plutonium-Atom-Universe,
PAU newsgroup is this.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
There I was from 1991 to 2015 correcting all the Logic connectors
of Old Logic and writing a book calling for the suspension of teaching
Logic in all schools across the world until they corrected their textbooks.
Then from 2015 to present day May 2025, I have been harping on the idea
that all scientists should take 2 years of College-University Logic classes
in order to get their science degree. Trouble with that idea, is there are
no textbooks of Logic free of massive errors. No point in two years of
College logic from textbooks that have all 4 of the simple connectors of
Logic in gross error. With that idea in mind I devote my #351 book--
TEACHING TRUE LOGIC and this my #353 book to supplying Colleges and
Universities two textbooks free of massive errors.
Archimedes Plutonium Apr 15, 2025, 4:59:49 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe
newsgroup.
So, for the past 5 years I have been harping on Colleges and Universities
who keep passing out degrees in science, yet those persons unable to think
straight and clear.
And to help solve this problem, they are forced to take 2 years of Logic in
College. In hopes that they will have the chance of Thinking Straight and
Thinking Clearly.
But, well, I cannot insist that colleges and univerrsities do that when
humanity never wrote a Logic textbook that was all Correct.
We have the ugly situation in the world that no Logic textbook ever got all
4 of the Simple Logic connectors correct. The Boole and Jevons textbook on
logic which is still used today has all 4 connectors wrong.
So I cannot really insist on students taking Logic when there are no Logic
textbooks in existence and thus I write the 2 textbooks for students to
take.
Archimedes Plutonium Apr 17, 2025, 12:47:01 AM to Plutonium Atom Universe
newsgroup.
Marvelous that I can start this textbook written in story book format, even
before I finish the other logic book.
The most important idea in all of science, in all of the universe in fact
is the Atomic Theory. And the application of Logic upon the Atomic Theory
is always in demand, throughout time.
This syllogism is the single most important fact and idea in all of
science, for it tells us of our past, our present and of our future.
ATOMIC THEORY SYLLOGISM
------- Facts and definitions of Atom Totality ------
1) All Matter is one of 114 Chemical Elements of the Periodic Table of
Chemical Elements. This is the definition of Matter and Matter has rest
mass.
2) The 114 Chemical Elements are each Atoms, and a atom is defined as
having three components --- Protons, Muons, Neutrons for which these three
components engage in the Faraday and Ampere law and Capacitor law and other
Electromagnetic Laws.
3) The Proton is a coil torus and all the protons form a single torus, with
muons inside this proton torus act as bar magnets thrusting through the
proton torus in the Faraday law producing new electricity and
electromagnetic radiation.
4) The electricity and electromagnetic radiation produced by proton-muons
is storaged in neutrons as parallel plate capacitors. But some of the
radiation is emitted out of the atom such as starshine and sunshine.
Emitted out as EM radiation but still connected with the atom of origin
until absorbed by a new atom.
5) Stars and Sun shine not from fusion but from Faraday law, and it is the
Faraday law that builds stars and planets and other astronomical bodies. As
the storage of electricity in Faraday law proton-muon builds up neutrons to
become new hydrogen atoms or other atoms.
---------- Facts and definitions of Space where few if any matter exists
-----
6) What is not matter, is empty space full of Electromagnetic Radiation
pencil ellipses of Light Waves and subatomic particles traveling through
the Cosmos. The empty space of a plutonium atom matches the empty space
seen in Astronomy where there are few galaxies, and stars.
Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden gold leaf experiment points to empty space
similar to astronomy empty space.
7) EM radiation is a circuit, although a pencil-ellipse, it is always
connected with the atom that gave it birth, until the radiation is absorbed
in other atoms.
8) Space can be empty of Atoms, but is always containing electromagnetic
radiation, pencil ellipses of Light waves going at the speed of light in
closed loop pencil ellipses always connected with the Atom of origin or the
Atom it is absorbed by.
9) Subatomic particles that escape an atom, are always connected with its
original atom via the EM radiation is a closed loop, until the subatomic
particle is absorbed by a new atom.
10) All subatomic particles or EM energy outside a Atom are all connected
to their atom of origin until absorbed by a new atom and then connected to
the new atom.
------- Growth in an Atom Totality -----
11) Growth in Atom Totality is caused by Faraday and Ampere law and
Capacitor law, especially in Faraday law where a thrusting bar magnet
through a coil of wire produces new electricity the 0.5MeV Dirac magnetic
monopoles which have rest mass but also in the EM radiation given off in
Faraday law. This is a conversion of Space into new mass. And the Sun and
stars shine from Faraday law, not fusion. As each atom is composed of
protons which has muons inside the proton torus doing the Faraday law.
12) In Astronomy, the galaxies form rings which is a small part of a Cosmic
Proton torus and the galaxies form Cosmic Muons thrusting through the
Cosmic Proton producing electricity and radiation. We see and measure this
in the form of cosmic gamma rays. Astronomy sees this as the Ring of
Galaxies in 3rd layer as reported by Caltech. Plutonium Atom Totality has
94 x 840 = 78960 Cosmic Proton Rings and we are beginning to see just 2 or
3 of these rings in our corner of the Plutonium Atom Totality. The muons
inside this Cosmic Proton torus are a bar magnet that is 94 x 105 = 9870
connected Cosmic Muon Chain inside the Cosmic Proton. We seem to have a
nexus of galaxies in that some are moving perpendicular to one another in
the Ring in the 3rd layer.
13) Chemistry sees this as the concentration of high atomic number elements
in ore deposits as a direct result of Faraday law growth. Elements created
as ores in planets, moons and asteroids.
----- Concluding the Atom Totality is a single big atom of plutonium ------
14) The Universe itself has mass and matter.
15) Hence the Universe is one of the 114 chemical elements, and the
plutonium atom fits the special numbers of math and physics such as pi =
3.14... as 22/7 and e = 2.718... as 19/7, the Fine Structure Constant, the
best fit.
16) The Atom Totality is different from the atoms it contains inside the
Atom Totality, simply as a mass difference. For a Plutonium atom found
inside the Plutonium Atom Totality is many times exponentially smaller mass.
17) The Atom Totality must be a single Atom, for the growth pattern is
Atoms giving birth to new atoms via Faraday law. The Universe cannot be a
molecule for the growth pattern is not set up to create molecules.
18) The Atom Totality must be true, otherwise the Atomic Theory is a mere
and meager rule and not a law or theory of science. Laws and theories of
science are Universal, while a rule of science is sometimes correct, often
wrong.
19) The Atom Totality as a Law and Theory of science propounds the
axiomatic principle of science--- All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but
electricity and magnetism. Meaning that all science reduces to the laws of
electromagnetism.
----- Purpose of Life in an Atom Totality -------
20) Purpose of life in an Atom Totality is to nucleosynthesize heavy
elements impossible to nucleosynthesize in stars or supernova. Life was not
needed in prior Atom Totalities of helium up to lead as Faraday Law could
build an atom twice the atomic number and spontaneous fission into the
newly created Atom Totality. But life in Atom Totalities were required to
create new Atom Totalities beyond lead. This would mean that life,
intelligent life to do nucleosynthesis, existed for billions and billions
of years long before planet Earth and humans arrived in the Plutonium Atom
Totality. Whether life lives after spontaneous fission into a new Atom
Totality is unknown at this time. I am guessing life lives through the
birth of a new Atom Totality.
21) As Life nucleosynthesizes Element 192 it will __spontaneously fission__
into a Curium Atom Totality. Life is uniformly spread throughout the
Universe and its mission is to create the next Atom Totality.
22) As Element 192 is formed by bombarding Curium with other Curium atoms
until two fuse together to briefly form Element 192 which immediately
decays into the Curium Atom Totality in equal parts, one curium atom being
particle the other being wave (one being electricity rest mass, the other
curium atom being magnetism energy). The need for the Atom Totality to be
an even proton number-- atomic number--- is so that the spontaneous fission
creates two equal atoms. One to give the rest mass Curium Atom Totality and
the other to give the energy of the Curium Atom Totality.
23) If humanity saves itself from extinction and oblivion by making Europa
our permanent new home in the next 1,000 years, because our Sun has gone
Red Giant phase and will swallow Earth in due course. Then on Europa, after
we become settled in, our mission there will be to build cyclotrons to
bombard curium atoms into other curium atoms hoping to get two to fuse and
nucleosynthesize element 192 and create the New Curium Atom Totality. We
will likely have competitors in billions of other solar systems in the
Universe. It is a race to create God-- Curium Atom Totality.
ATOM
Archimedes Plutonium Apr 17, 2025, 8:26:56 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe
newsgroup.
So in this book of Advanced Logic, I want to apply Logic to questions and
problems of physics and other topics and show how Logic when used well;
yields great results.
These are some of the problems and challenges I will discuss.
1) How to unify the 4 forces of physics.
2) How to solve and rethink the Uncertainty Principle.
3) How does Superdeterminism fit into physics.
4) Making Pauli Exclusion Principle well understood.
5) Complamentarity Principle made more clear.
6) Why does motion of muon inside a proton torus have perpetual motion at
nearly the speed of light and yet pertual motion outside the Atom is
nonexistent.
7) Why does the Universe have a fastest speed--- that of Light.
8) Why the purpose of life is to make new atoms.
9) Explaining that cells are to biology what atoms are to physics.
10) In sociology, why there is so much pain and suffering in the world.
These and many more will be analyzed by the application of Logic, showing
us that by careful thinking we solve problems.
Archimedes Plutonium Apr 18, 2025, 12:47:04 AM to Plutonium Atom Universe
newsgroup.
In Advanced Logic, as we analyze each of the Quantum Mechanics principles,
we can get much guidance to Feynman's favorite principle-- the Uncertainty
Principle. For it haunted Feynman throughout his life. And I focus on this
principle because it is Logic that helps us pick apart the Uncertainty
Principle and exposes it as a sham.
The only reason we have Quantum Uncertainty in the Double Slit Experiment
is not because Uncertainty exists in Nature. No, the problem here is that
physicists had few if any logical marbles to assess what is happening in
the Double Slit Experiment, and sadly, my hero Feynman did not have enough
logical marbles either.
You see, if you view the photon or Light Wave or the Dirac Magnetic
Monopole-- that 0.5MeV particle, view them as closed looped pencil ellipses
always connected with its source until absorbed by another atom, then all
the mysteries of the Double Slit Experiment and the Uncertainty Principle
vanish. All vanishes when Logic tells us the shape and manner of a Photon
or the 0.5MeV particle. And thus the Uncertainty Principle is also hauled
out into the trash.
So will other Quantum Principles endure the same fate? Complamentarity,
Duality, Pauli Exclusion??? Are these principles safe or are they going to
end up like Uncertainty????
This is why I keep harping on colleges and universities to force science
students to take 2 years of College Logic, and the reason I am writing
these two textbooks to furnish colleges with true logic, not the Old Moron
Logic (Boole & Jevons) now being taught.
Archimedes Plutonium Apr 18, 2025, 2:01:24 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe
newsgroup.
So we have Superposition Principle and can easily see it is the reverse of
Pauli Exclusion Principle. Much like multiply is the reverse of divide.
But what about the Complamentarity-Duality Principle-- the particle versus
wave or better yet-- electricity versus magnetism, what is the reverse of
Duality?????
And here I have to say, the Magnetic Monopole is the reverse of Duality.
But how does Advanced Logic explain that???? One of the toughest
explanations and test of Logic, you can imagine. Why does the 0.5MeV
particle, the one Thomson discovered in 1897 and mistakenly thought it was
the Atom's electron, no, it was Dirac's magnetic monopole and that the Muon
is the true electron of Atoms, stuck inside a proton torus doing the
Faraday law with the proton torus.
So I am going to have to muster all my logic skills to make sense of why
Magnetic Monopoles are the reverse of Quantum Complamentarity-Duality.
Archimedes Plutonium Apr 18, 2025, 4:12:32 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe
newsgroup.
They say a picture speaks a thousand words. We can say that a story book is
a thousand times easier to understand and to learn from than a textbook.
But also, a story book is surely a thousand times easier to write.
Why a industrious person could probably read this story book on Advanced
Logic in one sitting, yet surely unable to read a Logic textbook in one
sitting and learn much from it.
Let me tell you the story of how I discovered through Advanced Logic that
the Muon was the true electron of Atoms. It is a beautiful story in the
simplicity and ease. Unlike the story of how I discovered the Atom Totality
Theory which took almost 2 decades, while my discovery of Muon as true
electron took months between the years 2016 and 2017.
So I was writing my 8th edition of Atom Totality in 2016. I had been
released from hospital in April 2016 from Liposarcoma cancer surgery. And
one would think, that a person's science career would faulter after cancer
surgery, but for me, the opposite happened. I exploded in ideas and energy
to write.
I wanted a chapter in my 8th edition Atom Totality to list all well known
subatomic particles and perhaps make connections. So I got to proton at 938
MeV and neutron at 940 MeV and then I got to muon at 105 MeV.
I am a mathematician by training, and instantly in my mind knew that 9 x
105 equals exactly 945. Exactly!!!! Well, 938 and 940 are not exactly equal
to 945. But I had written a TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbook recently in
2016-2017 and had a chapter in it about what physicists call Sigma Error.
This is a concept in which we realize that all measurements of physics have
background interference in getting exact measures. We can come close to
reality but off by a tiny bit of measurement.
Understanding of the practice of Sigma Error. An example goes far better in
making clear what sigma error is. For example, you have measurements of the
mass of a proton at 938MeV and a neutron measured at 940MeV. Now you see
the mass of the muon is 105MeV. And so what pops up in your mind is that if
we multiply 9 x 105, it comes to be 945 and the sigma error of 945/938 =
0.7% and the sigma error of 945/940 = 0.5%, means we can say, since both
approach a error of 0.5%, we can interpret that as meaning the proton and
neutron are built from 9 muons exactly. It is simply that the background
noise we do measuring throws the numbers off by a tiny tiny bit. And that
we are comfortable in saying physically a proton is 9 muons is what is
concluded.
So there I was in 2016, coming to a great new discovery, that 9 muons
constructed form a Proton or a Neutron.
But, well, the great new theory was not there in 2016 but had to wait
months later into 2017, for my mind to understand and realize, not that a
Proton and Neutron were constructed and built from 9 Muons, but that the
actual Proton was not 938 or 945, but was rather instead 840 MeV and that
one muon is inside the 840 MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law with the
Proton torus.
My mind realized in 2016 that a Proton or Neutron were built and composed
of 9 muons. But not until 2017 did the great discovery emerge. The Proton
is 8 Muons, and one of the Muons is the electron of Atoms doing the Faraday
Law with proton torus.
Looking back now, I deeply regret that it took me nearly a year to come to
the realization that the Proton was not built from 9 muons but from 8 and
that 1 of the Muons is the true electron of atoms.
Without Logic, especially Advanced Logic, you can be a scientist,
collecting data, doing experiments, doing graphs and advanced mathematics
and calculus, but without Logic, the most crucial moment in time for a
scientist is to correctly interpret what is going on in his/her science
that they spent years pouring over. Without a correct logical
interpretation, that someone outside of the field of study and experiments
could come along and in 10 minutes of Logical thought, give a correct
interpretation of your science you invested a decade in doing, and that the
person with 10 minutes of reflection--- gets 90% of the credit, while you
get honorable mention and 10% of the credit.
So, it is obvious to me, every scientist in College or University needs 2
years of Logic. It is no guarantee that you will correctly interpret your
ten years of work, but at least, it gives you a far better chance of
correct interpretation than if you never took Logic.
Scientists before the year 2016 were not required or forced to take 2 years
of College Logic and it shows so badly, so dramatically in so called famous
scientists. Rutherford-Bohr-Gieger-Marsden did not have enough Logic to
realize --- ____Atoms have no nucleus____. For when the alpha particles
bounced back in the gold leaf experiment at a faster speed than ingoing
alpha particles, Logically, is not a proof of a nucleus, but rather instead
the opposite--- a proof that a atom has no nucleus. I shall tell this story
later.
Another scientist who is over-rated by a-lot is Einstein. He would have
benefited greatly if he had taken Logic in school. For Einstein wanted to
unify the 4 forces of physics (1) strong nuclear (2) weak nuclear (3)
electromagnetism and (4) gravity. He spent decades trying to unify those 4
forces before finally giving up. Yet in his giving up hope of a
unification, the small mind of Einstein thought he could add to the
knowledge of the force of gravity in his so called General Relativity.
On the other hand, if Einstein had taken Logic in college, his few logical
marbles would likely have told him --- Albert--- it is worthless and crazy
to think General Relativity is true because only after you unify gravity
with the other forces can you actually tell what gravity is. And so today,
year 2025, Einstein in physics was nothing but a failure in large part. He
deserves credit for the photoelectric effect, provided he did not steal
that from other physicists for he did steal E = mc^2 from the Russian
physicist Nikolay Umov 1873. In phsyics, Einstein was a dwarf midget in the
pantheon of physics, and all because he lacked Logic marbles.
Archimedes Plutonium Apr 18, 2025, 11:12:50 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe
newsgroup.
So in writing this story telling textbook : ADVANCED LOGIC, I am going to
personally assign my self the task of solving, via Logic, on whether the
Complamentary-Duality Principle is the reverse of the Magnetic Monopole.
And to help me do that chore, I am going to tell the story of my discovery
of the Unification of 4 Forces of Physics and how that was accomplished.
For to solve Magnetic Monopoles are the reverse of Complamentarity-Duality
I am going to try a similar tool to solve the problem.
My Unification of 4 Forces of Physics
------------------------------------------------------------
This story happened in about 5 years time in discovery in the mid 1990s. At
that time I was living in New Hampshire and had discovered the Atom
Totality theory in 1990 and by 1991 set myself to the task of solving every
outstanding unsolved Math Conjecture such as Fermat's Last Theorem or 4
Color Mapping, or infinitude of perfect numbers and about 10 or 11 others.
Then in 1993 came the Internet and Usenet where I could post my discoveries
in sci.physics and sci.math.
So the proofs of these 11 math conjectures went really well in 1991 and I
started to post all 11 of my proofs of outstanding math conjectures like
the Riemann Hypothesis, and especially Fermat's Last Theorem as I had a
competitor rival in Princeton trying to beat AP to a proof of FLT. 35 years
later, I am sure that AP's proof of FLT is the true and valid proof while
the Princeton University proof of FLT is fake and will be trashed sometime
in the future.
But during the period of 1993 to 2000, I was resolute in an idea, that the
4 forces had to be all part of the Perfect Force. One of the four forces
has the most perfect particle-- the photon, the Light Wave and having the
most perfect particle that the other 3 forces had to be offshoots of the
perfect force --- Electromagnetic Force.
So now, in 2025, I want to solve Magnetic Monopole is the reverse of
Complamentarity-Duality. Not a perfect force, but rather the Geometry of
Duality versus the geometry of Monopole.
The Proton is a torus geometry.
Earth is a dipole with North and South magnetic field lines of force.
So what is the geometry of a magnetic monopole --- logically should unlock
the secrets of Duality is the reverse of Magnetic Monopole.
Archimedes Plutonium Apr 19, 2025, 3:21:05 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe
newsgroup.
The Story of How I found the true electron of Atoms as the muon and not the
0.5MeV particle of Thomson of 1897 is a story of noticing that 105 x 9 =
945. And although it took me almost a year to realize the Proton was not
945 MeV but rather instead it was 840 MeV and that the Muon, the true
electron of Atoms was inside the Proton torus doing the Faraday Law with
the Proton torus, was a beautiful example of Advanced Logical Reasoning.
The Story of How I found the Unification of the 4 Forces of Physics is
another beautiful example of Applied Advanced Logical Reasoning. That story
happened sometime between 1991 and 1997. Many posts in Usenet, sci.physics,
and sci.math can pinpoint the date more accurately where I set up a Logical
Mechanism of Reasoning. That Logical Mechanism is that--- within 4
Forces--- (1) Strong Nuclear (2) Weak Nuclear (3) Electromagnetic (4)
gravity ---- within those 4 forces, one of them has a feature of "being
perfect and having some perfect particle". Find the force which is
"perfect" and thus the other 3 are ____not perfect___. So the Unification
force is the perfect force. Well, if you studied Physics you quickly learn
in the first year of studies that the Electromagnetic Force has a perfect
particle--- the photon or some prefer to think of it as the Light Wave---
fastest speed possible with no rest mass is a perfect particle. That means
Strong nuclear, Weak nuclear and gravity are all aspects of
Electromagnetism.
But, as the years went on after 1997, such as the discovery that the Proton
was 840 MeV and in the geometry shape of a Torus, that Atoms have ____No
Nucleus____. Since Atoms have no nucleus, obviously they have ____no Strong
Nuclear force___. So my 1991 through 1997 Unification of Forces of Physics
became a Unification of 3 Forces after 2017. Unification of
Electromagnetism with Weak Nuclear and gravity. After 2017, the Weak
Nuclear Force has a bad name for atoms have no nucleus and should be called
the Radioactivity Force as the atom has instabilities and trying to adjust
itself to a more stable configuration. And after 2017, the Force of Gravity
such as on planet Earth by the Sun is seen as a exercise of Faraday Law,
where the Sun shoots photons aft of Earth-- pushing Earth, and fore of
Earth pulling Earth in its gravity magnetism Field track forcing Earth to
revolve around the Sun. So gravity reduces to Faraday Law. In fact, with
the Unification of Forces, all of Physics is an exercise in reduction to
the Laws of Electromagnetism.
But now, here in 2025, as I write this textbook on Advanced Logic, I am
going to take the opportunity of teaching Advanced Logic by actually
resolving the issue of whether Magnetic Monopoles are the reverse of
Complamentarity-Duality in Quantum Mechanics.
So as the student reads this textbook, can witness at first hand how I take
Logic and solve a major question of Physics. Is Magnetic Monopole the
reverse of Complamentarity-Duality in Physics.
Taking one clue from Unification of 4 Forces, look for some feature that
can relate Magnetic Monopole to Duality. The feature of "being perfect"
will not do here. But then another feature which is geometry will do. What
is the geometry of Magnetic Monopole compared to geometry of Duality????
This is what Advanced Logic does in tackling science. It attacks science
from some vantage point to pry and unlock its secrets.
Taking another clue is that the Proton geometry is that of a Torus.
So what is the geometry of Magnetic Monopole???? Is it one plate of 2
parallel plates that form a capacitor?????
The Force of Gravity reduced to being a form of Faraday Law. The Old
Maxwell Equations of 1860s are wrong and incorrect for Gauss's law said no
magnetic monopoles exist, but the other Maxwell laws are also filled in
error. AP gives us the true laws of electromagnetism. And so we have to
question if Magnetic Monopole geometry comes out of one of the laws of
Electromagnetism.
The 6 AP-Electromagnetic Equations and the 7 Laws of Physics and all
sciences
0) domain law as Atomic Theory
1) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
2) V = C*B*E New Ohm's law, law of electricity
3) V' = (C*B*E)' Capacitor-Transformer law
4) (V/C*E)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
5) (V/(B*E))' = C' Faraday law
6) (V/(C*B))' = E' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
and DeBroglie pilot wave
Archimedes Plutonium Apr 20, 2025, 3:56:35 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe
newsgroup.
I had better write my history of my discovery of the Unification of the 4
Forces in detail, because I know human foibles and human behavior to not
tell the exacting truth. And I am sure someone in the future will mess it
up so much that it is unrecognizable and false throughout. So I better take
the time out to write how Archimedes Plutonium unified the 4 forces of
Physics.
On Saturday, April 19, 2025 at 3:21:05 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
The Story of How I found the Unification of the 4 Forces of Physics is
another beautiful example of Applied Advanced Logical Reasoning. That story
happened sometime between 1991 and 1997. Many posts in Usenet, sci.physics,
and sci.math can pinpoint the date more accurately where I set up a Logical
Mechanism of Reasoning. That Logical Mechanism is that--- within 4
Forces--- (1) Strong Nuclear (2) Weak Nuclear (3) Electromagnetic (4)
gravity ---- within those 4 forces, one of them has a feature of "being
perfect and having some perfect particle". Find the force which is
"perfect" and thus the other 3 are ____not perfect___. So the Unification
force is the perfect force. Well, if you studied Physics you quickly learn
in the first year of studies that the Electromagnetic Force has a perfect
particle--- the photon or some prefer to think of it as the Light Wave---
fastest speed possible with no rest mass is a perfect particle. That means
Strong nuclear, Weak nuclear and gravity are all aspects of
Electromagnetism.
But, as the years went on after 1997, such as the discovery that the Proton
was 840 MeV and in the geometry shape of a Torus, that Atoms have ____No
Nucleus____. Since Atoms have no nucleus, obviously they have ____no Strong
Nuclear force___. So my 1991 through 1997 Unification of Forces of Physics
became a Unification of 3 Forces after 2017. Unification of
Electromagnetism with Weak Nuclear and gravity. After 2017, the Weak
Nuclear Force has a bad name for atoms have no nucleus and should be called
the Radioactivity Force as the atom has instabilities and trying to adjust
itself to a more stable configuration. And after 2017, the Force of Gravity
such as on planet Earth by the Sun is seen as a exercise of Faraday Law,
where the Sun shoots photons aft of Earth-- pushing Earth, and fore of
Earth pulling Earth in its gravity magnetism Field track forcing Earth to
revolve around the Sun. So gravity reduces to Faraday Law. In fact, with
the Unification of Forces, all of Physics is an exercise in reduction to
the Laws of Electromagnetism.
But now, here in 2025, as I write this textbook on Advanced Logic, I am
going to take the opportunity of teaching Advanced Logic by actually
resolving the issue of whether Magnetic Monopoles are the reverse of
Complamentarity-Duality in Quantum Mechanics.
So as the student reads this textbook, can witness at first hand how I take
Logic and solve a major question of Physics. Is Magnetic Monopole the
reverse of Complamentarity-Duality in Physics.
From 1991-1995-1996, I was not focused so much on Unification of 4 Forces
as I was focusing on DNA being a part of Photons of Light Waves. If anyone
makes a Google search of "perfect particle" with name Plutonium, there are
hundreds and hundreds of posts of Archimedes Plutonium in sci.physics and
sci.math from 1993 to the early 2000, and 2001 time frame with titles and
text of Perfect DNA. What I am trying to say here, is that I was not
focused on Unification of Forces with the underlying mechanism of the
Photon being a "perfect particle" and allows the 4 forces to just be
Coulomb or Electromagnetic force; the other 3 forces being a manifestation
of the Electromagnetic force.
In the November 4, 1995 post below, my focus of attention with the Concept
of Perfect was biology, not on unification of 4 forces. I remember I left
Unification straggling behind in years 1991 through 2001, and concentrated
on "perfect DNA". Using that concept of "Perfect Particle" to unify biology
to physics felt more important to me from 1991-2001. So I just barely
mentioned the mechanism of "perfect particle as unification of 4 forces" in
the post of
DNA = photon. 1/2 DNA = neutrino
2m views (somehow the hatemongers of sci.math and sci.physics et al
controlled the viewers meter so that they made it look like a post was read
and appreciated by only 2 viewers when in reality over 2 million viewers
looked at this post) (Proof of what I say is easy to discern because many
of my posts to sci.math and sci.physics display 0 or 1 view, yet the post
itself has responses by 3, 5, 10 or more replies by different persons, yet
the view meter says 0 or 1 view.) (Which is a lesson not in Advanced Logic
but just plain regular normal Logic.)
Archimedes Plutonium
Nov 4, 1995, 2:00:00 AM
Long time ago around 1993 I wanted to Neutrinolize the Maxwell
Equations. Little progress since 1993. I am sure that superconductivity
is the splitting of photon messengers to tell the electrons to move
into neutrinos which tell the electrons to move, hence no electrical
resistance.
Little progress because there is zip of a mental picture, until this
morning today of 4 Nov '95. Some progress was made this month of Nov
already in the fact that a tiny rest mass for the neutrino would allow
for binding energy of 2 neutrinos to form 1 photon.
This morning I came to a pretty working analogy which may be much more
than just an analogy. It may be the whole truth about neutrinos and
photons and DNA and RNA. The title could have just as well been RNA =
photon.
Like Faraday who needed some working models, his lines of force, in
order to extract the science laws behind the workings. So also, I need
some mental scaffolding to attack the Neutrinolizing of the Maxwell
Equations. Heretofore all I had was paltry tidbits of facts of neutrino
and photon spin , speed unsure of, rest mass unsure of, true it was a
transverse wave.
But now I have some real meat and potatoes to chew. Consider the
transverse wave of the photon, perhaps it is just a more perfect DNA or
RNA strand which when need be divides to give information and
reassembles back together. Thus, neutrinos are 1/2 of a photon strand
and the neutrino is just a more perfect 1/2 of a DNA or RNA strand. If
all of this is true to a degree, such as Faraday's Lines of Force
enabled him to intuit his electromagnetism. Then this analogy that
photons are assembled neutrinos and that neutrinos are biological
strands of DNA or RNA only on a more perfect degree, then, more can be
made of what goes on in the Coulomb Interaction and what goes on in the
neutrino behavior. If this is true then it would suggest that the
neutrino and the photon indeed have rest mass both. If this is true
then the electro part of the wave and the magnetism part of the wave of
a photon is the analogous to the helix chain as the electro part and
the binding guanine-cystosine etc those things connecting 1/2 strands
of DNA and RNA are the magnetism part of a photon. A neutrino thus is
a 1/2 strand of a photon looking to pair up with another 1/2 strand.
Thus physics and biology converge completely!!!
Another pretty implication if the above is true is that magnetism
would have "different" connectors just as DNA has the 4 connectors of
cytosine- guanine and adenine-thymine. Also, since the DNA is double
helix like a spiral staircase of two intertwined chains connected like
steps with those 4 base pairs would go a long way in seeing what a
photon is.
___Note___:: most of these posts below were posted to Sci.Physics or
Sci.Math google newsgroups.
Archimedes Plutonium
Nov 5, 1995, 2:00:00 AM
In article <47gpif$5...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> Little progress because there is zip of a mental picture, until this
> morning today of 4 Nov '95. Some progress was made this month of Nov
> already in the fact that a tiny rest mass for the neutrino would allow
> for binding energy of 2 neutrinos to form 1 photon.
Perhaps for the first time biology will lead the way into the purest
of physics. Let me speak freely for a change. Suppose you want to think
about the neutrino or the photon as an entity. Like as if on the back
porch in a lawn chair discussing the photon or neutrino. What can we
say about them. Let us compare such a conversation say with talking
about a maple tree and a apple tree, or say between animals say cats
and dogs. There is many things we can talk about and picture. On the
other hand, back to the subject of talking about the photon and
neutrino we are left with paltry if we exclude experiments. That is we
are almost talking about a "point" in math. What is there to describe
for a "point", a photon, or a neutrino. Not much at all.
Since I am the author of the Plutonium Atom Totality where our
observable universe is 2 electrons, the 94th and 93rd, look around and
this is an electron. Then, obviously I would be the last to say that a
photon is merely a transverse wave, a disturbance in the
electromagnetic field, a electric component at 90 degrees to a magnetic
component whose rest mass is guessed to be zero and it travels at c in
vacuo. And much less of a description for the neutrino. On that back
porch or lawn chair if I were to talk about say dogs the description
could go on for days and days. Talking about describing the photon and
or neutrino the description ends in a matter of minutes.
However if I were to discuss DNA or RNA the description can last
longer than a lifetime. And talking about a description of the 94th and
93rd electron observable universe is endless.
So, what in all the world is closest as a description of the photon
or neutrino. There is nothing in physics itself which can help in this
unknown territory. So the wise person goes to whatever there is in the
world which can help into making progress. The photon looks awfully
suspicious to the workings and internal composition to DNA double helix
of biology, where a half of DNA is the neutrino. I cannot think of
anything else in the physical or biological world which can offer some
insight into the description of the photon beyond its essential
descriptions of mass, speed, spin etc.
Like Faraday who needed models for analogy, I need something to lead
a charge into Neutrinolizing the Maxwell Equations. I believe I have
found that something to picture this morning of 4Nov95 and it offers a
model of assembling a photon out of neutrinos plus tell what the
Coulomb Interaction inner workings are.
This is all so very beautiful because it entails that physics is just
a more perfect biology. Thus as biology progresses it in effect will
become a light particle in speed and perfect assemblage of 2 neutrinos.
This newest theory of mine even helps my previous Strong Nuclear =
Hydrogen Atom Systems (hyasys) because it explains the strong nuclear
interaction as a picture where nuclear electrons exchange neutrinos at
close range with the protons and that the strong nuclear is merely the
reassembling of, the zipping together of neutrinos which holds the
protons together. Thus Coulombic force of a normal electron zipping
together neutrinos takes exponentially more time and enormous distance
whereas the nucleus is short range distance and exponentially short in
time.
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups:
sci.bio.technology,sci.bio.misc,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: New Laws of Biology: Schroedinger Equation of Biology, 1 of 4
Date: 27 Jan 1996 23:42:43 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College
Lines: 118
Message-ID: (4eed9j$o...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
In article (4ee4i0$4...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> > Does the HIV virus hide in the nucleus of the cell or the cytoplasm
> > or both?
The above question sparked my latest cascade of new biology laws.
Truthfully they are not new to me but rather they are extensions and
elaborations of old ideas within me, say circa 1987. Only now do they
come forth in full blossom. I use the Usenet as my personal science
notebook. If only Archimedes I, me, in ancient Greek times had had a
Usenet instead of relying on dispersion writing to my friends in hopes
that the dispersion would give longevity to my theories and
discoveries.
Few people on earth will ever have a direct pipeline to the godhead--
the nucleus of 231PU. When they do it is the welling forth of genius.
Ramanujan had a direct wire to the nucleus, and now I have it. It is
good that the Usenet is instant publishing for the world can witness at
first hand what it means to be "plagued with genius mind and
supergenius mind". Just my proof of the Riemann Hypothesis would merit
me being the greatest math genius since Ramanujan but as anyone can spy
from my homepage, the Riemann Hypothesis is just a tidbit in my
collection. To be blessed with genius, means that the mind is inundated
with thoughts, so many at some times that I have to filter all else
going on around me-- out. And to be possessed by genius cares little to
nothing if I had gone to school at all in the subjects of my genius for
the genius busts out. In fact the more preparation and schooling in a
subject are enemies of the genius creativity. So without further ado
let me hammer out my new theories or better called Laws of biology. All
of these laws stem from superdeterminism. Let me emphasize that. All of
these new laws of biology draw their meaning from the QM of the Bell
Inequality and the solution thereof in Superdeterminism.
Law 1 of 4: which I will call the Schroedinger Equations of Biology.
Remember the pyramid of food chain where the plants compose the most
area of the base of the pyramid. Well, we here today in 1996 need to
modernize that marvellous concept and put it into Law form. Well, I
have this new theory, actually old but now that I have the One Atom
Everything theory, this new theory makes sense. I prefer to call it a
law.
Law of Biological Geometry. We know the geometry of the Earth, roughly
a spheroid. Instead of the pyramid, we will make it more accurate and
instead of Food we will replace it with Energy systems. We will use the
cell as the lowest energy system.
I need to talk about boundaries, not as hard fast boundaries but as
like in a bell shaped Gaussian curve, take what is most under the bell
curve, say 99% of the biosphere.
It is tough to realize that these critters deep in the Earth eating
rocks is essential to the rest of life so I will not include them.
Although I should, but then to become exact I must throw in the entire
rest of the universe, but that is not practical. So let us take the
geometry of the biosphere as a hollow spheroid extending from the soil
deep up to so many kilometers into the Earths atmosphere. I will call
it a Hollow Spheroid. Thus, I give meaning to the triangle food chain
of life with that of a geometrical Hollow Spheroid.
Now, pattern the plant kingdom as the first rung of the Food Chain or
Food Web. We remember this in the triangle as the basic and largest
portion of the triangle because the animals above it depend on the
plants for food. Someone should be able to roughly give some number in
terms of say cell count or space occupied by the cells of the biosphere
by the plants. Now mapp the animal kingdom and lastly mapp the disease
kingdom (for lack of a better name), again by both Cell Count and by
Cell Volume occupied of the biosphere. The disease kingdom are those
organisms which parasitize and kill animals and plants such as AIDS
virus or Dutch elm disease. Again there is no 100% categorizing here,
but let us be pragmatic and use the Bell shaped curve of 98% or 99% and
be satisfied with that and not be delayed or halted by the 1 or 2
percent which does not fit the scheme. Here is where the law number 1
comes in. First some concepts though.
Concept 1: The biosphere is a two way relationship a dualism. Plant
Kingdom gets energy from the Sun and Animal Kingdom gets energy from
plants. The Animal Kingdom is dependant on the plants for food; the
Plant Kingdom is dependant on the animals for mobility, mobility of
seed scatter, fertilizer, pollination. Duality and dependence are
concepts. This is sort of a magnified larger picture of the
wave-particle duality. You could say that the Plant-Animal Kingdoms is
the wave-particle duality writ in biology. Another analogy, recently I
said that if a photon were stopped and allowed to be inspected then it
is seen to be 2 neutrinos who are put together the same as the DNA coil
of life, ie, a photon is a DNA string actually and when a photon is in
motion it is perfect DNA, but when the photon is stopped or comes to
rest it is actual true life DNA.
Concept 2: The energy received by Earth from the Sun for the
maintenance of life is calculable. I will omit the cosmic rays and
consider them as part of the bell curve and part of the 1% omitted.
Concept 3: The carbon dioxide-oxygen atmosphere of the Earth is in a
narrow band to support life. One can reasonable find what this band is
where it is a constraint on life. And not by accident but by
coincidence the see-saw duality of plants-animals comes into see-saw in
the CO2 and O2 proportions.
Concept 4: The temperature of the Earth is in a narrow band to support
life. One can reasonable find what this temperature band is where if
beyond then life will boil away and if too low then life if frozen out.
Concept 5: A stabilization number can be gleaned from where both a
geometrical volume occupied by the Plant Kingdom of the biosphere and
that occupied by the Animal Kingdom and the Disease Kingdom. Likewise a
cell count in place of volume occupied can be gleaned. I call these
numbers the stabilization numbers.
New Law number 1 of 4 of Biology: Schroedinger Equation of Biology: The
stabilization number should correlate directly with the (1) energy
recieved in the biosphere (hollow spheroid) (2) gases of the atmosphere
and (3) temperature range of life.
This is the first time biology will be mathematized. If these laws end
up where I expect them to, then the science of biology will have math
as strong as what QM has math.
--- end quoting old posts of mine of 1995 and 1996 about Photons being
perfect DNA ---
--- quoting posts of 1996 displaying the idea that a Unification Force of
the other 3 forces had a particular and specific element of "perfection, a
perfect particle-- the photon --- that the other 3 forces had no
perfection" ----
Is electric field = negative charge; magnetic field = positive
0 views (again the Google viewer meter was tampered with by hatemongers who
wanted to make the impression no-one read AP posts when in fact millions
read the post) (Easily proven true because many of my posts showed 0 views
yet had many replies.)
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 18, 1996, 2:00:00 AM
In article <4deqtj$u...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> Magnetism is simply electric charge in motion. So it may be that
> electricity and magnetism are primitive concepts and as basic to
> physics as add and subtract or multiply and divide are to math.
>
> Now today I hit upon a really new idea but the experiments to date
> seem not to favor it. The idea is that charge is merely electricity and
> magnetism itself. Thus positive charge of a proton is merely
> electricity and negative charge of an electron is magnetism. So perhaps
> charge is some composite phenomenon of physics. Think of say power
> function of factorial are not primitive concepts of math for they are
> both fancy forms of multiplication where multiplication is basic and
> primitive.
>
> Perhaps what we consider as positive charge and negative charge are
> merely electricity and magnetism in a composite state. This would be
> nice for my newest idea that 0 charge is really composite bundled
> positive and negative charge wherein absolute 0 charge is never
> attainable just as absolute 0 K is temperature is never attainable.
> Thus the neutron is really a tiny finite charged particle close to 0
> but not 0, say .0000001 negative charge. This has already been
> experimentally verified that the neutron has a tiny surface charge.
Perhaps charge of positive and negative is just a different way of
looking at electric field and magnetic field. Thus the photon is a
transverse wave of electric field and magnetic field. But that is the
wave, what about the particle photon? Well, I think that my tuition is
very good here. I think that the particle photon is not a electric
field and magnetic field but is a positive charge and negative charge
inside of it-- at this point I do not want to say a hydrogen atom but
with the possibility that experiments can be set up where a beam of
laser light creates new hydrogen atoms out of some of the light waves.
Anyone heard of new hydrogen created in say lightning bolts or laser
beams?
Unification of Gravity with Electromagnetism; SPRING Theory
Archimedes Plutonium
Mar 20, 1996, 2:00:00 AM
In article <4inki7$i...@hg.oro.net>
tes...@oro.net (Ross Tessien) writes:
> This concept of springs is in essence what I have been talking about.
> What is bizarre, is that AP calls ether a fake in the same breath as
> he/she/it lauds the concept of springs being valid concepts of the
> reality of sub atomic matter. Perhaps he hasn't read any articles on
> sonoluminescence where "incompressible" water acts as a spring. Without
> some form of fluid to communicate the wave energy, you get no spring
> theory.
>
> I am continually amazed by the insight that comes from such a blind mind
> prone to such anti social tactics. Here AP, you have hit on an idea I
> personally think is destined to supercede current views where a
> different force is invoked for every occaision. Amazingly, though, you
> forgot that springs in three dimensions require a springy material to
> transmit that energy and the common name for that substance is an ether
> or an aether. I had some hope that you might be able to have some
> insight and some intelegence, but perhaps this is just parroting
> information conceived of by others and that is why you failed to note
> this important point.
>
> Ross Tessien
> There exist in nature, no attractive forces.
The beauty of Spring and Superspring theory is that it unifies
gravity to electromagnetism.
Gravity was merely an algorithm, a 'Effect' of Electromagnetism.
Gravity is a fake theory just as Newtonian Mechanics is a fakery.
Newtonian Mechanics fails for small objects moving at high speeds.
Gravity fails for very cold and very hot objects. Gravity fails in
thermoplasmas of stars and it fails in the superfluid helium and lower
temperatures. Gravity fails in the Sun, evinced by the orbit of
Mercury, and it fails in Jupiter where metallic hydrogen and superfluid
helium abound.
Electromagnetism is all. EM is the true and correct force laws. The
mass in gravity is the charge in Coulomb law because mass = spring and
charge = spring. The underlying unification of the algorithm of gravity
to EM is the fact that a Spring is an inverse square law, a harmonic
oscillator.
So why is gravity an inverse square law with mass in terms, identical
in mathematical form to Coulomb's Law. Answer: because all Matter at
the most fundamental nature is a 'Spring'. I had posted from two
physics journals already. The reason I did so was because that
knowledge was already in the literature.
Charge is a Spring; Matter is a Spring; Mass is a Spring; Wave Nature
is a Spring. The spring found in a ballpoint pen is a simple machine
type of spring. Springs are as complex as the DNA spring all the way up
to the very complex spring of a perfect DNA, a perfect spring that of a
Neutrino or Photon. A photon has a Particle Nature, but also a Wave
Nature. That wave nature is just a perfect spring. So now we can start
to dismiss the words and concepts of "Matter", "Mass", "Wave", "Charge"
because they are all aspects of one thing, the Spring theory in
physics. Charge will have to be thought out more than the others of
mass, wave, matter.
The first proof of the Spring and Superspring theories is already
in. The fact that the mathematics of gravity and Coulomb law are
identical in mathematical form bespeaks of the underlying sameness at a
more fundamental physical nature. The fact that the most Simple
Physical Machine of a Spring is an inverse square law bespeaks of the
proof that the underlying nature of gravity and Coulomb law are Springs
of design. Echoing Ross Tessien, when physics is in the wilderness or
in the weeds then a whole bunch of terms come into parlance, such as
Wave Nature, Mass, Matter, Charge, etc. And all of these phony terms
are given an aura of independent existence and an aura of fundamental
basic irreducibility. That happens when physics is just new to an
arena. Only centuries later is someone able to corral all these loose
and phony terms into the real and true underlying structure.
It was hoped that string and superstring (note the "t") theories was
and would be able to unify gravity and EM. But the string theories were
just a mathematical construct of a worthless ability to do much of
anything in physics. I will not throw out the mathematics of string
theory. Instead I will throw out the strings and replace them with a
Simple Physics Machine that of springs. Using the mathematics of string
and superstring theories and tweaking here a bit of a tweak there with
the math I will produce something of magnificent use in physics. With
Spring and SuperSpring theories I envision predicting all the masses of
the fundamental particles. I envision using SuperSpring theory to
unravel the compositeness of a photon into 2 neutrinos.
Physics to those who know her well, has taught us that it is foolish
to totally rubbish past theories, instead, as the truth be known, we
are eclectic and take the best out of the old ideas and use those parts
to build the better theory. Thus, I would be foolish to say that all of
String theories were rubbish, instead, I am wise enough to know that
our Creator put string theory on our tables not for us to trash the
whole exercise, but rather to lead us into higher ground
--- end quoting two posts of 1996 showing where I had a Electromagnetic
Force unification with the other 3 forces, simply due to the fact that the
Photon is a perfect particle, and since the other 3 forces had no perfect
particle, that they must be manifestations of the Coulomb or
Electromagnetic force ----
It is well that I read what I wrote some 30 years earlier, for already, I
benefit and gain from that rereading in helping me to solve that Magnetic
Monopole is the reverse of Complamentarity-Duality. Notice in my Jan 18,
1996, 2:00:00 AM post, I assign the negative charge as being electricity
itself and assign the positive charge as being wholescale magnetism. Would
it not be nice to throw out Charge, positive and negative altogether and
simply say "electric flow" instead of saying "negative charge" , or saying
"magnetic field" instead of saying "positive charge". And this harmonizes
with the idea that the Protons form a torus with Muons inside doing the
Faraday law. Protons in Old Physics are assigned positive charge. In New
Physics, the protons are all neutral bodies but the Muons inside the proton
torus are active thrusting bar magnets of huge magnetic field in Faraday's
Law. So here we begin to see where Old Physics assigns protons as postive
charge, ignorant of the wider deeper view that negative charge is a mask to
mean flow of electricity while positive charge is another mask that means a
magnetic field in the area of the proton.
Archimedes Plutonium Apr 20, 2025, 4:11:57 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe
newsgroup.
In the Google archive of sci.physics searching for "perfect DNA" using the
quote signs to get a fine search, I pull up 270 hits with these being the
last set of hits.
Archimedes Plutonium
*FAQ* biophysics , 5_10 ; requested by
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 17:13:53 +0200 (MET DST) From: Anthony Potts
<po...@afsmail.cern.ch> X-
8/7/96
Archimedes Plutonium
*FAQ* biophysics , 5_09 ; requested by
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 17:13:53 +0200 (MET DST) From: Anthony Potts
<po...@afsmail.cern.ch> X-
8/7/96
Archimedes Plutonium
*FAQ* biophysics , 5_08 ; requested by
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 17:13:53 +0200 (MET DST) From: Anthony Potts
<po...@afsmail.cern.ch> X-
8/7/96
Archimedes Plutonium
16.2 Spring theory; reader requested
In article <4su1fI$c...@ccshst05.uoguelph.ca> dev...@uoguelph.ca (David L
Evens) writes: > [A
7/23/96
Archimedes Plutonium
16.3 Spring theory; reader requested
as the DNA spring all the way up to the very complex spring of a perfect
DNA, a perfect spring that of a Neutrino or Photon. A photon has a Particle
Nature, but also a Wave Nature. That wave
7/23/96
Archimedes Plutonium
Neutrinolizing the Maxwell Equations, must include
it is DNA or RNA and how strands attach to form a full DNA from 1/2 DNA. In
1995 I conjectured that the DNA molecule is a stopped photon, implying that
photons have a tiny rest mass and when
7/17/96
Archimedes Plutonium
Paul Brown
Biology spearheads physics; particle-wave duality is . . .
it is DNA or RNA. When in motion a photon is perfect DNA but when stopped
is living DNA and this is how life begins on planets and or asteroids. Now
then, as of recently I am in need of working
6/8/96
Archimedes Plutonium
, …
John Chunko
Unification of Gravity with Electromagnetism; SPRING Theory
as the DNA spring all the way up > to the very complex spring of a perfect
DNA, a perfect spring that of a > Neutrino or Photon. A photon has a
Particle Nature, but also a Wave > Nature
3/22/96
Michael Pitzel
, …
Archimedes Plutonium
Why Spring theory will defeat String theories
Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote: >In article
<4iev6s$8r3@
3/22/96
Archimedes Plutonium
, …
djs...@peaka.net
Is electric field = negative charge; magnetic field = positive
In article <4deqtj$u...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu
(Archimedes
2/3/96
Archimedes Plutonium
, …
Dr. Thomas Porter
New Laws of Biology: Schroedinger Equation of Biology, 1 of 4
In article <4ee4i0$4...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu
(Archimedes
2/4/96
Archimedes Plutonium
, …
Kareem Kazkaz
NEUTRINOLIZING THE MAXWELL EQUATIONS, M.E., D.E., Weyl E.
--- start of a email message to me in 1994 --- The spinorial form of the
Maxwell equations in vacuum
12/7/95
Archimedes Plutonium
, …
Peter D. Engels
First life; DNA + RNA = 1 Photon = 2 Neutrinos
have viewed DNA as the simplist of machine of life. That of all the Natural
machines of physics none is as complex as the DNA machine, except if you
make the assertion that light itself
11/22/95
Archimedes Plutonium
DNA = photon. 1/2 DNA = neutrino
Long time ago around 1993 I wanted to Neutrinolize the Maxwell Equations.
Little progress since 1993.
11/5/95
--- end quoting a Google search in sci.physics of "perfect DNA" ----
Archimedes Plutonium Apr 20, 2025, 4:28:44 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe
newsgroup.
Correction to my previous post that should be 260 hits by Google, not 270,
in a search of "perfect DNA" in sci.physics.
Now I Google search "perfect particle" (remember the quote signs to get a
finer search. I search "perfect particle" because I would have used that
construct in my mind in Unification of 4 Forces. I would have called
perfect DNA when doing biology and not the Unification of 4 Forces.
So under that search in sci.physics of "perfect particle" I end up getting
207 hits as opposed to 260 for "perfect DNA".
Archimedes Plutonium
Unification of Forces of Physics; comparing AP's to that of Standard-Model
& Quark
9/21/03
Archimedes Plutonium
, …
Bill Vajk
Internet censorship Re: Unification of Forces of Physics; comparing AP's to
that of Standard-Model & Quark
9/21/03
Archimedes Plutonium
, …
Raziel
Fusion poisons; why fission has none
"dl...@aol.com (formerly)" wrote: > Dear Archimedes Plutonium: > >
"Archimedes
9/8/03
Archimedes Plutonium
, …
the_ultimate_samurai
how water formed on Earth: cosmic rays of 10^10 MeV or more and Fly's Eye
experiment
10/13/01
Archimedes Plutonium
,
Jos Bergervoet
Coulomb-Unification of forces predicts the nonexistence of Higgs particle
Since discovering the Coulomb unification of the 4 forces of physics in the
summer of 2001, I have
9/29/01
Archimedes Plutonium
, …
Dipl. Ing. Andrija Radovic
Proton decay linked to antigravity force??
Sat, 04 Aug 2001 13:36:19 -0500 Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > In a Coulomb
Unification forces are
9/14/01
Archimedes Plutonium
, …
The Scarlet Manuka
Coulomb Unification of the 4 forces of Physics
Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:27:01 -0500 Archimedes Plutonium wrote: (big snip) > In
my Coulomb Unification
6/26/01
Archimedes Plutonium
, …
Magnus Nyborg
The true Titius-Bode Rule and its physical foundation
a more perfect DNA ----------------------------------------------------
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) Newsgroups:
alt.sci.physics
6/29/97
Archimedes Plutonium
*FAQ* biophysics , 5_08 ; requested by
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 17:13:53 +0200 (MET DST) From: Anthony Potts
<po...@afsmail.cern.ch> X-
8/7/96
laj...@eskimo.com
, …
Doug Merritt
Do I belong in sci.physics?
I feel inadequate on sci.physics. I don't have "proof" that Einstein or
Quantum
3/16/96
Archimedes Plutonium
, …
Peter D. Engels
First life; DNA + RNA = 1 Photon = 2 Neutrinos
is almost perfect > and the photon writ large is so out of shape but it is
"life". Like a > chariot of olden times is a means of transportation, a jet
airplane is > a means
11/22/95
--- end quoting the last hits of a Google search of "perfect particle" ----
What the Google archive of sci.physics shows and what my own personal
archive of posts to sci.math and sci.physics shows is that I spent the time
period of 1993 through 2001 doing mostly Perfect DNA, and only by 2001 do I
emphatically state the Unification of 4 Forces as a Coulomb,
Electromagnetic Unification because EM has the perfect particle of the
photon (Light Wave), and the strongnuclear, weaknuclear and gravity forces
were simple manifestations of EM force, the unifier force.
I often wrote most of my posts to sci.math, and not sci.physics. I better
check to see the situation of a Google search for "perfect DNA" and
"perfect particle" in sci.math yields.
Archimedes Plutonium Apr 20, 2025, 4:41:11 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe
newsgroup.
zzzzzzzz
Alright I wanted to be thorough. I checked sci.math in a Google search of
"perfect DNA" and it comes up with 176 hits while "perfect particle" (for 4
force unification) comes up with 133 hits. Comparing that to sci.physics
which came up with 260 versus 207 hits.
In my memory, I recall now that the concept of "perfect" was used by me for
DNA, for biology, that the DNA molecule is linked to Light Waves which
links biology directly to Physics, and in the time period of 1991 through
2001, I felt perfect DNA was a far more important endeavor to establish
than was the establishment of the Unification of 4 Forces with EM and its
perfect-particle the photon. For I knew that many many scientists since
after 1860s were trying to unify the 4 forces of physics, all of which
failed. I knew that this great mass of failure of unification can wait a
bit longer, and that I should plunge into a "perfect DNA" first in 1995
rather than plunge into a "perfect particle" unification of forces in 1995.
Unification of forces can wait on the backburner, and better I attack
perfect-DNA first.
AP, King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 20, 2025, 8:53:36 PM (13 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
From 1991 onto 2001, I spent most of my time on "perfect DNA" being
Photons, Light Waves. Then finally by year 2001, I made a concerted effort
to solve the Unification of 4 Forces of Physics as the "perfect particle"
force, where the other three forces were imperfect in comparison, hence
Electromagnetism-Coulomb force as the unifying force and the others were
manifestations of Coulomb EM laws.
Here are a few posts in sci.physics and sci.math that stand out in my
Unification of 4 forces.
From: arc_pl...@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.particle,sci.math
Subject: Re: Fourier Transform Theorem + Light is a disturbance in the
Electromagnetic Field
Date: 15 Jul 1999 03:55:04 GMT
Organization: new theory with new explanation of how forces of physics work
Lines: 88
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (7mjm2o$4nr$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
References: (378AAB0E...@dgsys.com> (7mfr70$9vg$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(378B7CB5...@jhuapl.edu> (7mh1ep$u09$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(7miel5$h5p$1...@dartvax.dartmoue> (7miv73$sd0$2...@dartvax.dartmouth.ed>
(7mjgnp$3kh$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
In article (7mjgnp$3kh$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
arc_pl...@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> The next realm is that of weak-nuclear. Trouble here is that
> physicists do not have the full force. They are missing the Dirac
> radioactivity component of the weak nuclear force so I will not dwell
Read Dirac's book DIRECTIONS IN PHYSICS
> upon this. I renamed Dirac's radioactivity with Radioactive Spontaneous
> Neutron/cosmic ray etc Materialization RSNM. But this force is well
> known for radioactive decay for it is radioactivity itself
A full forces of the weak nuclear are this:
RSNM + weak nuclear = Radioactivities force
And the four known forces are complementary and fit into such a scheme
as this
strong nuclear + gravity = radioactivities + EM
>
> The next realm is the strong nuclear force.
In my earlier post tonight I made no mention of how the strong
nuclear force is a form of radioactivity. Using my HYASYS theory that
the neutron is a energetic hydrogen atom system, and that the electron
out of the neutron when in the nucleus has a special behaviour which I
call a 'nuclear electron'. It is not like a normal electron because a
normal electron is mostly space and little mass. One could equate this
in terms of energies
proton mass + proton space = electron mass + electron space
A neutron in a nucleus what happens is that the electron inside the
neutron travels all over the nucleus holding the protons together. That
is the exchange particle interaction viewpoint of QED, but that is
wrong and needs a radioactivity viewpoint. Let me see if I can envision
a radioactivity viewpoint.
The neutron in a nucleus is composed of a energetic hydrogen atom
system HYASYS. So the neutron radioactively decays into a proton,
nuclear electron and other particles. This decay or transmutation
causes a contraction of the wave which causes a bending of the nuclear
space. Since the energies of nuclear electrons and the decay of a
neutron are so enormously larger than the decay of a photon for EM
forces, thus we see the enormous difference in force strengths for the
strong-nuclear force as compared to Coulomb force. The decay of a
neutron in such a small space as that occupied by a nucleus results in
an enormous bending of space to the point where you would say that the
region of the nucleus is a mere point and has little to no space at
all. Whereas the bending of space resulting from the radioactive decay
of a photon into neutrinos is a tiny bending of space by contrast to
the strong nuclear force.
One could say that where there is little space and a lot of matter
there resides the strongest forces, in contrast to where there is a lot
of space and little matter there resides weak forces.
So in summary of a new picture of what the strong-nuclear force is.
It is the radioactive decay of neutrons into protons, nuclear-electrons
and other particles. Because the neutron decays it contracts the wave
of the region where it decays. This contraction of the wave is a
bending of space in that region. The bending is enormous compared to
say the decay of a photon and its bending of space or the decay of a
neutrino and gravity resulting.
Recently it was discovered that some neutrons in atoms orbit not in
the nucleus but sort of outside the nucleus. There has not been any
satisfactory explanation for these outside the nucleus neutrons. But my
theory may shed light upon these floating outside the nucleus neutrons
in that they are radioactive decayed neutrons emitted and about to
return to the nucleus proper to decay again to reform a strong nuclear
force reaction.
In this radioactive decay theory of forces, unlike the exchange
particle interaction view, decay is statistical and thus a neutron
outside the nucleus had just undergone decay and was collecting itself
together into another proper neutron and returning back into the
nucleus to make another statistical decay.
In the exchange particle interaction view of forces, the forces of
physics are smooth, orderly, perfect and universal. In the radioactive
decay view of forces, the forces of physics are statistical and not
perfect but rather has blemishes and strange happenings now and then,
and this would be called quantum tunnelling.
Subject:
Re: Unifying the 4 forces into 1 Re: Deriving the
force of gravity in
Atom Totality
Date:
Mon, 07 May 2001 11:34:25 -0500
From:
Archimedes Plutonium (plut...@willinet.net>
Organization:
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
Newsgroups:
sci.physics.electromag, sci.physics, sci.astro,
sci.physics.particle
I note that the "establishment physics" was caught up in a falsehood.
They believed that they had unified the WeakNuclear force to the
Electromagnetic Force. However, that program never gained any
"real or good" predictions, only some stupid predictions of neutral
currents and illusive and undiscovered particles. They hailed and
cheered at what they called a unification of Weak to EM force.
A unification of the forces of physics, I put it to you, would unify all
four forces at once and not sit idle for years by just merely unifying
2 of the 4 forces.
My unification, in contrast, unifies all 4 forces at once.
Establishment physics from 1960-2001 came up with their alleged
unification of the WeakNuclear Force to that of Electromagnetic
Force with their so called "breaking of symmetry mechanism".
I unify the 4 forces by seeing that there is one force that stands out
from the other 3 forces. Coulomb's EM stands out in that it is both
repel and attract. Then I see that the other 3 forces are one-sided.
StrongNuclear and WeakNuclear and Gravity are all one sided--ie--
either repel or attract but not both.
Thus, I apply just a wee-bit of reasoning. Would not EM be the only
complete force and that the other 3 forces are also EM but blindly
not seen by humans as EM? That when you combine StrongNuclear
with WeakNuclear SN + WN that the end result is just a more
powerful Coulomb force? Yes indeed. That SN is the attract portion
and that WN is the repel portion. And that SN + WN = Coulomb force.
But that leaves Gravity all by itself with only attract and no
repel. But recently it was discovered in astronomy that supernova
have acceleration or antigravity. Antigravity is repel.
Now I as yet cannot see clearly as to how the 6 lobes of 5f6 of
231Pu can have 3 of the lobes moving in one direction and 3 in the
opposite direction such that the dots of the electron dot cloud of
3 lobes would be gravity and the dots of the electron dot cloud of the
other 3 lobes would be antigravity.
If it can be shown that the galactic walls of Geller & Huchra contain
the stars that possess antigravity then that would be ample evidence
that these walls comprise a different lobe of the 5f6 than the lobe
which the Milky Way Galaxy is contained within.
My point is this. If you think you can unify the 4 forces of physics via
some mechanism such as symmetry breaking but that mechanism is only good
for 2
of the 4 forces and never seems to be able to touch
Strong Nuclear or Gravity. Well, the chances are that your symmetry breaking
mechanism and alleged unification is a dud and a failure.
My mechanism is to say that Coulomb is the one and only perfect force
because it is complete and thus the unification of the other 3 is to say
that they are also Coulomb forces. That adding StrongNuclear to
WeakNuclear gives another Coulomb force only a more powerful Coulomb force.
And that gravity added to antigravity is another Coulomb force and the
weakest
form of Coulomb force. It is a sort of "localized Coulomb point" force,
what is
known in chemistry as a van der Waals force. Can
you have a van der Waals force inside an atom with its 6 lobes of the
5f6? I think very clearly and easily you can have a van der Waals type
force of the 6 lobes of 5f6.
Thus I say only the Coulomb force is a complete force law because it is
both attract and repel. Then I look at StrongNuclear and WeakNuclear
and realize that one is attract and the other repel and that by combining
the
two into one I have another Coulomb force only this time
of a greater magnitude than the "regular Coulomb" force.
I explain this greater magnitude by calling it a Nuclear Coulomb Force
and giving the picture that when a neutron resides in the nucleus of an
atom, it contains a *nuclear electron* inside the neutron which spills out
and
travels amongst the protons of the nucleus holding those
protons together (my theory of HYASYS).
Quest to Unify the 4 forces of physics
0 views (Again, so many of my posts in sci.physics and sci.math were marked
with 0 views even though respondents with replies were in those threads,
and I just chalked that up to hatemongers controlling posts to Usenet with
fiddling with the view meter.)
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
May 27, 2001, 4:34:11 PM
to
The quest for unification, to unify the 4 forces of physics has become a
challenge of physics for most of the 20th century. I am going to review
this quest and to offer a solution. I am going to review the history of
physics for the unification of the 4 forces and I am going to review my
own history of unification. Before I review my own history, I want to
talk about this quest.
Quest for Unification
Why was there this quest? There was no practical problem
that required a unification. In fact there was nothing to even suggest
that a Unification existed. Unification of the 4 forces of physics was
not a practical quest as is the quest for a room temperature
superconductor or the quest for controlled fusion reactor.
Was the quest out of some human desire to make everything "one". Only
the number one is artistically satisfying and that 4 forces is ugly or 3
forces or 2 forces are also ugly. Some artistic beauty can only be
achieved with 1 force and that numerous forces must be made into
"one"? Was it some religious subconscious drive to make
multi-gods into a one-god? That humans could not be happy
with 4 forces of Nature but had to hammer them into one force.
Not until recently have I asked myself this important question as to why
unify? Does a unification exist and for what reason?
Physics History of Unification:
There is a long history of the unification of the 4 forces.
Many players have played this game and some notable ones such as
Einstein who spent much of his latter life in the pursuit of a
unification. But I do not believe Einstein started at step one logic of
asking --does a unification exist and why should such a unification
exist? The Physics history for
the Unification of the 4 Forces is mostly that of a mechanism called
Symmetry Breaking. The concept that a force of physics is a
'broken-symmetry'. This Symmetry
Breaking concept occupies much of modern physics even though it is
mostly wrong. Nobel prizes were given out to
such mystical physics as "neutral currents" and the alleged
unification of weak-nuclear force to electromagnetic force.
I blame myself for not starting at step one in my pursuit of the
Unification of the forces. I did not ask myself whether a Unification
exists or does not exist. When I discovered the Atom Totality theory in
1990, I was too busy with other important items to concern myself with
gravity and the Unification of the 4 forces. In the early 1990s I was
thinking that the Atom Totality theory would easily solve the mystery of
what gravity was. The theory of Atom Totality easily solved what
mathematics was-- in that everything mathematical was a reflection of
what atoms 'are' and what atoms 'do'. For example, the Atom Totality
has a belt dimension-- to fit a belt around the 231Pu
totality. It is the number of subshells that fit inside a shell.
There are in collapsed wavefunction 22 subshells in a total
of 7 collapsed wavefunction shells. This is the mathematical number pi
in rational form 22/7 and the reason that pi is transcendental
irrational is because it is a special number of the Atom Totality for it
is always growing larger. The point to be recognized in this example is
that mathematics is derivative or reflection of what atoms are and what
atoms are doing. We have a subject of mathematics only because atoms are
everything and the universe itself is one big atom.
With that in mind from the years 1990 to about 1995, I was looking for
the force of gravity to be some artifact or some special niche of 231Pu.
To be able to explain the underlying significance of pi for mathematics
as to explain in similar fashion the underlying significance of gravity
to the other 3 forces of physics. Thus around 1990-1995,
(my Internet posts can narrow down the precise dates for anyone wanting
precise dates, but here I am just writing about how I remember
my-own-history, and a caveat, we
often (even the best of us) exaggerate or bend or distort
or own history, but I am trying to be truthful about my history even
though my memory is not wholly accurate).
I do remember that I never started my own Unification with step one of
asking whether a Unification exists and makes sense or whether 4
independent forces makes more sense and that a unification is never
possible.
And just recently I have probed into the question of whether a
Unification makes more sense rather than 4 independent existing forces
that are non-unifiable. I asked the question of whether the 4 quantum
variables of (1)
momentum (2) position (3) energy (4) time are independent
and nonunifiable? Whether the Universe needs not Unification but rather
Dualism and that to require a unification of the 4 forces is like
requiring the momentum,
position, energy, time all be unified into just one parameter.
Physics has Quantum Mechanics dualism of Particle-Wave. Why has the 20th
century been running off to hell-in-a-
handbasket over unification of the 4 forces, why not a unification of
particle-wave?
Quantum Mechanics suggests that Dualism and not Unification is the order
of the universe. That would suggest that physics has 2 forces that are
independent and nonunifiable. That this quest of making the 4 forces
into just 1 force is non-science.
Recently I have been asking and probing logical-step-one of the Quest
for unification. Does a Unification exist? And why
would it exist? Recently I have tried to equate *purpose* to
force. A Universe that has 4 independent and nonunifiable forces is like
a universe that has 4 independent purposes going on simultaneously.
Purpose such as in Goal. So a quest for unification would translate into
a Universe that has one end goal in mind, or one big purpose. For the
Atom
Totality theory, a one purpose or one goal makes alot of sense in that
atoms nucleosynthesize to make new atoms and so the one goal in an Atom
Totality is to create ever new heavier elements and the universe itself
being one of these new heavy elements.
So, in the early 1990s I was looking to make gravity just
another common familar type of characteristic that the 5f6 of 231Pu
would have. It would have say a Van der Waals type of force and thus I
was trying to make the force of gravity a form of EM of van der Waals.
And I was trying to ascribe the characteristics of the lobes of the 5f6
as being the force of gravity.
But now, the Spring of year 2001, I am beginning to think that a
Unification of the 4 forces does not exist. That a Dualism of forces
exists. That QM cannot be made lower than the number 2. That you cannot
turn Particle-Wave duality into a 1. That the 2 of Particle to Wave is
the lowest unification possible. And that we should call it a
Dualization of the 4 forces of physics and not a unification because
unification is nonexistent.
The 4 forces of physics:
(1) StrongNuclear SN (2) WeakNuclear WN
(3) Electromagnetic EM (4) Gravity
The 4 Quantum Mechanics components:
(1) Momentum (2) Position
(3) Energy (4) Time
These 4 QM components can be dualized to Particle-Wave.
Likewise for the 4 forces. They can be dualized to EM-gravity.
We combine StrongNuclear to WeakNuclear and the result is a superstrong
Electromagnetic force. This makes sense in that SN and WN have about the
same force strengths, only major difference is that SN is attract and WN
is repel.
That leaves gravity out as an odd-thing.
Question: Can we say that the QM dualism of Particle-Wave is a symmetry
breaking? If so, is there a Gravity-Antigravity force in the Universe?
Are there really
5 forces and not just 4 forces and that Gravity is coupled to
antigravity in the same way that SN couples to WN.
Does a Unification exist in that all the forces are just EM, and that
they appear broken up (symmetry breaking) in the nucleus with SN and WN
and appear broken up in the far regions of the electrons in the form of
Gravity and Antigravity?
The thing different about my thinking of the Unification of 4 forces
from 1990 through 2000 was that I never started at logical-step-one of
asking whether a unification exists and makes more sense than say 2
forces or 3 or 4 or more. In the decade of the 1990s, I was too hopeful
and too optimistic that the Atom Totality theory would just easily pop
out an answer of what gravity really was and to unify the 4 forces. Here
in the Spring of year 2001, I need to start afresh with this Unification
Quest by asking logical question number one-- does a unification make
more sense and does it exist?
Perhaps a Dualism of forces makes more sense than a Unification of
forces and that the EM force to gravity is
what Particle-Wave is to Quantum Mechanics. Perhaps the force of gravity
is the Symmetry Breaking of the force of
EM in that you get attract only and no repel component.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
May 28, 2001, 1:56:39 PM
to
Question: why are there 4 parameters of (1) momentum,
(2) position, (3) energy, (4) time, or are there really only
2 parameters of (1) particle (2) wave?
Question: Particle-Wave, is that one entity or is that 2
entities. By entity, I mean independent existence?
Is it that Particle-Wave is one entity and that momentum-
position and energy-time are two ways of looking at
particle-wave?
A scheme such as this:
momentum-position
/
/
particle-wave
\
\ energy-time
In this scheme, we have only particle-wave as fundamental
and that momentum-position is one way to look at particle
-wave and energy-time is another look at particle-wave.
In this scheme the momentum-position; energy-time does
not constitute 4 independent entities but rather 1 entity.
And that Particle-Wave is not 2 entities but 1 entity.
We can think of an analogy: of mowing the lawn where the
lawn is Particle-Wave and that if we mow the lawn vertically
in rows we are doing it momentum-position, and if we
chose to mow the lawn horizontally we are doing it energy-
time. The lawn is one entity and likewise particle-wave is
one entity, and whether you chose to view particle-wave
as per momentum-position or chose to view particle-wave
as energy-time is up to the observer.
Another analogy: in mathematics you can begin mathematics not with just one
number, say the number 1.
Rather instead, you need two numbers to begin mathematics. You need the
number 0 so that you have a gauge of distance between 0 and 1 and thereby
create number 2, and number 3 etc. If handed just one single solitary
number and asked to start all of mathematics, you cannot go. You need two
numbers of 0, 1. Likewise for physics. Particle-Wave is not 2 independent
entities but a single dualistic entity.
The above is important as to the 4 known forces of physics. Are the 4
forces able to be unified into 1 force? Or are the 4 forces just one
Particle-Wave type of duality?
Possible Unifications or Dualizations:
(a) The 4 forces are all just one force and that one force is
Coulomb's EM force. StrongNuclear + WeakNuclear when combined as one force
becomes a superstrong Coulomb force for nuclei of atoms with its neutrons
spilling out
'nuclear electrons' that inhabit the short range distance of
the nucleus holding protons to other protons. Thus the
SN + WN is just a stronger version of the Coulomb force.
Then we have the "regular Coulomb" force. And finally we
have the Gravity + Antigravity for the weakest and mildest
form of Coulomb force. This Antigravity force is just beginning to be
observed in the natural universe by astronomers who see supernova as
accelerating. In this unification, only the Coulomb force exists and the
other forces such as SN and WN and gravity and antigravity are
forms of Coulomb only in different realms of the atom.
(b) The 4 forces are not able to be unified and will remain
independent just as the 4 QM parameters of momentum,
position, energy, time are independent. Are the QM
parameters independent? If so, then a strong argument
can be made that the 4 forces of Nature are mirror reflections of these 4
QM parameters and because they
are independent and never able to be unified means that the 4 forces are
just as independent and never able to be
unified.
(c) The 4 forces are unified but not to the extent that
only Coulomb's EM remains. The 4 forces, like the Particle-
Wave duality removes the StrongNuclear and WeakNuclear
but keeps the Coulomb EM and gravity. In this scenario,
particle of the Particle-Wave duality becomes Coulomb's EM and the wave of
Particle-Wave duality becomes the force of gravity. In this scenario,
Symmetry Breaking occurs and
is a staple physics concept. In this scenario, StrongNuclear
and WeakNuclear are a nuclear-Coulomb's force with nuclear-electrons
holding together protons. There is no
Antigravity in this scenario, there is however a symmetry
breaking of Coulomb's law to create a new force that is
gravity. Symmetry breaking in that you have a Coulomb's
law that is attract only, and no repel component.
Thus the Particle-Wave duality becomes a Coulomb-Gravity
force duality. Immediate question comes to mind here. Is the wave of the
Particle-Wave duality a form of symmetry-
breaking of "the particle"? If so, then the candidate (c) is
more likely true than candidates (a) or (b).
However, recent astronomy work has discovered supernova as accelerating and
that the new force of Antigravity appears to be true and exists. Because of
this recent astronomy findings of a new force of antigravity, suggests that
the unification of the 4 forces is more likely to suggest candidate (a) as
the winner.
Candidate (a) suggests that all forces of physics are Coulomb EM forces. It
is just that they have different strength levels in different regions of
the atom. In the nucleus of an atom we would have a Coulomb force of
combining SN with WN and explained by a 'nuclear electron'.
In the region of protons holding together the electrons
we have our normal and regular Coulomb force. And for the
region of the electrons themselves, we can have an electron in the
Collapsed Wavefunction or in the Uncollapsed Wavefunction. We can have an
electron as a tiny ball moving in a copper wire to form electricity or we
can have this same electron as a dot-cloud pattern. The difference between
an electron as a dot-cloud or the same
electron as one ball is the unification of the force of Gravity to
Antigravity. Thus, all forces are just a Coulomb force and we have 3
different regions of the atom that
Coulomb's EM force governs. The nuclear region with a unification of SN +
WN to create a superstrong Coulomb's
force and the regular Coulomb's force of protons holding
together the electrons of an atom, and finally the mildest
or weakest form of Coulomb's EM force-- the difference between an electron
in ball-like-form and that same electron in a dot-cloud array form.
I am reviewing the film THE MECHANICAL UNIVERSE, in particular episode 29
The Electric Field, 1985. I am reviewing it in that I am hoping it will
cast my mind into
insights.
Coulomb Unification of 4 forces compared to GellMann-Glashow-Salam-Weinberg
0 views
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 22, 2001, 2:01:36 AM
to
GellMann-Glashow-Salam-Weinberg are classification schemes, and really
not theory. Theirs is no more of a theory than Linnaeus was to biology.
Classify every species in biology. Theirs is no more a theory than
was Mendeleev classifying the chemical elements. The theory that
solved Mendeleev was the Schrodinger Equation of Quantum Mechanics.
GellMann-Glashow-Salam-Weinberg are models and poor models for
they seldom predict anything, especially restmass. They never predicted
that the neutrino has rest mass. They never predicted that the neutrino
oscillates or radioactive decays. Their models never predicted anything
about the StrongNuclear Force. Nor could their models help us to
understand the isotopic table of elements. Their models never linked the
StrongNuclear Force nor gravity. In fact, their model made a wider rift
between the force of gravity and the other forces.
Their model was born of a mathematical trick. Whether the trick of
symmetry breaking for the Standard Model or the trick of
finding an algrebra for the Quark theory. In other words--
mathematical but not physical reality. Cute math tricks as all
classification-schemes end up.
And it is too bad that many people have elevated these
math tricks to the status of physics. Linneaus never was so
arrogant as to think his classifying was a theory-of-science.
And Mendeleev was never so arrogant as to think that his
ordering of the chemical elements hinted of missing elements
was a science theory, for the ordering of cards is not the
underlying science.
Yet in the 20th century GellMann-Glashow-Salam-Weinberg
have become so arrogant as to demand that mathematical tricks and
algebra and classification schemes are physics theory. Their
mathematical tricks help to discern the underlying true physics
but their tricks are not the physics reality. Scientists have a
word that describes their work. They call it scaffolding. It is not
a model but less than a model. It is scaffolding. Part of
the blame for this flood of fake physics for the 20th century
elevated to the heights of physics was the Cold War period of
history where paranoa permeated science and politics and where
nations wanted to build big machines and needed physicists
with goofy ideas that would facilitate and justify the erection
of huge physics machines such as CERN. Giving Nobel
prizes to GellMann, Glashow, Salam,Weinberg would have
been like giving science awards to the phlogiston machine
peddlers or the alchemists.
COULOMB UNIFICATION of the 4 forces starts not with
classification scheme and then tossing in some cute and
fanciful mathematical trickery such as Weinberg's symmetry
breaking or GellMann's hair-twirling algebras.
Coulomb Unification starts at first beginnings and asks whether
a unification exists or does not exist and why. Then it asks
question number 2. If all the forces must be unified as one force
which of the 4 forces is the most perfect and most beautiful force.
Once we answer that question we then require and insist that the
other 3 forces are also forms of this most perfect and beautiful
force.
That force that is the most perfect of the 4 forces is the Coulomb
force. And thus, we strive to make the other 3 forces also
a Coulomb Force.
In the GellMann-Glashow-Salam-Weinberg models they claim to
have unified 2 of the 4 forces of physics. And they use as a crutch
the idea that they cannot unify StrongNuclear or gravity because
only the Big Bang energies can do that. A crutch. It is not a
unification of the 4 forces into 1 force but rather a burying of
the problem of unification into the Big Bang.
Coulomb Unification reminds me of another science theory history.
The history of the Special Relativity. It was Poincare when after
looking at Lorentz transformations and noticing that the Maxwell
Equations are unchanged under a Lorentz transformation declared
the Theory of Special Relativity. In other words, Poincare noticed
the perfectness and beauty of the Maxwell Equations and said that
all of physics should have the properties of the Maxwell Equations.
This method of science is sort of a Reverse Occam's Razor-- when
required to unify a number of objects the best procedure is to
find the most perfect of those objects and then require the others
to become that object.
Let us suppose Poincare was alive today in the year 2001 and
asked to solve the unification of the 4 forces of physics. Suppose
the physics Genie was let out of the Magical bottle to give aid to
Poincare.
Suppose the Genie tells Poincare that the correct path to unification
is the similar path that Poincare used to discover Special Relativity.
This resurrected Poincare would then examine the 4 forces of
physics and hunt for the "most perfect" most beautiful of those
4 forces and then require the other 3 forces be turned into forms
of this perfect force. Thus he would make 4 forces as 1 force
which is the Coulomb force.
Renzo's profile photo
Renzo
Jul 22, 2001, 1:09:47 PM
I agree a lot of what you said. I'm sure you did not say "classifications"
(or
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 23, 2001, 1:32:29 AM
to
Bob, often it is best to wait several centuries before writing about
the history of physics of other sciences. One of the classic
examples is the Leiden Jar history. It took several centuries
for scientists to realize and appreciate the importance that
Leiden Jars had on the development of physics. Only
centuries after the Leyden Jars was their importance to
physics history fully appreciated.
Bob, I wonder if anyone has written a History of Physics book
covering 1950 to 2000 with emphasis on the
GellMann-Glashow-Salam-Weinberg models and the socio
-political need during the Cold War of 1950-2000. The
need for politicians and countries of Europe to justify their
building of CERN and other big machines of physics.
So you have countries who want to build big machines
of physics in order to increase economic spending and
provide good jobs for their countries. And you want to
appear "ahead" of the Communists in the Cold War.
But to do that you need some group of scientists with a
theory, no matter how inane or bad the theory is, as long as
it serves to go ahead with building of the big machines and
justifies the building of these big machines. And you
bring in the Nobel prize to validate the physicists who
justifies the building of CERN.
I was born in 1950 and unable to watch closely the
history of big machines compared to the history of
physics theory from 1950 to 2000.
I would wager that the history of physics from 1950 to
2000 concerning the Standard Model and Quark theory
had more to do with politics and economics rather than
physics truth and physics reality.
That the acceptance of the Standard Model and Quark theory
had more to do with building CERN and getting the money to
build huge particle machines than any search for physics truth.
That the awarding of Nobel prizes had more to do with
justifying the expense of building and operating CERN than
it had for recognition of physics achievement.
That the history of Standard Model and Quark theory
had more to do with the politics and economics of the Cold
War era of 1950 than it had to do with physics. Rarely
do we see the entanglement of physics and the socio-
economic and political environment as we do in the
history of Standard Model and Quark theory.
One aspect of that history that I hope some historian goes
into detail. The history of "neutral currents". Was neutral
currents a on the spot con-artist fabrication in order to
facilitate the awarding of a Nobel prize? Most realized that
the Standard Model had no experimental prediction and
could not win a Nobel. So along comes someone who
injects the Standard Model with "neutral currents" just to
console the Nobel Committee.
I am sure some physicists who were consciously aware of
that history from 1950 -2000 for they lived through it. And
could not help but notice the constant interactions between
government politics, big machine construction, Cold War,
economic boost by CERN. The people involved were more
concerned about money and politics and not concerned about
whether they got the physics correct.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 23, 2001, 1:56:22 AM
to
Sun, 22 Jul 2001 20:09:47 +0200 Renzo wrote:
> I agree a lot of what you said. I'm sure you did not say "classifications"
> (or classifications of symmetries) are useless, but that they are not
> theory, in the sense that they don't predict anything (for example I
> wouldn't call "prediction" the statement that there must be a further
> particle besides the known ones, because we need not fill a place left
free
> in our "classification" so that to fill all the symmetries. That is a
useful
> guess, not a prediction in the sense of the Galileo's scientific method).
> I think that is roughly what "Archimedes Plutonium" is stating.
I concur. There is no denying that GellMann played around with algebras
until
he found an algebra that could "somewhat fit" the known particles
of his time. This practice is classifying but not telling us "
how things work". Classification is a tool, not a theory.
>
> Yes, the effort to give nuclear forces the structure that QED has, is very
> unsatisfactory, even though QCD were able to give some predictions (or
> correction factors on known quantities) after crazy renormalizetion-like
> procedures . Besides I don't think such predictions exist (but I'm not
> sure).
When you want to unify the 4 forces of physics. It seems dumb to start
by looking for some "mathematical trick" that links the 4 forces. GellMann
with his algebra trick. Or Weinberg with his symmetry-breaking trick.
Or even the trick of "renormalization".
No, to get solve physics, it seems we have to understand the physics first
and then apply mathematics, not the other way around. And to get that
physics-understanding, it seems that the use of Logic is more important
than the playing around with mathematical tricks.
If you want to Unify the 4 forces, what would be more natural than to
ask the question of which of those 4 forces is the most perfect and then
Logically to say that the other 3 forces must then be shaped into that
perfect force form.
Look at the 4 forces of physics. The Coulomb force is the most perfect.
That means the StrongNuclear and WeakNuclear when combined as one
forms another Coulomb force -- a Nuclear Coulomb force with nuclear-
electrons. That leaves only gravity remaining. Since there is no repel
gravity then hypothesize antigravity exists in Nature.
There, you have unified all 4 forces of physics by looking for the most
perfect force and demanding the other 3 forces are combined in such a
manner as to be a Coulomb force.
Physicists give a lot of lip-service to Logic and things such as Occam's
Razor or Reverse-Occam's Razor, but when it comes time for physicists
to actually use and apply logic, they so often do not. And instead they
fall victim to dumb things such as playing mathematical tricks and
mathematical games. And they thence impose those mathematical games
by pretentiously saying they are the underlying physics. Physicists
should use and apply Logic before they spend their days and years
wrapped up in their mathematical trickery cacoons.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 23, 2001, 2:42:58 AM
to
I do not know how far back in time the Standard Model and
Quark theory extend. Whether they existed while Joe McCarthy's
Communist witchhunts went on.
But we can sense some "feeding off" of GellMann-Glashow-Salam-Weinberg
with the politics of Joe
McCarthyism.
The mood of those times was one of distrust and paranoia. And we
see that not only in politics but also in physics theories born of that
generation.
The paranoia and distrust would have physicists latching onto
mathematical games and math tricks rather than be daring and seek
the underlying physics truth and reality. Like artwork of a period has
a detectable trend to it, same also one can find a trend or fashion to
physics of the 1950 to 2000 period. A fashion of relying upon
mathematical games rather than physical mechanisms. We see that
in the proliferation of multi-dimensions, of strings, of
renormalization,
of symmetry-breaking, of algrebras and worst of all the over application
of General Relativity. From 1950 to 2000, the playing of mathematical
games in physics was more important than the actual physics itself.
The distrust and paranoia in the political arena spilled over into the
physics arena. And instead of Logic being the main tool of physicists,
the distrust and paranoia was so huge during the Cold War, that
even physicists locked themselves up into a corner and relied mostly
on the tool of Mathematical-Games. And these mathematical
games and math tricks then were foisted upon physics as science theory.
We can tell what timeperiod some art was created just by the look and
texture and the way it was painted and what was painted, for the art had
a socio-economic background in which it was created.
Likewise, we can appreciate the feel and texture and traits of physics
theories created from 1950-1990. They were born mostly of
mathematical games and mathematical tricks. They were imbued with
the theme that mathematics was more important then even physics.
These theories even projected the idea that physics would end and
mathematics takes over. From 1950 to 1990 the theories of physics
born then even despised Logic and tossed out Logic and put
mathematical games as the best tool to knowing and understanding
and discovering physics.
I probably could write the best history of physics book from the
years 1950 to 1990 although I was not following that history, than
all those physicists who were older than myself and actually watched
and lived through that time period. For they cannot distinguish between
fake physics and real physics and they cannot see a bigger picture of
physics within a socio-economic complex.
Archimedes Plutonium
Jun 28, 2002, 7:31:51 PM
to
Fri, 28 Jun 2002 11:22:40 +0200 Nico Benschop <n.ben...@chello.nl>
wrote:
(snip)
> > (Also, if I was in your killfile then how - oh, never mind.) ..[*]
> > Cheers, John R Ramsden (j...@adslate.com)
>
> Re[*]: killfile keyword for 'author' vs. 'subject'
>
> > > To this day I do not know why Pertti befriended me. Perhaps he
> > > liked the Atom Totality theory but was never going to admit it
> > > publicly. [...]
>
> I suppose we'll never know (but I can guess;-) -- NB
Part of the answer for why Pertti befriended me was because after the
mid1990s
I was looking to find the Unification of the Forces of Physics. And I
was not ruling out Clifford Algebras as some sort of help. Clifford
Algebras applied to an Atom Totality theory. Some of my old posts of
the late 1990s shows where I tried to apply Clifford Algebras.
I was thinking that Clifford Algebras may accentuate the linking of
gravity to
EM. I suspect Pertti may have been excited over an application of
Clifford Algebra to unify the forces of physics. But as the late 1990s
turned into 2000
and 2001, I de-emphasized Clifford Algebra and most all other
mathematics.
I believe I discovered the Unification of Forces of Physics in 2001.
And it uses no fancy mathematics. It says simply that all forces are
Coulomb forces in this
scheme:
Coulomb
/ \
/ \
strongnuclear weaknuclear
/ \
/ \
gravity antigravity
Forces are paired for they are broken symmetry. The current accepted
view is that
EM is paired with weaknuclear in the Standard Model. I believe the
Standard Model is all fake. The Standard Model does not even recognize
a Cosmic antigravity force, which is to be expected since antigravity
was only discovered in the closing years of the 20th century.
Pertti befriended me because he sensed that the Atom Totality theory
would either elevate in importance the Clifford Algebras or send the
Clifford Algebras back to remoteness.
Chapt4 implications: FBP proves Big Bang is false #39 FUSION BARRIER
PRINCIPLE, 2nd ed
0 views
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Aug 12, 2011, 11:26:32 AM
to
In my last post on this topic, I remarked that FBP seemed to be
independent of knowing whether the Cosmos comes from an Atom Totality
or comes from a Big Bang. Usually in science when someone
blurts out a independence or disconnect, they usually are wrong. So
after posting that #38, I went to thinking, and sure enough I easily
found the connection and thus dependence. And this will likely lead to
what one can call a Logical proof that the Big Bang theory is false, a
fake and
thoroughly incorrect. It is another syllogism proof, where my other
syllogism stems from the statement of the Atomic theory, this
syllogism
stems from the statement of Unification of Forces in Physics.
Either Physics has a Unification of Forces or it does not have such.
If it has such a unification, then one of the forces of physics is the
root foundation or unit basis vector and all the other forces are
multiples of the unit basis vector.
In Physics, of the four forces, one is more perfect force than the
other three, and it is simple and easy to recognize which one of those
is the more perfect because the Coulomb force or EM has a particle
that is the most perfect particle in all of physics-- the light wave
or photon. The Strong Nuclear, the Weak Nuclear, the gravity forces,
none of these three have a "perfect particle" of interaction. Only the
EM force has the perfect particle of the photon.
That means the EM force is what the other three forces reduce to in a
Unification of Forces.
This is critical and crucial to the Fusion Barrier Principle since the
proof of FBP relies on the idea that every input energy is reduced to
the Faraday law which is entangled with the Coulomb law in the inside
of the Tokamak and the output energy is the difference between Faraday
law versus Coulomb law, and that outcome is that the Faraday law
requires always 1/3 more in energy content than ever the Coulomb law,
hence breakeven is at most 2/3 breakeven.
But the Unification of Forces also destroys the Big Bang theory, for
there cannot be a Unification of Forces given the tenets of the Big
Bang theory. There was a silly and rather phony book written in the
20th century about the Big Bang titled something about "The First
Three Minutes" and the author if memory is correct was Weinberg,
anyway, the flaw and fakeness of that is we knew so very little about
the physical universe and what the true theory for the universe was in
the 20th century, for we just got started in telescopes and to think
that some tin-badge physicist could pin down the theory of the Cosmos
to its first three minutes is the height of arrogance and
crackpottery. One would think that being a physicist should give a
person a sense of
balance of thought that since the Cosmos was just beginning to be
explored by telescopes newly designed and installed, and not even
placed in outer space orbit to get away from Earth atmosphere
distortions, that one would think a physicist would have had enough
common sense not to write nor to publish a arrogant parcel titled
"First Three Minutes". But many in science are too much like
politicians that their minds only think of the "moment" and not
thinking clearly of "truth and reality and the future."
But let me indicate how the Unification of Forces as a Coulomb Force
eliminates the Big Bang theory as the "big joke theory". And let me
just use that 20th century gaffe of a book "The First Three Minutes"
Somewhere in that wonky wag book, the Big Bang supposedly creates the
force of EM, whether it be the 1.5 minutes after the Big Bang or maybe
the 4th minute after the Big Bang, but somewhere in that tale by
Weinberg is the EM force created for the first time. So that
obviously, the Big Bang is Big Baloney for the EM force cannot be the
Unification force of physics and that the photon is not a perfect
particle of physics, yet it is a perfect particle of physics. What
Weinberg teaches us mostly about physics, is that we should always
apply good commonsense before we write a knuckleheaded book on
physics. Weinberg should have known that astronomy was primitive in
the 20th century where we just began to learn about galaxies for the
first time, and so a book on the first three minutes is the height of
hypocrisy. And I would bet that Weinberg to this day, probably even
believes that fusion energy can go beyond breakeven.
Now I am sort of worried about including this new syllogism in this
book of FBP, but since it was discovered in this book, I think I will
keep it here.
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Chapt4 implications: FBP connected to Unification of Forces #40 FUSION
BARRIER PRINCIPLE, 2nd ed
0 views
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Aug 14, 2011, 11:38:16 AM
to
It should not strike us as strange or odd that the Fusion Barrier
Principle is tied up with the Unification theory of the Forces of
Physics. None of us should balk and complain about that idea of
linkage and all of us should readily accept it.
The Coulomb Unification of Forces of Physics not only proves the
Fusion Barrier Principle, but as was explained in the last post, that
a Unification of Forces of Physics proves the Big Bang to be a big-
fake. In the Big Bang theory, the Coulomb force was created afterwards
of the Big Bang Event. In the Atom Totality theory, Coulomb was
present always. Atoms are EM; atoms are Coulomb.
The fact that the EM Coulomb law is the perfect law of physics with
the perfect particle-- the light wave, allows for the proof of the FBP
in that we can total the input energy as Faraday's Law, and the fusion
event energy as Coulomb's law, wherein Faraday's law requires always
1/3 more energy content and thus the breakeven can never exceed 2/3.
So why would the science community at present still endorse the Big
Bang, since it does not even give the correct answer as to fusion
breakeven? The answer probably lies in the
interface of science with the other human interests of religion. The
Big Bang theory is the most acceptable theory to the present day
churches and religion organizations. The Big Bang is religion imposing
into science. The Atom Totality is reason, rationale, commonsense and
the mounting evidence. People in religion hate it when a scientist
tells them that god is an Atom, a big Atom. The atomic theory has
always been hated from ancient times forward. All of Democritus's and
Epicurus writings on the Atomic theory were burned by religious
fanatics and luckily Titus Lucretius with De Rerum Natura escaped the
conflagration of the true science from religious fanatics. In our
modern day time, we still have the battle of true science-- Atom
Totality pitted against the religion fanatics of Big Bang ilk,
although the fight is far less intense, but we can see that fight in
the huge amount of fanatics that have tried to bounce Archimedes
Plutonium off the usenet science groups, to no avail. So the Usenet
science newsgroups are to modern day science what De Rerum Natura was
to Ancient Greece and the Atomic theory.
In the Big Bang theory, you can have anything true and demand all
things be true because in a Big Bang explosion, the explosion itself
is nonscience and so we should have fusion energy harnessed. In an
Atom Totatlity, the Universe is an ordered, principled entity that has
structural limitations. One of those limits is the ability to reach
energy breakeven and that it occurs for fission but not for fusion.
So that when the next bigger tokamak is built, is not because of good
science, but because of poor and lousy science coupled with religious
fervor.
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
--- end quoting some posts to sci.physics, sci.math Usenet from 1993 to
present day April 2025 talking about AP's Unification of the 4 Forces of
Physics via the logical mechanism of what force has the most perfect
particle ---
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 20, 2025, 10:49:08 PM (13 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
In Logic, whether basic or advanced, there is always a urgent need to
well-define our concepts, and many if not most errors are due to a lack of
precise well defining.
So we must well define Complamentarity-Duality Principle. Here I use
Halliday and Resnick's definition. Note: I spell Complamentarity while
others spell it Complementarity and Compliment which to me is confusing
with the definition of compliment in ordinary language, and to assuage this
confusion I just spell it with an "a" instead of "e" or "i".
Halliday & Resnick, PHYSICS, Part 2, Extended Version, 1986, page 1162.
--- quoting H&R ---
Niels Bohr, who not only played a major role in the development of quantum
mechanics but also served as its major philosopher and interpreter, has
shown the way with his principle of complementarity, which states: The wave
and the particle aspects of a quantum entity are both necessary for a
complete description. However, both aspects cannot be revealed
simultaneously in a single experiment. The aspect that is revealed is
determined by the nature of the experiment being done.
--- end quoting H&R---
There is the Particle - Wave complament-duals.
There is the Energy- Time complament-duals.
There is the Position-Momentum complament-duals.
There is my favorite, the Electricity-Magnetism complament-duals.
So in this textbook, not only do I tell many stories of physics and relate
them to Advanced Logic, but I set up a exercise assignment of homework for
myself. I want to solve, logically, if Magnetic Monopole is a reverse
principle to Complamentarity-duality principle.
It is easy to see that Superposition Principle is the reverse principle of
Pauli Exclusion.
It is easy to see that the Faraday Law of Electromagnetism is the reverse
law of Ampere-Maxwell Law.
It is easy to see that in Calculus that the Derivative is reverse of
Integral.
In this book, I want to achieve the understanding on whether the Principle
of Magnetic Monopoles is the reverse of Complamentarity Duality Principle.
I carefully note, that all College and University physics classrooms teach
Maxwell Equations and where Gauss law of magnetism falsely preaches no
magnetic monopoles exist. So I am writing this book, even though physics
classrooms across Earth have not even understood that magnetic monopoles
exist; they are abundant because the 0.5MeV particle is the magnetic
monopole and the Muon is the true atom of electrons.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 21, 2025, 11:43:28 PM (12 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Sunday, April 20, 2025 at 10:49:08 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snipped)
It is easy to see that Superposition Principle is the reverse principle of
Pauli Exclusion.
It is easy to see that the Faraday Law of Electromagnetism is the reverse
law of Ampere-Maxwell Law.
It is easy to see that in Calculus that the Derivative is reverse of
Integral.
It is easy to see that subtraction is the reverse of addition, and that
division is the reverse of multiplication.
In this book, I want to achieve the understanding on whether the Principle
of Magnetic Monopoles is the reverse of Complamentarity Duality Principle.
At the moment I am tackling this issue be trying to fathom the Geometry of
the Magnetic Monopole, for in biology and chemistry, geometry tells us the
function.
Now, putting Logical Thought to action--- is not the reverse of Duality
which is two, is the reverse of two be one???? Dual is two, mono is one.
But I need more substance than just saying monopole is one while duality is
two.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 21, 2025, 11:53:50 PM (12 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Chapter on Equivalence or Equality
When I reach this chapter in my storytelling I must remember to show the
equivalence of the Atomic Theory AP style and the Axiom Principle over all
of science.
Atomic Theory: as listed earlier in this book goes like this. All Matter
has rest mass and is one of 114 different chemical elements of the Periodic
Table of Chemical Elements, and the Universe itself has rest mass, hence
the entire universe is a plutonium atom totality.
Axiom Principle over all Sciences: All is Atom, and Atoms are nothing but
electricity and magnetism.
I am going to show how Advanced Logic proves those two are equivalent.
This brings back memories to when I was 20 years old or thereabouts, and a
student at Univ.Cincinnati in 1970 studying thermodynamics. And in the
thermodynamics textbook the author was proving that a statement A of the
2nd Law Thermodynamics was equivalent to another statement B. And the
method he goes about doing this proof of equivalence, is the author shows
that A implies B. Then starting with B, argues that B implies A. And thus
he can end up by saying A = B.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 22, 2025, 12:11:26 AM (12 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Now in this book, I need to discuss Old Physics view of the Light
Wave-Photon compared to the New Physics view of the Light Wave with the
magnetic monopole being the 0.5MeV particle.
Up front, I have to admit I neglected to clarify what the reason for
existence of the Photon-Light Wave is in New Physics. I do remember what it
is in Old Physics.
In Old Physics they had silly nonsense that they called the Standard Model.
This nonsense called Standard Model comes from thinking that math algebras
is the substance of particle physics, obeying algebra. It was a fiction
which won fame and fortune to many in Old Physics with Nobel prizes for
nonsense. I typical thread of nonsense was the EightFold Way and it
harbored silly terminology of Symmetry-Breaking.
A outstanding piece of nonsense in the Standard Model covered in math
algebra was the Two Tennis ball players. Where the proton is one player and
the electron floating around outside the proton in the nucleus were both
playing tennis and what the Coulomb force of attraction was seen in this
analogy is that the electron and proton stayed together because they were
hitting a tennis ball--- the photon back and forth and thus the Coulomb
force of attraction. They called the photon the "mediating particle" and
for the Strong nuclear or Weak nuclear force they had a different
"mediating particles".
This analogy of tennis ball players was the only education tool for
Standard Model, that I am familiar with.
But in New Physics, atoms have ___no nucleus___ and so there is no
strong-nuclear force. The protons form into a torus with muons inside as a
long chain acting as bar magnet and doing the Faraday Law. What the
proton-muon produce is electricity and in the form of 1 eV all the way up
to 0.5MeV magnetic monopoles.
So in New Physics, we have the photon not as mediating particle between
proton and electron but as a byproduct of the Faraday Law.
AP, King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 22, 2025, 12:18:53 AM (12 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Speaking of the Tennis Ball analogy for Standard Model of Old Physics, I
wrote this to sci.physics in 2018.
Who gave the tennis analogy to Standard Model?
9 views (this more likely is 9 million views, once the stalker creeps are
kept off the control panel, such as that Swiss oaf when Google was running
in Usenet)
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 15, 2020, 8:36:36 PM
to
I am trying to find out what physicist first gave us the Tennis Playing
Analogy for the Standard Model. What holds the proton to electron is two
tennis players occupied with hitting the photon (tennis ball) back and
forth. I do not have the time to read Heinz Pagels "The Cosmic Code" cover
to cover if he was the one. Perhaps someone else gave that analogy.
Quoting Wikipedia on gluon--
Gluon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Composition Elementary particle
Statistics Bosonic
Interactions Strong interaction
Symbol g
Theorized Murray Gell-Mann (1962)[1]
Discovered e+e− → Υ(9.46) → 3g: 1978 at DORIS (DESY) by PLUTO experiments
(see diagram 2 and recollection[2])
and
e+e− → qqg: 1979 at PETRA (DESY) by TASSO, MARK-J, JADE and PLUTO
experiments (see diagram 1 and review[3])
Types 8
Mass 0 (theoretical value)[4]
< 1.3 meV/
c
2
c^{2} (experimental limit) [5][4]
Electric charge 0 e[4]
Color charge octet (8 linearly independent types)
Spin 1
Standard Model of particle physics
Standard Model of Elementary Particles.svg
Elementary particles of the Standard Model
A gluon (/ˈɡluːɒn/) is an elementary particle that acts as the exchange
particle (or gauge boson) for the strong force between quarks. It is
analogous to the exchange of photons in the electromagnetic force between
two charged particles.[6] In layman's terms, they "glue" quarks together,
forming hadrons such as protons and neutrons.
--- end quote Wikipedia on gluon ---
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 15, 2020, 11:58:18 PM
to
posted in the newsgroup: plutonium-atom-universe of AP
true theory of Physics of Elementary Particles and what can we learn from
the con-artistry Standard Model
History of the Con-artistry called Standard Model of Physics
Well, let me start by saying it is better to have a goofy, phony model than
to have nothing. Science abhors a vacuum.
But then, the rest of the story is rather sadly a gigantic kook, con
artistry of where physicists want fame and money no matter the price of how
truth and logic are trampled under.
It is an old story played over and over again. Scientists who lack
abilities to do science concoct any means possible to gain spotlight, fame
and fortune, at the expense of truth.
Much of the story of the Standard Model is rather shrouded in fog. For one
reason in particular, there never was any truth to the model.
I do remember quite clearly that Dr. Feynman became hostile adverse to the
Model, saying words to the effect-- how does this algebra playing around
tie into actual physical reality. But the force of Feynman was not
sufficient to stop the rampage of so many kook physicists denying them of
fame and fortune, at the expense of truth of science. And of course, the
other great physicist of that era-- Dirac was too shy of a personality to
sublime the kook crowd.
In science, in physics, the drive to fame and fortune out weigh the drive
to truth and reality.
But, as I said, it is better to have a fake theory, than no theory at all.
Now I was looking for the analogy of a tennis game where the two players
are hitting a tennis ball back and forth as the analogy of the proton and
electron and what keeps them bound together as the electromagnetic force
and the tennis ball is called a gluon which is the photon and that the EM
force is considered to be a EM interaction with the photon as the
"mediating particle". And this Standard Model gets to make names for new
concepts regardless of whether they have any physical reality:
1) Interactiong
2) gluon
3) mediating particle
4) coupling
5) quark
6) charm, up, down, strangeness etc etc
A whole bunch of terms despite the fact, they have no physical reality.
So how did Old Physics get suckered into this sham, fakery, this con-artist
physics? Well it starts with a vacuum of a theory, and then kooks with no
physics wisdom filling that vacuum.
This was about 1969 starting with Gell-Mann then Glashow and Weinberg that
the Standard Model gets cemented in place.
And basically all the Standard Model is -- is a analogy of Tennis players
with a gluon keeping the players together. To think a major theory of
Physics is all based upon a analogy.
But an analogy cannot keep a theory in place for long, especially a phony
fake theory, unless it had some math to keep everyone busily distracted.
And that math is Algebra.
There is nothing better for a phony science theory than to distract and
keep others busy from the real truth. So, Algebra was used. I suspect the
Four Fold Way was the silly algebra.
But in my own research, I find that the Volume of the Parallelepiped, look
it up yourself, can be got of its volume by a matrix algebra determinant.
It looks something like this:
Volume of Parallelepiped =
a_1 b_1 c_1
V = det a_2 b_2 c_2
a_3 b_3 c_3
That is an algebra for obtaining the volume of a parallelepiped
And it does not take much imagination to put oneself back in 1950s with
young physicists mouths watering and craving for physics fame and fortune,
greedy for that, and looking upon the volume of a geometry figure being
given by a algebra of matrix.
One can imagine these greedy hungry physicists thinking in a kookish way,
that if we fill the a_1 with "up" and the a_2 as "down" and the c_1 as
"charm", and the b_1 as "strangeness" etc etc. That one is doing actual
physics, when in reality they are not, but just wanting fame and fortune at
the expense of truth and physics reality.
So, the real truth of Elementary Particles is not the Standard Model, but
is what AP found in 2016-2017, that the proton is a 8 winding coil of
840MeV and the real electron is the muon as a 1 winding ring of 105MeV, and
the two are Faraday's law of muon as bar magnet thrusting through the 8
winding proton coil producing electricity of magnetic monopoles. Some of
those monopoles can be as much as 0.5MeV, what J.J. Thomson thought was the
electron but was mistaken for it was Dirac's magnetic monopole he
discovered in 1897.
So, we see here the difference between a TRUE THEORY of physics, for it is
not based on some analogy, but based upon an actual proven law of physics--
Faraday Law.
That protons and muons and monopoles have jobs, tasks, functions in the
Faraday Law and Ampere Law that comprises a true theory of Elementary
Particles. Not some silly stupid kook Algebra with its tennis ball game
analogy.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 22, 2025, 12:37:05 AM (12 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I want to speak below about my constant weaving in and out of different
topics. I will coordinate this storytelling in the edits. But like a
storybook, I will keep suspense and curiosity waiting. Telling a good story
is like eating food. We quickly get tired if every meal is chicken and so
we want variety and "newness". This is why so many textbook style writing
is boring for kids, they want to move on to something new. Weaving keeps
attention. Like the recent NATURE show on PBS, Katavi with hippos, lions
and crocodiles. They have weaving in out of the animals, and they have 3
episodes spread over 3 weeks, and the curiousity of what happens to Arthur
the lion is a "dying to know curiosity". Just like this book, I bring up
Tennis Ball as photons and 50 pages later, bring it back front and center
stage again.
I want this Logic textbook written in story telling format, be so
compelling to students, that they stay up all night long absorbed and
fascinated. The first science book to be "dying to know curiosity".
On Tuesday, April 22, 2025 at 12:18:53 AM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Speaking of the Tennis Ball analogy for Standard Model of Old Physics, I
wrote this to sci.physics in 2020.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 22, 2025, 1:54:04 PM (11 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Old Physics view of the Atom and subatomic particles
(1) It had a nucleus of proton balls together with neutron balls making a
large ball nucleus. The proton ball repelled other proton balls but the
neutrons kept the proton balls together.
(2) The electron was a very tiny ball something of the magnitude of 1880
smaller of a ball than the proton ball and the electron zipped around the
outside of the nucleus at nearly the speed of light in orbital shells.
(3) The function of the proton was just being a ball.
(4) The function of the neutron was just being a ball.
(5) The function of the electron was just being a tiny ball.
(6) The photon-Light Wave was a mediating particle in the Coulomb law, a
particle that is like a tennis ball played by the Proton player and
Electron Player hitting the photon back and forth and thus keeping the
proton and electron in a steady orbit.
(7) The function of the Photon was to keep proton balls and electron balls
in a steady orbit.
New Physics view of the Atom and subatomic particles
(1) Each atom of the 114 Chemical Elements has a specific number of
Protons, and these protons form a single torus that make up the central
region of the Atom. Hydrogen has a proton torus of 1 x 840 windings, helium
has 2 x 840 windings and plutonium has a single proton torus of 94 x 840
windings.
(2) Inside each proton torus is an equal number of Muons as electrons of
atoms forming a chain of muons which speed round and round inside the
Proton torus. Hydrogen has 1 muon, helium has 2 muons linked together has
chain, plutonium has 94 muons in a chain thrusting through the proton torus
doing the Faraday law.
(3) Outside the Proton torus are Neutrons in the shape of parallel plate
capacitors storing the electricity produced by Proton + Muons.
(4) The function of proton is the coil in Faraday law.
(5) The function of muon electrons is the bar magnet in Faraday law.
(6) The function of neutrons is capacitor to store electricity of the
Faraday law.
(7) The photon-Light Wave is the electrical energy produced by Faraday law,
all the way from 1 eV to 0.5MeV in energy.
(8) The function of the photon-Light Wave is the creation process of
building new atoms and new particles.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 22, 2025, 5:36:29 PM (11 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
This should be an early chapter in this book, for equality needs to be the
first connector of Logic for the remaining connectors of Logic need
equality for their truth table.
On Monday, April 21, 2025 at 11:53:50 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Chapter on Equivalence or Equality
When I reach this chapter in my storytelling I must remember to show the
equivalence of the Atomic Theory AP style and the Axiom Principle over all
of science.
Atomic Theory: as listed earlier in this book goes like this. All Matter
has rest mass and is one of 114 different chemical elements of the Periodic
Table of Chemical Elements, and the Universe itself has rest mass, hence
the entire universe is a plutonium atom totality.
Axiom Principle over all Sciences: All is Atom, and Atoms are nothing but
electricity and magnetism.
I am going to show how Advanced Logic proves those two are equivalent.
As I mentioned before, to prove two statements are equal (some prefer
equivalence) is to prove in two steps that A is a subset of B, and then B
is a subset of A then you can boast that the two statements are identical
same equality. Even though it looks like at first glance the two statements
are far apart.
Statement A is " All is Atom, and Atoms are nothing but electricity and
magnetism".
Statement B is " All Matter has rest mass and is one of 114 different
chemical elements of the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements, and the
Universe itself has rest mass, hence the entire universe is a plutonium
atom totality" .
TENTATIVE PROOF OF EQUALITY
First I show B is a subset of A.
Statement B can be paraphrased (reduced) to the statement that the Universe
is one big atom of plutonium and inside this big atom are more atoms of
smaller size. Statement A can be reduced to the Universe is containing many
atoms of electricity and magnetism, and that the sum total of these atoms
is a atom itself, a Atom Totality. This establishes B subset of A.
Secondly, I must show A is a subset of B.
Statement A includes the Faraday law, one of many laws of electromagnetic
theory. The Faraday law is moving bar magnet of rest mass through a coil of
rest mass produces magnetic monopoles of rest mass that yields a current of
electricity. Electricity and magnetism can come from rest mass matter.
Statement B says matter with rest mass is one of 114 different chemical
elements of the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements. The entire Universe
has rest mass matter and rest mass matter inside the Universe are one of
114 different elements. The rest mass of matter producing electricity and
magnetism in Statement A is the same rest mass matter in Statement B. This
establishes A is subset of B.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 22, 2025, 8:56:29 PM (11 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Tuesday, April 22, 2025 at 5:36:29 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
This should be an early chapter in this book, for equality needs to be the
first connector of Logic for the remaining connectors of Logic need
equality for their truth table.
On Monday, April 21, 2025 at 11:53:50 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Chapter on Equivalence or Equality
When I reach this chapter in my storytelling I must remember to show the
equivalence of the Atomic Theory AP style and the Axiom Principle over all
of science.
Atomic Theory: as listed earlier in this book goes like this. All Matter
has rest mass and is one of 114 different chemical elements of the Periodic
Table of Chemical Elements, and the Universe itself has rest mass, hence
the entire universe is a plutonium atom totality.
Axiom Principle over all Sciences: All is Atom, and Atoms are nothing but
electricity and magnetism.
I am going to show how Advanced Logic proves those two are equivalent.
As I mentioned before, to prove two statements are equal (some prefer
equivalence) is to prove in two steps that A is a subset of B, and then B
is a subset of A then you can boast that the two statements are identical
same equality. Even though it looks like at first glance the two statements
are far apart.
Statement A is " All is Atom, and Atoms are nothing but electricity and
magnetism".
Statement B is " All Matter has rest mass and is one of 114 different
chemical elements of the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements, and the
Universe itself has rest mass, hence the entire universe is a plutonium
atom totality" .
TENTATIVE PROOF OF EQUALITY
First I show B is a subset of A.
Statement B can be paraphrased (reduced) to the statement that the Universe
is one big atom of plutonium and inside this big atom are more atoms of
smaller size. Statement A can be reduced to the Universe is containing many
atoms of electricity and magnetism, and that the sum total of these atoms
is a atom itself, a Atom Totality. This establishes B subset of A.
Secondly, I must show A is a subset of B.
Statement A includes the Faraday law, one of many laws of electromagnetic
theory. The Faraday law is moving bar magnet of rest mass through a coil of
rest mass produces magnetic monopoles of rest mass that yields a current of
electricity. Electricity and magnetism can __only come__ from rest mass
matter. Statement B says matter with rest mass is one of 114 different
chemical elements of the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements. The entire
Universe has rest mass matter and rest mass matter inside the Universe are
one of 114 different elements. The rest mass of matter producing
electricity and magnetism in Statement A is the same rest mass matter in
Statement B. This establishes A is subset of B.
EM radiation itself in empty space cannot produce electricity and
magnetism. And all subatomic particles are tied to their parent atom until
absorbed by a new atom. Basically the idea here is that all magnetism and
electricity is produced by rest-mass particles-- ie -- atoms. The coil in
Faraday law is atoms or atom, and the bar magnet in Faraday law is atoms or
atom. Showing that A is a subset of B is showing that Faraday law is a
subset of A and that B is a subset of Faraday Law.
Still a tentative proof, and only when I am satisfied that it flows
naturally in my mind. Still too rough at the moment.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 23, 2025, 2:18:40 PM (10 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I need a chapter on "Electric field" explaining how it is different from
"Electric Current". And I need far more clarity as to what Electric Field
is , as students are confused between electric current and Electric field.
In a book of Advanced Logic, I must endeavor to make Electric Field and
Electric Current as clear as possible. And after I write this clarity, I
must go back and edit the many books where I have Electric Field in the
weeds of non-clarity.
The historical problem here was Old Physics said there is no magnetic
monopole. New Physics shows us there is the magnetic monopole and we have
to change much of the units of Old Physics.
In my 137th book, I wrote these ideas on Electric Field. Introduction to
AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1
by Archimedes Plutonium
81) Angular Momentum is really Electric Field, and Force per meter as
strength of force is really Magnetic Field.
89) Truth about gravity as mechanism is the Sun creates a magnetic field
track, and the planets follow in that path of the field track at their
distance from the Sun, and what pushes and pulls the planets in those
magnetic field tracks is the electric field which is angular momentum, as
electricity shoot from the Sun pushing and pulling the planet along in its
magnetic field track.
In my 145th book, I wrote these ideas of Electric Field. TEACHING TRUE
PHYSICS// Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
by Archimedes Plutonium
I suspect the Electric field is the same thing as angular momentum and is
not the Voltage. What makes me say that is because Linear Momentum is a
total physics fiction. The Universe has no linear momentum, for everything
goes around in a closed circuit. Since there is only Angular Momentum (by
the way, another logical proof that the universe is a single atom totality
for atoms are circular entities), since there is only Angular Momentum,
then it is a safe bet that Electric field E -field is Angular Momentum and
not Voltage.
In my 146th book, I wrote these ideas of Electric Field. TEACHING TRUE
PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3
by Archimedes Plutonium
PHYSICS LAWS
1) Facts of chemistry and physics
2) Voltage V = kg*m^2/(A*s^3)
3) Amount of Current C = A*s = magnetic monopoles
4) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /(A*s^2)
5) Electric Field E = kg m^2/(A*s)
6) V = C*B*E New Ohm's law, law of electricity
7) V' = (C*B*E)' Capacitor Law of Physics
8) (V/C*E)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
9) (V/(B*E))' = C' Faraday law
10) (V/(C*B))' = E' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
It is the Magnetic field with B= kg/A*s^2, while Electric field (or angular
momentum) is E = kg*m^2/A*s so as to make Voltage work out, after
multiplying B*E by A, as kg*m^2/A*s^3. Now we do get a kg^2 but because
mass is scalar we just denote it as kg end result.
Force of course as F= kg*(m/s^2), Energy as E = kg (m^2/s^2), Pressure =
kg/(m*s^2)
So the student can see, these 4 concepts all separated from one another by
a meter, whether in denominator or in the numerator.
Since all forces are EM, and according to Physics Primal Axiom Principle--
All is Atom, and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. Then, we
should be able to unify force with pressure with energy with voltage. And
of course, voltage must play a key role since all forces are EM. But here
we can safely say that Magnetic Field is likely to be the unifier.
Notice Magnetic field has just kg, and current A and seconds^2. The s^2 is
in force, energy, pressure. I am sure the Magnetic field is the unifier.
electric current = A and where we also write 1/A = i electric current for
current divided into 1 is still current.
Quantity of Electricity, Coulomb = C = A*s ( not the silly daffy + or -
charge but a wire of magnetic monopoles)
New Ohm's law is Voltage = C*B*E
Angular momentum L = m^2/(C*s)
Magnetic Field is B = kg /A*s^2
Electric Field is E = kg*m^2/ C*s
Voltage = kg*m^2 /A*s^3
velocity or speed = m/s
acceleration = m/s^2
angular momentum = m^2/(C)s
frequency = 1/s
Force = kg*m/s^2
Pressure = (i)kg / m*s^2
Energy = kg*m^2 / A*s^2
Power, or radiant flux = Energy times frequency, = (i) kg*m^2 / s^3
Magnetic Field = kg /A*s^2 = kg /C*s
Amount or quantity of current = Coulomb = A*s = wire ( not the silly daffy
+ or - charge, but an actual wire of magnetic monopoles)
Voltage = kg*m^2 /A*s^3 = kg*m^2 /C*s^2
Pressure = (i)kg/m*s^2
Force = (i)kg*m/s^2
Power = (i)kg*m^2/s^3
Resistance = B*E = kg*m^2/A^2*s^3
Capacitance = A^2*s^4/ kg*m^2
velocity or speed = m/s
acceleration = m/s^2
angular momentum L = kg m^2/(C)s
frequency = 1/s
Force = (i)kg*m/s^2
Pressure = (i)kg / m*s^2
Energy = (i)kg*m^2 / s^2
Power, or radiant flux = Energy times frequency, = (i)kg*m^2 / s^3
Now these units are electricity and magnetism units
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Quantity of Electricity, Coulomb = C = A*s
Voltage is the (a) Electric Potential, the (b) Potential Difference and (c)
Electromotive Force and all of which has the Units of W/A = kg*m^2/A*s^3
Capacitance = farad = C/V = A^2*s^4 / kg*m^2
Electrical Resistance = ohm = kg*m^2 /A^2*s^3
Conductance = A/V = A^2*s^3 / kg*m^2
Magnetic Flux = V*s = kg*m^2 /A*s^2
Magnetic Field = tesla = kg /A*s^2
Resistance = kg*m^2/A^2*s^3
Inductance = kg*m^2 /A^2*s^2
82) Angular Momentum is really Electric Field, and Force per meter as
strength of force is really Magnetic Field.
102) A whole-scale revision of Units of Old Physics, for they missed a
current term A in Newton's F=ma, and a Coulomb term in Electric Field as
kg*m^2/C*s, where C =A*s.
In my 151st book, I wrote these ideas of the Electric Field. TEACHING TRUE
PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4
by Archimedes Plutonium
So, this is our first geometrical picture of the Magnetic Monopole and we
see the algebraic picture of magnetic field and electric field below as no
difference between the two concepts is that electric field has a meters^2
in numerator and so does magnetic field have meters^2 in numerator. So what
makes them different? The only thing to make them different is one is at 90
degrees perpendicular to the other. They both have to be the same algebraic
units in order for them to compose a light wave.
Magnetic Field B = m^2/ A*s^2 = m^2/ C*s
Electric Field is E = m^2/ A*s^2 = m^2/ C*s
So how do we geometrically construct a magnetic field and a electric field
to be a magnetic monopole.
Answer: The answer comes from a very astonishing place, a place that no-one
in Old Physics would ever think of, even in their wildest imagination. The
place is biology of the DNA molecule.
Electric Field is E = m^2/ A*s^2 = m^2/ C*s
So what is Electric Field? Is it a force or a energy? E = m^2/ A*s^2 looks
to be that of energy. But E = m^2/ C*s looks to be that of force.
And here we are going to leave it as that Electric field and the Magnetic
field are both forces and energy all at once. This would be another duality
to add to our list of dualities of particle to wave duality, of electricity
to magnetism duality. And let me add some dualities of mathematics for the
cube is a duality of octahedron in regular polyhedron, and that addition is
the duality of subtraction.
In the case of Magnetic field and Electric field, both being the same units
and where both have A*s^2 or have C*s in denominator. That both fields are
force and are energy at the same time, depending on whether you are using
the denominator as A*s^2 for energy or as C*s for force since C, Coulomb is
force. This is especially true for Magnetic field has the same units as
Electric field and the magnetic field is known for its "Lines of Force".
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 23, 2025, 2:35:01 PM (10 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Wednesday, April 23, 2025 at 2:18:40 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
The difficulty in correcting Electric Field of Old Physics, is they had no
magnetic monopole and so their units were wrong and mistaken.
In Old Physics, it was difficult to even explain the difference of Electric
Current and that of Electric Field when no magnetic monopole exists for Old
Physics.
I am looking for ultimate clarity so that I can teach a High School
student-- this is what Electric Current is and this is what Electric Field
is. And I believe the best way to do that is through the Faraday law of Sun
and Earth gravity force.
I need a chapter on "Electric field" explaining how it is different from
"Electric Current". And I need far more clarity as to what Electric Field
is , as students are confused between electric current and Electric field.
In a book of Advanced Logic, I must endeavor to make Electric Field and
Electric Current as clear as possible. And after I write this clarity, I
must go back and edit the many books where I have Electric Field in the
weeds of non-clarity.
The historical problem here was Old Physics said there is no magnetic
monopole. New Physics shows us there is the magnetic monopole and we have
to change much of the units of Old Physics.
In my 137th book, I wrote these ideas on Electric Field. Introduction to
AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1
by Archimedes Plutonium
81) Angular Momentum is really Electric Field, and Force per meter as
strength of force is really Magnetic Field.
89) Truth about gravity as mechanism is the Sun creates a magnetic field
track, and the planets follow in that path of the field track at their
distance from the Sun, and what pushes and pulls the planets in those
magnetic field tracks is the electric field which is angular momentum, as
electricity shot from the Sun pushing and pulling the planet along in its
magnetic field track.
So here is the explanation of Gravity of how Sun holds onto Earth in a
Magnetic Field track. But is the Sun shooting Electric Current __fore and
aft___ into Earth pulling and pushing Earth in that Magnetic Field track,
or, is it the Electric Field of the Sun that pushes Earth in the Magnetic
Field track???
So here I may have made mistakes in my earlier writings of book 137th.
I probably will have a massive editing job once I make clear what Electric
Field is. And I am not looking forward to any of that editing.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 23, 2025, 2:54:17 PM (10 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Wednesday, April 23, 2025 at 2:18:40 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(massive snip)
V = C*B*E New Ohm's law, law of electricity
New Ohm's law forms the basis for all the Electromagnetic Theory Laws. By
taking the derivative of V, then C then B then E in turn, form new laws in
differential equation format. C' is Faraday law, and B' is Ampere law and
E' is Coulomb law. V' is Capacitor law.
I was thinking that since the primal essence of Atomic Theory is the shape
of the proton as torus, that the torus geometry should be in the
Mathematical Equation form of V = C*B*E and instead of voltage we are
talking of Volume of torus.
Looking at Wikipeda torus formulas in Cartesian coordinates. I see these
formulas.
(sqaure root (x^2 + y^2) - R)^2 + z^2 = r^2 which turns into a quartic
equation of this.
(x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + R^2 - r^2)^2 = 4R^2(x^2 + y^2) where, when R greater r
we have ring torus; R= r no hole torus and R less than r spindle torus.
What I am exploring here is that the Geometry form of V = C*B*E is a torus
geometry. And that, not only are protons as toruses but that Light Waves
with their B field and E field are toruses in 3rd dimension. So that as a
Visible Light Wave hits the surface of a plant, it is a long stretched out
torus, a pencil ellipse torus.
So what I am going to try to show in this book Advanced Logic is that
Voltage = C*B*E is the same as (x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + R^2 - r^2)^2 = 4R^2(x^2 +
y^2).
AP, King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 23, 2025, 5:00:25 PM (10 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
More on solving Electric Field.
In my 271st book, I wrote these ideas on the Electric Field. Recalibrating
physics units to one another, Calculus derivative, velocity, New Ohm's law
// physics-math
by Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 16, 2024, 9:11:56 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
It is appealing to have magnetic field units be (1/A)(meters/second) and
for electric field units be (A)(meters/second) for that makes Voltage be
units of energy in the V = A*(B*E).
And where we get the vector cross product using sine for BxE as the area of
parallelogram (the parallelogram rule of physics) of (BxE), or using the
angle complament of the sine angle we find the vector dot product of B*E to
have the same value as cross product. This complamentarity of magnetism to
electricity; of sine to cosine; of vector cross product to vector dot
product, compelling reason to see the A, Ampere in magnetic field is
inverse to A in the electric field.
And this ties in well with the calculus of mathematics that the angular
momentum derivative with respect to time is energy so that the highest
dimension in both math and physics when we speak of geometry dimension is
3rd dimension. So that voltage units as Ampere current * meters^2/seconds^2
fits all logical points of interest.
And in turn, we then obtain superconductivity into the Voltage equation
where the Resistance is the term (B*E) and when the sine angle is 90
degrees -- subsequently cosine is thus 0 degrees, both with a value of 1 or
superconductivity capable. We interpret that as meaning the flow of
electricity as magnetic monopoles is passing through a material where the
magnetism and electricity are perfectly aligned at 90 degrees. The more the
angle is not 90 degrees the more resistance is involved.
That leaves me to straighten out a very difficult problem of the units of
Ampere and Coulomb. And it is here that is most saddening to Old Physics.
For they used "charge" to quell all questions of theory, but never defined
the two precisely. It is a current no doubt, but the trouble is, it is both
wave and particle. How do you define electricity as a wave? How do you have
an equation of how many waves of EM spectrum superpositioned on one another
then collapse into a particle of 0.5MeV go to compose a unit of
electricity. So you measure Ampere as particle or wave, same question for
Coulomb.
Old Physics was a world absent of magnetic monopoles, and being absent, you
can be sure it was full of mistakes on units such as Electric Field,
Magnetic Field, Voltage and other units.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 23, 2025, 7:27:40 PM (10 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
In Advanced Logic, let us have a chapter devoted to the volume of Torus as
being Voltage.
When R greater than r of a torus interior (square root (x^2 + y^2) - R)^2 +
z^2 < r^2 the Surface Area is A = (2pi*r)(2pi*R) = 4pi^2 Rr
and the volume is V = (pi*r^2)(2pi*R) = 2pi^2*R*r^2.
Contrast with cylinder, A = 2pi*r^2 + 2pi*r*h and V = pi*r^2 *h.
However, I am looking for what I call a Ellipse, a pencil-ellipse torus,
Torus, instead of these circular toruses.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 23, 2025, 11:45:02 PM (10 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
In Advanced Logic, every major Principle of Science needs to be reviewed
and see if it can be linked with another principle of science. If it can,
then this is supporting evidence it is a true principle, if not, like
Uncertainty Principle cannot be linked up, is cause for concern that the
principle is fake.
Back in year 2017, I was lucky to discover that the true electron of Atoms
was the Muon and not the 0.5MeV particle which was the Dirac magnetic
monopole. And soon, in 2017 I realized the proton was a torus with muons
inside doing the Faraday law and that is how stars and sun shine, not from
fusion but from Faraday Law. And in 2017 upon this realization, I needed a
speed and a configuration geometry of the Faraday law.
I kept running into the question of the design of the Proton torus with
Muons inside doing the Faraday law and how much electricity is produced in
all hydrogen atoms, all helium atoms, etc.
It was not long in 2017 that I discovered, some would say invented the
Maximum Electricity Principle of a Proton torus with muons inside. Many
times I needed to invoke this Principle. And I accepted it as another one
of those "Nature seeks perfection" ideas. I discovered the unification of 4
forces as a EM unification for EM has the "most perfect particle-- the
photon-light wave. You are not going to have a unification of forces to a
force without the most perfect particle. Here was another discovery
invoking that Nature seeks perfection, that the Photon is "perfect DNA".
So in year 2017 with the discovery of how stars and sun shine from Faraday
law, I needed to have a principle of how Faraday law is conducted inside
each and every Proton torus, the speed of muons, the shape of muons and the
amount of electricity production. And so in 2017 was the Maximum
Electricity Production Principle inside of proton torus borne.
In this book, I want to link Maximum Electricity Production Principle to
other principles of physics.
is maximum electricity production a mirror image formula of New Ohm's Law
V=iBL
25 views
Subscribe
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Sep 2, 2018, 1:15:56 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 11:35:50 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
Electric generator how to maximize Re: Hund's Rule is a part of Ampere's Law
Quoting liberally for much of this is clear educational
Source: Edison Tech . Org
In the most basic sense a generator/dynamo is one magnet rotating while
inside the influence of another magnet's magnetic field. You cannot see a
magnetic field, but it is often illustrated using lines of flux. In the
illustration above lines of magnetic flux would follow the lines created by
the iron filings.
The generator/dynamo is made up of stationary magnets (stator) which create
a powerful magnetic field, and a rotating magnet (rotor) which distorts and
cuts through the magnetic lines of flux of the stator. When the rotor cuts
through lines of magnetic flux it makes electricity.
But why?
Due to Faraday's Law of Induction if you take a wire and move it back and
forth in a magnetic field, the field pushes on electrons in the metal.
Copper has 27 electrons, the last two in the orbit are easily pushed on to
the next atom. This movement of electrons is electrical flow.
On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 11:40:08 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
Re: stop and give a long lecture Re: Hund's Rule is a part of Ampere's Law
Again quoting EdisonTechCenter.org for their writing style is superior as
educational—
If you take a lot of wire such as in a coil and move it in the field, you
create a more powerful "flow" of electrons. The strength of your generator
depends on:
"l"-Length of the conductor in the magnetic field
"v"-Velocity of the conductor (speed of the rotor)
"B"-Strength of the electromagnetic field
You can do calculations using this formula: e = B x l x v
On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 11:47:52 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
Electric generator how to maximize Re: Hund's Rule is a part of Ampere's Law
Sorry the iphone is often tricky to handle on copy paste of posts
I was trying to capture the lucid writings of generator in
EdisonTechCenter.org
Quoting—
If you take a lot of wire such as in a coil and move it in the field, you
create a more powerful "flow" of electrons. The strength of your generator
depends on:
Much of this I already knew but some i did not.
I knew the amount of windings increase increases current. And the more snug
fit of coil to magnet increases electricity and the faster the thrust
increases electricity
AP
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2018 22:36:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: EdisonTechCenter.org website lists "e = B x L x v" which looks
similar to AP-Maxwell equation of V = iBL , New Ohms law
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2018 05:36:05 +0000
EdisonTechCenter.org website lists "e = B x L x v" which looks similar to
AP-Maxwell equation of V = iBL , New Ohms law
Again quoting EdisonTechCenter.org for their writing style is superior as
educational—
If you take a lot of wire such as in a coil and move it in the field, you
create a more powerful "flow" of electrons. The strength of your generator
depends on:
"l"-Length of the conductor in the magnetic field
"v"-Velocity of the conductor (speed of the rotor)
"B"-Strength of the electromagnetic field
You can do calculations using this formula: e = B x l x v
One of the reasons I wanted to quote this website so liberally is that it
has the above formula for maximum production of electricity. And that
formula is so very very close to the AP-Maxwell Equation of New Ohm's Law.
Quoting from my 2017 textbook Atom Totality:
Resistance = kg*m^2 /A^2*s^3
electric current = i = A
Angular momentum L = m^2/(A*s)
Magnetic Field = kg /A*s^2
Voltage = kg*m^2 /A*s^3
So we have V = iR as the Old Ohm's law, the New Ohm's law would be
V = i*B*L , you see, when we multiply the units i*B*L above, we end up with
the units of voltage shown above.
What this means is that Resistance was two concepts all lumped together as
one concept, for it was a angular momentum multiply Magnetic Field. Because
R was two concepts in one, the higher the current messed up the
angular-momentum of the Resistance and thus not a universal law. But now
that the Ohm's law is really V = i*B*L it becomes a universal physics law
of Nature.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Sep 2, 2018, 1:16:33 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2018 22:44:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: profound insight into EM theory// lists "e = B x L x v" which looks
similar to AP-Maxwell equation of V = iBL , New Ohms law
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2018 05:44:13 +0000
profound insight into EM theory// lists "e = B x L x v" which looks similar
to AP-Maxwell equation of V = iBL , New Ohms law
- show quoted text -
So here is a super super intriguing question that needs an answer. If the
correct Electromagnetism formula that forms the basis of the EM theory is
of the form A = B*C*D. Then, does that mean that the highest, most
efficient generator of physics of EM must also have an equation whose math
form is A' = B'*C'*D'
If one applies much thought to that question, can easily see it is a
profound insight into physics. The the maximum electricity of a generator
follows exactly in the footsteps of the formula that forms EM theory.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Sep 4, 2018, 12:46:02 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2018 14:31:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: bring in PV = nRT Re: profound insight into EM theory// lists "e =
B
x L x v" which looks similar to AP-Maxwell equation of V = iBL , New Ohms
law
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2018 21:31:37 +0000
bring in PV = nRT Re: profound insight into EM theory// lists "e = B x L x
v" which looks similar to AP-Maxwell equation of V = iBL , New Ohms law
- show quoted text -
Let me take a break here in the action and repeat an old post of mine
concerning another Physics formula that looks like A = B*C*D
--- quoting textbook Atom Totality 2017 ---
But now, let me speak about the Unification of Thermodynamics with the EM
theory. No such unification was ever possible so long as physics had just
one force law, F = ma. But now that physics has two force laws, F = dq/dt (
a current), then a unification is possible. Consider force as having to be
a duality definition, where you have two different definitions but
necessary. For electricity is dual to magnetism, each is different but both
necessary for any event involving electricity or magnetism. Both are always
present, but both are different.
And the easiest way to proceed in the Unification of Thermodynamics is via
the Chemistry Ideal Gas Law.
PV = nRT
What I propose to do here, is show that PV = nRT is just the same as the
New Physics New Ohm's Law of V = iBL.
And the reasoning behind that, is that PV = nRT is just the same as V = iBL
only the symbols and parameters were translated.
So all I need do is show that
PV = (nR)T
is the same as
V = iBL
The logic behind this, is that charge becomes a macroscopic issue in ideal
gas law
Voltage is what? Is it Pressure or Volume?
Temperature T is what? Is it the Magnetic Field B or is it the angular
momentum L?
So, I start with what I am most sure of at the moment. That current i is
(nR).
Is voltage more like pressure or more like volume? Tough question
If voltage is pressure, then I need 1/Volume on the other side as
(nR)*T*(1/V)
So, which makes more "physical sense" an inverse volume or an inverse
pressure?
Which will physics allow? Will physics allow volume to be inverted and
retain physical sense, or will physics allow pressure to be inverted and
retain physical sense?
Volume is in brief, side*side*side, and can that have a physical meaning as
1/(side*side*side)
Or does Pressure inverted as 1/P retain physical meaning?
The units of pressure are kg/m*s^2, which easily reminds one of the units
of the Magnetic Field B= kg/A*s^2
So, let me start over.
(nR)T = PV
Thus, Pressure is the analog of Magnetic Field, and Volume is the analog of
L, angular momentum
That leaves us with (nR) once inverted as 1/(nR) is the analog of i, the
electric current.
And finally, Temperature T in Ideal Gas Law of Chemistry is the same as
Voltage of New Ohm's law.
Thus we have
Voltage = i * B * L
and
Temperature = (1/nR) * P * V as the best-true way of writing Ideal Gas
Law, because now, we see that this law is All of Thermodynamics in one
single equation.
At a young age we realize, and do not have to be taught, that Space is 3rd
dimension, so that you have length, width and depth. Three things to make
Space.
Now the three should be in the most general of science formulas or math of
science.
We have the three in New Ohm's law V= i*B*L for we have three things on the
right-side of equation. Voltage is where three things come together.
And so important is V=iBL that it forms all the forces of physics. In a
sense V=iBL and its calculus forms the math of most of physics.
So, there is something magical about having three things form something.
Atomic theory has three things forming atoms-- electron, proton, photon
(neutron is just a composite of electron, proton,photon). But with
electron, proton, photon we form all the atoms (consider a neutrino as a
special type of photon).
In general, in principle, three things form a fourth thing. Electrons,
protons, photons forms atoms. Current, Magnetic Field, Angular Momentum,
forms Voltage.
So, we have New Ohm's law
V= iBL
we have Chemistry's Ideal Gas Law
PV = (nR)T
that law can be better written as
T = (1/nR) * P * V
where the Temperature is the analog of voltage, it is not voltage itself,
but a analog, a look-alike.
The (1/nR) is the analog of current dq/dt.
The pressure P is the analog of Magnetic Field , where one is kg/m*s^2,
other is kg/A*s^2.
The V volume is the analog of L, angular momentum in EM theory.
What I am doing is unifying Thermodynamics with that of EM theory of
physics, but first I need to show that the Ideal Gas Law is V= iBL, so that
thermodynamics is just a special way of looking at electricity and
magnetism. By "special way" I mean where we have force as both F = ma and F
= dQ/dt.
Will the 2nd law of thermodynamics be true after we have unification?
Surprizingly, with a small change in how we view the 2nd Law, it is true,
and much stronger than even before.
One way of stating the 2nd law of Thermodynamics-- entropy or disorder
always increases, another way, heat always flows from hot to cold, another
way, limitations on perpetual motion.
Each one of those can be found stronger and more clear, with this
unification.
Heat always flows from hot to cold, yet we can hold a cold laser or x ray
beam flowing from cold aiming at a star-- a hot body. Here is where we have
cold to hot heat flow, and have to realize the use of F= dQ/ds rather than
F =ma
No perpetual motion is untrue, for the electrons inside stable atoms are
perpetual motion. Here again, we must distinguish between F= ma and F =
dQ/ds.
--- end quoting textbook Atom Totality 2017 ---
AP
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 24, 2025, 3:25:23 PM (9 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Some of my history involving the Maximum Electricity Production Principle
of muons inside proton torus doing the Faraday Law.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:26:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Mass and Magnetism and Charge
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 04:26:16 +0000
Mass and Magnetism and Charge
On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 6:40:19 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> So what in physics can be the rootstock. Can Magnetism be the rootstock?
Could magnetism in that it is always dipole be mass.
>
> And so, you have a dipole moment with polar lines of force and you tack
onto that polar lines of force, attraction force only and you tack on a
equatorial lines of force, a rotation that causes charge, electric charge.
You started out with magnetism and dressed it up with equator spin and now
you have an electron.
>
> I do not think this is going to work unless i can include the massive
proton.
>
> AP
Table of Elementary Particles and deriving their rest-mass AP/Maxwell
theory/ textbook, 7th ed.
small discrepancy 951 versus 938 Re: Proton = 9 muons; the 205 Rule of
restmass /textbook 7th ed
Now I am not too worried about the numbers not coming out exactly perfect
in that:
in MeV
Proton has 938.3
Electron has .51
Muon has 105.7
and that 9 times 105.7 is 951.3 MeV. It would be nice that we had say 945
with 105 so that 9 times would be exactly 945.
I am not worried because a Muon is a neutrino tube with a energetic gamma
ray inside to form a muon. So what rest mass does a neutrino tube have to
account for the discrepancy of 951 to 938, a discrepancy of 13 MeV.
Time for me to see how to package 9 Muons to compose 1 Proton.
We start with the idea that the electron is a packaged photon running
around inside a neutrino. Think of the neutrino as the sac holding a photon
and the two together is 1 electron. This electron would be in the shape of
a torus tube of a longitudinal wave holding inside a 4 vector Double
transverse wave of the photon.
AP
On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 4:49:51 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
How Attraction Force as the only Magnetic Force tells us more about
particles, mass, spin and the Maxwell theory
Some days back, I did an experiment with magnets to confirm if the
SuperMagnete German company claiming attraction of magnets is 5-10% greater
than any repulse in magnets. I got in my experiment 7%.
All I needed was a difference, a attraction that was larger than repulsion,
to claim that Magnetism only comes in Attraction Force. What we think of as
repulsion is a DSSO, Denial of Same Space Occupancy, the Pauli Exclusion
Principle.
On Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 3:19:04 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Wonderful experiment by SuperMagnete, Germany, they get 5-10% attraction
magnetism greater than repel// I got 7%
On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 11:44:34 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
5prepage38// Experimental Proof that Real Proton= 833 MeV while Real
Electron is muon 105 MeV
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2017 22:57:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: crackpot Higgs boson was just 105 Sigma particles Re: the theory of
9s as the Wavefunction number Re: prePage38, 5-3, 9Muons= 1Proton/
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 06:57:08 +0000
crackpot Higgs boson was just 105 Sigma particles Re: the theory of 9s as
the Wavefunction number Re: prePage38, 5-3, 9Muons= 1Proton/
Alright now, it is past my bedtime, but some days my curiosity is so
perked.
So, lets look at the ultimate crackpot physics particle in terms of wasted
time, wasted money, wasted lifetime in physics. You know it-- the Higgs
boson.
So, what did they find? They found a particle of 125,000 MeV/c^2 rest mass
and 0 charge.
Now, divide 125000 by 105 and we get 1190 approx.
Now, look in Halliday & Resnick 1986, table of particles, A27 for any
particle of 1190 and we see that the Sigma particle is 1192 MeV with 0
charge.
So, what did all that wasted money and time and lifetime of crackpot
physicists find with the Higgs? They found that their machine can
conglomerate 1190 Muons into a packet which is that of 105 Sigma particles
for a rest mass of 125000 MeV.
In other words, the crackpots observed a packet of 105 Sigma Particles.
Please, do not let these crackpot physicists waste the time, money, and
lifetime of more physicists.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 12:38:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: particle in the 840 MeV range? Re: the theory of 9s as the
Wavefunction number
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 20:38:45 +0000
particle in the 840 MeV range? Re: the theory of 9s as the Wavefunction
number
- show quoted text -
Now in Halliday & Resnick's classic textbook-- PHYSICS, part 2, extended
version, 1986, page A27, "The Particles of Physics" is a page that should
have been revised every 3 years hence forward by the Physics community.
Instead of wasting time, wasting money, wasting life careers in chasing
after crackpot ideas of Higgs boson, the physics community should have
spent time every year with looking to revise and improve that table.
And the Glaring question that sticks out-- why no rest mass of any particle
between 548 eta meson and 938 proton and why no particle between 939
neutron and 1116 Lambda in MeV rest mass.
Why no particles.
So I looked to see if anyone has tried to continue the work of H&R in a
table that is up to date.
In Wikipedia, I could find none.
But in Wikipedia, they classify the particles as to Generation, three
generations so the electron, muon, tau is three generations. The neutrinos
are in three generations.
Now, how does the 9 Model theory as 9 is the number for Schrodinger
collapsed and uncollapsed wavefunction. Well if you notice 3x3 = 9. The
number 3 is psi, so psi^2 is 9
So, the Leptons have 3 members, the neutrinos have 3 members, the Atom has
3 members-- proton, electron, photon (neutron = proton+electron+photon),
(photon = neutrino)
Now the reason I asked why not keep the H&R table up to date is because a
proof of the 9-Theory hinges on the idea that the Real-Electron= 1Muon and
that a proton is just 8Muons.
Every particle of rest mass is a stacking of muons. If the stacking is even
number means it is positive charge +1, if the stacking is odd number means
it is -1 charge.
This leaves the question of what in the world is the "little electron" the
-1 charge with rest mass .5MeV? What is that particle? I do not fully know
at this moment other than to say it is a carrier particle to take away the
-1 charge. Somehow, the electron exists as both a muon and a .5MeV
particle, but the electron that is inside a hydrogen atom is not the .5
electron but the 105 Muon. So when a proton is read off of energy 940 MeV,
it is really just 840 for the proton with the muon at 105.
So, what I need is a huge experiment to be undertaken-- probing a proton to
see if it is a conglomeration of Muons, 8 Muons to compose the proton and
thus 8x105 = 840 MeV. Has physics ever witnessed a 840 MeV particle, and it
would have a +1 charge.
This is why I ask, why is there no particle of restmass below 940 in the
800 range and none above in the 1040 range.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 13:12:30 -0800 (PST)
Subject: REAL PROTON = 833 MeV Re: particle in the 840 MeV range? Re: the
theory of 9s as the Wavefunction number
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 21:12:30 +0000
REAL PROTON = 833 MeV Re: particle in the 840 MeV range? Re: the theory of
9s as the Wavefunction number
- show quoted text -
Alright, Wikipedia has it stashed away in the List of Baryons, and they
have almost the same as Halliday & Resnick
proton 938
neutron 939
Lambda 1115
Sigma 1189
Sigma 1192
Sigma 1197
Now Wikipedia has a piss poor table on the mesons, virtually unreadable. So
I have to look at individual mesons
The eta-meson 547 MeV
another eta-meson 957 MeV
So here, what it is telling me, is that no REST MASS particle between 547
and the proton at 938.
What I need is that the REAL-PROTON is actually rest mass of 835-840 approx
The REAL-ELECTRON is the muon at 105 MeV
So far, it is looking good, extremely good for the 9 Theory of the
Schrodinger Wave Equation. That the 938 Rest Mass of the old proton and the
939 of the old neutron are actually 833 proton + 105 muon for REAL PROTON
and 834proton + 105 muon for REAL NEUTRON rest mass.
The reason no particle in the 800 range is because that is the REAL PROTON
AP
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 14:01:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: REAL PROTON = 833 MeV Re: particle in the 840 MeV range? Re: the
theory of 9s as the Wavefunction number
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 22:01:08 +0000
REAL PROTON = 833 MeV Re: particle in the 840 MeV range? Re: the theory of
9s as the Wavefunction number
Now to prove this theory that the REAL PROTON is approx 833 MeV is to find
a particle of that rest mass
And no better place to look than -- how are muons formed
AP
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 14:18:07 -0800 (PST)
Subject: REAL PROTON = 833 MeV Re: particle in the 840 MeV range? Re: the
theory of 9s as the Wavefunction number
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 22:18:08 +0000
REAL PROTON = 833 MeV Re: particle in the 840 MeV range? Re: the theory of
9s as the Wavefunction number
So how are muons produced in order to prove the Real-Proton is 833 MeV
Wikipedia says they are produced mostly in linear accelerators from baryons
and that implies from 940 protons and neutrons
So we can easily summon a Statistical proof that in order to produce muons
you are cutting apart a 938 proton yielding a 833 proton along with 105
muon.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 07:49:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: until we experimentally measure the maximum electricity coil mass
of
magnet versus mass coil Re:.. writing the definitive textbook on Physics,
seeing that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 14:49:48 +0000
until we experimentally measure the maximum electricity coil mass of magnet
versus mass coil Re:.. writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing
that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up
On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 3:37:40 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> No it is not a mistake on my part as a friend pointed out.
>
> I know angular momentum is kg*meter*meter/ seconds
>
> But what is distance inside a atom
>
We have the electron-dot-cloud and how does one make out distance in that
setting.
So I looked into calling it the Angular Energy 1/2mv^2 the counterpart of
Kinetic Energy
For in the equation of motion Y = mx + b
The integral is (m/2)x^2 + bx
And so, is the "x^2" distance or mass
> So for electrons and protons angular momentum can be seen as
mass*mass*frequency
>
> Linear momentum is mass*velocity
>
> For large objects we have distance and area. For atomic and molecular we
have mass^2
>
Source-- Feynman's Lecture on Physics
Table 2-3. Elementary Interactions
Coupling Strength* Law
Photon to charged particles ~10 -2 Law known
Gravity to all energy ~10 -40 Law known
radioactive decay ~10 -5 Law partially known
Mesons to baryons ~1 Law unknown (some rules known)
*The strength is a dimensionless measure of the coupling constant involved
in each interaction ( ~ means approximately equal to).
So Feynman says approx 1/100 for EM versus Strong-Nuclear
When we have muon = electron and .5MeV = magnetic monopole, using Y = mx+b
We have (m/2) x^2 + bx integral
Since muon = 105 and proton = 840 MeV we have 1/8*1/8*1/2 = 1/128
So did Feynman mean 1/100 or better yet 1/128
I have asked for experimental evidence of Maximum Electric Coil in Faraday
Law wherein we measure the mass of the coil versus mass of the bar Magnet.
Therein, is there a ratio of 1 to 8 also?
We do see a ratio of 1 to 8 in Lewis Structure of energy levels, for Lewis
went on the idea of 2S plus 2P orbitals are same energy level and thus
Lewis had his atoms surrounded by 8 electrons. The AP structure is far
different than Lewis in the AP structure is Faraday law with proton as coil
and electron = muon = bar magnet.
So here I need experimental proof that 8 or 1/8 is a relationship of
Maximum coil to bar magnet in Faraday's Law.
> That was not a mistake on my part, yesterday, but a reconciliation of Y
=mx+b is linear momentum but the integral is angular momentum and the
(m/2)x^2 +bx that x^2 is not meters^2 but mass^2
>
>
It is easy to see that linear momentum mv when taking the integral is
1/2mv^2 is Linear Kinetic Energy and then taking the derivative of Linear
Kinetic Energy is momentum mv
So taking the integral of angular momentum kg*v*frequency is what sort of
energy? So thus, I proposed that angular momentum inside atoms was
mass^2*frequency in Y= mx+b
AP
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 09:08:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Radio waves are longitudinal cycloid waves Re: New experiment,
does a
1/2 circle also produce a Cycloid
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2018 16:08:35 +0000
Radio waves are longitudinal cycloid waves Re: New experiment, does a 1/2
circle also produce a Cycloid
On Sunday, July 8, 2018 at 2:46:29 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Experiment. Get two used plastic yoghurt lids. With one cut in 1/2. Now
mark the full lid and 1/2 lid. Roll them. Do we get a cycloid for both?
Let us call all of this Wave Theory. And I never imagined I would be
tinkering around with wave theory--considering it is so primitive and
fundamental. Yet, here I am, because, well, most scientists have little to
no logic abilities.
I guess, when a person is borne, and who later grows up to be a scientist,
no matter who, he or she is, is cloaked in a veil of "subjectivity"
throughout their science careers, with only a few moments " in objective,
logical true science". One can only assume that scenario-- objective true
logical and real science, only rarely takes place.
And only great truths of science-- atomic theory, last, but then examine
that history. It took nearly 3,000 years to firmly establish itself. Which
is not a testament to -- humans make good scientists-- not a testament at
all, but rather an indication that science truth takes thousands of years.
Now we can write the history of science by the inventions and the
technology that is existing, and divorce ourselves from the history of
science ideas. When we do that, we can say-- oh well, humanity is a
magnificent achiever-- but, maybe the verdict is out on that for perhaps
our inventions are hurdling us to our extinction, as we extinct so many
species we inhabit this planet with. Read a few days ago that the "wild
banana" in Nature is all but extinct, left to only 5 living plants.
But I am surprised I am on this topic of Waves, and Wave theory, for you
would think, the theory would be all settled with no major mistakes. But
alas, huge mistakes.
So, what I am tackling is the idea that if the insides of Atoms is mostly
all about performance of the Faraday law by muons and protons to create a
new and larger atom by creating magnetic monopoles, if that is the major
role of existence of atoms, then the Wave theory has to originate from such
a activity and structure. Wave theory has to be a outcome of that
structure. And that structure geometry is a torus, for a torus does --
Maximum Electricity. That is tantamount to maximum magnetic monopole
creation. That is what Atoms are all about-- making new atoms. And to
achieve that goal, the geometry of Faraday Law is a torus and that geometry
would dictate -- what is a Wave.
So, we have Four different types of waves, although one can say that a
sinusoid wave is a elongation of a Semicircle wave and let me write those
two as this Semicircle/sinusoid. That leaves the world with just Three
types of waves. Longitudinal , Semicircle/sinusoid, Cycloid.
Longitudinal Wave || |||| || |||| compression rarefaction
Semicircle/sinusoid-- which I believe are fictional-- Nature does not
produce them for they require too much energy to sustain and if created
look like this
^v^v^v^v^v
Cycloid Wave-- whenever we see a wave that is not Longitudinal, then it is
Cycloid which looks like this
---^^^----
The Cycloid Wave requires a medium (forget all about the Michelson Morley
experiment and forget about Aether) Because the Cycloid Wave requires an
aether and exists in empty space because EM composes empty space. Space is
not empty, maybe empty of rest mass matter, but Space itself is EM Lines of
Force. So, what the Cycloid Wave is , is a packet of energy that is
transmitted down a guide-ray ( a DeBroglie type of guide) which is a EM
Line of Force. What Faraday called Lines of Force, such as a magnet has
lines of force. So a cycloid wave is a packet of energy and it has to move
in space. What it does is latch onto a nearby guide-ray of EM and that
packet of energy goes traveling down that guide ray
----^^^^----> cycloid wave is the ^^^^ and the guide-ray is -------> EM
line of force
Now if you examine the Cycloid Wave closely of its ^^^^^^^^
You can see it is all crests no trough as in the semicircle/sinusoid
However, you can be deceived on thinking that the crest of one to the crest
of the next -- that in between space-- you can be fooled into thinking it
is a trough
^ one crest, adjoins the next crest ^
^^
And that -- in between crests-- can fool you into thinking it is a trough.
So when you see water ripples, you can be fooled into thinking it is
sinusoid but in truth is just crest packed upon more crests.
Now the proof that Cycloid Wave is the only other existing wave from
Longitudinal is a energy proof.
For a packet of energy to move from point A to point B via either Cycloid
or Sinusoid, the amount of energy used to get packet from A to B is large
amount consumed if Sinusoid. But if it is Cycloid, it consumes little
energy to move it from A to B.
That is why my garden hose shows only Cycloid. If I injected huge amounts
of energy along the garden hose (guiding ray), I may eventually inject so
huge amount that a sinusoid starts to appear, only because such huge amount
of energy was placed into the system that the Cycloid wave interferes with
other cycloid waves. So that a sinusoid wave is just a interference pattern
of a highly energized cycloid wave system.
Another proof is that light waves bend when going from air into water. Can
a semicircle/sinusoid bend? No. But a cycloid wave can bend-- for
refraction is the idea that the guide-ray is a different guide ray in
different mediums (index of refraction). Semicircle/sinusoid have no guide
rays.
Now, a question never asked in Old Physics is ,-- does sound waves,
longitudinal wave bend or refract from air to water? It has been a long
time since I was in a swimming pool. I do recall that the sounds are
different underwater than in air. It would be interesting to try to
experiment with this. Have a pool all by yourself so little disturbance and
have a record player going and as calm as possible go underwater and see if
"sound is bent".
Longitudinal Waves do not need a guide ray. So I am guessing sound waves
are not refracted.
This leaves us with the all important Light Waves as Cycloid waves. I have
always been bothered by radio waves compared to light waves, both of course
being EM waves. How can such long wavelengths be small energy compared to
high energy then short wavelengths. Can Cycloid wave explain that the
easiest? I believe so, and what happens here, is that Radio waves are
cycloid waves that are not transverse but are cycloid into longitudinal--
for that would explain why Radio waves are so penetrating, while light
waves infrared ultraviolet are easily stopped. Because cycloid waves in
Radio waves are at the region in which EM cycloid waves transform into
longitudinal waves. We can call radio waves-- low energy long wavelengths
we can call the longitudinal EM spectrum.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 19:10:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Feynman’s thesis was Least Action// AP’s thesis is Principle of
Maximum Electricity to grow any and all atoms
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2018 02:10:14 +0000
Feynman’s thesis was Least Action// AP’s thesis is Principle of Maximum
Electricity to grow any and all atoms
Feynman—
THE PRINCIPLE OF LEAST ACTION IN QUANTUM MECHANICS. A generalization of
quantum mechanics is given in which the central mathematical concept is the
analogue of the action in classical mechanics. It is therefore applicable
to mechanical systems whose equations of motion cannot be put into
Hamiltonian form.
AP’s thesis is Maximum electricity to grow any and all atoms, Principle of
Maximum Electricity
AP— the interior of every atom is a muon as a Faraday law bar magnet with
attendant proton as coil producing magnetic monopoles that grow the atom
into a higher atomic number.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 01:07:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: anatomy of why Feynman did not discover Light Wave was cycloid,
never sinusoid Re: Feynman’s thesis was Least Action// AP’s thesis is
Maximum Electricity to grow any and all atoms
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2018 08:07:44 +0000
anatomy of why Feynman did not discover Light Wave was cycloid, never
sinusoid Re: Feynman’s thesis was Least Action// AP’s thesis is Maximum
Electricity to grow any and all atoms
Anatomy of why Feynman did not discover Light Wave was cycloid, never
sinusoid
- hide quoted text -
On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 2:11:56 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Here is another proof that the light wave must be a cycloid that obeys
Feynman’s Least Action Principle thus not possibly be a sinusoid
>
> —- source Wikipedia
>
> (Bernoulli)
>
> Given two points A and B in a vertical plane, what is the curve traced
out by a point acted on only by gravity, which starts at A and reaches B in
the shortest time.
>
> He published his solution in the journal in May of the following year,
and noted that the solution is the same curve as Huygens's tautochrone
curve. After deriving the differential equation for the curve by the method
given below, he went on to show that it does yield a cycloid.
Alright, I am not going to criticize Feynman for he gave much to physics,
especially his Least Action, for it is a big big principle and in a sense,
the reverse of Maximum Electricity that I so heavily depend on for the
major principle in all of physics.
The criticism that could be lodged on Feynman is that he adored Least
Action, much like I adore Maximum Electricity. And it is almost assured
that Feynman knew of the Bernoulli challenge to find the curve of shortest
time, for that was Least Action. So Feynman knew that, and why then, would
he not have linked that up with Light Waves, for if cycloid was shortest
time, surely the Light Wave would not be sinusoid but rather cycloid.
So I discovered this fact of physics just in the past week. And if I had
been Feynman, I too, would not have discovered this fact, because the
discovery of Light Wave = cycloid, needs that special geometry link up.
You see, in the anatomy of the discovery that Light is a cycloid wave, took
me from knowing that the proton and muon doing Faraday's law inside of
every atom where the muon is the bar magnet and proton is the coil, wound
so that the proton alone is a 1/2 torus but when the muon is paired and the
attendant protons are paired they form a full torus. A torus is a circle
and a torus goes for Maximum Electricity.
So, if I had been Feynman, I would have adored Least Action and known about
the cycloid as shortest time-- so, knowing that-- by all means Logical--
you can take the next step== Light is a cycloid wave.
But that is not the path to that discovery. The path was-- protons and
muons form toruses. Toruses are circles and the motion of circles is a
cycloid motion. That was my discovery path. I had to see circle motion of
toruses, and toruses would not be doing sinusoid motion, no, not at all.
So here we see that you need a large geometry picture before your mind can
make the big discovery. It cannot be a -- hint sort of leading to
discovery. It has to be more of a -- well-- sinusoid just does not make any
sense in this circumstance, let me look at cycloid.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 11:05:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Hoping to solve all the counterintuitive of Special Relativity--
light top speed is constant etc
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2018 18:05:22 +0000
Hoping to solve all the counterintuitive of Special Relativity-- light top
speed is constant etc
Alright I have an opportunity of solving all the conundrums, the
counterintuitive ideas of Special Relativity, with the Atom Totality theory
and the Maximum Electricity Principle, that inside each atom the proton and
its muon are doing the Faraday Law to grow the atom bigger.
Already, I solved the counterintuitive "Slow Light" that the news media has
spread as disinformation-- as false bogus news. Out of one side of the
mouth-- physics cranks say light is a constant top speed 3*10^8 m/s, yet
out of the other side of the mouth these cranks think light has been slowed
down in various apparatus. What is truly going on is the apparatus has
trapped light, and that light is being bounced around, just as light is
bent when going from air to water. Bounced around is not slowing down--
just scattered and reflected all going at the same constant top speed. So
here is a matter of just proper words. We cannot say "light is slowed down"
but rather must say, light is trapped. Trapped as in a capacitor traps and
stores electricity, magnetic monopoles, or light.
Now here is a list of ideas that are counterintuitive to most every human,
with everyday experiences. And I believe I can explain away, satisfactorily
every one of these, so that they make total sense, commonsense.
1) a Top Speed and no speeds faster
2) the Top Speed is constant, so that the item with the top-speed maintains
top speed unless it is absorbed
3) Space, length, distance contraction
4) Time dilation, time slows down
So now, those four, and maybe more, are in need of modern day understanding
with the Atom Totality and its Maximum Electricity Principle (the reverse
of this principle is Least Action Principle).
AP
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 14:45:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 2.1-Hund's Rule explained in New Physics from a blueprint of
Maximum Electricity
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 21:45:55 +0000
Hund's Rule explained in New Physics from a blueprint of Maximum Electricity
Alright, I need to get this Hund's Rule firmly incorporated inside the
concept of Maximum Electricity as the internal arrangement of all atoms, to
make maximum electricity using Faraday's law.
The geometry of orbitals is correct as given by physics and chemistry, that
is not in question. What is in question is why Hund's Rule? As in nitrogen,
why not fill up the P_x rather than enter P_y and P_z before filling up
P_x? If maximum electricity is a full 1 torus then it makes sense to not
have Hund's Rule.
So, to answer why Hund's Rule and why it is maximum electricity, we must go
down to the electron= muon at 105MeV and the attendant proton = 840 MeV and
visualize them as coils of wire. So the muon is 1 Winding while the
attendant-proton is 8 windings. To make maximum electricity-- those
magnetic monopoles and the .5MeV particle is one such monopole. To make
maximum electricity, it is best the Windings be as numerous as possible.
So when we have nitrogen we have 3 valence muons. We have 3 attendant
protons so we have 3*1 = 3 and 3*8 = 24 or in total 27 Windings. And Hund's
Rule says that these 3 valence muons and attendant protons much rather go
separate into P_x, P_y, P_z.
Could it be the way they are wound? Just a physical impossibility for the
nitrogen 3 valence muons and attendant protons to join together?
If we look at boron, B2 molecule, its one valence muon in each B, bonds
covalently and fills P_x. But if we look at N atom, it obeys Hund's Rule.
So, Hund's Rule must be a rule of impossibility involving direction of
spin. That the atomic blueprint of all atoms is Maximum Electricity, and
for some reason, every atom with its P orbital must produce muons and
protons of same spin before producing muons and protons of opposite spin to
fill up the P orbital. In the case of B2 boron molecule, their lone valence
muon with attendant proton are two separate atoms and thus, outside a
singular atom's blueprint that they can fill up the P_x.
So, I wonder if the attendant proton is all to blame for this impossibility
in Hund's Rule. The proton is the most massive and has the 8 windings so in
nitrogen we need 8*3 = 24 Windings by 3 protons, before we fill the P as in
neon with 3 protons of opposite spin windings.
So, is there something in AP-Maxwell Equations that hints or suggests that
spin has to be oriented in space before actually filling space. So in
Hund's Rule, we have a orientation problem first, before we can fill space
secondly.
AP
Is maximum electricity production a mirror image formula of New Ohm's Law
V=iBL
So here is a super super intriguing question that needs an answer. If the
correct Electromagnetism formula that forms the basis of the EM theory is
of the form A = B*C*D. Then, does that mean that the highest, most
efficient generator of physics of EM must also have an equation whose math
form is A' = B'*C'*D'
If one applies much thought to that question, can easily see it is a
profound insight into physics. The the maximum electricity of a generator
follows exactly in the footsteps of the formula that forms EM theory.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Sep 4, 2018, 12:46:02 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2018 14:31:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: bring in PV = nRT Re: profound insight into EM theory// lists "e =
B
x L x v" which looks similar to AP-Maxwell equation of V = iBL , New Ohms
law
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2018 21:31:37 +0000
bring in PV = nRT Re: profound insight into EM theory// lists "e = B x L x
v" which looks similar to AP-Maxwell equation of V = iBL , New Ohms law
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 24, 2025, 4:55:57 PM (9 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Since the ideas below originated in this book #353 of Advanced Logic, I
should include them in this book
Especially the idea that in Advanced Logic, we look at the Pythagorean
Theorem and see that it starts with the most Primitive Pythagorean Triple
with 3,4,5.
To a Logical Person, the most Primitive Triple should start with 1 and 2,
not with 3. So the Logical Person then says--- well, what changes so that 1
and 2 become the most Primitive Entity Structure in Geometry???? I do not
mind if I change to a Isosceles Trapezoid. But, better yet that L shaped
formation inside a square will do the trick just fine.
The new AP-Pythagorean Theorem of Geometry-Mathematics.
Not only is this a new theorem of mathematics but also a new proof of the
Ancient Greek Pythagorean Theorem.
Before I begin, I want to lay 90% of the credit for this discovery to my
#353 book of science ongoing at this moment.
#353 TEACHING TRUE ADVANCED LOGIC, by Archimedes Plutonium.
Last night, in bed still, I was thinking of my book Advanced Logic and the
Pythagorean Theorem and how its most Primitive Pythagorean Triple is 3,4,5.
So, what does that have to do with Advanced Logic????
Simple answer. Logically, 1 starts the Counting Numbers and so, by ADVANCED
LOGIC, the Pythagorean Theorem and its Generalizations should start with 1,
not with 3.
So what is the Most Primitive Pythagorean Structure that starts not with 3
as in 3,4,5 right-triangle, but with the first Counting Number 1????
Logically we never start with 0 for that is physically and geometrically
"nothing". Logically we append 0 to Decimal Grid Systems as a reference
frame, much like Special Relativity in Physics is "frames of reference". So
in Decimal 10 Grid, the smallest Grid, it has exactly 100 numbers .1, .2,
.3, .. , 9.9, 10.0 as we do not count 0, we append 0 to 10 Grid.
AP-Pythagorean Theorem named after me as AP.
1,2,2,3 is the first Primitive Quad in 2D
Next comes.
2,4,4,6
Next comes.
4, 8, 8, 12
etc etc.
So cut out four squares for 1,2,2,3 and they are 1 square, 4 squares, 4
squares, 9 squares when you count area to lengths of side 1,2,2,3.
Now we can rearrange the four squares to form a Pythagorean style of
trapezoid figure instead of a right triangle 3,4,5.
/___\ where the two slant sides are the 2 and 2 while top is 1 square and
bottom is 3 square.
But I prefer the interpretation to be more of not a trapezoid but that of
simply taking the 1,2,2 out of the 1,2,2,3 and reassembling the 1,2,2
inside the 3 x3 = 9 square
This geometry is something I waxed and waxed on in sci.math decades ago.
Talking about a L shape addition.
You see algebra is 1^2 + 2^2 + 2^2 = 3^2
The 3^2 is pictured this.
MMM
MMM
MMM
The 2^2 is pictured in two styles.
MM
MM
or as
M
M
MM
The 1^2 is pictured as this.
M
When you take the 2^2 combined with 2^2 you have this.
MMM
MMM
....MM
You see, you are missing the corner point and once you include it you have
the full picture of 1^2 + 2^2 + 2^2 = 3^2
This piecing together is a alternative Proof of the Ancient Greek
Pythagorean Theorem.
And notice that we have an infinitude of Quad Primitive Entities as we
merely double the predecessor to form the successor.
1,2,2,3
2,4,4,6
4, 8, 8, 12
8, 16,16,24
etc etc
Now this Quad Structure takes in the smallest counting numbers of 1, and 2,
while Pythagorean Theorem can only start at 3 with 3,4,5. And we can reduce
that to a AP proof of square 5^2 and show that 3^2 and 4^2 form the L shape
add on to have 5 unit squares on one side of the L shape and 4 unit squares
on the other side of the L shape to bring the 4^2 up to par with 5^2.
Most everyone reading this is familar with the Geometry proof of Ancient
Greek Pythagorus that uses no words but pictures. See Wikipedia showing
that proof.
But the AP-Pythagorean Theorem is also a Proof that does not need any
words, just a picture of a L shaped add on.
Now the AP-Pythagorean Theorem is not bounded to 2D only, for it is more
general than the Ancient Greek Pythagorean theorem that was restricted to
only 2D.
No, the AP Theorem is far more general as I go into 3rd Dimension with
cubes, unit cubes and the Smallest 3D Primitive Entity starts with 1 cube
as Advanced Logic would dictate.
1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3
When I cube those lengths I get 1,1,1,8, 8, 8, 27
There are an infinitude of 3D Quad Primitive Entities.
1,1,1,2,2,2,3
2,2,2,4,4,4,6
4,4,4,8,8,8,12
etc etc
A proof of the above is as simple as Mathematical Induction. Take for
instance
2,2,2,4,4,4,6
which in 3D is 8,8,8, 64,64,64, 216
8+8+8+64+64+64 does equal 216.
Now, the great great application of the AP-Pythagorean Theorem is to show
that Fermat's Last Theorem is proven true by AP starting 1991 where AP
showed that 2 and 4 are special numbers in that 2*2 = 2+2 = 4 in order to
ever even have 3,4,5 as the smallest Pythagorean Triple.
And that Andrew Wiles fake proof of Fermat's Last Theorem along with Andrew
Beal con-art advertisement of a Beal Prize for anyone who solves ---
Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem--- which AP also did in 1991 with AP's
proof of Fermat's Last Theorem with the specialness of 2*2 = 2+2 = 4, the
only numbers in all of mathematics with those special properties of
addition is the same as multiplication allowing for solutions of A^2 +B^2 =
C^2 but not allowing solutions in counting numbers of A^3 + B^3 = C^3.
Note to Readers. Look above at those doubling structures, and see for
yourself the essence that 2 plays in having solutions in 2D and in 3D.
Andrew Wiles, backed up by Andrew Beal are fraudsters of math and math
history, seeking fame and fortune but never the truth and reality of
science.
P.S. I need to include this into my TEACHING TRUE ADVANCED LOGIC book, also.
AP, King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 25, 2025, 12:45:32 AM (9 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
For those wanting more details of the AP proof of Fermat's Last Theorem and
the Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem, I invite interested persons to see
my 6th published book of science for details.
--- quoting from my 6th book of science ---
World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math
proof series, book 5
by Archimedes Plutonium
This is AP's 6th published book of science published on Internet,
Plutonium-Atom-Universe,
PAU newsgroup is this.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Preface:
Truthful proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem// including the fake Euler proof
in exp3 and Wiles fake proof.
Recap summary: In 1993 I proved Fermat's Last Theorem with a pure algebra
proof, arguing that because of the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2
= 4 that this special feature of a unique number 4, allows for there to
exist solutions to A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That the number 4 is a basis vector
allowing more solutions to exist in exponent 2. But since there is no
number with N+N+N = N*N*N that exists, there cannot be a solution in exp3
and the same argument for higher exponents. In 2014, I went and proved
Generalized FLT by using "condensed rectangles". Once I had proven
Generalized, then Regular FLT comes out of that proof as a simple
corollary. So I had two proofs of Regular FLT, pure algebra and a corollary
from Generalized FLT. Then recently in 2019, I sought to find a pure
algebra proof of Generalized FLT, and I believe I accomplished that also by
showing solutions to Generalized FLT also come from the special number 4
where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4. Amazing how so much math comes from the
specialness of 4, where I argue that a Vector Space of multiplication
provides the Generalized FLT of A^x + B^y = C^z.
Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last
Theorem type of equations.
As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both
are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the
text).
--- end quoting from my 6th book ---
AP, King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 25, 2025, 7:25:05 PM (8 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
The total Logical ignorance of Terry Tao, UCLA, who seeks fame and fortune
but not math truth, not science truth. And Terry is symptomatic of the
uglieness in math education, where they graduate without any Logic in their
head, but empty of logic marbles.
Terry Tao
Apr 15, 1994, 3:28:38 PM sci.math
to
In article <2ois3u$b...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.P...@dartmouth.edu
(Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>In article <36...@armltd.uucp>
> On math definition I take a pragmatic view. Definitions as labels are
>rather safe. But definitions that are processes must be checked-out.
>And it is not black or white as to whether one definition is a label or
>a process.
>I see math as a byproduct of physics, and I am against those who see
>math as immutable, absolutist, and separate from physics.
I guess this means "infinite integers" goes into the trash can, hmm?
After all, there is no physical justification for the process of "adding
1 endlessly".
P.S. The mass of the universe is greater than the mass of a electron
cloud. So the Plutonium Atom Totality goes bye-bye too.
Any comments, Ludwig?
--
Terry Tao Math Dept., Princeton University (t...@math.princeton.edu)
"Dear Mr. President. There are too many states. Please eliminate three.
I am not a crackpot." - Grandpa "Abraham" Simpson
AP writes:: Terry the failure of math-- you forgot to define infinity
"adding 1 endlessly", but I took logic in College and circa 2009 well
defined what infinity was with a borderline. Something that you were too
stupid in math to ever recognize or do something about.
As to Terry's ignorance of Atomic Theory and physics:
Here is a lesson in Logical hate spew, where a professor of math has no
marbles of Logic.
So depraved of Logical marbles for Terry Tao that he cannot admit the truth
of conics-- slant cut is Oval, not ellipse for you need a cylinder for the
symmetry to have a slant cut be ellipse.
The hole in the head of Terry Tao, math dept. UCLA, is that Terry does not
understand what Logic is, and probably never studied it.
A-lot has changed and been refined since 1994 on the Atom Totality. That by
2017, the Cosmic Proton torus with Cosmic Muons inside doing the Faraday
law is beginning to be seen by Astronomers with Caltech's "ring in 3rd
layer". So then stars as dots in the electron dot cloud is no longer a
viable view of the Atom Totality.
Instead, the view has shifted and the Logic Applied is to the Atomic Theory
statement (by Feynman and others). Of course, Terry as usual is deaf, dumb
and silent, chasing after his fame and fortune in math, but never truth in
math or science.
You cannot have a Atomic Theory when you leave out of the argument the
universe itself. If the Universe is a single big Atom, then the Atomic
Theory by Democritus, by Feynman, by AP is a science theory for it governs
everything. If the Universe itself is not a atom, but only other items in
the Cosmos, then the Atomic theory is not a theory but a rule of thumb,
works in most cases but not in all cases.
All of this flys far far over the head of Boietian proletariat Terry Tao,
the caveman of mathematics, searching for logic in a cave at UCLA.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 27, 2025, 12:35:27 AM (7 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, well, Logic is several characteristics and traits some of which
are these traits.
1) Thorough and complete.
2) Seeking patterns and structure.
3) No contradictions allowed but only consistency allowed.
Many months ago I wrote many conjectures about how many irrational numbers
versus rational numbers that triangles had. Right triangles, obtuse
triangles, acute triangles, and recently isosceles trapezoids. Most, if not
all of those conjectures were shown false with a counterexample.
But the questions of how many irrational number entities exist in triangles
or other figures of geometry is still and open question, at least in my
mind anyway. Perhaps this quest of irrational abundance was proven in some
remote math journal decades ago.
I do remember reading about a German mathematician saying something like---
"that is an irrational angle".
Why am I so concerned about the "amount of irrationals"? Because the true
numbers of mathematics are all Decimal Grid Numbers and no irrationals
exist in true math, nor do negative numbers exist. No negative numbers
exist as a Logical Observation, you cannot remove more that what exists. So
that Old Math was infested by fools who could never persuade themselves
that they missed an Axiom of Mathematics--- Subtraction, or removal can
only happen if the lowest subtraction is 0. That is--- you cannot remove
(subtract) more than what is available. This sounds like Old Math is more
kookish than fiction writers who make up gremlins, hobgoblins, ghosts and
witches.
But Irrationals are another set (bag) of numbers that do not exist, for the
simple reason that infinity has a borderline and once you reach it
1*10^604, your numbers end also with nothing but zeroes after that
(specifically 1*10^1208 of algebraic completion). Even some Rational
Numbers are fiction like 1/3 =0.333333..... is fiction or 0.9999...... is
utter ghastly fiction.
All true numbers of mathematics end in a string of 000s to the rightward of
the decimal point.
I have a Logic Proof of this from Calculus, for you cannot have a proof of
Fundamental Theorem of Calculus FTC, without the numbers being Decimal Grid
Numbers. You need empty space between one number and the next number and
you need all those numbers that exist end in 000s to the right of the
decimal point. This allows all numbers of mathematics (out to algebraic
completion 10^1208) to have a midpoint, an exacting midpoint. There is no
exacting midpoint for 1/3 or 2/3 or 1/7 or sqrt2 or sqrt3 or sqrt5, etc.
You must have the numbers of math allow for a proof of FTC.
So that is why I am keen on traits of geometry figures like triangles,
trapezoids, squares, rectangles, circles, ellipses, ovals etc etc.
So how many features of Triangles are there???? Here we ask the question of
Advanced Logic of thoroughness and completeness. The total number of
features assigned with numbers.
There are 3 sides of length to a triangle. There are 3 interior angles to a
triangle. There are 3 altitudes for each triangle. That makes 9 features in
all for any and every triangle.
Now we ask the question of Logic of pattern and structure. Can all 9
features be Rational Numbers that end in 000s to the rightward of the
Decimal Point??? I know the Primitive Pythagorean Triple of 3, 4, 5 Right
Triangle are three Counting Numbers, but are the 3 angles represented by
numbers that end in 000s rightward of the decimal point? And what about the
3 altitudes of this triangle?
Now, already I see a huge mistake in Old Math with angles. For it is known
that the summation of angles of all triangles is a sum that adds up to 180
degrees. It must be a Decimal Grid Number for it ends in 000s rightward of
decimal point. But there is a theorem in math that the addition of any
collection of numbers is going to end up being a irrational number if any
of its numbers is irrational. Addition does not remove the irrational
summation to becoming rational ending in 000s rightward of decimal point.
And so we have a contradiction with the entire subject of Old Math
trigonometry, where the only Decimal Grid Numbers are sine and cosine of 60
and 30 to equal 0.5, and that of 0, 90 and 180 degrees ending up as 0 or 1,
and all the rest of trigonometry values being Irrational values.
Trigonometry angles and all values except for 0.5, 0 and 1 is not a
consistent science but a contradictory Old Math pile of garbage.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 27, 2025, 11:58:16 AM (6 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright let me revise that.
On Sunday, April 27, 2025 at 12:35:27 AM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Alright, well, Logic is several characteristics and traits some of which
are these traits.
1) Thorough and complete.
2) Seeking patterns and structure.
3) No contradictions allowed but only consistency allowed.
1) Asking questions-- if not of others then questioning yourself. Wanting
answers.
2) Being accurate and precise, which usually means well-defining ideas.
3) Being focused and concentrating energy on projects. Not scatterbrained.
4) Thorough and complete.
5) Seeking patterns and the structure of Nature.
6) No contradictions allowed, but only Consistency allowed.
7) Arriving at answers and those answers consistent with known facts and
allowing answers to other problems outside our project.
These are some of the character traits of Logic, but also of mathematics.
We can add the Scientific Method to the above list.
Now, I started a project many months ago by making conjectures over the
amount of Irrational numbers to be found in triangles and other geometry
figures. So that is a project and let me go through all 7 of the above
traits.
The starting Question is what are the true numbers of mathematics that
gives us true geometry? Are the Reals trash numbers? Are the Decimal Grid
Numbers the true numbers and how does geometry look like with Decimal Grid
Numbers.
So we need a Well Defined set of numbers called Decimal Grid Numbers.
10 Grid is 0, .1, .2, .3, .4, . . . , 9.9, 10.0
100 Grid is 0, .01, .02, .03, .04, .05, . . . , 99.98, 99.99, 100.00
1000 Grid is 0, .001, .002, .003, . . . , 999.997, 999.998, 999.999,
1000.000
The reader should see the pattern here and be able to fill in what the 10^4
Grid is.
Now one should notice a unique feature of Decimal Grid Numbers, a feature
that the Reals never had. Is empty space in between one number and the next
number. In Reals, they are a continuum, and the people of Old Math
expressed the continuum by saying ---- between any two given numbers there
always exists another number. Meaning that a line in Old Math had no gaps
or holes or empty space between one point and the next point but filled up
with more points.
As you can see in the Grids above of 10 Grid or 100 Grid or 1000 Grid there
are always holes in between one number and the next number and this is
called Discrete Numbers, while Reals are a continuum.
Besides being Discrete there is another Trait of Grid Numbers that the
Reals never had. The ability of Grid Numbers to always have a midpoint. And
this is because Grid Numbers all of them end in 000s digits rightward of
the decimal point.
Being discrete and always having a midpoint are crucial if you want to have
Calculus. You cannot have calculus if your numbers are a continuum and lack
the ability to always have a midpoint.
But before I get to midpoint capable, I need to well define another concept
in New Math. Old Math was so sloppy they overlooked defining well that of
"finite versus infinite". A perfect subject to talk about in Advanced Logic.
Next time,..... a well defined finite versus infinite.
AP, King of Science and Logic
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 27, 2025, 5:01:49 PM (6 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Sunday, April 27, 2025 at 11:58:16 AM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Characteristic traits of Logic
1) Asking questions-- if not of others then questioning yourself. Wanting
answers.
2) Being accurate and precise, which usually means well-defining ideas.
3) Being focused and concentrating energy on projects. Not scatterbrained.
4) Thorough and complete.
5) Seeking patterns and the structure of Nature.
6) No contradictions allowed, but only Consistency allowed.
7) Arriving at answers and those answers consistent with known facts and
allowing answers to other problems outside our project.
These are some of the character traits of Logic, but also of mathematics.
We can add the Scientific Method to the above list.
Well Defined Numbers for math and geometry
So we need a Well Defined set of numbers called Decimal Grid Numbers.
10 Grid is 0, .1, .2, .3, .4, . . . , 9.9, 10.0
100 Grid is 0, .01, .02, .03, .04, .05, . . . , 99.98, 99.99, 100.00
1000 Grid is 0, .001, .002, .003, . . . , 999.997, 999.998, 999.999,
1000.000
The reader should see the pattern here and be able to fill in what the 10^4
Grid is.
Now one should notice a unique feature of Decimal Grid Numbers, a feature
that the Reals never had. Is empty space in between one number and the next
number. In Reals, they are a continuum, and the people of Old Math
expressed the continuum by saying ---- between any two given numbers there
always exists another number. Meaning that a line in Old Math had no gaps
or holes or empty space between one point and the next point but filled up
with more points.
As you can see in the Grids above of 10 Grid or 100 Grid or 1000 Grid there
are always holes in between one number and the next number and this is
called Discrete Numbers, while Reals are a continuum.
Besides being Discrete there is another Trait of Grid Numbers that the
Reals never had. The ability of Grid Numbers to always have a midpoint. And
this is because Grid Numbers all of them end in 000s digits rightward of
the decimal point.
Being discrete and always having a midpoint are crucial if you want to have
Calculus. You cannot have calculus if your numbers are a continuum and lack
the ability to always have a midpoint.
But before I get to midpoint capable, I need to well define another concept
in New Math. Old Math was so sloppy they overlooked defining well that of
"finite versus infinite". A perfect subject to talk about in Advanced Logic.
Next time,..... a well defined finite versus infinite.
So, I have Well Defined Numbers in Decimal Grid Numbers, and next I need to
Well Define what is meant by "finite compared to infinite". And this really
exposes the pitiful and petty mind set of almost every mathematician. How
they think that they can define finite as "not infinite and ending" and
define infinite as "not finite and not ending". This shows why all
mathematicians need two years of College Logic from AP before given a
degree in mathematics to at least try to think straight and think clearly.
Give me any number you want, and ask me if it is finite or infinite. My
answer is that to Well Define Finite versus Infinite requires out of
necessity a Borderline between them. This is how geography works to tell if
you are in France or in Germany. There are borderlines between the two. The
same situation applies to mathematics. A borderline exists wherein in are
on one side and you are finite, and on the other side you are infinite.
A long time ago, a mathematician named Huygens noticed a figure called the
Tractrix and it has a marvellous feature--- it forms a infinite reaching
curve but has finite area under the curve. So that means we can pinpoint
where the infinity borderline lies by comparing the Tractrix to a circle.
Concept that Infinity = a borderline between finite and infinite was
discovered by AP 2009. Simple beautiful idea-- there must be a borderline
between finite and infinite, otherwise, all is just one and the same, and
not two different concepts. And so I defined the concept of infinity itself
as this border crossing.
Borderline between finite and infinity
Now this mistake in not having a correct Infinity in math, affects the
Calculus by a large measure, a large degree. It is impossible to have a
correct calculus, when you do not understand what is infinity.
This is one of the biggest mistakes in all of pure mathematics for it
affects all other mathematics that use infinity. Of course the other
sciences, especially physics rarely needs to know what the correct proper
infinity is. However, it does show up frequently in the best physics--
quantum electrodynamics, in which it is
often used to eliminate infinities that crop up in calculations. This
physics math procedure is called Renormalization-- getting rid of the
infinities.
The trouble with Old Math, is, well, they were terribly shoddy in logic, in
thinking straight and clear. For a logical person, knows, that if you have
a concept of finite versus infinite, the only way to handle those two
concepts is to realize a border must go between them so that you can tell
if any given number is finite or infinite. Otherwise, there is no infinity,
if there is no borderline.
There is only one way you can have a concept of finite, by having a
concept of infinity, and the only way you can have both, is that a
borderline exists between them.
I have pinpointed that borderline from tractrix-circle analysis, from
algebraic analysis of algebraic completeness, and from angles of
regular polyhedra. The borderline in microinfinity is 1*10^-604 and in
macroinfinity is 1*10^604.
Yes, infinity borderline comes in pairs--- infinity for tiny numbers and
infinity for large numbers.
The easiest way to see the borderline is to see where pi digits ends in a
three zero digits in a row.
3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286
208998628034825342117067982148086513282306647093844609550582231725359408128481
117450284102701938521105559644622948954930381964428810975665933446128475648233
786783165271201909145648566923460348610454326648213393607260249141273724587006
606315588174881520920962829254091715364367892590360011330530548820466521384146
951941511609433057270365759591953092186117381932611793105118548074462379962749
567351885752724891227938183011949129833673362440656643086021394946395224737190
702179860943702770539217176293176752384674818467669405132000
Since the Universe 3rd dimension, one would suspect that where pi digits
are there first three digits in a row of 000, that such would be the
borderline at infinity.
Now, for physics, that infinity is 1*10^604 for large and 1*10^-604 for the
small, makes perfect sense, since in physics, it is extremely, extremely
difficult to find anything above 10^200 or smaller than 10^-200, to give
the reader a sense of proportion.
When the tractrix compared to the associated circle area under reaches the
three zero digits in a row in circle of pi, that gives the tractrix enough
time to catch up to the circle area for once, and thus---- tractrix reaches
infinity borderline.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 27, 2025, 6:20:01 PM (6 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So, I well-defined the numbers of mathematics and geometry and I
well-defined what finite and infinite means.
Now I ask the Question of the idea that a Triangle has 9 parameters of
which 3 side lengths, and 3 angles and 3 altitudes. I ask the question of a
Project as to how many of those 9 parameters can be Decimal Grid Numbers
and how many can be Irrationals of Reals? For we look at Trigonometry and
see only three angles provide us with Decimal Grid Numbers of 0, 1 and 0.5
for angles 0, 90, 180, 30 and 60 degrees. All the rest of trigonometry is a
ocean of irrational numbers.
In geometry we have the Pythagorean Theorem A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for such
primitive triples of 3,4,5 and those are decimal grid numbers, but the
angles are not decimal grid numbers except for 90 degrees. The altitudes
for 3,4,5 are two decimal grid numbers of 3 and 4, but the altitude from 90
degree angle goes by height = sqrt(p*q) where p and q are the two parts
split by the height from the 90 degree angle.
So in the 3,4,5 right triangle the three resultant triangles are all
proportional and similar allowing us to derive the height of 90 degree
angle to hypotenuse.
short leg middle triangle/ hypot middle triangle = short leg big triangle/
hypot big triangle
becomes
height /4 = 3/5
becomes
height = 4*3/5 = 12/5 =2.4
Now going back to retrieve the p and q in sqrt(p*q) where 9 = 2.4^2 + p^2
becomes 9-5.76 = p^2 becomes 1.8. Subtracting from 5 we get q = 3.2.
Checking to see if correct sqrt (1.8*3.2) does equal 2.4.
I get the feeling that the height maximizes the value of sqrt(p*q). This
maybe relevant to maximum electricity production in Faraday law on torus
geometry.
So all three heights for the 3,4,5 right triangle are Decimal Grid Number
heights. That leaves remaining the three angles of 3,4,5.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 27, 2025, 6:40:10 PM (6 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Now looking up the angles of 3,4,5 they are 90, 53.13 and 36.87 degrees and
are rational numbers.
But the trouble lies in sin(53.13) = 0.799998928.... And cos(53.13) =
0.600001429.....
So, what is the scoop. The trigonometry values are Irrational Real numbers
while the angles are Rational Reals.
So I go to my Logic table for guidance and maybe I am asking the wrong
Question on this Project of Triangle Parameters, those 9 parameters, and
start all over with asking a set of better questions.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 27, 2025, 7:42:10 PM (6 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Sunday, April 27, 2025 at 7:30:22 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Now of course I am writing this as a lesson in Advanced Logic, to show the
reader/student how to think straight and think clearly in science and life
in general.
I started with asking questions--- how many irrationals can I expect to
find in triangle parameters? Can I expect at least one Irrational number
from the Reals in the 9 parameters of the right triangle 3,4,5??? Maybe 2
of the 9 parameters are Irrational Reals?
But it turns out that all 9 parameters are Decimal Grid Numbers.
So I go back to the starting questions of the 9 parameters and ask
myself--- am I logical or illogical on this Project of amount of
Irrationals???? Apparently I am illogical, and should start over again.
Start from square base 1 with a better new question.
Better New Question
Can all 9 parameters of triangles be only Decimal Grid Numbers??
And to start this question-project off, start it off with the recognition
that the valid geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
requires the numbers of mathematics be Discrete with empty space in between
one number and the next number, but also that the true numbers of
mathematics always have a Midpoint when divided by 2.
So for example--- the Decimal Grid Numbers, all of them end in 000s digits
rightward of the decimal point even numbers like 0.3333..... or 1/7 or
sqrt2 stop as a number with the 603rd digit place value for the infinity
borderline is 1*10^604 with its inverse 1*10^-604.
What is it about numbers that once they encounter a string of nothing but
zeros such as 0.2500000..... = 1/4, that this Decimal Grid Number has an
exacting Midpoint of 0.125 and that number in turn has an exacting Midpoint
of 0.0625.
While in Reals with their Irrationals never have an exacting Midpoint, nor
do many of the Rational Reals, like 1/3 =0.333.... or 1/7 or 2/3 or 1/11
have exacting midpoints????
So of the Reals, all of the Irrationals and many (perhaps 50%) of Rational
Reals are not capable of forming exacting Midpoints. Making what??? Making
that over 75% of Reals are incapable of forming an Exacting Midpoint in
order for Calculus to exist.
Because Reals are not discrete and because most of Reals cannot form
exacting Midpoints, that Reals are junk numbers, incapable of giving
Calculus.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 28, 2025, 2:15:50 PM (5 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
This is the moment for the Physicist researching Black Holes to ask him/her
self are they Logical, or an idiot???
This is the moment for the Physicist researching Big Bang to ask him/her
self are they Logical, or an idiot??
On Sunday, April 27, 2025 at 7:42:10 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
On Sunday, April 27, 2025 at 7:30:22 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Now of course I am writing this as a lesson in Advanced Logic, to show the
reader/student how to think straight and think clearly in science and life
in general.
I started with asking questions--- how many irrationals can I expect to
find in triangle parameters? Can I expect at least one Irrational number
from the Reals in the 9 parameters of the right triangle 3,4,5??? Maybe 2
of the 9 parameters are Irrational Reals?
But it turns out that all 9 parameters are Decimal Grid Numbers.
So I go back to the starting questions of the 9 parameters and ask
myself--- am I logical or illogical on this Project of amount of
Irrationals???? Apparently I am illogical, and should start over again.
Start from square base 1 with a better new question.
This is the moment for the Physicist who thinks the Sun and stars shine
from fusion when it is really the Faraday Law to ask him/her self are they
Logical, or an idiot???
This is the moment for the Physicist who thinks the true electron of Atoms
is the 0.5MeV particle when neutron is close to 945 MeV, and that 9 Muons
to equilibrate implies the Muon is the true electron of Atoms to ask
him/her self are they Logical, or an idiot??
This is the moment for the Geophysicist who thinks "convection currents in
Earth cause Continental Drift" when the cores of Earth are in motion
creating motor vibrations and wiggling the continents to move; to ask
him/her self are they Logical, or an idiot??
This is the moment for the biologist who thinks "DNA is not related to the
geometry of the Light Wave with its Magnetic Field perpendicular to
Electric Field"; to ask him/her self are they Logical, or an idiot??
This is the moment for the paleontologist who thinks "a cat can evolve
teeth (saber tooth tiger) where those teeth get in the way of everything
the cat wants to do in life"; to ask him/her self are they Logical, or an
idiot?? At least, you fool, check with DNA if the teeth are walrus tusks.
Better New Question
Can all 9 parameters of triangles be only Decimal Grid Numbers??
This is the moment for AP to think of never again using any Reals at all,
in any math problem, for the Reals do not allow for Calculus to exist. By
continuing to use Reals, that AP is not logical and is an idiot.
The ___Best___ new question for AP, is ___notice that the Decimal Grid
Numbers are able to be told an Exacting Amount of them at all times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead of chasing after fake fraud numbers like Reals and their
irrationals and rationals. Why waste the time.
If we ask any Math Professor (who really is a kook and not a scientist).
15 year old: Dr. Math how many Reals between 1 and 2???
Math Professor: Why that is easy, there are an infinitude of Reals between
1 and 2.
15 year old: Dr. Math how many Reals between 0 and infinity??
Math Professor: Why there are an infinity of Reals between 0 and infinity.
15 year old: Dr. Math how many Reals between 0.1 and 0.2???
Math Professor: Why that is easy, there are an infinitude of Reals between
0.1 and 0.2.
-----------------------------
15 year old: AP how many numbers between 1 and 2???
AP: Why that is easy, and depends on the Grid System you are in. Are you
in 10 Grid youngster?? For the Decimal 10 Grid is
0, .1, .2, .3, .... ,9.8, 9.9, 10.0. And between 1 and 2 lies these numbers
and no more.
1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 2.0. So, counting 1 and 2
there are exactly 11 numbers, not counting 1 or 2 there are 9 numbers.
15 year old: AP how many numbers between 0 and infinity??
AP: Well, that is a question that no-one in Old Math had enough brains to
answer for they never well-defined what they meant by "infinity". In New
Math, infinity is where the tractrix area finally matches for the first
time the quarter circle area and that takes place with pi digits having
three zero digits in a row at the 603 digits rightward of the decimal point
the 10^603 place value with 1*10^604 being the final Borderline. So to
answer you question how many numbers exist from 0 to infinity is a answer
that All Mathematicians Must be able to answer exactly. Exactly in 10^603
Grid there are 10^1206 Numbers Existing. If we imagine that the 10 Grid is
the only Grid to exist in mathematics, and think of the number 10 as being
the infinity borderline, then there exists in total 100 numbers in the
entire world if 10 was infinity borderline.
15 year old: AP how many Decimal Grid Numbers between 0.1 and 0.2???
AP: In 10 Grid, there exists no numbers between 0.1 and 0.2 but empty
space. If we allow for 100 Grid then there are 9 numbers as these 0.10,
0.11, 0.12, 0.13, 0.14, 0.15, 0.16, 0.17, 0.18, 0.19, 0.20
AP: You see the trouble with Old Math, is they never have Well Defined
concepts like "infinity", and they never took Logic in school to think
straight and think clearly. The whole entire point of Numbers is to count
them and tell their Quantity Size. Only Math Professor Kooks have answers
to quantity with infinity amount.
And to start this question-project off, start it off with the recognition
that the valid geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
requires the numbers of mathematics be Discrete with empty space in between
one number and the next number, but also that the true numbers of
mathematics always have a Midpoint when divided by 2.
So for example--- the Decimal Grid Numbers, all of them end in 000s digits
rightward of the decimal point even numbers like 0.3333..... or 1/7 or
sqrt2 stop as a number with the 603rd digit place value for the infinity
borderline is 1*10^604 with its inverse 1*10^-604.
What is it about numbers that once they encounter a string of nothing but
zeros such as 0.2500000..... = 1/4, that this Decimal Grid Number has an
exacting Midpoint of 0.125 and that number in turn has an exacting Midpoint
of 0.0625.
While in Reals with their Irrationals never have an exacting Midpoint, nor
do many of the Rational Reals, like 1/3 =0.333.... or 1/7 or 2/3 or 1/11
have exacting midpoints????
So of the Reals, all of the Irrationals and many (perhaps 50%) of Rational
Reals are not capable of forming exacting Midpoints. Making what??? Making
that over 75% of Reals are incapable of forming an Exacting Midpoint in
order for Calculus to exist.
Because Reals are not discrete and because most of Reals cannot form
exacting Midpoints, that Reals are junk numbers, incapable of giving
Calculus.
So, I add a new feature to the list--- Able to always give a Number Size to
the Numbers you use in mathematics.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 28, 2025, 3:47:20 PM (5 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
In order to have Calculus exist or not exist--- you need the Numbers of
mathematics be discrete numbers with empty space from one number to the
next number. To have Calculus exist, you need empty space between numbers
and you need every number of mathematics to have an Exacting Midpoint. You
cannot have exacting Midpoints on any Irrational Number of Reals. And many
of the Rational Reals like 0.333... or 0.111... or 0.9999..... etc etc have
no exacting Midpoint.
But there is Logically a New Feature that must exist for the True Numbers
of Mathematics--- the feature that you can always state the Quantity of
Numbers involved in a Project. In New Math, every function of a specific
Grid System can be told how many numbers are involved. This is unheard of
in Old Math where the answer is always--- an infinity of numbers. In New
True Math, the answer is a specific Grid System with a specific finite
number answer.
Now, we check that idea up against Physics, for math is but a tiny tool of
Physics. Should we be able to tell the Quantity of Atoms in the total
Universe??? Yes, we should given the idea that we can state the specific
quantity of Numbers that exist in any project of mathematics.
So the total number of Numbers in mathematics is 10^603 times 10^603 =
10^1206. Does Physics have a count on the total number of Atoms in the
Cosmos???
Well the 231Pu Atom Totality has a proton-torus of windings of 94 x 840
=78960 windings.
In Physics we have the Coulomb Law, and its mathematics is that of
Factorial. A atom of 231Pu has 231 protons plus neutrons and they each
interact with one another every second.
The Coulomb Interaction of 231 particles has a mathematics of Factorial.
So we have 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x , . . .229 x 230 x 231 and that large number
turns out to be 1.79 * 10^447
100! =9.33 * 10¹⁵⁷
244! = 1.406*10^478
253! = 5.1734609926400789218043308997295e+499
290! = 6.031 *10^589
294! = 4.414*10^599
295! = 1.302 *10^602
296! = 3.855 *10^604
300! = 3.0605751221644063603537046129727e+614
450! = 1.733*10^1000
525! = 6.89*10^1201
526! = 3.624*10^1204
530! = 2.827*10^1215
19^(22x22) = 8.2554901045277384397095530071882e+618
22^(22x22) = 5.4022853245302743024619692001681e+649
I am looking for what Atoms in the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements has
a proton+neutron count of 526??? Provided such an atom was
nucleosynthesized in a lab on Earth.
I see Flerovium element 114 having 114 protons and 290Fl having 176
neutrons, and lasting approximately 19 seconds half-life. This element has
a Coulomb Interactions of its protons with neutrons of 290! = 6.031 *10^589.
Oganesson element 118 with 294Og of 0.7 ms half-life.
Ununennium element 119 never made yet.
AP, King of Science and Logic
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 28, 2025, 7:38:41 PM (5 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So from January to April 2025, I was playing this game of asking how many
irrationals were in a triangle which has 9 parameters. The 3 side lengths,
the 3 angles and the 3 altitude lengths. I was constantly reminded that
trigonometry has an Ocean full of irrational numbers and so then that
suggests the 9 parameters of triangles should have boatloads full of
irrationals. That was a logical project. Or was it??? Was it all a
illogical project, much like what most every physicist, scientist,
mathematician and even logicians waste their lifetime upon--- illogical
projects.
I had known for a decade now, that Calculus can exist only when the True
Numbers of Mathematics are discrete and have empty space in between one
number and the next number. I had also known that Calculus to exist
requires every number have an Exact Midpoint, and that means every true
number of mathematics ends in zero digits 000s rightward of the decimal
point. That means every Irrational number of Reals is a fiction and kook
number and every Rational Number that does not end in 000s rightward is a
fiction kook number.
And only the Decimal Grid Numbers can be the true numbers of mathematics in
order for a Calculus to exist. So from January to April 2025 I was playing
this project game of how many irrational Reals do triangles have when
trigonometry has a Ocean full of irrational Reals. And I finally solved
that project today. For the reason trigonometry is full of Irrational Reals
is because Old Math thinks pi is an Irrational Real but in New Math, pi
ends at the 601, 602, 603 digit place value in three zeroes in a row and
that is the infinity borderline where math numbers no longer are math
numbers beyond 10^603. The reason trigonometry is an ocean of Irrational
Reals is the same reason that Old Math thought pi is irrational. For a
circle built from angles of right triangles uses pi measure in sine and
cosine and trigonometry functions. In New Math, our Trigonometry Tables are
full of Decimal Grid Numbers only, and not a single irrational Real number
exists in New Math Trigonometry.
But a surprising feature of mathematics comes from the project of 9
parameters in triangles. A surprising third feature to include with the
other two features of True Numbers (1) be discrete with empty space (2)
always have a midpoint as ending zero digits rightward of decimal point and
now, a third characteristic feature. The true numbers of mathematics have
the feature of being able to know and list all the numbers of a function
space. So in 10 Grid there exists a maximum of 100 numbers in total. Now if
we use 10 Grid but borrow from 1000 Grid, means the space of total numbers
is 1000 x 1000 =1,000,000 total numbers in that space.
I did not know or realize that the True Numbers of Mathematics allow for a
mathematician to always tell you the total amount of numbers in the Space
of that function. Until now, I never thought that such as crucial for the
Calculus to exist, but apparently it is crucial, just as discrete and
midpoints is crucial.
AP, King of Science & Logic
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 29, 2025, 6:33:09 PM (4 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I am going to construct a "Logic Method" similar to the physics and other
science's "Scientific Method". The Logic Method will be commensurate of the
Scientific Method. Keeping in mind that Physics is above Logic and
Mathematics. But Logic is above Mathematics. So the Physics Scientific
Method is above the Logic Method, but the Logic Method is above the
Method-of-Mathematics.
Scientific Method:
1) Observation and Ask a Question
2) Do Background Research
3) Construct a Hypothesis
4) Test your Hypothesis by doing a Experiment
5) Analyze your data
6) Interpret the data and draw a Conclusion
7) Communicate and publish your results
8) Retest the Experiment and Conclusion
AP, King of Science & Logic
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 29, 2025, 6:51:38 PM (4 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So, AP is writing 2 textbooks for all scientists to take in College before
they can earn their degree in science or math or logic (many schools have
their logic combined with philosophy department).
And this Advanced Logic textbook talks about examples in most of the
sciences. And spells out a Method similar to the Scientific Method, a
method of Logic.
A method that can be used throughout life and not only in science.
From AP's viewpoint of scientists and mathematicians across the world, I
would say 90% are failures of logical thought and this book is my hope of
making that 90% aware of their shortcomings.
Of course Logic itself as taught in College and Universities is the filled
with error of Boole & Jevons logic textbooks for which they got all 4 of
the most simple Logic connectors all wrong. They could not even get AND,
OR, IF-->Then, Equal-Not correct. My first textbook of Logic remedies that
problem. This 2nd textbook of mine pushes Logic to where it is a tool in
all sciences and life in general.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 30, 2025, 12:58:36 PM (3 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I am going to weave together the Scientific Method with Pragmatism with
Logic Method. the Logic Method is wholly a creation by AP. While both the
Scientific Method and the aims of Pragmatism were known before AP.
--- quoting in parts from my 100th book---
Pragmatism, the only Philosophy I loved // Teaching True Logic series, book
4
By Archimedes Plutonium
This is AP's 100th published book of science published on Internet,
Plutonium-Atom-Universe,
PAU newsgroup is this.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Preface: I need to give credit to the philosophy of Pragmatism, the only
philosophy that I know of that is based on science. Credit for my discovery
of the Plutonium Atom Totality in 1990, came in part, partially due to a
passage of the Pragmatist Charles Sanders Peirce in Peirce's Cosmology:
Peirce's The Architecture of Theories...
Pragmatism
knowledge wisdom is the doing
Meaning is the use
Truth is what works
4) Knowledge is in the "doing". Truth is what works, and "works in the long
run". Meaning or understanding is in the "use". Wisdom is "habits of what
works".
These are several known pragmatist definitions:
Truth is what _works_ and works in the long run.
Knowledge and education is in the _doing_ the hands on experience.
Meaning is what future actions are implied.
Ideas for pragmatist are tools, instruments, weapons for purposeful action
Let me add a new one to the Pragmatist list of definitions:
Happiness, or being Happy is order and organization of one's life.
(1) Reality for a Pragmatist-- facts and data, only material and eye
witness facts and data. And here we have to go down to "reliable sources"
if not a on the scene seeing for oneself. Even then, there maybe a magician
in the report. So a Pragmatist is very tough on what is fact and data of
reality. One of the recent researches of mine is Sleep and hypnosis, and I
find that no hypnosis exists, never has and never will. Because if I wanted
to sleep using hypnosis, I cannot. Hence, hypnosis is not a science but a
sham, a magician trick.
(2) Ideas and the Meaning of those Ideas, for pragmatist are tools,
instruments, weapons for purposeful future action. We must include concepts
and definitions as ideas and Meaning. So we have in the first two Tenets of
Pragmatism, we have facts, data, definitions and concepts. Now we must put
those four-- facts, data, definitions, concepts into motion, and the last
two tenets of Pragmatism do just that.
So, in (1) and (2) I have covered the first two laws of the Maxwell
Equations and need only the last two laws to form a Analog.
(3) Wisdom, Knowledge and Education is in the _doing_ the hands on
experience. For a Pragmatist, that boils down to just one word- experiment.
(4) Truth is what _works_ and works in the long run. Truth for the
Pragmatist is boiled down to be a "Law of Physics or Science". Because it
is science laws that work in the long run. So when we speak about truth in
the world, we are really talking about laws of science.
--- end quoting in parts from my 100th book---
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 30, 2025, 2:31:33 PM (3 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So I woke up today, Wednesday (funny how days of the week are capitalized
no matter where they appear in a sentence) 30Apr2025 and finding myself
doing a Logic syllogism. I thought that such would be impossible in dream
sleep. But, I have never caught myself waking up by doing a math
multiplication or math calculation.
Anyway, I am going to tie together the Scientific Method with Pragmatism
philosophy with my new invention of Logic Method in this textbook of
Advanced Logic.
(1) Reality for a Pragmatist-- observation, facts and data, definitions and
concepts.
(2) Ideas and the Meaning of those Ideas, for pragmatist are tools,
instruments, weapons for purposeful future action.
(3) Action in life for a pragmatist is important for it is action that
leads to change and leads to understanding and knowledge. Action and
Curiosity are intermingled.
(4) Truth is what _works_ and works in the long run. Truth for the
Pragmatist is boiled down to be a "Law of Physics or Science". Because it
is science laws that work in the long run. So when we speak about truth in
the world, we are really talking about laws of science.
(5) Knowledge and Education is in the _doing_ the hands on Experience. For
a Pragmatist, that boils down to science in the - Experiment.
(6) Happiness comes when one has order and organization in life.
(7) Wisdom is having insight into what actions likely produce desired
results.
AP, King of Science & Logic
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 30, 2025, 7:45:09 PM (3 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Now this is a fine time to have a chapter on the four methods of science
and of living life in general. I place these in an order of Physics is top
science, biology (pragmatism) next, lower down is Logic but logic is higher
as a language than is mathematics.
Scientific Method:
1) Observation and Ask a Question
2) Do Background Research
3) Construct a Hypothesis
4) Test your Hypothesis by doing a Experiment
5) Analyze your data
6) Interpret the data and draw a Conclusion
7) Communicate and publish your results
8) Retest the Experiment and Conclusion
Method of Pragmatism
(1) Reality for a Pragmatist-- observations, facts and data, definitions
and concepts-ideas.
(2) Life for a pragmatist is a long unending sequence of problem solving.
Only way to escape this guantlet is death.
(3) Ideas and the Meaning of those Ideas, for pragmatist are tools,
instruments, weapons for purposeful future action.
(4) Action in life for a pragmatist is important for it is action that
leads to change and leads to understanding and knowledge. Action and
Curiosity are intermingled. Action to a pragmatist is what motion is to a
physicist.
(5) Truth is what _works_ and works in the long run. Truth for the
Pragmatist is boiled down to be a "Law of Physics or Science". Because it
is science laws that work in the long run. So when we speak about truth in
the world, we are really talking about laws of science.
(6) Knowledge and Education is in the _doing_ the hands on Experience. For
a Pragmatist, that boils down to science in the - Experiment. Sitting in
school at desk and reading then being tested is education but not as good
of an education is actual hands on living what the book talks about.
(7) Happiness comes when one has __order and organization__ in life.
(8) Wisdom is having insight into what actions likely produce desired
results.
Logic Method
1) Asking questions-- if not of others then questioning yourself. Wanting
answers.
2) Being accurate and precise, which usually means well-defining ideas.
3) Being focused and concentrating energy on projects. Not scatterbrained.
4) Thorough and complete.
5) Able in mathematics and science, to always give a number size to the
project or program or space you are working in.
6) Seeking patterns and the structure of Nature.
7) No contradictions allowed, but only Consistency allowed.
8) Arriving at answers and those answers consistent with known facts and
allowing answers to other problems outside our project.
Method of Mathematics
1) True numbers forming a algebra and true geometry forming shapes and
figures.
2) Precision and accuracy, the hallmarks of mathematics.
3) Axioms and principles that are not proven but accepted.
4) Operators of mathematics the most simple of which are add, subtract,
multiply, divide, integral, derivative.
5) Step wise deductions of logic to form proofs called theorems.
6) No contradictions ever allowed.
7) Internal consistency of definitions and theorems.
8) All true theorems are able to connect with other theorems of math and do
not exist in isolation.
Notice I have 8 features for each method in the light of the idea that
Physics has the others as subsets.
I list them in order to refine and compare.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 30, 2025, 8:11:39 PM (3 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I likely will have to revise my 100th book of science "Pragmatism, the only
philosophy I loved" for some of the thoughts and writings of Advanced Logic
will contradict what I said in my 100th book. But that is fine and dandy
for that is the method of science--- always changes and revision, no
escaping it.
And this book of Advanced Logic will I am hopeful -- finally make
Philosophy be about science and eliminate all supernatural from the field.
Logic as a subject along with Pragmatism will be the mainstays of the
College and University Philosophy department and all supernatural subjects
thrown out. I was 18 and 19 years old going off to the University of
Cincinnati and in their bookstore I bought my first philosophy book. When I
first read philosophy and the book I first was
"The New World of Philosophy" by Abraham Kaplan. I even have the price tag
in the bottom right corner saying $2.20. My oh my, inflation has really
spiralled upwards. I remember buying it, but most of all, I remember I was
so engrossed with learning what philosophies there were, that I remember
going to the bathroom at home, and not emerging until after I had read the
entire chapter on Pragmatism. That engrossed was I in this new found
knowledge.
The book has 9 chapters discussing:
1) Pragmatism
2) Analytic Philosophy
3) Existentialism
4) Freud and Modern Philosophy
5) Communism
6) Buddhism
7) Chinese Philosophy
8) Indian Philosophy
9) Zen
I remember Kaplan saying in introduction that he bypassed Christianity
because it is so familar to everyone in the West.
So, here I ask the logical question, for I know Christianity is based on a
supernatural. But I do not recall if Buddhism, Chinese Philosophy, Indian
Philosophy, and Zen harbor supernaturals???? I know Christianity harbors a
plethora of supernaturals-- angels, devil, God, son-of-god.
By supernatural I mean anti-science.
To me, all religions with a supernatural are "Cults".
And just tonight on the PBS Newshour (another excellent product of the
world which Alzheimers blackened and decayed brain of Trump is trying to
get rid of) on the PBS Newshour was discussed the Supreme Court decision of
allowing Catholic churches in Oklahoma and the rest of the USA have schools
alongside public schools and funded by the State as charter schools.
To me, the Catholic schools do not teach proper biology with Darwin
Evolution and that achievements in science are rare among Catholics and
obviously so, when the Catholic church education hates science.
To me, religion in education is cult education. No better than drinking
kool-aid from a punch bowl in South America. (Maybe I should not have said
that-- but at my age it is imperative for me to express my full voice).
AP, King of Science & Logic
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 30, 2025, 11:27:02 PM (3 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Now I am pacing myself just fine here in this textbook. I reckon with the 4
methods, --- science, pragmatism, logic, math that I reached the midpoint
of this textbook which is written in story book style. I have many projects
open in the first half of this book and once I resolve the 4 Methods and
then push on, that I will answer all those "open questions".
P.S. I wrote in many of my earlier books that religion is where science has
no answer, as yet, and so in comes religion to start a first guess of what
is going on. Much like human history of ancient times, we say rain and had
no science, so we invent a Rain God. We saw lightning and heard thunder and
had no explanation so we invent a God for that. But as science grows and
grows, there are less and less needs to have religion make an answer. As a
philosopher once said "Gods and Goddesses come and go, but the Atom
endures".
AP
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 1, 2025, 12:36:59 PM (2 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Wednesday, April 30, 2025 at 8:11:39 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
I likely will have to revise my 100th book of science "Pragmatism, the only
philosophy I loved" for some of the thoughts and writings of Advanced Logic
will contradict what I said in my 100th book. But that is fine and dandy
for that is the method of science--- always changes and revision, no
escaping it.
And this book of Advanced Logic will I am hopeful -- finally make
Philosophy be about science and eliminate all supernatural from the field.
Logic as a subject along with Pragmatism will be the mainstays of the
College and University Philosophy department and all supernatural subjects
thrown out. I was 18 and 19 years old going off to the University of
Cincinnati and in their bookstore I bought my first philosophy book. When I
first read philosophy and the book I first was
"The New World of Philosophy" by Abraham Kaplan. I even have the price tag
in the bottom right corner saying $2.20. My oh my, inflation has really
spiralled upwards. I remember buying it, but most of all, I remember I was
so engrossed with learning what philosophies there were, that I remember
going to the bathroom at home, and not emerging until after I had read the
entire chapter on Pragmatism. That engrossed was I in this new found
knowledge.
The book has 9 chapters discussing:
1) Pragmatism
2) Analytic Philosophy
3) Existentialism
4) Freud and Modern Philosophy
5) Communism
6) Buddhism
7) Chinese Philosophy
8) Indian Philosophy
9) Zen
During the past several decades I would come to add two more philosophies
to Kaplan's list above. I would add Stoicism and Reincarnation.
And now, in this book of Advanced Logic, I am going to analyze those two
new additions. And clean up the house of philosophy for it badly needs
cleaning up as it is full of nonsense, full of what I can best describe as
---- Cults and of Attitude--- and not bodies of knowledge or wisdom.
I remember Kaplan saying in introduction that he bypassed Christianity
because it is so familar to everyone in the West.
So, here I ask the logical question, for I know Christianity is based on a
supernatural. But I do not recall if Buddhism, Chinese Philosophy, Indian
Philosophy, and Zen harbor supernaturals???? I know Christianity harbors a
plethora of supernaturals-- angels, devil, God, son-of-god.
By supernatural I mean anti-science.
To me, all religions with a supernatural are "Cults".
And just tonight on the PBS Newshour (another excellent product of the
world which Alzheimers blackened and decayed brain of Trump is trying to
get rid of) on the PBS Newshour was discussed the Supreme Court decision of
allowing Catholic churches in Oklahoma and the rest of the USA have schools
alongside public schools and funded by the State as charter schools.
To me, the Catholic schools do not teach proper biology with Darwin
Evolution and that achievements in science are rare among Catholics and
obviously so, when the Catholic church education hates science.
To me, religion in education is cult education. No better than drinking
kool-aid from a punch bowl in South America. (Maybe I should not have said
that-- but at my age it is imperative for me to express my full voice).
_AP, King of Science & Logic
_AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 2, 2025, 3:29:50 PM (22 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, I am about--- at the midpoint of this textbook told in
story-telling fashion. This book will be, I am certain, the best and finest
book on Logic ever written for it is logically written.
I have to show the world of scientists, how to think straight and think
clearly by applying Advanced Logic.
So I opened the first half of this book with a large number of very
important questions. I reached the Midpoint where I characterize (1)
Physics, the (2) Scientific Method, the (3) Pragmatism Method, the (4)
Method of Logic and the (5) Method of Mathematics.
Now I refine all 5 of those methods. And in the refinement I place them in
correct sequence of order of largest to subsets of one another. There is a
big enormous question as to where Pragmatism fits in?? Is it a subset of
Scientific Method or a subset of Physics where Physics is top of the pile.
Then the second half of the book will answer definitively all the questions
raised, and even more new questions raised to round off this textbook. I am
having great fun in writing this book and showing the world what it means
to have a Logical Mind for I would estimate that 90% of scientists have
little logical marbles. And that nonscientists are even worse.
Almost every day in life, around us, we see illogic.
The BDO commercial on PBS has a symbol of LBDO like in "Libido".
One PBS commercial "Versions of the truth left out" when she meant to say
"Details of the truth left out" for Truth is monolithic.
One PBS commercial "More than what you need to know--- but what you need to
think about" for that is illogical in the fact that if you knew it in the
first place the second half of the sentence is superfluous. When he meant
to say "More than what you need to know but what to focus upon" because if
you knew something-- you need not have to "need to think about".
Illogic surrounds us each and every day, and colleges and universities are
not helping in pointing out and defeating illogic.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 2, 2025, 4:16:42 PM (21 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So I have 5 Methods and is wanting to refine and place in correct
sequential order. I am certain that Physics is on top and Mathematics is
last on bottom.
Physics Method
1) Atomic theory, started in Ancient Greek times-- Leucippus, Democritus,
Epicurus, Titus Lucretius Carus and others.
2) All is Atom, and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism, by AP
1990.
3) All matter is made up of one of the 114 Chemical Elements of the
Periodic Table, and the Universe itself is matter hence it is one of the
114 Elements and plutonium fits all the special numbers of physics and math
the best fit.
4) Sun and stars shine from Faraday Law for everything is nothing but
electricity and magnetism in the Laws of Electromagnetism. For the true
electron of atoms is the muon and not the 0.5MeV particle which is Dirac's
magnetic monopole. The Muon is stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the
Faraday law with proton torus where the muon is going around inside the
proton torus at nearly the speed of light producing maximum electricity.
5) Our Sun has gone into Red Giant phase and unless we move out to Europa,
a satellite of Jupiter, all of life on Earth goes extinct and into oblivion.
6) Overwhelming evidence that Sun shines from Faraday law not fusion is
accelerated ice-cap melt and that NASA recorded a 0.005% yearly increase in
Solar radiation in the decade of 2010 to 2020 and where 25% of all insect
biomass on Earth perished in that decade. Insects and plants have the
highest response to a ever increasing Sun gone Red Giant phase.
7) AP reckons we have a window of opportunity to make Europa our new home
in the next 1,000 years by cargo hauling all we need to start a permanent
colony by spaceships powered by lithium ion batteries (drone like spaceship
launched from North-Pole-Greenland to take advantage of Earth's Magnetic
Field lines of force) and then powered by ion thrusters in travelling to
Europa on the Solar Winds.
8) All of science that we learned and all of human achievements amount to
nothing, if we fail to make a new Earth--- Europa. All science and
knowledge and education and understanding amount to nothing if we go into
oblivion.
_Scientific Method:
_1) Observation and Ask a Question
2) Do Background Research
3) Construct a Hypothesis
4) Test your Hypothesis by doing a Experiment
5) Analyze your data
6) Interpret the data and draw a Conclusion
7) Communicate and publish your results
_8) Retest the Experiment and Conclusion
_Method of Pragmatism
_(1) Reality for a Pragmatist-- observations, facts and data, definitions
and concepts-ideas.
(2) Life for a pragmatist is a long unending sequence of problem solving.
Only way to escape this guantlet is death.
(3) Ideas and the Meaning of those Ideas, for pragmatist are tools,
instruments, weapons for purposeful future action.
(4) Action in life for a pragmatist is important for it is action that
leads to change and leads to understanding and knowledge. Action and
Curiosity are intermingled. Action to a pragmatist is what motion is to a
physicist.
(5) Truth is what _works_ and works in the long run. Truth for the
Pragmatist is boiled down to be a "Law of Physics or Science". Because it
is science laws that work in the long run. So when we speak about truth in
the world, we are really talking about laws of science.
(6) Knowledge and Education is in the _doing_ the hands on Experience. For
a Pragmatist, that boils down to science in the - Experiment. Sitting in
school at desk and reading then being tested is education but not as good
of an education is actual hands on living what the book talks about.
(7) Happiness comes when one has __order and organization__ in life.
_(8) Wisdom is having insight into what actions likely produce desired
results.
_Logic Method
_1) Asking questions-- if not of others then questioning yourself. Wanting
answers.
2) Being accurate and precise, which usually means well-defining ideas.
3) Being focused and concentrating energy on projects. Not scatterbrained.
4) Thorough and complete.
5) Able in mathematics and science, to always give a number size to the
project or program or space you are working in.
6) Seeking patterns and the structure of Nature.
7) No contradictions allowed, but only Consistency allowed.
_8) Arriving at answers and those answers consistent with known facts and
allowing answers to other problems outside our project.
_Method of Mathematics
_1) True numbers forming a algebra and true geometry forming shapes and
figures.
2) Precision and accuracy, the hallmarks of mathematics.
3) Axioms and principles that are not proven but accepted.
4) Operators of mathematics the most simple of which are add, subtract,
multiply, divide, integral, derivative.
5) Step wise deductions of logic to form proofs called theorems.
6) No contradictions ever allowed.
7) Internal consistency of definitions and theorems.
_8) All true theorems are able to connect with other theorems of math and
do not exist in isolation.
So I have the 5 Methods above, but need to refine every one of them and to
place into a proper sequence order. I do know Physics is first and top, and
mathematics is last and bottom, but it is the middle section I need to
properly sequence.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 2, 2025, 6:09:11 PM (19 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Friday, May 2, 2025 at 4:16:42 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
So I have 5 Methods and is wanting to refine and place in correct
sequential order. I am certain that Physics is on top and Mathematics is
last on bottom.
_Physics Method
_1) Atomic theory, started in Ancient Greek times-- Leucippus, Democritus,
Epicurus, Titus Lucretius Carus and others.
2) All is Atom, and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism, by AP
1990.
3) All matter is made up of one of the 114 Chemical Elements of the
Periodic Table, and the Universe itself is matter hence it is one of the
114 Elements and plutonium fits all the special numbers of physics and math
the best fit.
4) Sun and stars shine from Faraday Law for everything is nothing but
electricity and magnetism in the Laws of Electromagnetism. For the true
electron of atoms is the muon and not the 0.5MeV particle which is Dirac's
magnetic monopole. The Muon is stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the
Faraday law with proton torus where the muon is going around inside the
proton torus at nearly the speed of light producing maximum electricity.
5) Our Sun has gone into Red Giant phase and unless we move out to Europa,
a satellite of Jupiter, all of life on Earth goes extinct and into oblivion.
6) Overwhelming evidence that Sun shines from Faraday law not fusion is
accelerated ice-cap melt and that NASA recorded a 0.005% yearly increase in
Solar radiation in the decade of 2010 to 2020 and where 25% of all insect
biomass on Earth perished in that decade. Insects and plants have the
highest response to a ever increasing Sun gone Red Giant phase.
7) AP reckons we have a window of opportunity to make Europa our new home
in the next 1,000 years by cargo hauling all we need to start a permanent
colony by spaceships powered by lithium ion batteries (drone like spaceship
launched from North-Pole-Greenland to take advantage of Earth's Magnetic
Field lines of force) and then powered by ion thrusters in travelling to
Europa on the Solar Winds.
_8) All of science that we learned and all of human achievements amount to
nothing, if we fail to make a new Earth--- Europa. All science and
knowledge and education and understanding amount to nothing if we go into
oblivion.
9) The Universe in total is an Atom Totality of 231 Plutonium, a big atom
that contains microscopic Atoms. And this Atom Totality has its own
creation process known as Spontaneous Fission, SF. When within the Atom
Totality it forges and creates an Element of 192 it spontaneously fissions
into that new Element 96 Atom Totality.
10) The purpose of Life in any Atom Totality, is to make nucleosynthesis
for spontaneous fission. If humanity makes it to Europa to establish a new
Earth, a new home, then there we can look forward to do nucleosynthesis in
creating Element 192 which spontaneously fissions to make the new Atom
Totality Universe. I am not sure if the life that creates the next Universe
Atom Totality lives through the SF creation. I am sure that the purpose of
Life is to do nucleosynthesis for which stars cannot do that
nucleosynthesis.
AP
zzzzzzzzzz
plutonium dot archimedes at gmail dot com. Looking for a College or
University press to hardcover publish all 367+ AP books of science, likely
to become 500-600 maybe even 700 books by the time I die. E-books are too
prone to unbalanced-unhinged censor-editors, who can easily make your books
vanish by pulling a switch. Science should never have gatekeepers, who
thwart access to true science.
| /
| /
|/______ hardcover or paperback
PAU newsgroup is this.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 3, 2025, 1:57:21 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So there I was for the duration of 2015 to present day 2025 insisting that
scientists and mathematicians needed two years of college Logic in order to
hopefully think better, think straight and think clearly. Trouble was,
there was no textbook by 2025 that is free of massive errors. So why insist
on physicists, biologists, chemists, astronomers, geologists,
mathematicians and every scientist in taking college logic when there was
no textbook in logic free of massive errors????
My books #351 TEACHING TRUE LOGIC and #353 Advanced Logic fills this gap.
For decades now, I had thought my 5th published book would serve as a
introduction to logic, but it does not serve as a full textbook and thus
the reason for #351 and #353.
--- quoting from my 5th published book---
Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors//
Teaching True Logic series, book 1
by Archimedes Plutonium
This is AP's 5th published book of science published on Internet,
Plutonium-Atom-Universe,
PAU newsgroup is this.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Preface:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math
professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and
fix their errors.
The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND"
and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their
logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but
never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5
(addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in
Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of
statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value,
then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth
table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the
If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the
true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with
a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers
would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no
means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a
Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and
cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic
must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic
is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of
mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined.
And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method
of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only
lead to a probability end conclusion.
My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime
around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was
illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply
the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof
method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to
a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or,
If->Then, by 2015.
Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have
a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to
show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom
writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
--------------------------
Table of Contents
--------------------------
1) In all thy getting, get knowledge, but what good is knowledge if you
cannot think straight, think clearly.
2) The 4 connectors of Logic.
3) AP History on Logic, mostly that of 2015.
4) Lesson: Relating Math Algebra to that of the 4 connectors of Logic//
repeat add = multiply, and repeat subtract = divide.
5) Lesson: Concordance of true Logic to mathematics algebra axioms.
6) Lesson: Old Math missed 4 axioms and one of them helps to prove No
Negative Numbers exist.
7) Historical AP postscripts.
--- end quoting from my 5th published book ---
AP
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 4, 2025, 1:50:34 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I am weaving and interconnecting these 4 books as each relates to the other.
On Sunday, May 4, 2025 at 12:38:35 AM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
On Sunday, May 4, 2025 at 12:21:40 AM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
So I am doing all four of these books simultaneously and in conjuction of
one another since one feeds off the others.
#350 Teaching True Geometry
#351 Teaching True Logic
#352 Teaching True Calculus
#353 Advanced Logic
I am finding that an idea in Calculus ties into an idea in Advanced Logic,
and all four seem connected; so may as well do all four at once.
For example, in my Advanced Logic book I describe how I solved the
unification of 4 forces of physics by looking for the force with the most
perfect particle and it turns out to be the Light-Wave photon, and so the
other 3 forces were manifestions of the Electromagnetic Force. Then I also
spoke of the Light Wave as being "perfect" DNA for biology. So I played
around with the concept of "perfect" to discover new science.
And this concept of "perfect" sort of, kind of, plays a role in Calculus.
When I was in College and learning calculus for the first time, I was
enamored with the Polynomial function because it was the easiest function
to get a derivative and integral by playing with add or subtract 1 to
exponent, and I thought to myself in college back in 1968 how fantastic it
would be if the Polynomial were the only function and how that reduces
calculus to be super easy. In a sense, we can describe the Polynomial as
being the "perfect" function for Calculus, for no other functions are as
easy to do in calculus, governed by the Power rule.
So, this idea of Polynomial as the perfect function because it makes
calculus super easy, is a logical what I would describe imperative, a
logical imperative. That if you can reduce all of calculus to add or
subtract 1 from exponent, it must be true that the Polynomial is the only
valid function of calculus and mathematics.
This reminds me of another Logic Principle-- Occam's Razor where the most
simple of explanations is likely to be the true explanation.
The most simple of functions to do Calculus is the Polynomial function, and
it is easy to convert all other so called functions not polynomial into
being a polynomial via the Lagrange Interpolation technique.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 4, 2025, 2:31:27 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, I am at what I call the midpoint of Advanced Logic, where I ask
a-lot of questions, reach the midpoint and then answer all those prior
questions. I am fighting to place in Logical Order these 5 Methods as to
which is subset of which. I know for sure that Physics is first and
Mathematics is fifth, but I need to place Pragmatism in correct order.
Tentatively I have this ordering of subset--- (1) Physics, (2) Scientific
Method, (3) Pragmatism, (4) Logic, (5) Mathematics.
Now, what I am going to do is use and utilize one of the finest ideas in
all of philosophy and science ever raised and that is Occam's Razor. Which
in simple terms is a statement that says--- the most simple explanation is
often the true explanation of some event.
Is Occam's Razor science?? Or is it math probability, or logic, or
physics???
If you took math and logic, you learn that to prove ---one set is a subset
of a larger set by showing an element is in the larger set but not in the
smaller set. So of the 5 methods-- in order for me to place them in an
order, I need to find one outstanding principle in science that is
contained in only Physics and not in the other 4 methods. Then find a
principle that is contained in Scientific Method, but not in the other 3
methods. Then, find a principle contained in only Pragmatism but not in
Logic nor Mathematics. Then, find a principle contained in only Logic and
not mathematics. Once that is completed, I am assured of Logical Order of
the 5 Methods.
Now that sounds like a overbearing daunting task, but not so, for I chose a
principle --- Occam's Razor that spans all 5 Methods and thus, Occam's
Razor alone can place the 5 Methods in Logical Order.
And I must add to this conversation a recent discovery of the true numbers
of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers in the idea that they are
always able to tell you exactly how many numbers exist within a Space of
numbers or geometry. Unlike Reals of Old Math, the answer is always--
infinity. While in Decimal Grid Numbers, the 10 Grid has 100 numbers in
total (not counting 0) and in 100 Grid it has 10000 not counting 0, etc. So
the size of Space, true space can also be a measuring rod of the 5 Methods.
In Calculus, it all boils down to a cell in a grid system and not the
obnoxious and mindless Old Math Reals of ever more infinity. Numbers have
to count, and you cannot count in Old Math chock full of infinities every
where you look.
Physics Method
1) Atomic theory, started in Ancient Greek times-- Leucippus, Democritus,
Epicurus, Titus Lucretius Carus and others.
2) All is Atom, and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism, by AP
1990.
3) All matter is made up of one of the 114 Chemical Elements of the
Periodic Table, and the Universe itself is matter hence it is one of the
114 Elements and plutonium fits all the special numbers of physics and math
the best fit.
4) Sun and stars shine from Faraday Law for everything is nothing but
electricity and magnetism in the Laws of Electromagnetism. For the true
electron of atoms is the muon and not the 0.5MeV particle which is Dirac's
magnetic monopole. The Muon is stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the
Faraday law with proton torus where the muon is going around inside the
proton torus at nearly the speed of light producing maximum electricity.
5) Our Sun has gone into Red Giant phase and unless we move out to Europa,
a satellite of Jupiter, all of life on Earth goes extinct and into oblivion.
6) Overwhelming evidence that Sun shines from Faraday law not fusion is
accelerated ice-cap melt and that NASA recorded a 0.005% yearly increase in
Solar radiation in the decade of 2010 to 2020 and where 25% of all insect
biomass on Earth perished in that decade. Insects and plants have the
highest response to a ever increasing Sun gone Red Giant phase.
7) AP reckons we have a window of opportunity to make Europa our new home
in the next 1,000 years by cargo hauling all we need to start a permanent
colony by spaceships powered by lithium ion batteries (drone like spaceship
launched from North-Pole-Greenland to take advantage of Earth's Magnetic
Field lines of force) and then powered by ion thrusters in travelling to
Europa on the Solar Winds.
8) All of science that we learned and all of human achievements amount to
nothing, if we fail to make a new Earth--- Europa. All science and
knowledge and education and understanding amount to nothing if we go into
oblivion.
9) The Universe in total is an Atom Totality of 231 Plutonium, a big atom
that contains microscopic Atoms. And this Atom Totality has its own
creation process known as Spontaneous Fission, SF. When within the Atom
Totality it forges and creates an Element of 192 it spontaneously fissions
into that new Element 96 Atom Totality.
10) The purpose of Life in any Atom Totality, is to make nucleosynthesis
for spontaneous fission. If humanity makes it to Europa to establish a new
Earth, a new home, then there we can look forward to do nucleosynthesis in
creating Element 192 which spontaneously fissions to make the new Atom
Totality Universe. I am not sure if the life that creates the next Universe
Atom Totality lives through the SF creation. I am sure that the purpose of
Life is to do nucleosynthesis for which stars cannot do that
nucleosynthesis.
Scientific Method of the sciences other than Physics:
1) Observation and Ask a Question
2) Do Background Research
3) Construct a Hypothesis
4) Test your Hypothesis by doing a Experiment
5) Analyze your data
6) Interpret the data and draw a Conclusion
7) Communicate and publish your results
8) Retest the Experiment and Conclusion
Method of Pragmatism
(1) Is a Language of Action for the Scientific Method.
(2) Reality for a Pragmatist-- observations, facts and data, definitions
and concepts-ideas.
(3) Life for a pragmatist is a long unending sequence of problem solving.
Only way to escape this guantlet is death.
(4) Ideas and the Meaning of those Ideas, for pragmatist are tools,
instruments, weapons for purposeful future action.
(5) Action in life for a pragmatist is important for it is action that
leads to change and leads to understanding and knowledge. Action and
Curiosity are intermingled. Action to a pragmatist is what motion is to a
physicist.
(6) Truth is what _works_ and works in the long run. Truth for the
Pragmatist is boiled down to be a "Law of Physics or Science". Because it
is science laws that work in the long run. So when we speak about truth in
the world, we are really talking about laws of science.
(7) Knowledge and Education is in the _doing_ the hands on Experience. For
a Pragmatist, that boils down to science in the - Experiment. Sitting in
school at desk and reading then being tested is education but not as good
of an education is actual hands on living what the book talks about.
(8) Happiness comes when one has __order and organization__ in life.
(9) Wisdom is having insight into what actions likely produce desired
results.
Logic Method
1) Is a Language of statements and writing for the purpose of precision.
2) Asking questions-- if not of others then questioning yourself. Wanting
answers.
3) Being accurate and precise, which usually means well-defining ideas.
4) Being focused and concentrating energy on projects. Not scatterbrained.
5) Thorough and complete.
6) Able in mathematics and science, to always give a number size to the
project or program or space you are working in.
7) Seeking patterns and the structure of Nature.
8) No contradictions allowed, but only Consistency allowed.
9) Arriving at answers and those answers consistent with known facts and
allowing answers to other problems outside our project.
Method of Mathematics
1) Is a Language of numbers and geometry for the purpose of precision.
2) True numbers forming a algebra and true geometry forming shapes and
figures.
3) Precision and accuracy, the hallmarks of mathematics.
4) Axioms and principles that are not proven but accepted.
5) Operators of mathematics the most simple of which are add, subtract,
multiply, divide, integral, derivative.
6) Step wise deductions of logic to form proofs called theorems.
7) No contradictions ever allowed.
8) Internal consistency of definitions and theorems.
9) All true theorems are able to connect with other theorems of math and do
not exist in isolation.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 4, 2025, 3:15:48 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, Occam's Razor is --- the most Simple Explanation is likely to be
the True explanation for an event that occurred.
Now through the decades of 1990 to present 2025, I have discovered many
great fabulous ideas of science by the concept of "perfect".
(A) I unified the 4 forces of Physics by noting the EM force has the most
perfect particle of the Light Wave-Photon and thus Strong Nuclear, Weak
Nuclear, and gravity must be manifestations of EM force.
(B) I unified physics with biology by saying a Light Wave-Photon is that of
"perfect DNA" noticing that the DNA structural geometry is similar to the
electric-field perpendicular to magnetic-field in Light Waves.
(C) I solved the Calculus proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus has to
be, where the Polynomial is the only valid function in all of mathematics
and if not a polynomial, you can easily transform your contraption into
being a polynomial via the Lagrange Interpolation. Calculus reduced to
where you only add or subtract 1 in the exponent as the Power Rule, turning
Calculus into the easiest possible way is a program of what I call "perfect
perfection".
And so, here, in May 2025, I ask the question is the concept of "simple" in
Occam's Razor, synonomous with the concept of "perfect". Is Simple equal to
that of Perfect??????
The most Simple Explanation is the most Perfect Explanation and the True
Explanation for an event that occurred.
So, Physics has these principles.
(a) Speed of Light is fastest speed possible and a constant speed
(b) Least Action Principle
(c) Perpetual Motion of Light Wave for it has no rest mass
(d) Maximum Electricity Principle
(e) Perpetual Motion of Muon inside Proton torus of all Atoms
When we look at that list, certainly, the concept of Simple and Perfect
must be descriptions of (a,b,c,d,e).
And looking at that list, I begin to see that I need Pragmatism after
Physics in this order. For Pragmatism is action and you need action to do
the Scientific Method. Good news to philosophy departments around the world
for they need a department of philosophy to teach Pragmatism and then also
Logic in the department of philosophy. But philosophy departments need to
throw out all religions of supernatural for those are cults and not
knowledge. And throw out Existentialism, Communism, Analytic Philosophy,
Freud as being "Attitudes and Opinions".
Correct order:
(1) Physics
(2) Pragmatism
(3) Scientific Method for sciences other than physics
(4) Logic
(5) Math
Now it maybe strange that it is Logic guiding me to the correct order yet
it is 4th on the list. But that is alright for math is last and math does
have content in Occam's Razor, for after all, math has probability theory
and Occam's Razor is not a proof in math but a probability test.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 5, 2025, 12:29:15 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Sunday, May 4, 2025 at 2:31:27 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Alright Occam's Razor--- the most simple explanation is probably the true
explanation of a event.
I am using Occam's Razor to tell me how to place in order of set to subset
of the 5 Methods. And by discerning how much of a method is allied with
Occam's Razor, I can tell that order ranking--- which appears to be (1)
Physics (2) Pragmatism (3) Scientific Method (4) Logic (5) Mathematics.
Physics makes the most use of Occam's Razor and math the least use of
Occam's Razor. This Occam's Razor test allows me to place Pragmatism just
below that of Physics.
Now, let us examine the Physics Method and how much of a use of Occam's
Razor.
Physics Method
1) Atomic theory, started in Ancient Greek times-- Leucippus, Democritus,
Epicurus, Titus Lucretius Carus and others.
2) All is Atom, and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism, by AP
1990.
3) All matter is made up of one of the 114 Chemical Elements of the
Periodic Table, and the Universe itself is matter hence it is one of the
114 Elements and plutonium fits all the special numbers of physics and math
the best fit.
4) Sun and stars shine from Faraday Law for everything is nothing but
electricity and magnetism in the Laws of Electromagnetism. For the true
electron of atoms is the muon and not the 0.5MeV particle which is Dirac's
magnetic monopole. The Muon is stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the
Faraday law with proton torus where the muon is going around inside the
proton torus at nearly the speed of light producing maximum electricity.
5) Our Sun has gone into Red Giant phase and unless we move out to Europa,
a satellite of Jupiter, all of life on Earth goes extinct and into oblivion.
6) Overwhelming evidence that Sun shines from Faraday law not fusion is
accelerated ice-cap melt and that NASA recorded a 0.005% yearly increase in
Solar radiation in the decade of 2010 to 2020 and where 25% of all insect
biomass on Earth perished in that decade. Insects and plants have the
highest response to a ever increasing Sun gone Red Giant phase.
7) AP reckons we have a window of opportunity to make Europa our new home
in the next 1,000 years by cargo hauling all we need to start a permanent
colony by spaceships powered by lithium ion batteries (drone like spaceship
launched from North-Pole-Greenland to take advantage of Earth's Magnetic
Field lines of force) and then powered by ion thrusters in travelling to
Europa on the Solar Winds.
8) All of science that we learned and all of human achievements amount to
nothing, if we fail to make a new Earth--- Europa. All science and
knowledge and education and understanding amount to nothing if we go into
oblivion.
9) The Universe in total is an Atom Totality of 231 Plutonium, a big atom
that contains microscopic Atoms. And this Atom Totality has its own
creation process known as Spontaneous Fission, SF. When within the Atom
Totality it forges and creates an Element of 192 it spontaneously fissions
into that new Element 96 Atom Totality.
10) The purpose of Life in any Atom Totality, is to make nucleosynthesis
for spontaneous fission. If humanity makes it to Europa to establish a new
Earth, a new home, then there we can look forward to do nucleosynthesis in
creating Element 192 which spontaneously fissions to make the new Atom
Totality Universe. I am not sure if the life that creates the next Universe
Atom Totality lives through the SF creation. I am sure that the purpose of
Life is to do nucleosynthesis for which stars cannot do that
nucleosynthesis.
A-lot of use of Occam's Razor, for what could be more simple that the
Universe is a Atom, an Atom that creates more Atoms and creates Life in
order to make new Atoms and the Atom Totality itself. I dare any reader
read any other cosmology of the Creation of the Universe that is more
"simple" more "perfect" than the Physics of Atom Totality. Try the Big Bang
to see if that is more simple? Try the religions to see if they are more
"simple"?
Now let us inspect Pragmatism with Occam's Razor as test.
In Pragmatism, truth is what works and works for the long run. Could one
say that the "most simple explanation is likely the true explanation" be
the same as "truth is what works and works in the long run"?? Is not
"truth" for the Pragmatist, the same as "most simple explanation"? So we
put Pragmatism second in rank for it has much Occam's Razor but not as much
as Physics.
Method of Pragmatism
(1) Is a Language of Action for the Scientific Method.
(2) Reality for a Pragmatist-- observations, facts and data, definitions
and concepts-ideas.
(3) Life for a pragmatist is a long unending sequence of problem solving.
Only way to escape this guantlet is death.
(4) Ideas and the Meaning of those Ideas, for pragmatist are tools,
instruments, weapons for purposeful future action.
(5) Action in life for a pragmatist is important for it is action that
leads to change and leads to understanding and knowledge. Action and
Curiosity are intermingled. Action to a pragmatist is what motion is to a
physicist.
(6) Truth is what _works_ and works in the long run. Truth for the
Pragmatist is boiled down to be a "Law of Physics or Science". Because it
is science laws that work in the long run. So when we speak about truth in
the world, we are really talking about laws of science.
(7) Knowledge and Education is in the _doing_ the hands on Experience. For
a Pragmatist, that boils down to science in the - Experiment. Sitting in
school at desk and reading then being tested is education but not as good
of an education is actual hands on living what the book talks about.
(8) Happiness comes when one has __order and organization__ in life.
(9) Wisdom is having insight into what actions likely produce desired
results.
Now we inspect Scientific Method for Occam's Razor. In the step of
"Interpret the data and draw conclusion" is not that step the same as
Occam's Razor-- the most simple explanation is the true explanation??
The Pragmatism method has more than the Scientific Method of Occam's Razor
and so we rank it 3rd and above Logic and above Mathematics.
Scientific Method of the sciences other than Physics:
1) Observation and Ask a Question
2) Do Background Research
3) Construct a Hypothesis
4) Test your Hypothesis by doing a Experiment
5) Analyze your data
6) Interpret the data and draw a Conclusion
7) Communicate and publish your results
8) Retest the Experiment and Conclusion
Logic insists upon well-defined ideas and that is seeking simple and
perfect. Logic insists upon steps of deductive proof for mathematics and of
logic itself. Again a program of simple and perfect.
Logic Method
1) Is a Language of statements and writing for the purpose of precision.
2) Asking questions-- if not of others then questioning yourself. Wanting
answers.
3) Being accurate and precise, which usually means well-defining ideas.
4) Being focused and concentrating energy on projects. Not scatterbrained.
5) Thorough and complete.
6) Step-wise deductions leading to conclusions.
7) Able in mathematics and science, to always give a number size to the
project or program or space you are working in.
8) Seeking patterns and the structure of Nature.
9) No contradictions allowed, but only Consistency allowed.
10) Arriving at answers and those answers consistent with known facts and
allowing answers to other problems outside our project.
Occam's Razor--- the most simple explanation is often the true explanation
for an event; is not in mathematics other than to say that Probability
theory is in mathematics and Occam's Razor is itself a question of
probability. The Logic Method has Occam's Razor in making Well-Defined
concepts and in making deductive proofs, but Occam's Razor is not in
mathematics other than it has probability content.
Method of Mathematics
1) Is a Language of numbers and geometry for the purpose of precision.
2) True numbers forming a algebra and true geometry forming shapes and
figures.
3) Precision and accuracy, the hallmarks of mathematics.
4) Axioms and principles that are not proven but accepted.
5) Operators of mathematics the most simple of which are add, subtract,
multiply, divide, integral, derivative.
6) Step wise deductions of logic to form proofs called theorems.
7) No contradictions ever allowed.
8) Internal consistency of definitions and theorems.
9) All true theorems are able to connect with other theorems of math and do
not exist in isolation.
_AP
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 5, 2025, 4:11:31 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
In Occam's Razor, by the concept of "simple" they mean as few of
assumptions as possible. William of Ockham 1287-1347 says " Entia non sunt
multiplicanda praeter necessitatem " which means "Entities must not be
multiplied beyond necessity ". I state it as the most simple explanation is
often the true explanation.
I have found the concept of "perfect" helpful in discovery of new science
truths. Can I say that "simple" and "perfect" are equal to each other??
Maybe they are duals of each other and not equals.
Notice that Mathematics is split into the duals of geometry as shape and
numbers as quantity. And Numbers start with addition by adding of 1 in
mathematical induction to obtain all the counting numbers. Start with 0 add
1 and you have 1, then add 1 to 1 and you have 2, etc. Start with geometry
shape and you have a line for x axis and a perpendicular line for y-axis
and you have the Plane of xy, considered as multiplication, for area is x
times y. Logic does not start with addition for the truth table of AND as
addition is TTTF. Logic starts with the truth table of Equal-Not as TTTT
and that is multiplication.
So Geometry math starts with multiplication and Logic starts with
multiplication of Equal-Not.
Physics starts with multiplication in the Axiom Principle of All is Atom,
and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. For electricity is
perpendicular to magnetism and is thus multiplication.
What does Pragmatism start with??? For a Pragmatist, the Meaning of Ideas
are weapons for purposeful future action, which is multiplication, not
addition. For the Pragmatist-- work and action are centerfold and is
multiplication, not addition.
Mathematics does have multiplication in forming Geometry for the plane is
length times width, and the Calculus integral is area under polynomial
function graph.
The Scientific Method has multiplication in "construct a hypothesis" and
has addition in "retest your experiment".
AP
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 6, 2025, 12:26:05 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
--- quoting from my Autobiography ---
Now I must recount an important part of my academic life which started
here at USU. It is important because it would culminate with the Atom
Totality Theory. It was here at USU just before I would be airplaned to
Australia to teach math that I had resolved to turn biology into math. It
started immediately after I had my first real job relating to my math
degree. It is a story which is independent of my schooling. It is a story
of my self motivation. I had earned a math Teaching Certificate from Utah
State University in the Spring of 1974 and had secured a teaching position
in Australia. This self-motivation came out of the blue, perhaps as a mark
of my joy, my happiness that I wanted to celebrate, to toast my good luck
and to toast the future, that I embarked on an independent academic
project. I started on an independent quest for turning the biological
theory of evolution into pure math. It was directly after I knew I had my
first real job. I went to the bookstore of USU and wanted a book on
biological evolution. I would read it on the way down to Australia and
while in Australia. I was not satisfied with the current state of
biological evolution theory, for logically it said not much more than that
the "fittest fit". Perhaps some strains of Lamarckian theory are true? At
least Lamarckian is clearer logically. Before leaving USU to airplane to
Australia I wanted a biology text which amplified the theory of biological
evolution. I wanted a textbook to study well and deeply while in Australia.
So I went to the USU bookstore in the Spring of 1974 for that purpose of
buying a biology textbook to carry with me to Australia. I bought a biology
text titled CONCEPTS OF BIOLOGY a cultural perspective . Skimming this
yellow covered book, I judged it was the best for my purpose, and the bonus
was that it was small sized not one of these massive biology tomes of a
text. A true science theory is powerful in its capacity to predict the
future. Current biological evolution can give a plausible explanation for
the past, for what has already happened. But it is deficient and weak in
any capacity for future prediction. I wanted to convert biological
evolution into a simple idea, or set of ideas, which were strictly math.
This quest started in 0034 and would last, on and off, for 16 years. This
quest was initiated by my self motivation by buying and reading the book
CONCEPTS OF BIOLOGY a cultural perspective. And then later I bought a
history of science book The Ascent of Man which influenced me because I
loved the pictures in the book and the book emphasized quantum physics
alongside biology. The book The Ascent of Man displays and discusses the
theory of biological evolution like a beautiful painting. This book was
superb reading as a history of science and when I first read it, it so
engrossed me. I was dissatisfied with the biological theory of evolution
and wanted to turn it into math. This was the start of my quest for a
better theory of evolution, a math based theory which would subsume
biological evolution. The book CONCEPTS OF BIOLOGY a cultural perspective
would leave important impressions on me. The theme in the text which
repeated itself often was that the deepest understanding, the underlying
explanation of everything biological was reducible to what is going on
chemically. At the time I bought it, I did not like the chapter titled
"Fallout" for it sounded too much like nuclear war not a pure biology text.
Now with the perspective of the Protons, I so much like that word. This
biology text was written from the viewpoint of chemistry. It was an
overview of biology and it explicitly enunciated the biological theory of
evolution, calling it the Modern Synthesis. Stating the four mechanisms of
the Modern Synthesis as (1) mutation, (2) genetic recombination, (3)
differential reproductive success (which is a definition of natural
selection) and (4) reproductive isolation such as geographic isolation.
Mutation and genetic recombination are genotype sources of evolutionary
variability. Natural selection and reproductive isolation are phenotypic
adaptations. Natural selection is differential reproductive success of
genetic types, i.e., organisms with inferior traits leave on average fewer
offspring than do those with superior traits. Inferior and superior are
defined by the environment. Traits are initiated by mutation and
recombination. Environment serves as the ultimate test for the "fitness" of
variations. The term phenotype is used to describe a genetic trait as it is
detected by our senses. For the genotypes TT and Tt then the plant is still
tall, even though the short t is recessive. This biology text gave a good
overview of cell theory. The lasting impression I got from this text was
that all of biology is reducible to chemical explanation. With the help of
this book I was hoping to chart a course to convert the theory of
biological evolution into ideas of math. To give a math idea, or set of
math ideas which contained the theory of biological evolution. I wanted to
restate biological evolution, making it a math statement, a simple math
idea, simple like a circle or sphere have absolute symmetry or a
probability idea that things tend to a state of minimum energy
requirements. I planned to set aside time for myself, especially during
summer school vacation while in Australia to study these books well. To
study biology well. While in Australia, I read the biology text CONCEPTS OF
BIOLOGY a cultural perspective twice. I no longer have my copy and it is
out of print. I had the Dartmouth College library system run an
interlibrary loan on it. This biology text which I bought at Utah State in
0034, just before departing for my teaching job in Australia. I remember
the text was excellent in its implication that ultimately all of biology is
chemistry and it was the first attempt in a textbook, which I had perused,
of reducing as much of biology down to chemistry. I remember the last
chapter was titled "Fallout", and what a fateful title that was. The
dominant impression I got from this text was that all of biology is
reducible to a chemical explanation. It contained a discussion of atoms,
protons, electrons in the chapter on life. Flashingforward to 0050, these
impressions lay dormant in me for those 16 years. These impressions were
precursors to the Plutonium Atom Totality where life is a radioactive
fallout of what atoms do. I was airplaned to Australia in Autumn 1974
leaving Los Angeles. It seemed like a longer flight than the one from
Malaysia a year earlier. I could not get any sleep on this airplane and
remember the flight passengers were all US teachers with everyone spread
out for comfort, a disheveled crew of inexperienced teachers trying to get
some sleep, since it was a long flight. And by the end of the flight we
were sprayed with something like DDT upon approaching Australia for fruit
flies or pest introduction control. We landed in Sydney and given a free
hotel room, the Wentworth Hotel, and all the food we could eat for free at
the hotel. I mostly spent the time sleeping. This would be my only
acquaintance with Sydney, my one and only sightseeing of Sydney as I saw
the pretty seashell- shaped music building by the harbor.
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 6, 2025, 6:35:39 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
When I wrote my autobiography in the 1990s, I started year 0000 as 1940
when plutonium the element was discovered. I thought it fanciful back then
but see it now as just confusion and should take some time out and enter
only common ordinary dates to eliminate the confusion. For instance I wrote
0050 which would be the actual year 1990. So when I get some time, I will
straighten that out.
So I had to place in Logical Order the largest set and then the 4 subsets
of Physics in this order--- Physics, Pragmatism, Scientific Method, Logic,
Math. Where Physics is the largest set and has 4 subsets in descending
order with math last.
I arrived at that Logical Order by using Occam's Razor, where Physics is
chock full of Occam's Razor, next comes Pragmatism, then Scientific Method;
Logic has little of Occam's Razor and Math has no Occam's razor other than
that math is the home of Probability theory and Occam's Razor is a
probabilistic statement. Occam's Razor again is the idea--- the most simple
explanation of an event is likely the true explanation of the event.
So now, well I am going to Test that Logical Order of Physics, then
Pragmatism, then Scientific Method, then Logic, then Math, with a new
test--- that of Darwin Evolution theory to see if the Order pans out the
same again.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 6, 2025, 9:45:05 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
This book, certainly is going to be one of my very best books ever written
and showcases my strength in Logic abilities. In fact, there has never been
a book of science written that is Logically Written, until this book.
And it is funny, outright and downright funny that Boole and Jevons started
logic, our modern day logic but did not have the logical brains to even be
in logic for they messed up and screwed up on all 4 of the simple Logic
Connectors--- AND, OR, EQUAL-NOT, IF--> THEN. And every so called logician
after Boole and Jevons like that of Bertrand Russell, Tarski, Carnap,
Wittgenstein, Lowenheim Skolem, Godel, for if you cannot see the mistakes
and errors of Boole and Jevons and fix them; then you are not a logician
but a duped sucker.
So my first persuasion of the Ordering of Methods--- Physics to Pragmatism
to Scientific Method to Logic to Math was by using Occam's Razor of the
concept of "simple" as not a multiplication of assumptions. My second
persuasion is biology Darwin Evolution, and can we say that Evolution tries
to make a species be "perfect to the environment" it lives in? We can pin
"simple" to not multiplying assumptions. Can we pin "perfect" to biology
evolution of making the "Fittest Fit"???? I think we are allowed that
concession.
So working backwards from Math all the way up to Pragmatism and finally
Physics. I was attempting to mathematize the Darwin Evolution theory
starting 1972 and finally accomplished the task by late 1990 with the Atom
Totality theory. That is a span of 18 years. For the Atom Totality theory
tells us the Darwin Evolution theory is mathematically that of the Bell
Inequality mathematics which John Bell, himself describes as
"superdeterminism", a world in which we are fated to do what we do and
become what we become and has no room for probability. So Mathematics is
where probability theory was borne and lies in, but mathematics has only
probability theory to give to Darwin Evolution. We go to Logic next and it
is a tiny bit better than mathematics in relating to Darwin Evolution for
Logic finds the 4 variables listed previously as consistent. The 4
variables of (1) mutation, (2) genetic recombination, (3) differential
reproductive success (which is a definition of natural selection) and (4)
reproductive isolation such as geographic isolation.
Then we come to Scientific Method but it is extremely difficult to run
Darwin Evolution into a experiment, where our best approach is observation.
However the Scientific Method also looks at Bell's Inequality and what is
called "superdeterminism" and modern day novices like to call "Quantum
Entanglement". In fact, recently, NOVA showed a entire program on Quantum
Entanglement by astronomers.
Quantum Entanglement is bizarre but true science. In the experiment two
starting out Light Waves are entangled with one another from the same
source, then split apart where one goes to one side of the cosmos and the
other to the other side of the cosmos. Now, we play around with one of
those Light Waves by doing something upon it. And the question then is
raised, what about the other Light Wave??? Has changing one of the Light
Waves affected the other Light Wave even though it is far far away and
separate of one another. Experiments have shown that by changing one of the
Light Waves, causes a change in the other Light Wave. One way for Logic to
answer this conundrum is that Light Waves are in a closed loop circuit with
the source and so changes in one wave naturally changes the other Light
Wave in the same closed loop circuit. Quantum Entanglement is best seen as
"superdeterminism" the absence of "free-will", and so, how can you even
have Darwin Evolution in a Cosmos that has no free-will and hence no
probability for biological evolution????
So by the time we reach Scientific Method, we have experiments to tell us
the truth.
Then we reach Pragmatism and there the Truth is what works and works in the
long run. Pragmatism looks at Observations of Darwin Evolution and compares
with Quantum Entanglement. The Darwin evolution does not work but the
Quantum-Entanglement (superdeterminism) does work. Now we reach Physics and
Quantum Entanglement is a crowning achievement of modern day physics.
So when we analyze the 5 Methods from Occam's Razor the razor is plentiful
in Physics but almost absent in Mathematics. When we analyze the 5 Methods
by Darwin Evolution, the entire department of mathematics of Probability
theory is in action with Evolution but as we go up to Scientific Method,
Pragmatism, and finally Physics, we see a take-over of Darwin Evolution by
Superdeterminism.
AP, King of Science and Logic
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 7, 2025, 12:53:25 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Experiment is to a Physicist what Proof is to a Mathematician and what
Persuasion is to a Pragmatist
I thought I knew Pragmatism inside and out but am lacking of a word to
describe the convincing and persuading of someone of the truth. "Argument"
sounds too argumentative. Proof is too strong, and experiment is out of the
question. So unless I can find a better term for convincing another of the
truth, I will use the term "Persuasion" in Pragmatism.
So I have this order.
1) Physics and Experiment is the convincer
2) Pragmatism and Experimental Persuasion is the convincer
3) Scientific Method Experiment Results is the convincer
4) Logic Method and syllogism proof is the convincer
5) Math Method and proof is the convincer
So I went through these 5 Methods with Occam's Razor and Physics is
top-heavy in Occam's Razor while math is almost barren of Occam's razor
save for the fact that probability theory rests in the house of mathematics.
Then I went through these 5 Methods with biology Darwin's theory of
evolution. Math and Logic are decidely for or pro Darwin Evolution while
Scientific Method starts to split off from Evolution and instead install
Quantum Entanglement--Superdeterminism. And then Pragmatism with its Truth
is what works, adopts Superdeterminism and then Physics is all pro for
Quantum Entanglement- Superdeterminism.
Occam's Razor is about the concept of "simple" which can be construed as
that of "do not multiply assumptions".
What is Darwin's Biological Evolution? Can we construe Biological Evolution
as "creating a perfect plant or animal for the environment it lives in" ???
Let us say that Biological Evolution is a mechanism for creating a perfect
creature for the environment it finds itself.
And with that idea of "perfect" what can we say is perfect in physics and
what is perfect in the opposite spectrum-- mathematics???
In Physics the "perpetual motion" is a perfect mechanism in the muon
speeding around the proton torus to create electricity is a perfect
machine. Another perfection in Physics is the speed of Light Waves with no
rest mass that they forever travel at the constant fastest speed possible--
the speed of Light. That is perfection. So the Perpetual Motion of muon
inside a proton torus and the Speed of Light Waves are two items of
Perfection.
How about perfection in Math and Logic?? Or in Scientific Method and
Pragmatism???
In Math and Logic, there is no perfection because both Math and Logic have
to start with Axioms or assumptions which people agree upon and have no
persuasion other than being accepted as true. So the proof in math and the
syllogism (proof) in Logic all rest upon acceptance of axioms and
principles. So there is no "perfection" in math or logic. How about
Scientific Method? Here we have experiments which do reveal perfect speed
of Light Waves and perpetual motion of muons circling around inside proton
torus. Pragmatism accepts these experiments and hails them as "truth is
what works".
AP
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 7, 2025, 2:31:31 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, I have hit a gold mine here in my research, and is filled with joy
and happiness.
Let me explain slowly for I have the impulse of blurting it all out at once.
I used Two Ideas to test for Logical Order of that of Physics, Pragmatism,
Scientific Method, Logic, Mathematics. I used Occam's Razor and I used
secondly the Darwin theory of biological evolution to arrive at that order,
placing Physics first and Math as fifth or last.
Occam's Razor as this--- the most simple explanation is often the true
explanation for an event that has happened. That can be stated as --- do
not multiply assumptions when a few assumptions explains the event that
happened. And furthermore that can be reduced to the Physics principle of
Least Action. The motion of a particle in physics is always of Least
Action. Occam's Razor is Physics Least Action.
Now we look at mathematics where we look for --- Do Not Multiply
Assumptions.
And if I recall correctly, that Geometry alone in mathematics has 30
Axioms. Axioms such as "Two Points determine a Line" is fine. But there are
axioms in math that between any two points is an endless number of new
points to satisfy their definition of Reals-irrationals-rationals.
What I am saying in short--- Mathematics with its 30+ Axioms are Occam's
Razor bristling to the teeth in over-multiplication of assumptions.
Physics has 0 assumptions and its proofs are experiments
Mathematics has 30+ assumptions in every proof, and many of those 30+
assumptions are contradictory towards one another.
Ironic, that Physics is the most reliable truth teller, while math is the
least reliable truth teller. And this is plain to see, that in Physics
history, starting with year 1900 of Max Planck in Germany with blackbody
radiation realized that Physics was Quantized. Meaning that Physics was
discrete with holes in between one number and the next number. While in
year 1900 and beyond, math was deeply in a cesspool sewer of Continuous and
continuity, never able to rise above their cesspool that numbers of math
have to be Discrete as well as physics being discrete.
The assumptions in Physics--- is 0, zero for physics relies on Experiments
that are repeatable.
The assumptions in Math--- is at least 30+ for geometry and probably 30
more for algebra making 60+ assumptions. This reliance on assumptions
(called axioms) leaves math wide open to being fraud and full of error.
Now I have to go back to each description of the 5 Methods and update their
characteristics and features. And I can then easily see by just the amount
of Assumptions used in each Method places them in a specific order.
AP, King of Science & Logic
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 8, 2025, 1:05:06 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Looking in Eves & Newsom 1958, An Introduction to the Foundations and
Fundamental Concepts of Mathematics lists on pages 32-34 that of Geometry's
Euclid 23 definitions with 5 postulates (axioms) and 5 common notions for a
total of 33 assumptions.
Then looking at Harold Jacobs, 1987, GEOMETRY starting at page 647 through
653 lists 15 postulates and I am sure that there would be many more
definitions than what Euclid had of his 23.
So to say that modern geometry definitions plus postulates would easily
amount to over 50 would be considered as 50 assumptions.
After page 34 Eves & Newsom talk about errors in the Euclid axioms. But
glancing down the list of 33 assumptions by Euclid can spot numerous
errors. For example in the first definition of a point is that which has no
part. Is not true in math when we reach the infinity borderline of
1*10^-604 we can still go out to 1*10^-1208 rendering a geometry point of
some length, width, and depth.
Then there are no definitions or postulates in Euclid saying that empty
space exists between one point and the next point. And Euclid's 5th "common
notions" of "The whole is greater than the parts". Is questionable in
Quantum Mechanics of particle to wave duality, and even the Atom Totality
Universe containing atoms inside itself.
So if Geometry needs 50 assumptions, composed of definitions, postulates
and axioms, it is a safe bet that Algebra and Numbers need 50 assumptions
and that the whole of mathematics operates on at minimum 100 assumptions.
Just the nightmare situation of Occam's Razor that the science with as few
of assumptions is the prefered science. Physics operates solely on
Experiment and not any assumptions.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 8, 2025, 1:36:45 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, so, let me revise the 5 Methods from the insight that Mathematics
postulates and definitions increase the chances of error in mathematics as
they agree to postulates that may totally be fantasy and fiction and not
reality. A classic case of mathematics chugging along on 100 assumptions
which is exactly what Occam's Razor is opposed to.
Physics Method
1) Physics runs on Experimental-proof as its modus operandi.
2) Atomic theory, started in Ancient Greek times-- Leucippus, Democritus,
Epicurus, Titus Lucretius Carus and others.
3) All is Atom, and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism, by AP
1990.
4) All matter is made up of one of the 114 Chemical Elements of the
Periodic Table, and the Universe itself is matter hence it is one of the
114 Elements and plutonium fits all the special numbers of physics and math
the best fit.
5) Sun and stars shine from Faraday Law for everything is nothing but
electricity and magnetism in the Laws of Electromagnetism. For the true
electron of atoms is the muon and not the 0.5MeV particle which is Dirac's
magnetic monopole. The Muon is stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the
Faraday law with proton torus where the muon is going around inside the
proton torus at nearly the speed of light producing maximum electricity.
6) Our Sun has gone into Red Giant phase and unless we move out to Europa,
a satellite of Jupiter, all of life on Earth goes extinct and into oblivion.
7) Overwhelming evidence that Sun shines from Faraday law not fusion is
accelerated ice-cap melt and that NASA recorded a 0.005% yearly increase in
Solar radiation in the decade of 2010 to 2020 and where 25% of all insect
biomass on Earth perished in that decade. Insects and plants have the
highest response to a ever increasing Sun gone Red Giant phase.
8) AP reckons we have a window of opportunity to make Europa our new home
in the next 1,000 years by cargo hauling all we need to start a permanent
colony by spaceships powered by lithium ion batteries (drone like spaceship
launched from North-Pole-Greenland to take advantage of Earth's Magnetic
Field lines of force) and then powered by ion thrusters in travelling to
Europa on the Solar Winds.
9) All of science that we learned and all of human achievements amount to
nothing, if we fail to make a new Earth--- Europa. All science and
knowledge and education and understanding amount to nothing if we go into
oblivion.
10) The Universe in total is an Atom Totality of 231 Plutonium, a big atom
that contains microscopic Atoms. And this Atom Totality has its own
creation process known as Spontaneous Fission, SF. When within the Atom
Totality it forges and creates an Element of 192 it spontaneously fissions
into that new Element 96 Atom Totality.
11) The purpose of Life in any Atom Totality, is to make nucleosynthesis
for spontaneous fission. If humanity makes it to Europa to establish a new
Earth, a new home, then there we can look forward to do nucleosynthesis in
creating Element 192 which spontaneously fissions to make the new Atom
Totality Universe. I am not sure if the life that creates the next Universe
Atom Totality lives through the SF creation. I am sure that the purpose of
Life is to do nucleosynthesis for which stars cannot do that
nucleosynthesis.
Method of Pragmatism
(1) Is a Language of Action to do Experiments for the Scientific Method.
One can say that Pragmatism is the common language to conduct a experiment
of science.
(2) Reality for a Pragmatist-- observations, facts and data, definitions
and concepts-ideas.
(3) Life for a pragmatist is a long unending sequence of problem solving.
Only way to escape this guantlet is death.
(4) Ideas and the Meaning of those Ideas, for pragmatist are tools,
instruments, weapons for purposeful future action.
(5) Action in life for a pragmatist is important for it is action that
leads to change and leads to understanding and knowledge. Action and
Curiosity are intermingled. Action to a pragmatist is what motion is to a
physicist.
(6) Truth is what _works_ and works in the long run. Truth for the
Pragmatist is boiled down to be a "Law of Physics or Science". Because it
is science laws that work in the long run. So when we speak about truth in
the world, we are really talking about laws of science.
(7) Knowledge and Education is in the _doing_ the hands on Experience. For
a Pragmatist, that boils down to science in the - Experiment. Sitting in
school at desk and reading then being tested is education but not as good
of an education is actual hands on living what the book talks about.
(8) Happiness comes when one has __order and organization__ in life.
(9) Wisdom is having insight into what actions likely produce desired
results.
Scientific Method of the sciences other than Physics:
1) Observation and Ask a Question
2) Do Background Research
3) Construct a Hypothesis
4) Test your Hypothesis by doing a Experiment
5) Analyze your data
6) Interpret the data and draw a Conclusion
7) Communicate and publish your results
8) Retest the Experiment and Conclusion
Logic Method
1) Is a Language of statements and forming deductions from those statements
called syllogisms. Logic is the deduction framework used by mathematics
called proofs. Logic has two major purposes of precision statements and of
consistency of statements.
2) Asking questions-- if not of others then questioning yourself. Wanting
answers.
3) Being accurate and precise, which usually means well-defining ideas.
4) Being focused and concentrating energy on projects. Not scatterbrained.
5) Thorough and complete.
6) Step-wise deductions leading to conclusions.
7) Able in mathematics and science, to always give a number size to the
project or program or space you are working in.
8) Seeking patterns and the structure of Nature.
9) No contradictions allowed, but only Consistency allowed.
10) Arriving at answers and those answers consistent with known facts and
allowing answers to other problems outside our project.
Method of Mathematics
1) Is a Language of numbers and geometry for the purpose of precision.
2) Many assumptions are made in mathematics of about 50 for geometry of
definitions and postulates (axioms) and about 50 for algebra and numbers.
3) True numbers forming a algebra and true geometry forming shapes and
figures.
4) Precision and accuracy, the hallmarks of mathematics.
5) Axioms and principles that are not proven but accepted.
6) Operators of mathematics the most simple of which are add, subtract,
multiply, divide, integral, derivative.
7) Step wise deductions of logic to form proofs called theorems.
8) No contradictions ever allowed.
9) Internal consistency of definitions and theorems.
10) All true theorems are able to connect with other theorems of math and
do not exist in isolation.
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 8, 2025, 1:23:09 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Thursday, May 8, 2025 at 1:05:06 AM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Looking in Eves & Newsom 1958, An Introduction to the Foundations and
Fundamental Concepts of Mathematics lists on pages 32-34 that of Geometry's
Euclid 23 definitions with 5 postulates (axioms) and 5 common notions for a
total of 33 assumptions.
There is an interesting discussion on page 38 where Eves & Newsom berate
Euclid's postulates (axioms) in contending that the 2 intersecting circles
actually gives the point C to form the Equilateral Triangle ABC. And the
authors say that some form of "continuity axiom" is needed.
And on an earlier page of Eves & Newsom it appears that Aristotle should be
credited with Occam's Razor and not the 14th century theologian William of
Ockham.
--- quoting Eves & Newsom---
We observe that the first principles of Euclid's Elements fit quite well
the Aristotelian account of definitions, postulates, and axioms as given in
the previous section. It would also seem that Euclid strove to keep his
list of postulates and axioms to an irreducible minimum. This economy, too,
is in keeping with Aristotle's views, for in his Analytica posteriora he
says, "other things being equal, that proof is the better which proceeds
from the fewer postulates, or hypotheses, or propositions."
--- end quoting Eves & Newsom---
AP writes: I can just picture William of Ockham having to study Euclid
geometry and having to study Aristotle also, and coming across the idea
that "we must not multiply assumptions and that the proof with fewest
assumptions is to be prefered. And so Ockham is given the credit for the
Razor when in fact Aristotle originated the idea.
AP writes: So, well, how does Discrete Geometry answer the vexing question
of point C of two intersecting circles producing a Equilateral
Triangle????? And here we come into the idea, perhaps for the first time,
that mathematics and logic are poor and rusty in establishing truth in
science, being burdened with over 100 assumptions and asked to create and
place some more assumptions to prove C exists. And here is where going up
the ladder of Methods to Scientific Method then Pragmatism then Physics do
we straighten out the question posed by Eves & Newsom of point C in two
intersecting circles. For the method of Logic and Math seem to stall and
give out. For logic and math are not experimental sciences but Scientific
Method, Pragmatism, Physics are experimental sciences.
You see, ever since Aristotle onwards we have come to view mathematics,
unrightfully, as superior truth to science. We have come to view the math
deduction proof as superior to a science experiment when in reality, it is
the Math proof that is shaky and flimsy compared to the science experiment
that is well interpreted and well checked. And the reason for this
superiority of Science over Math and even Logic, is that, Physics seeks
truth and carries no assumptions what so ever, while Math and Logic carry
at least 100 assumptions on every adventure that math and logic take.
So, well Eves and Newsom on page 38 with their berating of point C is
unjustified, and how would Scientific Method, Pragmatism, and Physics
easily solve that question, and not have to go into some stultifying
obnoxious and painful quest into point intersection and continuity when
Discrete Geometry rules the world???? And the answer is cool cool simple
cool. Everytime the Ancient Greeks picked up a compass and ruler they were
physicists, pragmatists and scientists as doing a experiment and saw that
if the two circles intersected in one point that the centers of circles
were 2 radius apart, and if they shortened that, the two circles intersect
in 2 points, one being C.
We have looked upon mathematics ever since Euclid as almost being a
religion of truth and the math proof as some holy religion affair, when in
fact, math and logic saddled with over 100 assumptions, many of which are
very dirty and wrong, that the results of math are never as clean as the
results of science with their Experimental proof.
Then looking at Harold Jacobs, 1987, GEOMETRY starting at page 647 through
653 lists 15 postulates and I am sure that there would be many more
definitions than what Euclid had of his 23.
Now, that I have blasted Eves and Newsom with some illogic on their part---
by the way I was looking through Eves and Newsom and spotted a passage
where they say "any two distinct points....." and tried unsuccessfully to
find that passage in Eves and Newsom. For the moment that any scientist
writes "given any two distinct points..." rather than simply saying "given
any two points", is a failure of Logic and should start over with Logic 1,
before reading Logic 2. For if one says, given any two points, you never
need to add "distinct", because when you say given any 2 points, they are
automatically distinct, else the points are one and the same, and there is
no need to have to elaborate. I bring this up because there is a Canadian
stupid loser of logic as shown in sci.math with his failure of logic.
Whenever I see a logician or mathematician rant and rave on insisting to
include "two distinct points", signals to me that they are a complete
failure of math and logic at the get go.
Here is an example of Dan Christensen fumbling with the most simple of
logic reasoning, and yet Canada keeps allowing this misfit to dig deeper
into logic.
The stupid Dan Christensen always chokes up when it comes to logic or even
just plain commonsense with his 2 OR 1 = 3 and his AND as subtraction.
On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:08:09 AM UTC-6, Peter Percival wrote:
> Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:47:32 AM UTC-5, Archimedes
Plutonium wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 8:27:19 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen
wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:16:52 AM UTC-5, Archimedes
Plutonium wrote:
> >>>> PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of
logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra,
Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector
> >>>>
> >>>> The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any
two points lies a third new point.
> >>>
> >>> The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points."
> >>>
> >>
> >> What a monsterous fool you are
> >>
> >
> > OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it.
>
> And yet Mr Plutonium is right. Two points are distinct (else they would
> be one) and it is not necessary to say so.
>
Now I wanted to talk about Harold Jacobs textbook GEOMETRY page 551 and 552
on Cavalieri Postulate with respect to the fact that only AP of all living
mathematicians sees and admits that slant cut of cone is Oval, never
ellipse and that the entire rest of the mathematicians on Earth today, are
failures of math as they cannot admit the truth, --- slant cut of cone is
oval, not ellipse for you need a cylinder slant cut to deliver a ellipse.
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 8, 2025, 1:46:33 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Thursday, May 8, 2025 at 1:23:09 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(massively snipped)
Now I wanted to talk about Harold Jacobs textbook GEOMETRY page 551 and 552
on Cavalieri Postulate with respect to the fact that only AP of all living
mathematicians sees and admits that slant cut of cone is Oval, never
ellipse and that the entire rest of the mathematicians on Earth today, are
failures of math as they cannot admit the truth, --- slant cut of cone is
oval, not ellipse for you need a cylinder slant cut to deliver a ellipse.
I am going to use the Cavalieri Postulate as shown in Harold Jabobs book
slicing parallel planes into Cones and into Cylinders, with the end result
being that the Cavalieri Postulate is all wrong and scientific idiots like
Jimmy Wales, his band of fascist editors at Wikipedia and all math
professors who refuse to admit the truth--- slant cut of Cone is Oval,
never ellipse.
--- quoting Wikipedia on Conic Section, for Jimmy Wales with his fascist
editors never allow the truth of science into any of their entries of
science in Wikipedia, not even a simple geometry of slant cut of cone is
Oval, never ellipse---
The black boundaries of the colored regions are conic sections. Not shown
is the other half of the hyperbola, which is on the unshown other half of
the double cone.
--- end quoting Wikipedia on Conic Section---
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 8, 2025, 3:35:21 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright I reached the midpoint of this book and surpassed it and now on the
downslope side to answering all the questions posed in the first 1/2 of
this book. I surpassed the Logical Ordering of Physics, then Pragmatism,
then Scientific Method, then Logic, then finally Math in last place. I used
what Aristotle had invented and later known as Occam's Razor, that truth
comes best when we do not multiply assumptions. Physics and then Pragmatism
and then Scientific Method have no assumptions and their proof is
Experimental Proof. While Logic and Math require a boatload of assumptions
some 100 or more assumptions that goes into their deductive stepwise proof.
These assumptions are called definitions and postulates and axioms. And if
one of those definitions or postulates are false, then math and logic can
for centuries or milleniums keep building up so called proofs when in
reality they are falsehoods. We see that in history of math where in year
1900 Max Planck proved by Experiment that geometry is discrete and called
it Quantum Mechanics. Yet the buffoons of mathematics throughout the 1900s
kept digging deeper into the insane continuous and continuum as seen by
Paul Cohen with his mind-numbing Continuum Hypothesis.
Science Experiment proof is far far greater in truth value than ever is a
collection of definitions and postulates pushed along in a deductive
stepwise math and logic proof. The ease in which we can take a Experiment
of Science of compass and ruler and have 2 circles intersect in 2 points
and fetch a Equilateral triangle, yet the exasperating pain of math to have
a postulate that the circles in fact intersect at point C in Eves & Newsom.
Science Experiment easily proves slant cut of Cone is Oval, not the ellipse
that math professors propagandize on all college and university campuses,
just because those math professors have no logical marbles in their head,
and why should they for no college or university requires its scientists to
take two years of College Logic with AP's two logic textbooks for Logic 1
and this book Logic 2-- Advanced Logic.
So the experiment AP has talked about for some decade now is the rolling up
of a stiff paper into a cone and drop a Kerr or Mason lid inside and slant
it. You see one end is narrow while the other end crescent is wide---
meaning a Oval. For the slant cut of a cylinder is truly a ellipse. And a
Oval versus ellipse are far far different figures. Easy experiment that a
13 or 14 year old can do and prove slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse.
And to further show the superiority of Experiment Proof over that of Math
and Logic Deductive Proof with its 100 or more assumptions, is the
Cavalieri Postulate shown in Harold Jacobs's GEOMETRY 1987, pages 551 and
552.
Postulate 14
Cavalieri's Principle
Consider two geometric solids and a plane. If every plane parallel to this
plane that intersects one of the solids also intersects the other so that
the resulting cross sections have the same area, then the two solids have
the same volume.
So that here is a second Experiment which shows that either we have true
that of the Cavalieri Principle is true or we have true that the slant cut
is a ellipse of a cone, a conic section.
Obviously to Physics experiment, to Pragmatism experiment to Scientific
Method experiment that the parallel planar cuts into cone and cylinder that
only the cylinder delivers ellipses and the cone delivers only ovals.
The math professors who say ellipse is a Conic section are failures.
We keep the Cavalieri Postulate and throw out the math professors who think
slant cut of cone is ellipse.
AP, King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 8, 2025, 3:52:16 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Now on this 1/2 downslope where I answer all the open questions in the
first 1/2 of this book I need to talk about a new question. And one of the
reasons I am doing 4 books in a row #350 Teaching True Geometry, #351
Teaching True Logic, #352 Teaching True Calculus, and finally #353 Advanced
Logic, is that these 4 books mingle with each other, one helping the others.
In Teaching True Calculus, I present the reader with the world's first
valid proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. And that proof requires
the true numbers of mathematics be discrete in the Decimal Grid Numbers,
which creates what I call "cells" of rectangles on graph paper. So the
function graph is a polynomial function over individual cells.
In the 10 Grid the first cell is from x being 0 to 0.1, and the second cell
is from 0.1 to 0.2, and the y-value can be anything from 0 to 10 value.
And in that proof, a geometry proof, I show where the integral is a
rectangle inside that cell and over all the cells that the function covers.
Polynomials are the only allowed functions and if not a polynomial you must
convert your contraption into a polynomial using Lagrange Interpolation.
But, what I am worried about is the idea that a function can cross a single
cell in a shape where it is not one of these three shapes of ---- straight
across, or / or \.
Can the polynomial function cross a specific cell that is not in the shape
of --- or / or \. Could it say cross through that particular cell in the
shape of a W or a M.
The reason I am concerned about that is because the geometry proof is that
the integral is a rectangle in the cell, and the derivative comes about by
slicing the left wall of the rectangle or the right wall of the rectangle
into being a right triangle that becomes the derivative.
If any function crosses a cell that is in a different shape than ----- or /
or \, then I am in trouble with my proof of Fundamental Theorem of
Calculus. Let me explain further and also give the solution.
AP
May 9, 2025, 12:45:33 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
One of the 4 books in my series of #350 through #353 is a book on True
Calculus, and here I am using Advanced Logic to answer a question I never
answered in the past. I am asking if the Rectangle of the integral is
formed from the Midpoint of going from x = 0.1 to x = 0.2 in 10 Grid which
is 0.15 a point borrowed from 100 Grid. And that what the Polynomial
function graph does at 0.15. Does it do a ---- or a / or a \ but no other
geometry is allowed, in order for the integral and derivative are inverses
of one another. I did not address this problem in any of my prior writings.
And I suspect that Old Math, even though they never had a valid proof of
Fundamental Theorem of Calculus with their stupid limit analysis, that Old
Math had some alleged theorem that harkens back to the idea that the
Midpoint is crucial in each and every cell to form the top side of the
integral rectangle. In other words, in New Math, the midpoint in each cell
forms the top side of a rectangle that is the integral of that cell, and
from the midpoint we slice out a right triangle if upward slope derivative
from the left wall of the rectangle or if a downward slope at the midpoint
we slice out a right triangle from right wall of rectangle, and of course
if the function is flat line like x = 3 then there is no slope.
Even though Old Math was totally wrong on calculus with their fake proof
using limit analysis and their fake numbers of Reals and their mindless
insistence of continuity when discreteness is the true path, in all that
folly, Old Math should have come up with a theorem that bespeaks of the
idea that the integral of each cell is the midpoint forming the top side of
the rectangle area. I believe it is the Intermediate Value Theorem that
harkens back to New Math as the midpoint necessity.
The Intermediate Value Theorem : Suppose that f is continuous on the closed
interval [a,b] and let N be any number between f(a) and f(b), where f(a)
=/= f(b). Then there exists a number c in (a,b) such that f(c) = N.
(Stewart 2003)
Now I look to see Stewart's Old Math proof in his Calculus textbook of FTC
which comes in two parts to see if he needs the Intermediate Value Theorem,
for AP surely needs to know if the midpoint of a cell will garner the
integral rectangle. Looking at Stewart's fake analysis proof, he does use
the Extreme Value Theorem, which in a sense is a form of the Intermediate
Value Theorem.
The Extreme Value Theorem: If f is continuous on a closed interval [a,b],
then f attains an absolute maximum value f(c) and an absolute minimum value
f(d) at some numbers c and d in [a,b]. (Stewart 2003)
So, what I am saying here is that in New Math with a true proof of FTC,
there is the question of a midpoint in every cell of the polynomial
function and that midpoint forms the top side of the Integral rectangle.
And that Old Math, totally in the weeds with their fake calculus should
have some theorems that reflect the true need of a midpoint.
That each and every cell of Calculus in New Math has a midpoint and a
rectangle formed from that midpoint, and that the Function Polynomial
either goes like this ---- through the cell or like this / through the cell
or like this \ through the cell, one of those 3 choices and no other
choice. Here is where I suspect the Polynomial Function forces the function
to well-behave in each cell and not pull off something weird and strange
like doing this in a cell M or doing this in a cell W.
The mathematics of calculus is crucial to physics for the laws of
electromagnetism are laws of differential equations. And so a valid proof
of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, is essential. A geometry proof is
more sought for than a algebra analytic contraption that is "limit
analysis" and any math professor that thinks a limit analysis is a proof of
FTC should be drummed out of mathematics.
To do a valid FTC requires the numbers of mathematics be discrete with
holes and empty space between one number and the next. Requires the
functions of mathematics be only Polynomial functions and that the Graph
coordinate system have 1st Quadrant Only. There are ___ no Negative Numbers
in true math____.
And a proof of FTC tells us what in Old Math is terribly wrong and moronic.
I gave the proof, a geometry proof circa 2015.
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
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
| |
|____|
A
The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
so that it can be hinged at midpoint m, and swiveled down to form rectangle
for integral.
To this:
__m___
| |
| |
| |
---------
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.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 9, 2025, 1:05:31 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
As I said so many times before, Calculus is the pinnacle achievement of
mathematics and is the very most important math that Physics uses, for the
"All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism" Principle
of Physics is completely draped in the Calculus of Differential Equations
for the Laws of Electricity and Magnetism. Physics and Math meet in that of
Calculus.
Yet, Physics in Max Planck 1900 discovered Quantum Mechanics in that year
1900 and realized all of physics is discrete never continuous, yet the
foolish dumb goonclod mathematicians from 1900 to present day May 2025,
those foolish idiots of math still preach continuous, continuity, the
Continuum Hypothesis and every calculus classroom at colleges and
universities with continuity mind rot.
The world's first valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus occurred
when AP posted it to sci.math, sci.physics in 2015, a geometry proof that
looks like this.
Here is a picture of what you have
From this:
B
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
|A |
|____|
a b
The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
so that it can be hinged at m, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
integral. The area of the rectangle is the integral.
To this:
__m__
| |
| |
| |
---------
a b
So, we have two items in Calculus for this theorem, we have a derivative,
the straight line segment A to B with m in the middle. And we have the
rectangle area which we call the integral.
The essentials of Calculus are simply a rectangle in a Cell of Decimal Grid
Numbers along the x-axis and when you carve a right triangle out of that
rectangle right or left wall and swivel the right triangle up onto m the
midpoint the y-value of b becomes B and is the line segment that is the
derivative and forms the next point, after A that the polynomial function
graph intersects in that cell.
What I am exploring here in May 2025, is the need of a theorem before I do
the proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC. Yesterday I noticed
that Old Math with their invalid and stupid FTC using "limit analysis" that
Old Math needed to prove a form of the Intermediate Value Theorem as the
Extreme Value Theorem in order for Old Math phony FTC to become
established. In the same light, it appears that I need to prove that the
points I call "A" then "m" then "B" in the above valid proof of FTC are
__collinear___.
If I can prove that AmB are collinear, then I can prove that the Integral
rectangle is created from the midpoint "m" as the top side of the integral
rectangle.
So here, although Old Math's stupid "limit analysis" phony proof is trash,
it still is of some benefit in guiding me that I need to prove first that
when your true numbers of math are Decimal Grid Numbers that forms a long
chain of Cells along the x-axis, and the only valid function of math is the
Polynomial function which cuts through each Cell and that AmB have to be
collinear. Is to say that--- yes Old Math has a fake proof, but is still
useful as a guide to a true proof of FTC.
AP, King of Science and Logic
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 9, 2025, 1:32:15 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I am not sure, but I think the use of only Polynomial Functions in all of
math as the only valid function in math may save me from having to make a
theorem proof that AmB are collinear, and allow me to make just one solid
FTC proof without any "helper theorems".
Consider this geometry. Below I have drawn in Cell 1.0 to 1.1 for all the
10 Grid cells are 100 cells where each cell is separated by 0.1 distance
apart.
| |
| |
| |
1 1.1
So say we have the Function x^2 which is a polynomial by the way whose
derivative is 2x and integral (1/3)x^3.
So this function y--> x^2 starts at 0 and then meets up with the cell 1 to
1.1. As the function meets x= 1, its y-value which I called A in prior post
is going to be 1^2 = 1, while the function then crosses to meet x=1.1 and
the B value will be 1.1^2 =1.21.
But, the worry and question on the part of AP's mind, is whether the
midpoint of 1 to 1.1 as that of 1.05, whether that midpoint is collinear
with the line segment formed from (1,1) and (1.1, 1.21). For 1.05^2 =1.1025.
Can we picture that 1.1025 in (1.05, 1.1025) is collinear with (1,1) and
(1.1, 1.21).
I think we can in the idea that given any Polynomial Function, you can
divide it by straight line segments and end up with nothing but straight
line segments. In other words Polynomials as the only valid functions in
all of mathematics is because polynomials are nothing but a collection of
Straight Line segments.
I believe it is the idea that the Only Valid Functions in all of
mathematics has to be Polynomials because only they can guarantee "m" the
midpoint in every Cell of Decimal Grid Numbers is collinear with A and B.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 9, 2025, 1:53:30 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So I think and hope that Polynomial Functions as the only valid functions
allows me to proceed directly to the proof of FTC without having to build a
helper theorem in the geometry proof of FTC. Simply show the trapezoid with
derivative and rectangle for integral in a Cell.
But this economy of savings from helper theorems goes even further. In the
idea that the Power Rule in Calculus for Polynomial Functions is one of the
most exquisite and beautiful Rules in all of mathematics for its
simplicity. The Power Rule--- give me any polynomial function and its
derivative is subtract 1 from exponent and its integral is add 1 to
exponent. This was my eternal craving when a youngster of 18-19 years old
sitting in Calculus class at University of Cincinnati 1968-9, please...
please... why not make polynomials the only, the only valid function as to
reduce all of Calculus to this lovely beautiful simplicity of add or
subtract 1 from exponent, and that my textbook Fisher & Ziebur can be
shortened from 768 pages to being just 150 pages, that the Power Rule gives
Calculus.
Why make calculus a torture chamber with vomiting and nightmare when
calculus is really just add or subtract 1 from exponent was going through
the mind of the 19 year old AP in college. Why not make math the very
easiest of all the sciences-- even easier than Paleontology with its
asinine Smilodon of glued on walrus tusks.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 9, 2025, 9:08:32 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So let me examine this example for closer inspection. We have a polynomial
function crossing the 1st Quadrant Only of Y --> x^2. As it crosses x= 1 we
have a y = 1, and as it crosses x= 1.1 in the cell 1 to 1.1 of 10 Grid the
y value becomes 1.21.
On Friday, May 9, 2025 at 1:32:15 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
I am not sure, but I think the use of only Polynomial Functions in all of
math as the only valid function in math may save me from having to make a
theorem proof that AmB are collinear, and allow me to make just one solid
FTC proof without any "helper theorems".
Consider this geometry. Below I have drawn in Cell 1.0 to 1.1 for all the
10 Grid cells are 100 cells where each cell is separated by 0.1 distance
apart.
| |
| |
| |
1 1.1
So say we have the Function x^2 which is a polynomial by the way whose
derivative is 2x and integral (1/3)x^3.
So this function y--> x^2 starts at 0 and then meets up with the cell 1 to
1.1. As the function meets x= 1, its y-value which I called A in prior post
is going to be 1^2 = 1, while the function then crosses to meet x=1.1 and
the B value will be 1.1^2 =1.21.
But, the worry and question on the part of AP's mind, is whether the
midpoint of 1 to 1.1 as that of 1.05, whether that midpoint is collinear
with the line segment formed from (1,1) and (1.1, 1.21). For 1.05^2 =1.1025.
Can we picture that 1.1025 in (1.05, 1.1025) is collinear with (1,1) and
(1.1, 1.21).
I think we can in the idea that given any Polynomial Function, you can
divide it by straight line segments and end up with nothing but straight
line segments. In other words Polynomials as the only valid functions in
all of mathematics is because polynomials are nothing but a collection of
Straight Line segments.
I believe it is the idea that the Only Valid Functions in all of
mathematics has to be Polynomials because only they can guarantee "m" the
midpoint in every Cell of Decimal Grid Numbers is collinear with A and B.
The midpoint of this cell is x= 1.05 which is a number in 100 Grid not 10
Grid so we have some leeway as to y-value.
1.05^2 is 1.1025. We may just take that to be 1.1 since this is the 10 Grid.
So from x= 1, the y-value jumps to 1.21 in 100 Grid or 1.2 in 10 Grid.
So if we construct a rectangle at the coordinate points of (1, 0), (1.1, 0)
(1.1, 1.1) (1, 1.1) keeping everything in 10 Grid, our next question is
what sort of right triangle do we carve out of this rectangle and lift that
right triangle on the midpoint (1.05, 1.1) so that the vertex of right
triangle reaches the point (1.1, 1.2).
It appears to me I need the difference of 1.2 and 1.1 equals 0.1. One of
the legs of the right triangle I carve out of the left wall of that
rectangle (1, 0), (1.1, 0) (1.1, 1.1) (1, 1.1). One of the legs has to
be of length 0.05 and the other leg has to be of length 0.1.
So I do not see anything going wrong, and keeping in mind, i have leeway
since this is 10 Grid and can shorten numbers of the 100 Grid.
Now if I used Y --> x^3 for this example, then x= 1 would have y= 1 but x=
1.1 has y = 1.331 and if I insist on having only 10 Grid that would be 1.3,
and the midpoint 1.05 for Y--> x^3 is 1.157625 and if insisting 10 Grid
only would be 1.1.
And I am thinking ahead to say Y--> x^9 let us say, and would I be able to
carve out a right triangle to span the reach of 1.1^9. The derivative of
x^9 is 9x^8 and the integral is (1/10)x^10, and all of this done in the
name of checking to see if it works.
But I am reassured, for the case of Y--> x^9 the midpoint 1.05 becomes a
large number that builds a large rectangle so as to slice out a sufficient
right triangle to span 1.1^9.
And, well this exercise is all about whether the AP geometry proof of FTC
is workable and no errant behavior goes on that the midpoint cannot
establish a integral rectangle to supply a right-triangle that spans the
next point of the function graph.
And this is a remarkable huge difference between Old Math Calculus and New
Math Calculus for in Old Math Calculus the derivative is seen as a tangent
line to the function graph for any x value imposed. While for New Math
Calculus, the derivative ends up making the very next point of the function
graph as the right triangle vertex becomes that next point. And this is why
Calculus predicts motion in physics, for the derivative lands on the next
spot.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 10, 2025, 12:52:59 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright I am comfortable in using Advanced Logic to say that the midpoint
in each Cell of Calculus will deliver a rectangle top side for integral and
deliver a right triangle cut from either the left or right wall of
rectangle for a up slope or down slope respectively and no slope then the
top side of rectangle is the derivative no slope. I come to this conclusion
from simply example drawings and want to contribute a brand new Axiom or
Postulate to all of Mathematics and to Logic for they do not use the
Experiment Proof Method that Physics, Pragmatism and Scientific Method use
the Experimental Proof Method.
Earlier I talked about how many definitions and postulates (axioms) goes to
making up geometry or math algebra which sent me to the book by Eves &
Newsom and where I figured out that geometry has at least 50 assumptions
and algebra would have 50 at minimum making math have 100 assumptions at
minimum going into any proof in mathematics; the same goes for Logic. While
Physics, Pragmatism, Scientific Method have zero assumptions going into any
of their experiments to proof true in physics or science. The experiment if
done well and interpreting the results well is Experimental Proof and holds
a higher status of truth value than ever does a deduction proof in math or
logic, all because they surround themselves with at least 100 assumptions
in every proof. And as we saw on Max Planck in year 1900 with experimental
proof that Quantum Mechanics--- Discrete Mechanics rules Physics, that
mathematics geometry and algebra should be Discrete and never continuous.
Yet math to this day in May 2025 has the idiocy of continuum and
continuity, which makes it impossible for Old Math to have a valid proof of
Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
In Eves & Newsom's book, 1958, An Introduction to the Foundations and
Fundamental Concepts of Mathematics, the authors discuss on page 38 a
breakdown in the Euclid axioms of missing postulates to be able to prove
two circles intersect in point C to construct a equilateral triangle. The
authors say no Euclid axiom allows for point C to be an intersection point.
And the authors start to discuss that a axiom of continuity is needed.
I do not know if any mathematician has proposed a new Axiom that would
cover this breach in a proof. Maybe Eves and Newsom themselves offered a
axiom to cover the gap.
However, I do know for sure that AP can offer an axiom that would cover the
breach and gap in a proof of equilateral triangle construction.
And this AP axiom or postulate would also answer the question of whether I
need a "helper theorem" in the AP geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of
Calculus.
It is long noted in world history that someone said--- A picture speaks a
thousand words. Is it not a awful shame that all Euclid definitions and
postulates (axioms) are word written objects and none of them are pictures.
So AP offers a new Postulate that will cover the gap of circles
intersection and cover the gap of whether the midpoint in a Calculus cell
will produce the derivative next point from a sliced out right triangle of
the integral rectangle.
The AP Postulate: Whenever possible in a math problem or Proof or Logic
problem or Syllogism, is to get Experimental hands on tools to model the
problem and use the results in the proof itself.
So much of Ancient Greek mathematics was compass and ruler application. In
modern times I use graph paper, pencil, protractor, compass, ruler, plastic
toys, even slinky toys and thousands of tools to aid me in research.
So there is no need for Eves and Newsom and pen a word by word new axiom to
say that two equal circles can intersect in 2 points depending on the
distance from centers. There is no need for a word salad axiom for
continuity when geometry is all discrete.
The Ancient Greeks were so accustomed to using compass and ruler can could
obviously see the circles intersect.
And now in May 2025, AP needs to know if the midpoint in a Calculus Cell
will fetch the derivative endpoint? And I use this very same AP Axiom---
get out the tools and a "Picture speaks a Thousand Words", and the axiom
offers a Experimental Proof, not only for constructing the equilateral
triangle, but proving that the Midpoint of top-side of integral rectangle
will always slice out a correct right triangle from sides of rectangle to
produce the correct derivative.
AP, King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 10, 2025, 1:05:50 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I have often heard it say in classrooms and in books, that the Ancient
Greeks did not want to get their hands dirty in science experiments, but
sit around doing step wise math proofs. As a excuse to why the Greeks could
not find more truths of science.
But I counter that sentiment, by the fact that the Ancient Greeks were
overly reliant on their compass and ruler, which is the Scientific Method
of Experimental Proof.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 10, 2025, 1:25:19 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So you take the compass and draw two equal circles and note that you can
have 1 intersection point and many times with varying distance from centers
have 2 intersection points. And all these observations is good or even
better than word polemic definitions and postulates and should be counted
as much or even higher a status than a word salad definition or postulate.
I just used my AP Axiom-- get out the tools and observe the geometry
situation on that of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
Only Polynomials can be valid functions in all of mathematics. And
Polynomials of exponent 1 are straight lines such as Y --> mx +B the
standard formula of a straight line is a polynomial. And all the other
polynomials behave much like straightlines going through a Calculus Cell,
for the cells get smaller and smaller the higher the Grid is. The 10 Grid
has the largest cells for they are only 0.1 apart, while 100 Grid cell is
0.01 apart for the integral rectangle.
And using the AP Axiom of --- Experimental tools to model a math problem
serves as a truth function.
So we notice that the Midpoint of a Cell makes sure that the rectangle
formed in that Cell has a derivative right-triangle that will fetch the
next point as the function passes through the cell. AP can just invoke his
Axiom as a proof for Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
And the AP Axiom was already used in Ancient Greek times when a Picture
Proof of the Pythagorean Theorem was delivered, no words needed, just look
at two pictures and you can say A^2 + B^2 = C^2.
The same goes for AP's first valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of
Calculus, just like the Pythagorean Theorem can be stated by 2 pictures and
no words needed.
The world's greatest and most important proofs of all in mathematics, need
no words, just several pictures.
AP, King of Science and Logic
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 10, 2025, 11:54:38 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
When I was a 18-19 year old, I was at University of Cincinnati studying
Calculus, and I remember it was a 4 quarter coarse, meaning it was 1 and
1/3 year study. The only science course that took more than 1 year study at
UC. And in those 4 quarters, I still remember quite clearly in my mind were
two nagging questions that really bugged me. But I was there to learn not
start a argument and dispute. The words back then in 1968-9 was "chill out".
The first question was "Wow, I love polynomials because all you need to do
is add or subtract 1 to exponent to obtain the integral or derivative once
you fix the prefix number". And so, using Fisher & Ziebur textbook on
calculus, I awaited every polynomial example problem. I was in tune to
every example of a polynomial, and often Fisher & Ziebur would use a
trigonometry example to much displeasure and disgust on my part, or the
silly step function. So in my young and formative years of 18-19, I fell in
love with the polynomial function and hated to see any other function.
Which served me well some 2015 - 1968 = 47 years later as I make the only
valid function in all of mathematics be Polynomial Functions and any other
contraption like trigonometry must be converted to a polynomial over an
interval by the Lagrange Interpolation before even being admitted into math
consideration.
But there was a 2nd question on my mind in 1968-9 that also nagged me to
pieces and was saved for 47 years later. A second question that I dare not
pursue while 18-19 years old for again, others would say "chill out". And
the question goes like this. I see the function graph of a straightline
like that of Y--> mx +B and no problems with the derivative being "m". But
now I see a function graph of Y--> x^2 or say, x^3. And there I was at UC
in Calculus class, knowing the definition of derivative was dy/dx and
seeing the graph of x^2, and even worse x^3 where the function graph is
slow to rise near zero, but then at 2 or beyond 2 see that function rise
dramatically, and my mind says to me "Are you sure the derivative can
remember 2x for x^2 and remember 3x^2 for x^3 throught the range of those
two functions for both start out slowly in the graph and rise sharply once
they are beyond 2.
Somehow, my young mind was repulsed by the idea that derivative was dy/dx
and that functions like x^2 can remember to be 2x or worse yet x^3 can
remember to be 3x^2 throughout its graph. This second question that hung
with me for 47 years was also answered by me in 2015 and would overturn all
of Old Math calculus and expose it as phony baloney.
What preserves the 2x as derivative of x^2 and preserves the 3x^2 to be the
derivative of x^3 especially starting out near 0 and then 1, until finally
at 2 start to rise sharply, yet the derivative is defined as dy/dx. What
preserves the derivative even though is has different rates of rising
through its range, is that the dy/dx derivative is not a tangent line to
the graph at a point of the graph, no, that is for fools. Instead, what the
derivative as defined by dy/dx truly is, is a lifting of a right triangle
carved out of the side of the integral rectangle and swiveled from the
midpoint of top side of integral rectangle so that the vertex of this right
triangle then lands on to a point of the cell where the function graph says
it will land upon. This is why calculus is so Predictive of a math. given A
of the cell, we know the integral rectangle, and the derivative predicts
where B on y-axis will land.
The fools of Old Math thought the derivative is a tangent line to the
function graph at point B. The truth and reality, is that the derivative
forms point B and the derivative forms the point on the y-axis as the
function graph exits the Cell.
Here is a picture of what you have
From this, or the reverse:
B
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
|A |
|____|
a b
The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
so that it can be hinged at m, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
integral. The area of the rectangle is the integral.
To this or the reverse:
__m__
| |
| |
| |
---------
a b
So, we have two items in Calculus for this theorem, we have a derivative,
the straight line segment A to B with m in the middle. And we have the
rectangle area which we call the integral.
So at UC, I was taught the derivative is dy/dx, which is all well and true,
but I was taught the phony decayed calculus that the derivative is a
tangent line to the function graph-- no, no, hell no, for the Derivative is
a right triangle whose vertex point at B from midpoint of integral
rectangle is part of the function graph itself. This is why Calculus is
essential for physics, for it predicts B, given A.
No wonder that the derivative of x^2 as that of 2x or x^3 as 3x^2 can
maintain its true value even though the graph is slow from 0 to 2 and then
really rises fast. Because the derivative was Never a Tangent to the
Function Graph but was the actual machine in producing point B, given point
A.
So yes, yes, yes, to AP's new Axiom to include in all mathematics of both
Algebra and Geometry.
AP's Axiom that is missing in Euclid and modern day mathematics. For AP's
axiom would have saved the Eves & Newsom problem of producing the
equilateral triangle by two circles. And would have saved the muddle headed
invention of the mindless "limit analysis" with its attendent idiocy of a
derivative as a tangent line to function graph.
AP Axiom:: Whenever possible, get out hands on tools and model the math you
are working on and see for yourself, if the ideas match up to the hands on
model. In the case of equilateral triangle, yes the model shows two points
of intersection with the two circles. In the case of Calculus derivative,
yes the model shows that throughout the range of Y-->x^2 or to x^3 in 1st
Quadrant Only, that although the 2x derivative or 3x^2 derivative start out
slowly from 0 to 2 and rise sharply beyond 2, in fact beyond 1, is because
the derivative is a mechanism that given A, finds B, and is ___not a
tangent line to function graph___.
All modern day math professors, it would behoove them all to use AP Axiom
in every one of their proof or attempted proof.
AP, King of Science & Logic
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 10, 2025, 12:47:58 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Now to be truly honest, as a 18-19 year old at UC studying calculus from
Fisher & Ziebur, I never understood their proof of Fundamental Theorem of
Calculus. I must have read it 10 times and given up.
Reflecting on that experience now, some 47 years later, that is to be
expected. It is expected of any "phony science" that it is not
understandable for it is not true, and is a piece of garbage. And those who
think they know it, have it memorized. They memorized a mistake.
And we can see this phony calculus from comparing Stewart with Apostol,
with Strang, with Fisher & Ziebur, with Ellis & Gulick, with Stillwell. We
compare their Fundamental Theorem of Calculus FTC and their mindless notion
that the derivative is a Tangent line to function graph at a point B, or
their mindless chatter of what derivative and integral are.
Notice that in the proof of FTC Stewart uses Extreme Value Theorem once in
his 2 part proof, while Fisher & Ziebur and Strang use Mean Value theorem,
and Strang uses it more than once. The reason for this variance is because
Calculus is geometry, and requires a geometry proof, not some tongue tied
phony baloney limit analysis. Both the Reader and I, almost every day we
get out of bed, analyze ten to a hundred items-- what is the weather, what
is the breakfast food. We are not proving anything in analysis, no, we
simply are analyzing to proceed forward in the day. Yet math professors of
calculus never take Logic in school, the majority of them, and so they are
easily duped into thinking that by analyzing something is the same as
proving something.
The reason Stewart uses Extreme Value Theorem and Squeeze theorem in his
part 1 FTC while Strang uses Mean Value Theorem in both parts of FTC, is
because neither has a valid proof of FTC, just some jumbo dumbo talkity
talk analysis. Apostol does his FTC in two parts and chases after
derivative as Tangent lines to function graph, and Apostol writes "Although
these facts may seem geometrically evident when we examine a particular
case, analytic proofs require a deeper investigation of the concept of
continuity."
In other words, Apostol has no proof, just analytic what the poet Lewis
Carrol calls Jabberwocky. For it is impossible to have a proof of FTC when
your dumb mind thinks the derivative is a tangent line to the function
graph at point B, when in reality, the derivative is the actual production
of point B, given point A.
But AP cannot help but think and feel that the entire math enterprise
starting year 1900 when Max Planck found that physics is Discrete and not
continuous, yet the entire flock and herd of fools of math digging ever
deeper and more stupid continuity and continuum. One has to wonder how math
could have gotten anything correct in that century of continuity insanity.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 10, 2025, 1:52:36 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Logic and Math are never served well when they are under a fashion, a
craze, a fad and fetish that was continuity and continuum. When Max Planck
started Quantum Mechanics in year 1900, then math and logic should have
stood up and payed attention and made an effort to bring Discrete into
logic and math. This is the major lesson of logic to learn from the folly
of math. Instead, under Cohen the math community went into deeper and
deeper continuity insanity. The math community throughout the century of
1900s learning absolutely nothing from the Quantum Mechanics revolution
going on in physics. Math had become a cult in the 1900s.
And yet, AP's Axiom if discovered in year 1900 would have saved the math
community of its 100 years of continuity insanity.
If all math professors when doing the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus were
forced to make a drawing picture of the proof, that they would have
stumbled quickly on the idea that integral was rectangle and from that
rectangle you need to get to another point, B, from point A in a cell.
Someone would have enough brains in math to carve a right triangle out of
either the left wall or right wall of integral rectangle, lift it up at the
midpoint and where the right triangle vertex lands on point B.
But in a century where colleges and universities across the world assume
that math students vying to become math professors have already Logical
brains and need no training in logic to think straight or think clearly was
a grave mistake. As math professors memorize the error ridden Old Math
calculus where the fools thought a derivative is a tangent line to function
graph at a point B, when no, the derivative is the actual mechanism that
produces point B of the function graph.
So that Colleges and Universities throughout the world were producing math
professors, none of whom could think straight and think clearly for none
had even a foggy notion of Logical thinking, they all memorized a
Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, a invalid proof. They went through college
in memorization mode, not in clear logical thinking mode.
No wonder you have Max Planck in 1900 steer Physics to the truth of the
world--- it is discrete, not continuous. While the morons of math dig ever
deeper holes of continuum.
But there is a caution to the story. For the founders of modern logic--
Boole and Jevons with the The Laws of Thought 1854 which has all the 4 most
simple connectors of Logic-- Equal-Not, AND, OR, IF->Then, that Boole and
Jevons got all 4 of this simple connectors truth tables wrong.
So the question then becomes, what worth or value would it have been to
send all students vying to be scientists off to college logic classrooms
when Logic textbooks have their connectors filled with errors??? Here is
the case of the founders of modern logic --- Boole and Jevons, had no
logical brains to be founding modern logic, and may, I say may have been
better off if they never wrote anything on logic, leaving it up to AP
starting 1991 to correct those 4 logic connectors. For Boole and Jevons end
up having AND as subtraction with their truth table of TFFF. They end up
with two types of OR, when anyone with a logical brain knows that the 4
connectors cannot have variances, but be singular and monolithic. They have
Equal and Not as truth tables of 2 values and the other three connectors as
tables of 4 values, not having the logical intelligence to combine Equal
and Not together to make it a truth table of 4 values. They were ignorant
of logic in not realizing that If--> Then needed a truth table to allow for
"unknown" instead of just true and false, to serve in the case of
mathematics where 0 divided into a number is unknown or undefined.
No, so the founding fathers of modern logic, Boole and Jevons had no
logical brains to be founding Logic in the first place. At best, what can
be said of Boole and Jevons is not that they founded modern logic for they
had no logical brains to do that, but that they pushed the science of
logic-- the science of think straight and think clearly forward enough to
start to have Logic as a science.
AP remedies the situation of having no textbooks worthy of using in college
and universities by AP's #351 book Teaching True Logic and #353 Advanced
Logic.
AP is the founder of Modern Logic, not Boole and Jevons. Boole and Jevons
called for the need of having a Modern Logic, but never gave us what Modern
Logic actually is.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 13, 2025, 3:33:31 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Construct Equilateral Triangle Using the AP Axiom as quoted from Eves &
Newsom and then from Jacobs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On page 38 of Eves & Newsom, 1958, An Introduction To The Foundations And
Fundamental Concepts Of Mathematics the authors describe the Euclid proof
of construction of equilateral triangle and its missing axiom.
While, on page 2 of Jabobs, 1987, GEOMETRY, describes the same construction
of equilateral triangle but seems to bypass the need to make two equal
circles and the contention of whether C is an intersection point.
I quote both of these proofs as to explicitly show how affective is the AP
Axiom, the missing axiom of Euclid. And apparently missing in our modern
day time as that Jacobs has no axiom to tell Eves and Newsom that C is an
intersection point.
--- quoting Eves & Newsom book page 38---
On a given finite straight line to construct an equilateral triangle.
Fig. 9
Let AB be the given finite straight line.
Thus it is required to construct an equilateral triangle on the straight
line AB.
With center A and distance AB, let the circle BCD be described. [Postulate
3]
.... to be continued....
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
May 13, 2025, 5:07:40 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So now, here, on page 2 of Harold Jacobs GEOMETRY, he constructs a
equilateral triangle with just compass and ruler. A perfect example of the
AP Axiom in action.
And Jacobs is certainly not worried about the two tiny arcs meeting in
point C, for Jacobs does not draw full circles, just two tiny arcs. Yet
Eves and Newsom are terribly worried about whether there is an intersection
at all.
So is the Jacobs application a pure application of the AP Axiom, where we
do not even bother with making a full 2 circles, just tiny arcs.
And what if Jacobs had shown his construction to Eves and Newsom, would
they still have declared Euclid has a missing axiom????
Now Jacobs at the back of his book lists all the Postulates (Axioms) he
uses to prove his theorems. He lists 15 postulates. Scanning through that
list, the only axiom I can see that would assuage Eves and Newsom is
Postulate 13-- The Arc Addition Postulate If C is on AB, then mAC + mCB =
mACB.
Now that postulate in Jacobs may not directly assuage Eves and Newsom but
has the potential to make a theorem that does say that 2 equal circles
sharing the same radius intersect in only 2 points.
But AP asks, why bother with all these Word Salad Postulates when the AP
Axiom-Postulate dismisses all that yakkity yack by simply making a
experimental-model (Jacobs construction) and says it applies to the proof
as the missing axiom.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Aug 21, 2025, 5:29:35 PM (9 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Publish as #367 Advanced Logic and in a writing style easy to make into a
YouTube Lesson.
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Aug 22, 2025, 3:12:52 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
#367 book textbook.
Trouble in the world of Logic education is all the colleges and
universities, never had a professor of logic with a logical mind. For Boole
and Jevons made mistakes in all 4 of the most simple connectors of logic.
Leaving their logic be Error filled.
So, I need to write two textbooks that replace all the error filled junk
Logic books used round the world.
AP, King of Science and Logic
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
6:25 PM (5 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I really need to get these next two books published #366 on Logic and #367
on Advanced Logic. I am I so pressed to publish them??? Because I have been
harping for a decade long harping that all scientists need two years of
college-university classes in Logic to help them think straight and think
clearly.
However there is a catch here. For there exists No Correct Textbook on
Logic to teach to aspiring scientists. All the logic textbooks of the world
have all 4 of the simple connectors to logic all 4 wrong and full of error.
So what is the point in requiring Logic to get a degree in science, if no
logic is clean pure and true.
One could argue logically that if you take logic where the connectors are
false, may damage a science mind more than help it.
AP
zzzzzzzzzz
plutonium dot archimedes at gmail dot com. Looking for a College or
University press to hardcover publish all 367+ AP books of science, likely
to become 500-600 maybe even 700 books by the time I die. E-books are too
prone to unbalanced-unhinged censor-editors, who can easily make your books
vanish by pulling a switch. Science should never have gatekeepers, who
thwart access to true science.
| /
| /
|/______ hardcover or paperback
PAU newsgroup is this.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 8, 2025, 9:55:33 PM12/8/25
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Sep 18, 2025, 9:30:45 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I am going to need to add the SCIENTIFIC METHOD as a large part of this book on Advanced Logic.
In logic, the science of correct language, definitions are important. And we can reduce many concepts to their primal meaning.
For example, geometry is a poor choice of term for what is really "shape".
Number is a poor choice of term for what is really "size".
Subtraction is a poor choice of term for what is really "remove".
Physics is a good choice of a term to describe all sciences and all human thought.
Logic is a poor choice of term for what is really "the scientific method". Math is correcting numbers and geometry. Logic is correcting language and the scientific method is the language of physics.
--- quoting what I wrote in my #365 book Calculus ---
Chapter 1, An introduction of what this book is about.
The AP science book series from #365 through #370 is a series to be used in High School and College and University. For decades now, I have been excoriating the fact that no college or university in the world has a correct teaching program for the subject of Logic. No college or university as of 2025 can teach two years of college Logic with the correct truth tables of the 4 most simple Logic connectors of AND, OR, Equal-Not, If--> then. Every college and university across the world teach Error filled logic of Boole and Jevons for they have all 4 connectors wrong. So, how could AP tell all science majors to take 2 years of college logic, when no college or university on Earth has a correct Logic textbook? This series along with math and physics textbooks is needed. I start with this Calculus textbook for the AP series #365 through #370 are school textbooks that replace error filled textbooks in colleges and universities across the globe of Earth.
#350 Geometry
#365 Calculus
#366 Logic
#367 Advanced Logic
#368 Advanced Geometry
#369 Physics electricity
#370 Plutonium Atom Totality, 10th edition
#371 Improving the Scientific Method
--- end quoting what I wrote in my #365 book Calculus---
AP, King of Science
Oct 8, 2025, 2:13:34 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
This book in large part will be a close examination of Logical Errors made in Physics and other sciences. For the purpose of forcing all scientists to take 2 years of college logic is to help them think better, straight and clear.
As I often keep saying the Primal Axiom of Physics= All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. Let me change the primal axiom to this, which is equivalent but gets rid of the "nothing".
All is Atom, and everything about the Atom is electricity and magnetism. There, that is better. I need to start the Advanced Logic textbook on this principle. It relates to Occam's razor-- the best explanation is usually the true explanation.
Now there is a Logic Principle that many scientists violate almost on a daily basis. It has no name so I call it the AP Definition Principle. Basically what it says is this.
AP Definition Principle
-----------------------------------
When a scientist defines something in science. His/her definition must be stated in more simple term and concepts than what the word the scientist is defining.
To give a example of this principle being violated is super easy to do--- for almost every science term defined in Wikipedia violates this principle.
For example, "charge" in physics as defined by Wikipedia--- Charges correspond to the time-invariant generators that commute with the Hamiltonian. And one of the reasons I keep saying-- every science entry in Wikipedia is either filled with error, or is worthless because some idiot who never knew that you have to define a concept with more simple concepts.
Take a look at Wikipedia's definition of superdeterminism-- "In quantum mechanics, superdeterminism is a loophole in Bell's theorem. By postulating that all systems being measured are correlated with the choices of which measurements to make on them, the assumptions of the theorem are no longer fulfilled."
You see what I mean when I say that the Wikipedia authors of many almost all science entries are happy to work for free for they failed science in school and feel that by writing a entry in Wikipedia exonerates their failure of science. Revenge of the failure nerds of science-- as they emblazon Wikipedia with cesspool science.
So that AP would follow his Principle of defining by saying this of Superdeterminism--- The absence of any free-will, where all actions and thoughts are programmed by the Cosmos and where a human is a complete puppet of the cosmos.
You see, AP defines Superdeterminism so that the reader can understand what it is, from more simple terms and concepts. Unlike the fool at Wikipedia who authored superdeterminism for there you have to look up what Bell's theorem is.
You violate AP's definition, when force the reader to have to look up this that and everything else.
Wikipedia's charge forces you to look up what the hell are time-invariant generators, what the hell is commute with Hamiltonian.
AP is looking to define "Charge" as being simply "pressure". And defining Voltage as simply being "energy".
When you define something--- anything in science--- means the right side of the equation has to have all more simple terms then the left side like this Charge = pressure.
Now let me see if Asimov, one of my favorite science writers passed or failed on "charge". In Asimov's The History of Physics 1966, page 397 he writes: ".... produced such attractive forces when rubbed... A substance showing such an attractive force was said to be electrified or to have gained an electric charge."
AP writes: well, Asimov did not violate the AP Definition Principle, for his definition is clear enough. The only trouble with it is that it is wrong.
Halliday & Resnick in Fundamentals of Physics, the textbook I used in college to learn physics defines "Charge" as "Charged bodies exert forces on each other."
Actually, they do not really define charge at all, but talk about it as seen in Lightning strikes or walking across a carpet and touching a metal door handle.
And this is one of my greatest complaints of Old Physics, they use "charge" not to elucidate Nature and Physics but use it as a rug, a catch-all, to hide their ignorance of what is going on. Much like people saying that ghosts did it.
Let us check out Feynman in his Lectures on Physics if he does a better job. On page 12-7 he writes: "We shall first discuss electrical force. Objects carry electrical charges which consist simply of electrons or protons."
AP writes: Well Feynman passes the AP Definition Principle for we can understand the terms and concepts he defines charge, but like Halliday & Resnick and Asimov, they are all vague.
What the AP definition of charge is starting to look like is this. Charge is a duality of pressure and force.
Charge = a pressure of units kg/(m*s^2) compared to energy as (kg*m^2)/s^2 as compared to voltage as energy (kg*m^2)/ s^2 where V= iR = (A*s) ((kg*m^2)/ A*s^3) --- a Halliday&Resnick Old Physics mistake, for New Ohm's law is really V = C*B*E and not V=iR.
In New Physics, we cannot have a concept of charge when it is nebulous, ephemeral and used to hide what is truly going on. From all appearances, charge looks to be Pressure and voltage is a form of electrical energy.
AP, King of Science
Oct 22, 2025, 3:59:14 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I am going to write this textbook in a history story telling framework to point out the errors of Logic of scientists in the past.
In my second year of logic at college, University of Cincinnati 1968-1972, I took two years, one in Introduction to Logic and one in Symbolic Logic.
I am proscribing that all scientists to be good scientists need 2 years of logic in University, with the hope that the 2 years will enable them to think better, think straight and think clearly.
Since the world has no error free textbook on Logic but teaches the error filled Logic of Boole & Jevons, I write my #366 book on 1st year logic and now this book #367 as my 2nd year college textbook on Logic.
I will not follow the pattern of Symbolic Logic for 2nd year of logic at University for I deem that not as valuable as teaching where the mistakes were made in the greatest science discoveries of the past.
I will discuss why Rutherford, Bohr, Geiger, Marsden should have logically concluded Atoms have ___no nucleus___ if they had taken Logic in school.
I will discuss that our Sun has gone Red Giant and causing Global Warming with only a small contribution by fossil fuel burning and why we need to make a permanent colony on Europa in the next 1,000 years, by the year 3025.
Why mathematicians are so logically dumb, they still think slant cut of right circular cone is a ellipse when in truth it is a oval.
Teaching a year of Symbolic logic as 2nd year of logic is not as valuable to students as that of teaching where the greatest scientists went wrong in thinking and what logic errors they made.
AP, King of Science
Oct 23, 2025, 4:37:07 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So I am going to have to start thinking of the order and progression of Logical Mistakes made in the history of science to teach Advanced Logic.
Should I start with the error of thinking that Earth was flat and you would fall off if near the edges?? And of course, well, if flat, how would the water stay on Earth and not flow out and flow off of a flat Earth. Of course the logic would ask that every astronomy body seen from Earth is round and almost sphere like, and the mind would then simply ask--- why should Earth be different and flat when all astronomy is round and sphere like.
AP writes: I do not know, if I were living in those ancient past time would I have sided with the Flat Earth people or would I have sided with the people who saw all astronomy bodies be round almost spheres??? Of course, this is why Newton is so much celebrated as he for the first time makes gravity be a force of Nature.
Or should I start with the Atomic Theory, that the Ancient Greek theory included the Democritean Atom as being the whole entire Universe as the chemistry professor Gregory wrote in his history of the Atom.
Book:
--- start quoting A SHORT HISTORY OF ATOMISM by J. Gregory, Univ. Leeds, 1931, page 4 --- The traditional atom, the genuine atom, is both quite indestructible and exceedingly minute. Atoms were indivisible for Leucippus because they were too minute to be divided, and for Democritus because they were too hard to be broken. If sundry traditions are trustworthy, Democritus allowed all sizes to atoms: a single Democritean atom might even be, so some said, as big as the world. The gigantic Democritean atom, if it ever existed, vanished from the atomistic tradition. The subsequent Epicurean atom was too hard to be broken, but it was also too small to be seen, and only thought could discern it. It did not become doubtful, nor even admittedly speculative, for Epicurus was as sure of atoms as if he had seen them with his eyes. --- end quoting A SHORT HISTORY OF ATOMISM by J. Gregory, Univ. Leeds, 1931, page 4 ---
--- start quoting A SHORT HISTORY OF ATOMISM by J. Gregory, Univ. Leeds, 1931, page 4 --- The traditional atom, the genuine atom, is both quite indestructible and exceedingly minute. Atoms were indivisible for Leucippus because they were too minute to be divided, and for Democritus because they were too hard to be broken. If sundry traditions are trustworthy, Democritus allowed all sizes to atoms: a single Democritean atom might even be, so some said, as big as the world. The gigantic Democritean atom, if it ever existed, vanished from the atomistic tradition. The subsequent Epicurean atom was too hard to be broken, but it was also too small to be seen, and only thought could discern it. It did not become doubtful, nor even admittedly speculative, for Epicurus was as sure of atoms as if he had seen them with his eyes. --- end quoting A SHORT HISTORY OF ATOMISM by J. Gregory, Univ. Leeds, 1931, page 4 ---
I think I will do both of those. Starting with Flat Earth.
I should do all the sciences, of at least their major Logical mistakes.
For biology, their major mistake was Darwin Evolution is no longer true as a theory but only as a "rule-- correct to a degree, but not a universal law of science". Darwin Evolution is replaced by quantum mechanics of the Bell Superdeterminism which has another name-- quantum entanglement.
A major mistake in Geology and Biology, is to think the Moon was there all along Earth's 4.5 billion year history. No, the Moon is a
new arrival at only about 100 to 90 million years ago and helped contribute to the bolide meteor strike at the KT dinosaur extinction of 66 million years ago. So here is a huge Logical Error, when you see dinosaurs living on the poles of Earth, means the Moon had not yet arrived.
Another Geology science nonsense is convection currents related to continental drift when in truth it is the motor at the Core of Earth, the two cores acting as a electric motor that creates vibrations and causing continental plates to jiggle and move.
Of course we get to the Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden and then later Bohr unable to realize that if alpha particles bounce back at 180 degrees with a faster speed coming out than entering the gold atom, means that Atoms have ___no nucleus___ instead they have proton torus with muons inside going nearly the speed of light that bounced back the incoming alpha particles. This is a fine example of Logical stupidity.
In our modern present day we have the logical mistake of thinking the Accelerated Global Warming is due to fossil fuel burning. True, a small fraction is due to burning fossil fuels, but 90% of Global Warming is because Sun and stars shine from Faraday law and not from fusion. Every year, our Sun has more atoms and with more atoms more Faraday law yields greater heat energy. Unless we make our way to Europa and establish a permanent colony on Europa-- all life on Earth goes extinct and into oblivion. The only trace that humanity lived will be those Voyager spacecraft in deep space and who knows what their fate will be???
AP, King of Science
Oct 24, 2025, 3:13:50 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Yes, I start this textbook with Flat-Earth theory being debunked by Logic. Here we have Eratosthenes 276BC to 195BC great famous ancient experiment where he measures the circumference of Earth
Measure of Earth's circumference according to Cleomedes's simplified version, based on the approximation that Syene is on the Tropic of Cancerand on the same meridian as Alexandria.
Archimedes 287BC to 212BC was a contemporary of Eratosthenes. Both men were powerhouses in science.
--- quoting Wikipedia---
Measure of Earth's circumference according to Cleomedes's simplified version, based on the approximation that Syene is on the Tropic of Cancerand on the same meridian as Alexandria.--- end quoting Wikipedia---
Oct 24, 2025, 3:25:17 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I read in High School in late 1960s that Galileo could tell the Earth was round by his invention of the telescope, watching ships mast appear in the distant water as it sailed to port and the curvature of Earth, as it slowly appeared.
An image of Thorntonbank Wind Farm (near the Belgian coast) with the lower parts of the more distant towers increasingly hidden by the horizon, demonstrating the curvature of the Earth
Much the same Logic as these windmills in modern times. So instead of Eratosthenes measuring a pole and the distance between two cities. Here we measure the distance between the further windmill from a closer in windmill to get a sense of the curvature of Earth and then find the circumference of Earth.
--- quoting Wikipedia---
An image of Thorntonbank Wind Farm (near the Belgian coast) with the lower parts of the more distant towers increasingly hidden by the horizon, demonstrating the curvature of the Earth--- end quoting Wikipedia---
Oct 24, 2025, 3:59:51 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Electricity and magnetism and gravity are round forces, not flat, and we move from Flat Earth to the Atomic theory and then unto Newton who resolves theoretically the issue of flat Earth, although Eratosthenes resolved it practically in a physics experiment in Ancient Greek times. Galileo solved it in another experiment by watch ships come into view.
But next we move to the Maxwell Equations and their big logical mistake of no symmetry in their equations with their "no magnetic monopoles". If Maxwell had been Logical by throwing out Gauss's law of no magnetic monopoles, I dare say-- we would have had the recognition that any and all forces of Nature were simply EM forces as early as 1861 and would have bypassed the quest of Unification of 4 forces of physics sought for by the 20th century. Lack of Logic by physicists, kept them from 1861 through 2016-17 into thinking that no magnetic monopole exists, when instead every time one observes the 0.5MeV particle misnamed the Atom's electron was instead, indeed the magnetic monopole along with the positron.
Now let me see what the date is for Coulomb and his law was published in 1785 by Coulomb. So that if Maxwell by 1861 had been Logically more bright than he was, would have unified the Coulomb law with Newton's gravity law, noting that they were the same mathematical form-- both inverse squares with distance.
No wonder the AP plea to every college and university across the globe-- demand 2 years of college logic from your prospective students of science, in hopes they will improve on their "thinking straight and thinking clearly". What is the point in being a scientist, if in the end, you miss out the largest portion of your science and wallow in the minutiae details.
AP, King of Science
Oct 24, 2025, 8:45:37 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Yes, in human history, it is safe to say, the first major achievement of Science via the Scientific Method was the experiments to prove if Earth is a flat disc or whether it is round in a globe like all the other bodies of astronomy. Eratosthenes led the way.
Next we go the the Atomic Theory, Leucippus, Democritus, and the followers. Not that there were any errors, but how brilliant they were in thinking this through. A Jubilation of Science theory is the Atomic theory.
Next, we go to the Maxwell Equation of 1861, and the logical error of "no magnetic monopoles".
Then we go to year 1900 with the start of Quantum Mechanics and how marvelous that no major mistakes were made.
Then we go to the year 1908 as the start of the Alpha particle gold foil experiment with the silly conclusion of Atoms have nuclei. This is Logic gone wrong in so many directions.
Then we go to mind-rot of Big Bang, then black holes, then Einstein General Relativity, what can be called the "fairy sprinkling of tinsel dust of physics era" or "cesspool physics".
AP
Oct 25, 2025, 4:31:44 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Those Windmills shown in picture below, has really caught my eye. Far better than say Galileo with his newly invented telescope being able to see what ships are coming into port in Italy. For with the Windmills you can always make accurate distance measures.
distance between A and B is known
So, what is the Modern Day Eratosthenes measure of the Earth Circumference using Windmills???
This has caught my attention.
Let me see if I can do the modern day calculation of the Arc-Length of Earth using Windmills to compute Earth circumference.
So I have a Right Triangle supposing the Earth is Flat.
C
windmill barely seen | windmill full seen
1____________________|____________________me looking at windmills in distance
A B
distance between A and B is known
length of windmill known BC
Right triangle of ABC assuming flat Earth
Arc curvature length calculated from angle at A. This angle is because the leg distance of triangle ABC is a arc length not a straight line segment.
In fact the length of BC relates directly to how much more distance that AB has rather than being a straight line segment.
Can I say that because the right triangle leg is not a distance of AB but rather is a distance of AB + BC in forming a arc???
More later.....
Now if Earth is flat, there would not be a 1/2 disparaity in height of 2 windmills, they would both be seen as same height. But because Earth is round, we see 1/2 of the distant windmill. This 1/2 tells us an Arc length for distance A to B. Then we assume a radius of Earth center to A and B.
Oct 25, 2025, 6:43:46 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, I made a Google search to see if anyone beat me to this Eratosthenes proof the circumference of Earth is 40,000 km using Windmills on a Windfarm out in the Ocean.
Apparently no-one has modernized Eratosthenes proof and so AP is the first to do so. Now I will not use Windmills or Windfarms in the calculation for there is a far far easier way of proving Earth circumference is 40,000 km by using the visibility of a flat road up ahead to determine Earth's curvature. From the curvature determination I arrive at the radius of Earth and from there, obviously and instantly arrive at Earth diameter and circumference.
So let us start with a circle figure on paper. Say of unit radius 1, which means diameter of 2 and means the circumference is 2 x 3.14 =6.28.
The Windfarms prove that Earth is round and not flat. Now all I need to do is calculate how big Earth is from the disappearance of a road due to Earth's curvature.
Now we are walking on a road in good weather daylight of flat region of Earth. And we look down the road and see the road until at a point we no longer see the road. We look from side to side of the road for some type of landmark so we can measure the distance where I am standing and that where the road disappears. We measure that distance and it comes to be 6.3 kilometers.
So, well the height of the road is negligible almost 0 height. The distance taken to make the road disappear to the Arc of Earth's curvature is 6.3 kilometers.
Now we use the Mathematics technique of Cross Multiply. The ratio of unit circle is 1 to 6.28. The ratio of disappearing road due to curvature is 1 to 6,300 meters.
The radius of unit circle is 1, diameter 2, circumference 6.28.
The radius of Earth due to road disappearance in the distance is 6.3 kilometers, diameter 12.6 km and circumference 12.6x3.14 = about 40,000 km.
Summary:: We know the Earth is round in a sphere shape because Windmills in Windfarm start to disappear from line of sight due to Earth Curvature. We use a flat road to get a measure of this curvature. We find the road disappears in the distance of 6.3 km. This number figure of 6.3km tells us the radius of Earth is 6,300 km.
Now if the Moon had roads and seeing it is far smaller than Earth as a sphere, we would have a far far shorter distance of a curvature, say perhaps a fraction of a kilometer before the road disappears.
On Saturday, October 25, 2025 at 4:31:44 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Those Windmills shown in picture below, has really caught my eye. Far better than say Galileo with his newly invented telescope being able to see what ships are coming into port in Italy. For with the Windmills you can always make accurate distance measures.So, what is the Modern Day Eratosthenes measure of the Earth Circumference using Windmills???This has caught my attention.Let me see if I can do the modern day calculation of the Arc-Length of Earth using Windmills to compute Earth circumference.So I have a Right Triangle supposing the Earth is Flat.Cwindmill barely seen | windmill full seen1____________________|____________________me looking at windmills in distanceA B
distance between A and B is knownlength of windmill known BCRight triangle of ABC assuming flat EarthArc curvature length calculated from angle at A. This angle is because the leg distance of triangle ABC is a arc length not a straight line segment.In fact the length of BC relates directly to how much more distance that AB has rather than being a straight line segment.Can I say that because the right triangle leg is not a distance of AB but rather is a distance of AB + BC in forming a arc???More later.....
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 8, 2025, 9:59:32 PM12/8/25
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Oct 26, 2025, 12:22:59 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So, well, let me ask the question since Eratosthenes surely would have known these simple geometry facts of unit circle with unit radius, has radius 1, diameter 2, circumference 2x3.14=6.28.
Now there may have been the road from Alexandria to Syene as being a straight and flat road.
And suppose Eratosthenes took the road to see how far in the distance he could see before the curvature of Earth made the road vanish to his eyes. Eratosthenes 5000 stadia is approx 800 km that would make 1 stadia be about 0.16 km.
I am saying that on a flat straight long Arizona desert road you can see the road for 6.3 km before it vanishes from sight due to curvature of Earth. That would have been about 40 stadia for Eratosthenes. He would then compare in a cross product ratio
For 7 degrees was 360 divided by 7 is approximately 1/50 of full circle. Here where Eratosthenes is on the road and his height standing and looking for the vanishing point gives an angle 0.3 degrees and be of 1/1000 of on revolution of a full circle..
The angle would be about 0.3degrees and its value would be 0.001 of a full circle as the height of Eratosthenes forming the right triangle, as he is standing on the road looking for the vanishing point of the road.
Now, then, the data Eratosthenes takes back to his laboratory is this cross ratio.
0.001 40
---------- ---------
6.28 X
And solving for X we have 0.001X = 250 and so X is 250000 stadia as Earth circumference.
Which of the two methods is More Intuitive??? The Eratosthenes where the angle of 7 degrees or the AP method where the angle is 0.3 degrees?? I think at this moment in time, the Eratosthenes method is more intuitive.
AP
Oct 26, 2025, 4:10:05 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, to answer the question of which of the two methods-- whether Eratosthenes or AP's is the more intuitive method-- that is to say the easier in the mind to comprehend and figure out the answer-- I first give a check-up on the Eratosthenes method, which is all part of the Scientific Method, as we constantly go back and checkup on past history experiments. Seems to me that the number figure of 50 times the distance from Alexandria to Aswan (Syene) to be circumference of Earth is somewhat small. So let the Scientific Method weigh in on that question.
I pull out one of my smooth globes showing Alexandria and Aswan and with a flexible wire I measure that distance of about 20mm and now measure a 1/4 of Earth circumference from pole to equator to be about 250 mm. That would make Earth from this globe be a 1000 mm circumference. If I divide 1000 by 20, I do get 50, verifying as true the Eratosthenes result.
Now the AP Method in more Clarity
--------------------------------------------------------
So, in the AP method we prove the Earth is round for if it is round, everything in the distance disappears under the curvature of Earth.
That means we can look upon Earth as round and model that roundness by a Regular Polygon. The larger the sphere, the more sides of a regular polygon before it disappears due to curvature. Earth would be a larger number of sides of a polygon from that of the Moon.
On Earth standing on a flat road and it disappears into the horizon at 6.3 km. If we were on the Moon, and suppose the Moon had roads, it would disappear much faster.
So now, we get on a long straight road in clear weather and look to see when the road disappears, we mark our starting position and measure the vanishing point as 6.3 km. Now we have 2 sides of a regular polygon for the earth because we can double our side by looking back from our original position. We have two sides of a regular polygon, both of a distance of 6.3km. Now with two sides we ask the question, how many sides are needed to close complete the regular polygon forming a circle????
We do have an angle in the AP method. The angle in Eratosthenes method was 7 degrees as seen in the diagram and 360 divided by 7 is about 50. The angle in AP method is the height of the eyes above the road to see the vanishing point. A human's eyes above the road is about 1 meter. So we have a angle of 1 meter to 6300 meters in forward direction and 6300 meters in backward direction of the road. An angle that compensates for the vanishing of the road due to curvature. So we have 1 meter per 6300 + 6300 = 12600. Is this the diameter of Earth, and if I multiply it by 3.14 gives me the circumference of Earth???
AP, King of Science
Oct 26, 2025, 7:25:06 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I suspect this is a brand new theorem in geometry, but have not completed a search of the literature to see if I take priority.
The idea is that given two sides of a Regular Polygon of even number of sides, like 6-gon, 8-gon, 10-gon, 12-gon etc etc, that given just two sides we can determine a diameter of the regular polygon, with diameter defined as vertex distance between opposite vertex.
This makes the AP method of measuring circumference of Earth far better than Eratosthenes of Ancient Greek.
Here is a schemata of how I proceed.
1 meter higher from sides
*______________________________________________*--------------------------------------------------------*
length of this side is 6300 meters length of this side is 6300 meters
The asterisks * is a vertex of a large even sided Regular Polygon.
This yields two equal Right Triangles whose one leg is 6300 meters and other leg is 1 meter.
We compute the angle of the smallest angle in that right triangle. Once computed, it tells us the distance of the diameter of the Regular Polygon , that is, the distance from one vertex to the other opposite vertex of a Even Numbered Regular Polygon.
What I am doing here is gathering together enough data to Close the two sides of a regular-polygon to make it a complete regular-polygon. And by doing so, I retrieve the circle that encloses that Even Numbered Sided Regular Polygon.
Earlier, I computed this angle given side of 6300 meters and height of eyes in viewing where curvature makes the road disappear, as an angle of 0.3 degrees. That would mean that the radius of Earth is 6300 km and diameter of Earth is 12,600 km and multiply diameter by 3.14 gives 40,000 km circumference.
I should include this geometry as a theorem in my upcoming textbook Advanced Geometry, my #368 book.
AP
Oct 26, 2025, 7:48:07 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Let me use the 10-gon as an example for understanding.
Where it shows the 144 degree let us label that vertex as being B, and to the left the vertex is A and to the right of B is vertex C.
So I have this.
A_______B-------------C. the distance from AB is 6.3km and same for BC.
A straight line drawn from A to C would have B in middle and be a height of 1 meter to see down the road left and right until the road vanishes because of Earth curvature.
So what I am proffering, is the idea, I have enough data to determine the distance of the diameter from B to its opposite vertex. The ascertaining the angle, the small tiny angle in right-triangle with one leg 6.3km and tiny leg of 1 meter.
This idea really amounts to the geometry feat of CLOSING THE REGULAR POLYGON once you are given two Adjacent sides.
So let me fully explore that idea, that I have enough data to Close the regular polygon arriving at a Earth Circumference of 40,000 km.
Regular decagon
Type
Regular polygon
Edges and vertices
10
pp
--- quoting Wikipedia---
Regular decagon
A regular decagon
Type
Regular polygon
Edges and vertices
10
--- end quoting Wikipedia---
pp
AP, King of Science
Oct 26, 2025, 9:26:15 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
And so we employ the Scientific Method to see if given a narrow data sheet of vertices A,B,C can we compute the diameter of that 10-gon.
pp--- quoting Wikipedia---
Regular decagonA regular decagon
Type
Regular polygon
Edges and vertices
10--- end quoting Wikipedia---
Certainly with a ruler I can measure the distance AB and the distance from AC and measure the angles of the right triangle, and the length of the leg at B. Can all those measurements tell me the diameter of the 10-gon??? If not, then I have to go back to the drawing board to find what does tell me the distance of the diameter.
AP
Oct 26, 2025, 10:31:35 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Bravo, cool,cool,cool, glory hallelujah supercool!!!
So, examine the above 10-gon and the two right-triangles formed from ABC where the two right-triangles are 90-72-18. Notice that when I multiply 18 times 10 equals 180 and that tells me if I knew only the two adjacent sides, that I quickly will understand that to Close that figure it has a total of 10 sides all of equal length.
Now let me use the Scientific Method on the 8-gon to see if that holds true again. The 8-gon ABC would be 135 degrees and split in two would be 67.5 degrees for the 2 right triangles. The smaller angle for the 8-gon would be 22.5 degrees. Now divide 180 by 22.5 and sure enough we have 8 sides.
Now to be very certain, let me try the 6-gon.
Here we have the angle 120 degrees, split into two is 60 degrees, meaning the smaller angle of the 2 right-triangles is 30 degrees. So, if I had just 2 adjacent sides of a regular polygon and the starting angle is 120 degrees, I easily and quickly can determine that it is a 6-gon.
Now, I turn my attention to that of two right triangles with an apex angle nearly equal to 180 degrees itself, and ask what Number is that N-gon???
So the side leg is 6300 meters. The height is 1 meter as a leg. What is the angle??? It has to be nearly the same as 180 degrees. Since we are doing this on Even numbered Regular-Polygons let us say it is 178 degrees, meaning that the two right-triangles are each 90-89-1. What type of N-gon is 180 divided by 1 is a 180-gon, a regular polygon with 180 sides.
But our Earth Circumference is far more than a 180-gon but is instead a 6350-gon in order for that number of sides times 6.3km to equal circumference of 40,000 km. Our right-triangle formed from leg being 1 meter and other leg being 6300 meters is a right-triangle that is 90-89.987- 0.028 and when we divide 0.028 into 180 we have a 6350-gon.
Since each side is of length 6.3 km and there are 6350 of these sides, means Earth circumference is 40,000 km.
So, in a manner of speaking I was wrong to think the AP method would arrive at 40,000 km by solving for the radius or diameter first. No, the AP method arrives at how many sides does the Regular-Polygon possess in order for the figure to be a Closed Regular Polygon given 2 adjacent sides.
AP, King of Science
Oct 27, 2025, 4:08:43 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So I am loving it in finding the modern up to date proof of the Earth is round and has circumference of 40,000 km as the next extension of the Ancient Greek Eratosthenes who 2200 years ago proved the Earth was round not flat in Ancient Greek times. His proof is spectacular even in modern day standards.
Regular chiliagon
Type
Regular polygon
Edges and vertices
1000
Schläfli symbol
{1000}, t{500}, tt{250}, ttt{125}
Coxeter–Dynkin diagrams
Symmetry group
Dihedral (D1000), order 2×1000
Internal angle(degrees)
179.64°
Properties
Convex, cyclic, equilateral, isogonal, isotoxal
Dual polygon
Self
I am lucky to find a more intuitive proof, a proof that is pure geometry, while Eratosthenes relied partly on physics and the behavior of Light Rays which would not be known well until the time of Newton on light wave behavior. My proof stems from the idea of contrasting a curve in a circle with a straight line.
My proof is about noticing that a straight road in the distance vanishes if you look far enough out, for it vanishes because Earth is round. This was seen in history by Galileo with his invention of the telescope as they had the advantage of seeing what ships would pop up on the horizon due to Earth curvature clearly. And it is a invention in Galileo's time that was important for military. As the telescope could tell Italy if a invader was coming by ship.
But in modern times the reminder that the Earth is round, not flat is starkly seen by Wind turbine farms constructed out at sea. The further the windmill is from shore, the less is seen due to Earth curvature. But we would have a difficult time of measuring distance at sea. So I prefer to measure on land and when a Road disappears in the distance due to Earth curvature.
I especially like straight roads that are flat and in the desert such as Arizona or Nevada or New Mexico and they have to be about 15 km long. So we go to this road and mark a starting point and look down the road to where the road vanishes from view due to Earth curvature. We look for something nearby-- right or left of the vanishing point so we can measure the distance, and once we figure out the vanishing point we can station a person right or left of the road and go back to our starting point and see for sure we have an accurate distance.
This distance should be 6.3km to where the road vanishes due to Earth Curvature.
Now we simply go to the laboratory to figure out the Circumference of Earth. The AP method is far far easier than Eratosthenes who had to send his student all the way to Syene (Aswan) from Alexandria to measure accurate distance between the two cities and set up a rod to measure shadow. AP's method is just measure vanishing point of straight road.
So the Geometry of proving Earth Circumference is all got from the number figure of 6.3km does the road vanish from sight due to Earth curvature.
So what is the geometry of getting 40,000 km as Earth circumference from that of 6.3km vanishing of road?
We look at even numbered Regular Polygons. And what we do is find how many sides a Regular Polygon needs in order to close that polygon given two adjacent sides that are 6.3km in length and which was determined by a pair of human eyes standing on the side of the road looking for a vanishing point. The eyes were 1 meter above the road and is a length of one leg of a right-triangle whose other leg is 6.3Km.
So look at even numbered Regular Polygons starting with 6-gon, then 8-gon then 10-gon, then 1000-gon. See the 1000-gon picture below.
Now look at the apex angle of a 10-gon and you will see a angle of 144 degrees between two adjacent sides. Connect the vertices of A,B,C and that forms two right-triangles each with angles 90-72-18. Notice the smaller angle of 18 degrees when divided into the straight-line angle of 180 degrees yields the number 10. The number 10 is the number of sides that a regular polygon has if its apex angle of two adjacent sides is 144 degrees. For the 8-gon the apex angle is 135 degrees and forms 2 right-triangles of 90- 67.5-22.5. Divide 22.5 into 180 and you see your two adjacent sides Closes up to form a 8-gon. This is sort of like a Mathematical Induction Proof, only for Regular Polygons. Now suppose you have two equal adjacent sides with apex angle of 120 degrees but you do not know what Regular Polygon that forms when it is Closed Up. So this 120 degrees forms 2 right triangles of 90-60-30. Now divide 180 by 30 and you have 6, a 6-gon is formed when the two adjacent sides are filled out.
So now, let us try this on the 1000-gon for it is far similar to the circumference of Earth than the 100-gon. In the 1000-gon the apex angle is 179.64 degrees and divide that by 2 for the 2 right-triangles is 89.82, leaving not much room for the short leg of the right triangle as being 0.18. Now divide 180 degrees, the degrees in a straight-line by 0.18 and you get 1000 for the Closed Regular Polygon whose apex angle is 179.64. Is the Earth similar to a 1000-gon??? No, for we know our road vanishes after 6.3km distance. If we multiply 6.3km by 1000 we have only 6300 km for Earth circumference when we know it to be 40,000km.
So what Regular Polygon gives the Earth Circumference of 40,000 km??? We need 40000/6.3 is approximately equal to 6350 Regular -Polygon
What small angle of a right triangle gives 180/X = 6350 (working backwards in the Scientific Method). Solving for X gives 0.028. To check and see if that is correct we divide 180 by 0.028 and see if that gives us a 6350-gon. To check to see if that is correct we multiply 6350 by 6.3km and should give me the circumference of Earth is 40,000 km approximately.
The Larger the sphere, the larger is the distance of vanishing point. If we had roads on the Moon and the Moon is so much smaller than Earth. Our Moon road would vanish quickly due to curvature. If we were on any of the Gas Giants like Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and not get crushed to death and able to build and see roads, that the distance to vanishing point would be immensely larger than Earth's 6.3km.
So, yes, AP has given the world's first great extension of Eratosthenes proof some 2200 years ago that Earth is round and has a circumference of 40,000 km.
The distance from my house in Meckling to Vermillion South Dakota is about 11 km and often I have noticed that I can see the __highway SD 50__ for 6.3km before it vanishes from view due to Earth curvature. Someday, if willing, I could look down the highway and look for a vanishing point of the highway marked by something right or left as a marker and see if it is 6.3km.
What I am surprised about AP's method, is that it involves merely the Closing of 2 adjacent sides of a Regular Polygon and does not involve finding the radius or diameter.
Include this geometry in book #368 Advanced Geometry textbook.
AP, King of Science
pp--- quoting Wikipedia---
Regular decagonA regular decagon
Type
Regular polygon
Edges and vertices
10--- end quoting Wikipedia---
p
pp
Regular chiliagon
A regular chiliagon
Type
Regular polygon
Edges and vertices
1000
Schläfli symbol
{1000}, t{500}, tt{250}, ttt{125}
Coxeter–Dynkin diagrams
Symmetry group
Dihedral (D1000), order 2×1000
Internal angle(degrees)
179.64°
Properties
Convex, cyclic, equilateral, isogonal, isotoxal
Dual polygon
Self
ppp
Oct 27, 2025, 4:44:25 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Now I was playing around with trigonometry Cosine calculators and apparently I need the legs of right triangle to be about 3 instead of 1 which then gives me the angle 0.028 and the other leg about 6300. I suppose in a high truck my eyes would be 3 meters off the ground.
Of course, well, almost impossible to measure the angle when it is so tiny. Eratosthenes could easily measure 7 degrees.
On second thought then, Eratosthenes Method out bests AP method for I have to rely on trigonometry tables and cannot measure such a fine angle as that of 0.028. The human eyes can see and measure 6.3km but not a angle of 0.028.
So the AP method is not better than Eratosthenes.
AP
Oct 27, 2025, 4:14:39 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Because of the angle being so tiny in the AP method, an angle of 0.028 degrees, that the AP method would not have replaced the Eratosthenes method until around WW1 in the early 1900s.
--- quoting Wikipedia in parts---
Around the time of the start of World War 1, France was experimenting with the use of milliemes or angular mils (6400 in a circle) for use with artillery sights...
The milliradian (approximately 6,283.185 in a circle) was first used in the mid-19th century by Charles Marc Dapples (1837-1920), a Swiss engineer and professor at the University of Lausanne.
Before 2007 the Swedish defense forces used "streck" (6300 in a circle, streck meaning lines or marks) (together with degrees for some navigation) which is closer to the milliradian but then changed to NATO mils.
--- end quoting Wikipedia parts---
The AP method relies on the measuring of angle too tiny to be measured until the 20th century. The reason the Eratosthenes method is better is due to their 7 degree angle which could be measured as the length of a shadow in Alexandria.
AP
Oct 27, 2025, 4:32:26 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I used the "Calculator dot net" for their Right Triangle Calculator.
With a = 3 and b = 6300 gives an angle of 0.0273 degree.
With a = 1 and b = 6300 gives an angle of 0.009 degree.
So I am wondering of the history of Trigonometry tables.
AP
Oct 29, 2025, 2:45:03 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So, I discover that the Eratosthenes method was superior because he could measure a angle of 7 degrees.
Without special equipment, I cannot measure a angle of 0.027 or 0.028 degrees. Those are too fine of a angle for human eyesight. Without an angle, I could not determine that the Regular Polygon has 6350 sides and multiple that by 6.3 km.
The Scottish mathematician John Napier 1550- 1617 was brilliant and compiled tables of trigonometry functions. Question is, could he measure a angle of 0.027 or 0.028 degrees????? Or did humanity have to wait until around WW1 before we can measure angles this small?
AP
Nov 23, 2025, 9:40:09 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, soon my attention will return to this book as I near finishing #366.
A new insight as I am devoted to making the Earth Round discovery a key chapter of Advanced Logic.
We do have an angle in the AP method. The angle in Eratosthenes method was 7 degrees as seen in the diagram and 360 divided by 7 is about 50. The angle in AP method is the height of the eyes above the road to see the vanishing point. A human's eyes above the road is about 1 meter. So we have a angle of 1 meter to 6300 meters in forward direction and 6300 meters in backward direction of the road. An angle that compensates for the vanishing of the road due to curvature. So we have 1 meter per 6300 + 6300 = 12600.
The angles are tiny, but we can cross product ratio the angle. So that 6300 meters is 6300 kilometers. and so the diameter of Earth is 12600 km after we convert the angle in cross product ratio.
Is this the diameter of Earth, and if I multiply it by 3.14 gives me the circumference of Earth???
So, well, a better way of conducting this experiment is for a car headlight by two cars a distance apart of 6,300. One car sees if the other car is still in view, likewise the second car. To make sure that a straight line on Earth lasts only for 6,300 meters before the curvature of Earth masks the headlights. In Ancient Greek times I suspect they could create a small fire instead of car headlights.
But I suspect this AP method could also be used by the Ancient Greeks where they use a small campfire instead of modern day lamps.
Did the Ancient Greeks have lamps??? Yes, we have Ancient Greek olive oil lamps with wicks made of linen or papyrus. (sadly though, probably many texts by writers were destroyed from people using those texts as lamp oil wicks.
AP
Nov 24, 2025, 12:44:58 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
To scientists all over the world, I can stress hard enough, how when you are stuck on a problem. Set it aside and in the intervening weeks and months, the mind has a way of working things out.
I used the "Calculator dot net" for their Right Triangle Calculator.
In the case of AP's method of measuring the circumference of Earth and proving Earth is round is far superior to Eratosthenes method. Superior in simplicity and practicality of measure.
What troubled me in October was the "smallness of the angle".
I used the "Calculator dot net" for their Right Triangle Calculator.
With a = 3 and b = 6300 gives an angle of 0.0273 degree.
With a = 1 and b = 6300 gives an angle of 0.009 degree.
This 0.009 allows me to convert 1 to 6300 meters to kilometers.
Eratosthenes method gets a 7 degrees from shadow at Alexandria versus shadow at Syene (Aswan). While my method gets an angle of 0.009 and 360 divided by 0.009 = 40000.
It is far more simple in reasoning to say that the angle of curvature of Earth is 1 in 6300 meters translates into a diameter of Earth as 6300 +6300 = 12600 km. and multiply that in turn by pi 3.14 yields a circumference of 40000 km.
When you combine the Eratosthenes experiment with the AP experiment make for a awesome physics experiment of Earth measure and roundness. Perhaps the first great Physics Experiment proof in history. The Eratosthenes method supposes Light Rays are straight, but the AP method assumes that also, that light rays are straight.
AP
Nov 28, 2025, 8:19:49 PM (10 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, this is the second textbook on Logic written by me, for the purpose that all science students in college and university need to compulsory take 2 years of Logic training, to help these expectant scientists to better think straight and think clearly, that is the hope.
But we cannot teach two years of college and university logic when no logic textbook is free of gross errors. Old Logic is a cesspool of error and mistakes, and for that reason, I write 2 textbooks. These two textbooks are the first two books on Logic written by a Logical Mind of Archimedes Plutonium. Time to throw out all other Logic textbooks as crass meaningless error filled junk.
This advanced logic textbook will examine 7 great science ideas and show the Logic fallacy in them.
(1) Slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, for the cylinder has the symmetry for slant cut to be ellipse. Every math professor from Ancient Greek times to 2016 had cataracts in their eyes and no logical brain to think the slant cut of cone was a ellipse. And only goes to show that the intelligence of a math professor is 99% memorization, unable to actually reason on the truth of symmetry between cone versus cylinder.
(2) Eratosthenes great discovery the Earth is round and he actually computed the circumference of Earth. Here I modernize and update Eratosthenes phenomenal feat. And show the Logical coherence of what he had done in Ancient Greek times.
(3) Water electrolysis bogus claims that water is H2O because the logically bereft scientists look only at volume, too dumb to take the ultimate last steps--- weigh the mass of hydrogen and oxygen for they may well be surprised that water molecules are really H4O.
(4) Most math professors are dolts of math for in year 1900 Max Planck introduces the world to Quantum Mechanics, where physics has only discrete math values, no continuum, while the idiot dolts in math press on further with their fruitcake nonsense of the continuum hypothesis such as Cohen. Still, today, while Physics is all discrete, the buffoons of math professors embrace their mindless insane Reals as numbers.
(5) Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden and Bohr nucleus of atoms from the Gold foil experiment in early 1900s is a sham, for Atoms have ___no nucleus____. We examine closely the Logic Fallacy that entered their minds to come up with the stupid nucleus idea.
(6) Who is credited with the first proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC??? Who?? And why FTC proof was only proven recently by AP.
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:
______
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
(7) No-one in physics has a logical brain to look at rest mass of fundamental particles in physics. If they did, they would have seen that their proton at 938MeV and their neutron at 940MeV and their alleged electron at 0.5MeV and the muon at 105MeV. Well, if any physicist before AP had taken Logic while in school could easily have seen that 105 X 9 =945. And physicists in research daily understand what Sigma Error is. So that 938 and 940 are within sigma error of 105x9.
In other words, physicists with no logical brains cannot even see that the true electron of atoms is the muon, stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus when it is hydrogen and doing the Faraday law with the hydrogen proton torus. That tiny particle of 0.5MeV that Thomson found in 1897 turns out to be the Magnetic Monopole of atoms.
(8) When the muon is the true electron of Atoms, by logic, then, Stars and our Sun shine from Faraday law, not fusion.
(9) Superdeterminism from the Bell Inequality of physics replaces Darwin Evoluton theory in biology. Darwin evolution is based on probability. Superdeterminism is absolute determinism and no probabilities involved.
(10) Because Sun shines predominantly from Faraday law, and only a tiny tiny fraction from fusion, means that by the 20th century our Sun went Red Giant Initiation Phase. Although most people on Earth believe global warming is all caused by fossil fuel burning greenhouse gases, when in reality it is the Sun gone Red Giant that is creating weather and climate havoc. And unless humanity makes Europa our new home in the next 1,000 years before 3025, that humanity along with all life on Earth goes extinct and into oblivion.
Advanced Logic should be about close examination of several critical ideas in human history and how the illogical mind screws things up.
AP, King of Science
Nov 29, 2025, 8:55:51 PM (9 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Maybe I should have a number (11) of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
I should include the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics into my Advanced Logic textbook to point out the Logic fallacy committed when we think the Universe is tending to disorder (the increase in entropy).
What mistake of logic was committed when one believes the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is an increase in entropy (disorder)???
Easily, it falls under Ambiguity, for physicists needed to define Entropy in terms of Energy, which they never did.
But, well, they only needed to show that if you accept the 2nd Law as being Heat flows from Hot to Cold. That the concept of disorder as entropy would make it so that Heat flows from Cold to Hot in order to increase entropy. It is sincerely laughable of any physicist to think that these two statements are equivalent.
P = Heat flows from Hot to Cold
Q = In every transaction in Nature, entropy is increased
Those two statements, P and Q, are diametrically opposed to one another can constitute a contradiction. But if the dolt physicist had well defined order and disorder in terms of energy, he may have escaped making a fool of himself/herself. Hot is ordered, while Cold is disorder, and when heat flows from Hot to Cold, it makes the World that much more ORDERED than it previously was.
1) Mistake error
2) Ambiguity -- lack of well defined or unclear parameters
3) Non Sequitur
4) Ad Hominem
5) Mis-identification
6) Mistakes in Existence-Nonexistence for the derivative is the existential quantifier-- the "assumed to exist" fallacy.
7) Mistakes in Universal for the integral is the universal quantifier-- the giver of consistency and completeness.
2) Ambiguity -- lack of well defined or unclear parameters
3) Non Sequitur
4) Ad Hominem
5) Mis-identification
6) Mistakes in Existence-Nonexistence for the derivative is the existential quantifier-- the "assumed to exist" fallacy.
7) Mistakes in Universal for the integral is the universal quantifier-- the giver of consistency and completeness.
This is what I say, Every prospective scientist in college or university-- be compulsory mandate to take 2 years of college logic in hopes of making the person think straight and think clearly.
AP, King of Science
Nov 30, 2025, 2:21:17 AM (9 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Example of the Logic Fallacy of Ambiguity. Physics never defined entropy with respect to energy.
So in the world where physicists earn their degrees to be physicists but never taking Logic in school so they end up saying this---
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is --- Heat flows from hot to cold
and can be also stated that the entropy (disorder) is always increasing
But now, a person with a Logical mind comes onto the scene and asks the Physics professor in a kindly tone.
Logical person:: Dr. Physics, which has the more order-- the hot body or the cold body?
Physics professor:: Why that would be the hot body for gamma rays have more order than Visible light rays or Infrared or Radio waves.
Logical person:: So then, Dr. Physics, the truth is that the Entropy of the Universe is never increasing but rather decreasing. For as energy goes from hot to cold means the "coldness is getting and receiving more Order".
Physics professor:: Yes, quite right, I better go back to school and study Logic from Archimedes Plutonium so I can begin to think straight and clear for once in my life.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 8, 2025, 10:03:12 PM12/8/25
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Dec 3, 2025, 8:18:21 PM (5 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Many of us never realized that in Ancient Greek times they had a superstar of science in Eratosthenes, who, not only proved the Earth was round in a spherelike geometry but actually computed Earth's circumference with a remarkable brilliant genius experiment.
This experiment I consider to be the first true Experiment in Physics that uses mathematics.
I have tried to modernize Eratosthenes experiment.
But let me try to see if I can Model the proof of "Proving Earth is Round" in the most simple of deductions.
Of course, naturally this proof by Eratosthenes in Ancient Greek times starts off this textbook of Advanced Logic.
Simple Modeling for easiest proof Earth is Round
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) We know we have 4 seasons in the year Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter.
2) We know the day is roughly 24 hours and the year is about 365 days.
3) We know from holding hands near a fire that if flat receives more heat radiation than if holding hands at an angle.
4) We bring a model of Earth bound by wire with the Sun.
5) We bring a flat Earth and a round globe Earth to attach to the Model.
Now we examine first, the idea that the Earth is flat and stationary with the Sun revolving around Earth. Does such a supposition violate what we know of experiences in living? Yes, if Earth were flat and Sun revolving around Earth there would be no Day and Night, but almost all daytime (except if the Sun passes underneath a flat Earth).
Would we have 4 seasons if Earth were flat and Sun revolving around Earth? No, we would have only 1 season all year long.
Now, we impose the round globe Earth onto the wire in place model with Sun revolving around it. Would that model violate any of our known experience-data? Yes, in such a model, the Earth should not have 4 seasons but only 1 season all year long. However, in this model does account for the fact of a almost 12 hour day and a 12 hour nighttime which the flat Earth model could not account for.
Now, we ask, how can we get the Round Earth Model, since it does obey a day and night, can we find a way to make that round Earth model to obey 4 seasons???
Yes, however we have to have Sun at rest and where Earth goes around Sun and we have to have Earth spinning on an axis and this axis is tilted in order for Earth to obey all the experiences Earth undergoes in a year's time.
AP, King of Science
Dec 3, 2025, 8:24:42 PM (5 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Yes, however we have to have Sun at relative-rest and where Earth goes around Sun and we have to have Earth spinning on an axis and this axis is tilted in order for Earth to obey all the experiences Earth undergoes in a year's time.AP, King of Science
Dec 3, 2025, 8:33:37 PM (5 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
What I am hinting at here, is that Eratosthenes was so brilliant in mind to figure out Earth is round and its circumference with accuracy, that Eratosthenes could easily have figured out Logically, that Earth is round, revolving around the Sun, and that Earth had an axis and that axis was tilted.
So, now we have to ask the next Logical question. Given that the 4 seasons are each relatively 3 months out of 12 months long. Could Eratosthenes have figured out that the Tilt of Earth's axis was 23 degree tilt?????
Knowing there are 4 seasons and each roughly 3 months long can we extract from those experiences that the Tilt of Earth axis is 23 degrees??? I think so, maybe not precisely but at least a tilt of 20 degrees. Eratosthenes lived in Alexandria Egypt, relatively warm, and would be a good spot to come up with a 20 to 25 degree tilt of axis.
AP
Dec 5, 2025, 9:17:24 PM (3 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
This will be my first case study in Advanced Logic-- Reasoning by Logic, that the Earth is Round, not Flat and that the Earth revolves around the Sun and not vice versa.
None of this detracts from Eratosthenes superstar genius status of proving the Earth is round, way way back in Ancient Greek times 276BC to 194BC. He lived about the same time as Archimedes 287BC to 212BC. How much they communicated with each other is unknown to me, and whether the inspiration of measuring Earth circumference by shadows in Alexandria and in Syene (Aswan). Did Archimedes play a role in the measurement of Earth's circumference?????????
What I am doing here is analyzing the most easy way to determine Earth is round and revolves around the Sun.
So, we know that the hours in the day are about 24 hours and on average during the year we have 12 hours of daylight and 12 hours of nighttime.
From that fact alone can we determine Earth must be Round and revolves around the Sun???
I think so.
The Reasoning would be that Sun would have to go underneath a flat Earth for nighttime and being so far away as the Sun is and so large as the Sun is, would mean it had to travel at a tremendous speed to go around a flat Earth in 24 hours.
Compared to a different argument. That the Earth is a sphere round and has a axis to rotate upon. Taking 24 hours for a complete circuit. And as Earth is on the opposite side of a relative stationary Sun would be nighttime and when staring at the Sun would be daytime.
So a 24 hour day with 12 hours daytime, 12 hours nighttime on average is best explained as Earth motion on a axis of a sphere.
AP
Dec 6, 2025, 1:33:14 AM (3 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
The genius of the Ancient Greeks, never ceases to amaze me. I had thought the tilt of Earth axis at 23.5 degrees was not discovered in Ancient Greek times, but lo and behold, Eratosthenes found this tilt.
--- quoting from Oregon State University website---
--- end quoting from Oregon State University website---
Did Eratosthenes living in Alexandria get help from Archimedes living in Siracusa?????
Obviously they had to know the tilt caused the 4 seasons.
Impossible for the Earth to be flat and for the Sun to go around Earth and have a 24 hour day with half it daytime and half night, and impossible to have 4 seasons without Earth being round and tilted on axis.
AP
Dec 6, 2025, 4:32:08 PM (2 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So I am looking to see how Logic would have solved astronomy starting in Ancient Greek times.
I am up to where Earth is Round like a sphere in order to solve the fact that half of the day on average is daylight and half is dark nighttime. And the fact there are 4 seasons. And it makes one wonder, why there was no Newton with universal law of gravity in Ancient Greek times, for the question of why-- people on the other side of Earth do not fall off into space, when Earth is round.
However, there is a problem of Logic in solving that Earth revolves around the Sun, and not the Sun revolving around Earth. This is of course the Ptolemy 100-170 AD geocentric theory with its epicycles that lasted clear up to the time of Copernicus 14 centuries later.
Strange and odd that easy logic can debunk a Flat Earth but that it takes 1400 years later to debunk geocentric Earth. Probably because the human mind can easily absorb the idea that you cannot have half the day in daylight and half in darkness with a flat Earth. But there is no logical Easiness in understanding that Sun has to be the center of Solar System and not Earth.
If my memory is correct, the eclipses of the Moon, and the forward then backward motion of Venus logically prove that the Earth revolves around the Sun, not the Sun revolves around Earth. But the trouble with such an argument is that the common mind of humans would not accept "rare events like eclipses or be interested in astronomy motion of Venus and how that connects up to heliocentric solar system".
AP
Dec 7, 2025, 12:46:25 AM (yesterday)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
The easiest, logical way of proving Heliocentric over geocentric astronomy was by the Moon phases.
The motion of Venus as proof of heliocentric requires a telescope. The Moon phases was in easy reach of Ancient Greeks such as Eratosthenes, Archimedes and many others.
I have asked that readers build or buy one of those planets on wires that are moveable.
In a geocentric model of the solar system, the Moon phases will not be a regular pattern each month (29.5 days), but depend on where the sun is in motion.
Some advice to whoever made the below graphic-- Caltech, leave out the ice sheet on north and south pole as it is only a confusion
--- quoting NASA---
This graphic shows the position of the Moon and the Sun during each of the Moon’s phases and the Moon as it appears from Earth during each phase. Not to scale.
NASA/JPL-Caltech
In our entire solar system, the only object that shines with its own light is the Sun. That light always beams onto Earth and Moon from the direction of the Sun, illuminating half of our planet in its orbit and reflecting off the surface of the Moon to create moonlight. Sometimes the entire face of the Moon glows brightly. Other times we see only a thin crescent of light. Sometimes the Moon seems to disappear. These shifts are called Moon phases.
The eight lunar phases are, in order: new Moon, waxing crescent, first quarter, waxing gibbous, full Moon, waning gibbous, third quarter, and waning crescent. The cycle repeats about once a month (every 29.5 days).
Like Earth, the Moon has a day side and a night side, which change as the Moon rotates. The Sun always illuminates half of the Moon while the other half remains dark, but how much we are able to see of that illuminated half changes as the Moon travels through its orbit.
--- end quoting NASA---
Please, on your next graphics, leave out the polar white ice sheets.
So, with a Heliocentric you have a repeat in Moon phase cycle every month where all 12 months have that same pattern.
In a Geocentric solar system the Moon phases for 1/2 of the year is unlike the Moon phases of the other 1/2 of the year.
I do not know if the Moon phases were known to Eratosthenes and Archimedes.
AP
Dec 7, 2025, 2:21:28 AM (yesterday)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
In a geocentric solar system, based on my wire and pith ball moveable model, you would have a Lunar-Solar Eclipse every 29.5 days, that the eclipse running a path across Earth where the Sun is covered up. Unlike eclipses in a heliocentric solar system that lasts for a few minutes, if the Sun were revolving around Earth, a lunar eclipse can last for hours and blackening out a large swath of land.
Now I am exploring the idea that we can prove the Geocentric system is false, from the sheer fact, that we cannot place the orbit of the Sun that makes common sense.
Now, Ptolemy's geocentric solar system places the Sun between Venus and Mars. If true, then Venus and Mars would have yearly phases like the Moon. They do not have yearly phases, hence Geocentric is false.
In a false theory of geocentric solar system, the sheer placement of where the Sun is, should be the easiest proof of its folly.
For example, suppose they placed the Sun in between Jupiter and Saturn, then Earth would have humungus solar eclipses lasting for days, as Jupiter blocks out the Sun.
AP
Dec 7, 2025, 3:23:19 PM (yesterday)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Happily, I got a chance to see what Archimedes thought of the astronomy of Sun and Earth and Eratosthenes measure of the circumference of Earth.
--- quoting Wikipedia on heliocentrism---
The first person known to have proposed a heliocentric system was Aristarchus of Samos(c. 270 BC). Like his contemporary Eratosthenes, Aristarchus calculated the size of Earth and measured the sizes and distances of the Sun and Moon. From his estimates, he concluded that the Sun was six to seven times wider than Earth, and thought that the larger object would have the most attractive force.[citation needed]
His writings on the heliocentric system are lost, but some information about them is known from a brief description by his contemporary, Archimedes, and from scattered references by later writers. Archimedes' description of Aristarchus' theory is given in the former's book, The Sand Reckoner. The entire description comprises just three sentences, which Thomas Heathtranslates as follows:[11]
— The Sand Reckoner (Arenarius I, 4–7)[11]
Aristarchus presumably took the stars to be very far away because he was aware that their parallax[12] would otherwise be observed over the course of a year. The stars are in fact so far away that stellar parallax only became detectable when sufficiently powerful telescopeshad been developed in the 1830s.[citation needed]
No references to Aristarchus' heliocentrism are known in any other writings from before the common era. The earliest of the handful of other ancient references occur in two passages from the writings of Plutarch. These mention one detail not stated explicitly in Archimedes' account[13]—namely, that Aristarchus' theory had Earth rotating on an axis. The first of these reference occurs in Concerning the Face Which Appears in the Orb of the Moon:[14]
— Concerning the Face Which Appears in the Orb of the Moon (De facie in orbe lunae, c. 6, pp. 922 F – 923 A.)
Only scattered fragments of Cleanthes' writings have survived in quotations by other writers, but in Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, Diogenes Laërtius lists A reply to Aristarchus (Πρὸς Ἀρίσταρχον) as one of Cleanthes' works,[15] and some scholars[16] have suggested that this might have been where Cleanthes had accused Aristarchus of impiety.
The second of the references by Plutarch is in his Platonic Questions:[17]
— Platonic Questions (Platonicae Quaestiones viii. I, 1006 C)
--- end quoting Wikipedia on heliocentrism---
The brilliance and genius of the Ancient Greeks, leads me to believe that they even had a Newton of gravity force among them. Not as a force that was separated from electricity and magnetism but a force of electricity itself.
The Greeks had the Lodestone magnet that attracts iron. They also had rubbing of amber on fur or wool attracts bits of papyrus and other objects. From the writings above, they started to know that larger astro bodies attract smaller ones.
I am thinking there was some among the Ancient Greeks that developed Newton's gravity, as a electrical force, long long before Newton 1643-1727 and his Principia 1687, arrived.
Probably Archimedes or Eratosthenes saw that electrical attraction such as lodestone would have held Earth, planets to the Sun.
And there should be an easy Logical proof of this--- the planets are arranged mostly on the equator of the Sun extended out into space, and called the ecliptic.
Eclipses such as lunar eclipse of Sun proves the Earth revolves around the Sun, and not vice versa, for the positioning of the Sun in geocentrism would result in eclipses of Venus and Moon.
Ecliptic (alot of e words here that look very much the same) easily proves that a Force of Attraction of electromagnetism like the Lodestone keeps the planets and Sun together.
Yes, I strongly believe that Newton's gravity force had already been discovered by Archimedes in Ancient Greek times. And if so, well, he found it based on electricity, a better find than Newton in 1687, for Isaac Newton based gravity is not electromagnetism.
AP, King of Science
Dec 7, 2025, 4:19:42 PM (yesterday)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
1) So, Logic teaches us, that the easiest proof of Round Earth versus Flat Earth is that you have a 24 hour day and would lose the fact that daytime is about 12 hours and nighttime is about 12 hours in a 24 hour day.
2) Logic teaches us that the easiest proof the Earth is Round and spins on a axis and this axis is tilted 23.5 degrees, is that a year has 4 seasons.
3) Logic teaches us that the easiest proof the Earth revolves around the Sun in heliocentricism, is that you rarely have eclipses of the Moon or other planets. In a Sun revolving around Earth would sharply increase eclipses of Moon and other planets depending on where you positioned the Sun.
4) Logic teaches us that the Force of Attraction that holds the planets to the Sun in orbits is a force of electromagnetism for electromagnetism has the planets line up along the ecliptic (extended Sun equator).
I am confident that the geniuses of the Ancient Greek world such as Archimedes, Eratosthenes, Thales and many others had figured out all (4) of the above, and even gravity, long before Newton arrived on the scene.
I would hazard to guess, that one of the ancient Greek geniuses, had several lodestones, an assembly of large rocks and was covered in iron filings and would position these lodestones mimicking, imitating the planets.
I would bet that if all of Archimedes writings had been saved, that he would have discovered the force of gravity being electromagnetism long before Newton discovered a lesser form of gravity.
AP, King of Science
Dec 7, 2025, 6:45:05 PM (yesterday)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Of course in Ancient Greek times, they did not have the Laws of Electromagnetism nor a finished Calculus.
The 6 AP-Electromagnetic Equations and the 7 Structures (Laws) of Physics and all sciences
0) domain structure as Atomic Theory
1) Magnetic primal unit structure Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
2) V = C*B*E New Ohm's structure, structure of electricity
3) V' = (C*B*E)' Capacitor-Transformer structure
4) (V/C*E)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell structure
5) (V/(B*E))' = C' Faraday structure
6) (V/(C*B))' = E' the new structure of Coulomb force with EM gravity force and DeBroglie pilot wave
0) domain structure as Atomic Theory
1) Magnetic primal unit structure Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
2) V = C*B*E New Ohm's structure, structure of electricity
3) V' = (C*B*E)' Capacitor-Transformer structure
4) (V/C*E)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell structure
5) (V/(B*E))' = C' Faraday structure
6) (V/(C*B))' = E' the new structure of Coulomb force with EM gravity force and DeBroglie pilot wave
We see in B', C', E' are with the Quotient Rule of Calculus differential equations are inverse square laws, the Ampere law, the Faraday law and the Coulomb law.
In Ancient Greek times, they had no force of gravity in mind, but they did have Electromagnetism in mind with the Lodestone and Amber rubbed in fur.
Could the genius of Archimedes + Eratosthenes and others, have put 2 and 2 together?? That the planets lined up in the extended equator plane of the Sun called the ecliptic??? Could they have arrived at the idea that a Force of electromagnetism attracted the planets to have orbits around the Sun at the ecliptic of the Sun??
What is certain, is that Newton never had the idea that the force of gravity was electromagnetism and all he had to do was see that the mathematics of the Sun's ecliptic was a inverse square. We know this because the unification of forces of physics was only a recent program in physics history.
In modern times we see the Ampere law as being that of a electric current in wire produces a magnetic field B, perpendicular to the direction of current. If we take the Sun and think of the Sun as a particle of current moving in Space, then a perpendicular plane to the Sun is the ecliptic. And that plane of magnetism has planets attracted towards the Sun, which Newton would call gravity.
I am reasonably sure that Newton's discovery and inputs into a "force of gravity" spoke nothing about the Sun's ecliptic but rather, apples falling from trees.
So, I am going to look to see if any of the Ancient Greeks who studied the Lodestone and Amber rubbed in Fur spoke of astronomy and the planets attracted to the Sun.
Also, I am going to check whether Newton spent any time on the Sun's ecliptic.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 8, 2025, 10:09:27 PM12/8/25
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Sorry, I had a re-ordering shuffle to make, so that I have #366 be Teaching True Logic with showing all the mistakes of Old Logic, then #367 of Teaching Pure True Logic without talk of all the horrendous past mistakes and now for #368 Teaching True Advanced Logic.
For over a decade I have been harping that all prospective science students must take 2 years of Logic in University to gain a degree in science, in hopes of making them think better, think straight and clear. But no textbook exists on the market as of this writing that teaches correct logic. And so the need of these textbooks.
AP, King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 10, 2025, 4:39:47 AM12/10/25
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Tonight I watched a 3 part series titled Ancient Skies, where in the second episode shows Eratosthenes discovery of the Earth Circumference. Brilliant show.
But in the first episode it mentions a Ancient Greek astronomer who wanted to do away with gods and myths and account for all phenomena as Natural and to be explained by Natural forces.
I could not get the name of this person.
I thought I knew all the Ancient Greek scientists but this one escapes me.
Special Note:: In proving the Earth is round, it was mentioned that the Lunar eclipse where Earth casts a shadow on the Moon and this shadow is in the form of a spherical shadow.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 10, 2025, 5:06:04 AM12/10/25
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Ah, yes, in the PBS "Ancient Skies" it is Thales they were talking about, and I picked it up in my ears as "Sallius".
I would like to repeat see all three episodes, especially if they had some simple way of debunking geocentric.
My debunking of geocentric, depending on where you place the sun in orbit, would be all sorts of strange eclipses, from Venus and Moon.
Logic Summary of why Flat Earth started--- the feeling of commonsense, if Earth is round, all the people on the other side will fall off.
Counter to falling off--- the obvious observation that everything we see in astronomy is round objects. Why have Earth be special as flat when everything else is round.
A big piece of the puzzle is missing, in the idea of the Lodestone in Ancient Greek times. It was Thales who introduced the magnetic Lodestone into science, and also rubbing amber on fur for static electricity.
It is possible that some Ancient Greek who believed Earth was round, would then anticipate Newton law of gravity but call it law of Lodestone where Earth is a magnet that keeps all matter on Earth. Thales believed the Earth was flat and a disc floating on water.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 12, 2025, 1:43:47 AM12/12/25
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So when we teach the topic that the Earth is Round, and how that was historically proven true, we do justice to Eratosthenes who even computed the circumference of a round Earth.
But I strongly think that the Ancient Greeks had so many geniuses that one of them had built a model of the Earth, that was heliocentric. And built a model that proves a Flat Earth is impossible given the facts of the night sky.
Remember, those Ancient Greeks built the world's first computer-- the Antikythera Mechanism. If you can build the first computer in the world, you easily can model the motion of Sun around Earth or Earth around Sun, using a lamp, olive oil lamp in Ancient Greece.
For a flat Earth use a table top. To imitate a flat Earth with the lamp as Sun and another person holding a sphere like object to imitate the Moon. So if Earth is flat (table top) and the Sun moves under the table to imitate nighttime, could the Sun allow Earth to have 12 hours day and on average 12 hours of night?
I say no, because to have 12 hours of both day and night, the Earth flat surface had to be enormous. And for the Moon eclipse a flat Earth will show on the Moon not as a arc in Moon phases but rather block all light so the Moon restricted to only a brief phase.
When you try to convince laypersons of how the true motion of Sun, Earth, Moon works, using only a verbal argument, you will not be successful. But when you give a verbal argument. Then give a demonstration follow up argument, a hands on model to let the layperson see and experience the problem, then, you have a very good chance of convincing the entire audience.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 16, 2025, 6:29:11 PM12/16/25
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, the Observation of approximate 30 degree shift of the Sun, once a year as it sets on 20December winter solstice, when it sets in 20June where at the summer solstice.
So what does the yearly repeating observation that the Sun sets at 00 degrees in June for 1/2 of the year and then the Sun moves about 30 degrees to set on winter solstice.
We know the Sun is round, can this data observed every year, tell us that Earth is round , rotating on a axis of about 30 degrees???
Where I live in South Dakota I am near the 40 degree latitude the same as Spain and Italy.
Alexandria in Ancient Greek times with Eratosthenes is on the 30 degree latitude, would also see this yearly observation of the Sun set in 20 June versus 20 December be about 30 degree latitude.
Can this yearly observation data tell us the Solar System is heliocentric????
Questions we must solve.
1) Is Earth flat
2) Is Earth moving
3) Is the Sun moving around Earth
4) Is Earth moving around the Sun
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 16, 2025, 8:17:57 PM12/16/25
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Call it the Eratosthenes-Aristarchus-Archimedes measure of the Round Earth Circumference.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is our bad nature to usually credit one person for a great science feat, when in reality, several people in colloboration performed the experiment and achieved the glorious results.
--- quoting Wikipedia on heliocentrism---
The first person known to have proposed a heliocentric system was Aristarchus of Samos(c. 270 BC). Like his contemporary Eratosthenes, Aristarchus calculated the size of Earth and measured the sizes and distances of the Sun and Moon. From his estimates, he concluded that the Sun was six to seven times wider than Earth, and thought that the larger object would have the most attractive force.
The first person known to have proposed a heliocentric system was Aristarchus of Samos(c. 270 BC). Like his contemporary Eratosthenes, Aristarchus calculated the size of Earth and measured the sizes and distances of the Sun and Moon. From his estimates, he concluded that the Sun was six to seven times wider than Earth, and thought that the larger object would have the most attractive force.
His writings on the heliocentric system are lost, but some information about them is known from a brief description by his contemporary, Archimedes, and from scattered references by later writers. Archimedes' description of Aristarchus' theory is given in the former's book, The Sand Reckoner. The entire description comprises just three sentences, which Thomas Heathtranslates as follows:
You [ King Gelon ] are aware that "universe" is the name given by most astronomers to the sphere, the centre of which is the centre of the earth, while its radius is equal to the straight line between the centre of the sun and the centre of the earth. This is the common account (τά γραφόμενα), as you have heard from astronomers. But Aristarchus brought out a book consisting of certain hypotheses, wherein it appears, as a consequence of the assumptions made, that the universe is many times greater than the "universe" just mentioned. His hypotheses are that the fixed stars and the sun remain unmoved, that the earth revolves about the sun on the circumference of a circle, the sun lying in the middle of the orbit, and that the sphere of the fixed stars, situated about the same centre as the sun, is so great that the circle in which he supposes the earth to revolve bears such a proportion to the distance of the fixed stars as the centre of the sphere bears to its surface.
— The Sand Reckoner (Arenarius I, 4–7)
— The Sand Reckoner (Arenarius I, 4–7)
Aristarchus presumably took the stars to be very far away because he was aware that their parallax would otherwise be observed over the course of a year. The stars are in fact so far away that stellar parallax only became detectable when sufficiently powerful telescopeshad been developed in the 1830s.
No references to Aristarchus' heliocentrism are known in any other writings from before the common era. The earliest of the handful of other ancient references occur in two passages from the writings of Plutarch. These mention one detail not stated explicitly in Archimedes' account—namely, that Aristarchus' theory had Earth rotating on an axis. The first of these reference occurs in Concerning the Face Which Appears in the Orb of the Moon:
No references to Aristarchus' heliocentrism are known in any other writings from before the common era. The earliest of the handful of other ancient references occur in two passages from the writings of Plutarch. These mention one detail not stated explicitly in Archimedes' account—namely, that Aristarchus' theory had Earth rotating on an axis. The first of these reference occurs in Concerning the Face Which Appears in the Orb of the Moon:
--- end quoting Wikipedia on heliocentrism---
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 16, 2025, 8:42:44 PM12/16/25
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So, Logically, how would the brilliant, genius minds of Archimedes, Aristarchus, Eratosthenes, almost instantly know and recognize that Earth is round and in motion, whether revolving around the Sun or rotating on Earth axis.
I am talking of Logical Intelligence. How would a world class science mind almost instantly recognize that Earth is not flat but Round and that Earth moves-- whether revolves or rotates.
How would the genius mind come to that conclusion almost instantly???????
Answer:: We all know at an early age that daytime is about 12 hours long and nighttime is about 12 hours long of 24 hours in a day.
Can you achieve this fact if Earth is flat with the Sun revolving around a flat stationary Earth. Impossible for you would need the Sun to complete a orbit around Earth in a impossible speed of 24 hours.
But you can achieve this fact of 12 hours daylight, 12 hours darkness in a 24 hour day, if the Earth spins on its axis causing 1/2 of day sunshine and 1/2 day nighttime. This is not a math proof but rather a Logical commonsense conclusion. Do I pick a Sun revolving approaching the speed of light to make a day, or do I pick a round Earth revolving on its axis.
So we pick a Round Earth revolving on its Axis to make day and nighttime in one day.
But now the question is, from just the fact of day and night time being 1/2 of the day, can we sort out whether we have Earth at the center of the Solar System or Sun at the center of the solar system.
So far we have Earth is round and moving on its axis. The 4 seasons of the year tell us the axis is tilted between 20 and 30 degrees to cause the 4 seasons.
But here I want to Logically Tell whether we have geocentric solar system or a Sun-centered solar system.
Apparently, by Logic, I need to bring in a third astronomical body, either the Moon or Venus. I do not see any way around Logically coming to the conclusion of Heliocentric solar system than by bringing in either Moon or Venus.
If the solar system is Earth centered with Sun revolving around Earth, then you do not have the pattern of the Moon Phases. We have a regular pattern that is obeyed throughout the year and ensuing years. If we had a Earth revolving around the Sun, then we have the Moon phases as we currently observe them to be. We could use Venus to come to the same conclusion, and by using both Moon and Venus combined we confirm the truth--- Heliocentric solar system.
When Archimedes in Ancient Greek times writes in his Sand Reckoner "His hypotheses are that the fixed stars and the sun remain unmoved, that the earth revolves about the sun on the circumference of a circle, the sun lying in the middle of the orbit". The best way for Archimedes, Aristarchus, Eratosthenes to come to that conclusion, is that the Moon phases are caused by a Earth-Moon revolving around a relative-stationary Sun meaning--- heliocentric solar system.
AP, King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 16, 2025, 8:51:08 PM12/16/25
to Plutonium Atom Universe
This is the world's first greatest Experiment of Physics, with a close contender in Thales experiments on Lodestone attracting nails and with Amber rubbed in Fur for magnetism and static electricity.
But undoubtedly, the world's all time greatest science theory occurred in Ancient Greek times with Leucippus and Democritus the Atomic Theory. The greatest discovery in all of science and human history.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 17, 2025, 6:01:59 PM12/17/25
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Of course I have just a plastic half circle compass with 0 degrees to 180 degrees marked on it.
But humanity has built glorious compasses of stone such as the Egypt Pyramids and England Stonehenge. Built so that they could marvel at what I am marveling here in 17December 2025. The setting of the Sun near Winter Solstice, the shortest day of the year 21December 2025. And from due West as 0 degrees, the Sun is setting according to my compass at 30 degrees off of 0 degrees.
By the time, 6 months later in 21June 2026, the Sun will be setting on my due West of 0 degrees.
So, yes, the Stonehenge and the Pyramids of Egypt were monuments to astronomy, worshipping the Sun as it sets and rises.
In order for Earth to have a day of 24 hours with half of it in daylight, means the Earth is Round and rotates on its axis in 24 hours.
In order to have 4 seasons, the Earth axis is tilted by 20 to 30 degrees on its axis.
In order for the Moon to have regular phases throughout the year, means the Sun is the center of the solar system and that Earth+Moon revolve around the Sun.
This was all known to the genius Ancient Greeks of Eratosthenes- Aristarchus- Archimedes. All three knew Earth had to be Round, had to spin on a axis, and that axis was tilted by 20 to 30 degrees, and knew the Sun was the center of the Solar System with Earth+Moon revolving around the Sun in 1 year.
If I can find out whether Archimedes had Lodestone, Amber plus Fur on his island home Siracusa (Sicily), I would anticipate that Archimedes had figured out the Universal law of gravity, thousands of years before Newton figured it out. Only Archimedes would have figured it out better than Newton, because Archimedes would assign gravity to this mysterious force of attraction of electromagnetism. While Newton and beyond never even unified gravity to electromagnetism (what I call the dumb Old Physics).
So, did Archimedes have the Lodestone, Amber ?????
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 18, 2025, 3:29:29 AM12/18/25
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, I am not trying to hide the fact of my newfound interest in Constellations of the night sky which I only spent time on in youth and just completely neglected thereafter.
But am picking it back up again, to see if Constellation watching can tell the Ancient Greek person who is logical these 4 important conclusions.
1) Earth is Round, not flat
2) Earth rotates in 24 hours on its axis
3) Earth axis is tilted between 20 and 30 degrees to produce 4 seasons in a year
4) Earth revolves around the Sun with Sun __relatively stationary___ to Earth+Moon
So I have it boiled down to this, in logical thinking.
1') Earth is Round not flat for that makes more logical sense that Earth spin on a axis to give approximately 12 hours daylight and 12 hours darkness, rather than the stupid idea that the Sun revolves around a flat Earth at some humungus speed in order to make 12 hours daylight and 12 hours darkness.
2') Again, are we to believe a Sun having to be a fraction of the speed of light to revolve around Earth for 12 hours daylight, 12 hours darkness, when we can consider a round Earth rotating on axis in 24 hours. Sort of like a Occam's Razor-- we pick the easiest answer.
3' I suspect the Ancient Greeks experienced oil lamps and fires and when you hold your hand perpendicular it gets hot fast. When you hold your hand at a angle, less warm. Applying that to Earth axis, summer is direct heat from Sun, winter is heat at angle.
4' The regular phases of the Moon are only possible in a heliocentric solar system, not geocentric.
But now, can we glean all four of the above from observation of Constellations, only??????
Some of the Ancient Greeks were so genius that they would have determined the stars are a Sun far away in the distance. They would have understood stars as far away Suns.
They would have spent a long time in observing the night sky, as long as most humans watch TV at night.
They would have noticed that the Big Dipper is due East, then due North, then due West, then due South for the 4 seasons, while Polaris, the North Star is almost stationary fixed in the night sky.
Could this observation of Big Dipper and Polaris have told the genius Ancient Greek person this????
1) Earth is Round
2) Earth rotates on its axis in 24 hours
3) tilt of axis gives 4 seasons
4) Sun is center of solar system where Earth + Moon revolve around Sun.
I am asking if just observations of Constellations would answer all four questions????
1") Easier to say Earth is Round then to say the Big Dipper far away is moving at the almost the speed of light to make a 360 degree circuit.
2") Sun moving at fraction of speed of light to revolve around Earth to make a 24 hour circuit, then stars far away would be near the speed of light itself to make the circuit.
3") So the constellation Big Dipper matches the 4 seasons in placement indicates a revolving Earth with a tilt in axis.
4") Sun at center of solar system with stars far away almost stationary fixed explains the Big Dipper in East then North then West then South.
I am wanting to explain the facts of Earth by only the observation of Constellations.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 10, 2026, 1:17:02 AM (7 days ago) Jan 10
to Plutonium Atom Universe
In this textbook I speak a-lot about the science of astronomy for it was one of humanity's first science, thinking of stars and planets as gods and later seeing them as bodies like Earth. An examination of the history of astronomy is possibly an examination of the human mind itself, on how it figures out "How things Work".
And Logically, now, here in year 2026 we can use logic to streamline how we come to truthfully know the Earth is (1) Round (2) rotates on a tilted axis (3) and revolves around our star Sun. We know the history. But put ourselves back in time. To the time of Aristarchus or Eratosthenes and see if we could have figured out ourselves that Earth is round, rotates on tilted axis and revolves around the Sun.
In my High School textbook on Logic, I wrote this.
1st Astronomy experiment: Observe the North Star and watch how the Big Dipper slowly rotates in the night sky. Focus on proving the Earth is Round and rotates on its axis.The light pollution near cities is so bad that you cannot even see the constellations, so I may have to switch to the Moon.
I have been working on astronomy in my Advanced Logic textbook, proving Earth is round, not flat. And proving Earth revolves around Sun and not the other way of geocentric system.
Of course when sailors sailed around Earth is demonstrable proof Earth is Round.
But, and however, the proof that Earth goes around the Sun, and not that Sun goes around Earth is best proved by what??? Is the Venus observations the best proof.
I am thinking we can make One Logical Argument that proves Earth is Round, and it spins on its axis with a tilt, and it goes around the Sun, not vice versa. All proven by the idea of the size of the Sun and its distance away from us and the speed of Sun and Earth in space.
I am saying speed and distance alone should prove these items. Only the proof is a Occam's Razor of easiest explanation is the true explanation.
1) Earth is Round
2) Earth spins on a tilted axis
3) Earth goes around Sun, not vice versa
What I am saying in the above. Suppose we existed in Ancient Greek times; could we have logically figured out those 3 facts by the mere observance of distance and speed motion of Sun, Moon??? I believe so.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 10, 2026, 1:34:37 AM (7 days ago) Jan 10
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So say I was transported in time to that of Aristarchus 310 - 230 BC with his Heliocentric theory.
Could I have done better than Aristarchus, by using a logic argument of distance and speed of motion of Sun, Earth, Moon.
AP reasoning:: So say you believe in a flat Earth with Sun go around a fixed Earth-- trouble with that is you have an immense mass of Sun approaching the speed of Light in order to move through the celestial sphere and have a 12 hour day and 12 hour night on Earth.
Again, the 12 hour day and 12 hour night is best explained by a round Earth spinning on an axis. If the axis is tilted, you have 4 seasons due to amount of sunshine hits Earth surface.
How to figure out if Earth is moving around Sun or Sun around Earth was realized by Galileo with the motion of planet Venus.
But here again, the motion of a massive body like the Sun going around a tiny body like Earth, makes less logical sense than to say, motion of Sun and planets, is that of smaller goes around bigger.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 11, 2026, 6:32:15 AM (6 days ago) Jan 11
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright I am going to do a chapter on the Ancient Greeks, with such powerful geniuses that they would have figured out the Force of Gravity and would have figured out how Stars shine. All from the use of excellent logic.
Figuring out the force of gravity anticipating Newton by Ancient Greeks
--------------------------------------------------
So I do not know if the Ancient Greeks met up with people living in the Southern Hemisphere? I would guess if they met up with anyone in the Southern Hemisphere would be in Africa.
Maybe everything in the southern hemisphere was unknown to someone like Archimedes 1st. Those geniuses, Thales, Aristarchus, Eratosthenes, Archimedes 1st certainly gave brilliant arguments that the Earth was Round and moved on a tilted axis. Not sure if they proved the heliocentric system for Ptolemy would build his epicycle model which is geocentric.
Although I am confident that if all of Archimedes 1st writings had been saved, he would have provided a convincing argument for heliocentric system.
An argument on the lines, that if the Sun moved around Earth, that one side of the Sun would look like an egg because of its fast movement. Sort of like this picture OOo ---> direction of motion where the biggest flame is in the rear. Yet the Sun is more like this picture O meaning it is relatively at rest as viewed from Earth (please, never stare into the Sun-- it will blind you!!!!!!)
So how would these Greek geniuses have made the case for everything on the opposite hemisphere, not fall off and fall into empty space??? How would they have solved that question after finding out Earth was Round?
I believe they would have provided a two-prong argument. First, they would say that if one were to travel South there is no noticeable tilt to the Earth like walking down a mountain, one senses you are going to fall. So this is a logical argument.
But then a second argument would have to anticipate Newton's law of gravity, outright. These Greeks were so high powered geniuses, I have no doubt that Archimedes 1st and others would have focused in on the Lodestone, that magnetic naturally occurring rock that holds nails by magnetism. I would even bet that Archimedes sailed to where Thales and the lodestone were mined and sailed them back to Syracuse Island.
So what these geniuses would offer the world, to explain gravity force, is a form of magnetism that would hold Earth together as a sphere and hold objects on Earth to the surface, no matter where on Earth you be.
And in hindsight, such an explanation is even better than Newton's own explanation, because it points directly to the idea--- all explanations of science end up being the laws of Electromagnetism. As I phrased the Primal Axiom over all of Science--- All is Atom, and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism.
Secondly, these Ancient Greek geniuses, especially Archimedes 1st would have figured out what fuels the Sun and stars.
Figuring out what fuels Sun and stars by Ancient Greek geniuses.
--------------------------------------
So these Greek geniuses figured out Earth was Round and tilted on axis and rotated on this axis.
Were they so brilliant that they could figure out what fueled the Sun and stars? Remember, they realized that the Sun as a star, only stars are so far away they look tiny. Yes, I believe so, and if all their writings had been saved I bet one would outline this argument.
Electricity and magnetism were discovered in Ancient Greek, by Thales who experimented with the Lodestone. Then he experimented with fur and rubbing amber in fur to see static electricity. He picked up objects with the amber. He noticed Light with static electricity. The words "electricity" and "electron" comes from "of amber".
Of course there were electric eels that people noticed long before Thales.
So, now, what would Archimedes 1st have argued on how the Sun shines?? He would be familar with coal and seen how powerful coal burns. He would have seen fires, forest fires in his life. Would he have concluded that the Sun was a gigantic coal body on fire?
I think not. For the logic is that the Sun shines so steadily that Archimedes would have looked for something more steady. He would have had Thales fur and amber experiments and noticed that the fur and amber remained the same before and after it created the Light. He was aware of the Democritus Atomic Theory and would have reasoned that fire was a atom. Empedocles proposed Earth, Air, Fire, Water was the composition of everything. Archimedes would then combine fire into a "fire atom". And it is these "fire atoms" that are released to form light and heat.
Archimedes would have reasoned that since no loss of fur or of amber when rubbed together but only a release of Light, he could then say that the Sun is fueled by electricity.
We saw before that the Lodestone makes even a better argument for gravity than does Newton for it places gravity as a force of electricity.
The argument that Sun and stars shine from fire atoms is even better than our current physics community who thinks Atoms have nuclei and stars shine from fusion. No, Atoms have protons which are proton toruses and with the muon thrusting through the torus produces electricity.
So here again, if the Ancient Greek geniuses had figured that out, they would even make modern day physicists look like morons.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 11, 2026, 6:27:28 PM (5 days ago) Jan 11
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Talking some more about the Sun. So Winter Solstice was back in 21Dec2025 and I recorded the time of the Sun dipping completely below the horizon as being 4:58PM, and today is 11Jan2026 with a beautiful clear day and sunset below the horizon at 5:15PM.
By Summer Solstice in June 2026 is 6 months away. The angle of swing back to due West is the angle of tilt of Earth axis 23 degrees. We are almost at 1 month gone by of 6 months so 23 / 6 = about 4 degrees.
As I saw the sunset (never look directly at the Sun as it will blind you!!!!) I would definitely say it had moved 4 degrees off of its 21Dec sunset and heading for due West by June 21.
The Ancient Greeks would have noticed all of this and would have easily concluded Earth is Round, and rotates on axis that is tilted 23 degrees.
And the reason Ancient peoples built Stonehenge and Pyramids that record Sun movement.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 11, 2026, 7:00:55 PM (5 days ago) Jan 11
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I ended Teaching True Logic with the Atomic Theory, and let me end Advanced Logic with the Atomic Theory, the most important science in all of science.
Notice that Feynman gives the Atomic Theory in his remarkable lectures.
--- quoting ---
The Feynman Lectures on Physics, 1963
page 1-2
If, in some cataclysm, all of scientific knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence passed on to the next generations of creatures, what statement would contain the most information in the fewest words? I believe it is the Atomic hypothesis (or the atomic fact, or whatever you wish to call it) that All things are made up of atoms-- little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another.
--- end quote ---
The Feynman Lectures on Physics, 1963
page 1-2
If, in some cataclysm, all of scientific knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence passed on to the next generations of creatures, what statement would contain the most information in the fewest words? I believe it is the Atomic hypothesis (or the atomic fact, or whatever you wish to call it) that All things are made up of atoms-- little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another.
--- end quote ---
But also, earlier on page 1-1, Feynman defines what Science is.
--- quoting Feynman, Lectures on Physics, 1963, page 1-1 ---
The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific "truth". But what is the source of knowledge? Where do the laws that are to be tested come from? Experiment, itself, helps to produce these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints. But also needed is imagination to create from these hints the great generalizations---- to guess at the wonderful, simple, but very strange patterns beneath them all, and to experiment to check again whether we have made the right guess.
--- end quoting Feynman, Lectures on Physics, 1963, page 1-1 ---
Now, look at and examine the two words "Perpetual Motion" in Feynman's atomic theory statement.
Did he have to put "perpetual motion" in his statement??? Could he have left it out and said something like this-- Atomic Theory is that all matter is made up of 1 or more of the 114 chemical elements found in the Periodic Table of Elements?
So, the question is, logically, if Feynman defines Science as being experiment driven, then what allows Feynman to say atoms are in "Perpetual Motion"??????
To my mind, at this moment, I can think of only one, one and only one experiment that allows Feynman to include Perpetual Motion in his statement of the Atomic Theory. And that experiment is one in which, when I first learned it in College was an experiment I was not, very not excited by-- Brownian Motion.
AP, King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 11, 2026, 7:40:17 PM (5 days ago) Jan 11
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On page 1-8, Feynman says ".. a perpetual jiggling of the particles.. Brownian motion."
Personally, to me, that is true, but not satisfying. Feynman included "Perpetual Motion" in his Atomic Theory, but to me unsatisfactorily detailed this concept of "perpetual motion".
Looking to other authors for Brownian motion.
--- quoting Wehr, Richards, Adair 1984, Physics of the Atom, page 9---
In 1827, the English botanist Robert Brown observed that microscopic pollen grains suspended in water appear to dance about in random fashion. At first the phenomenon was ascribed to the motions of living matter. In time, however, it was found that any kind of fine particles suspended in a liquid performed such a perpetual dance. Eventually it was realized that the molecules of a liquid are in constant motion and that the suspended particles recoiled (Brownian movement) when hit by the molecules of the liquid.
........
...The simplest state of matter to consider was a gas. The ideal gas law, for n moles of a gas, is PV = nRT, where R is the universal gas constant per mole and P, V, and T are the pressure, volume and temperature, respectively.
--- end quoting Wehr, Richards, Adair 1984, Physics of the Atom, page 9---
AP writes: so yes, it is valuable that Feynman put the concept of "Perpetual Motion" into his statement of the Atomic Theory for in truth, it is the essential part of the Atomic theory.
But the Experiments to date, to assure science that Atoms were in Perpetual Motion is a flimsy record.
So here I am going to add and bolster and support with overwhelming evidence that Atoms have Perpetual Motion, while biology and the world of molecules do not have perpetual motion. I am going to point out the Source of Perpetual Motion, which arises inside every Atom that exists.
Inside an atom are its Protons, 1 for hydrogen, 6 for carbon and 94 for plutonium. All protons form into a single big proton torus, so in carbon the 6 protons form 1 big proton torus of 6 x 840MeV. Now the true electron of Atoms is the Muon which is inside the proton torus, and for carbon these 6 muons form a chain 6 x 105MeV. This muon chain thrusts through the carbon proton torus at nearly the speed of light in the Faraday Law producing electricity and that electricity is most often stored in neutrons as parallel plate capacitors. If the atom is in a star, much of the electrical energy is emitted as starshine rather than stored in a neutron. Neutrons grow from 1 eV all the way up to 945MeV and this is how the Universe grows bigger.
In order for any and all Atoms to exist, and even have a Atomic Theory, requires Perpetual Motion of the muon thrusting through proton torus.
Now, can a experimental physicist set up a Brownian Motion experiment that implies the Muon thrusting through the Proton Torus is the cause of what Feynman calls the "jiggling"??????? I do not know if we can get that fine of a experiment.
But another experiment that needs to be made is to release a muon out of a 938MeV proton (current best mass measure), where you end up with a empty proton torus of 840MeV and with a ejected 105MeV muon. As far as I know, the Proton is far far too stable to release its inner muon thrusting through the proton torus.
However, in recent times there is the excessive Muon magnetism. And this is likely the easiest route to prove muons reside inside proton toruses acting as bar magnets in the Faraday Law.
AP, King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 11, 2026, 8:14:44 PM (5 days ago) Jan 11
to Plutonium Atom Universe
The essence of Perpetual Motion arises from the fact, that the Muon thrusts through the Proton Torus at nearly the speed of light producing new electrical energy.
So, Logic has to examine this fact and link it up to Light having zero rest mass-- that is--- perpetual motion, for it never at rest.
The World, entire World works, because muon is doing the Faraday law inside a proton torus.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 12, 2026, 1:38:40 AM (5 days ago) Jan 12
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So the proof that no machine can do perpetual motion is quite easy. Simply refer to the fact that in the Universe only individual Atoms can partake in perpetual motion as the muon is a bar magnet thrusting inside a proton torus as coil in Faraday Law. No molecule or assembly of atoms in a mixture can do the Faraday law, only inside a individual atom is perpetual motion going on.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 12, 2026, 2:44:32 AM (5 days ago) Jan 12
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Now in my logic textbooks of college #367 and #368 I give a 19 line logic proof that the Universe is a Plutonium Atom Totality, a single big atom of plutonium that composes all of the Universe.
Talking about Perpetual Motion, by logic we can reduce those 19 line argument down to 2 lines.
1) Only Atoms have perpetual motion of the muons thrusting through proton torus.
2) The totality of the Universe must be of the superior structure of a perpetual motion machine-- a single atom-- and since plutonium element fits all the special numbers in math and physics the best--- our Universe is a Plutonium Atom Totality.
Yes indeed, that is the shortest, easiest proof of the Atom Totality. For those people who are into religion and never science it is an argument like this which they can understand.
1) If the Universe is either a God or humanity, will God is superior to humanity.
2) Hence, the Universe is God and God created humanity.
You see, atoms with perpetual motion have Godlike features.
AP, King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 12, 2026, 10:09:20 PM (4 days ago) Jan 12
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So the problem I have with Feynman in the below talk of his statement of the Atomic Theory, saying that it is "perpetual motion" yet Feynman goes to extreme lengths to say Science itself is in essence "Experiment experiment experiment" yet only Brownian motion gives Feynman the right to add perpetual motion to the Atomic Theory. That to me seems awkward.
But, now, what if we say that all Light Photons ( I dare not say waves because Light is a wire not a wave). What if I say that Light Photons have ----- No Rest Mass----. When I say that, am I really just saying Light is in perpetual motion??????? I believe I can say that in full honesty. And think of it as a mere language slip up.
When we say Light Photons have no rest mass, we can replace that with Light Photons are in perpetual motion until absorbed by some other atoms.
Now, we have not just Brownian Motion but every Photon that ever existed as a experimental display of Perpetual Motion. And yes indeed Dr. Feynman go ahead and make Perpetual Motion the crux of the Atomic Theory.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages