Groups
Groups

#370 AP's logic textbook--- Intermediate LOGIC // Teaching True Logic textbook series by Archimedes Plutonium This is AP's 370th published book of science published on Internet, Plutonium-Atom-Universe, PAU newsgroup is this. Please read this

1,022 views
Skip to first unread message

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
May 15, 2026, 5:55:48 PMMay 15
to Plutonium Atom Universe


Intermediate LOGIC // Teaching True Logic textbook series 


by Archimedes Plutonium 



This is AP's 370th published book of science published on Internet, Plutonium-Atom-Universe, PAU newsgroup is this. Please read this textbook for free on Internet.

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


Preface: This textbook is an expansion and detailing of my #366 textbook of Logic--- Elementary Logic. And this textbook has a main theme of where ideas come from, do they come from within the body, or, out of body? You maybe surprised of the answer. 


Cover picture: My photograph picture of a new type of Rubik's Cube illustrating all of knowledge.



---------------------------------

Table of Contents

---------------------------------


Introduction


Part 1. What is Logic and Knowledge and where does Logic fit in?


Part 2. Fundamental Elements of Physics of Mathematics and of Logic.


Part 3. Theory of the Mind and the basis of the science of Psychology comes from Physics.


Part 4. The logic of how Ideas are made by Psychology, the out-of-body Ideas.


Part 5. The magnificent 1887 Hertz Experiment explaining the creation of Ideas and the movement of ideas in the cosmos.


Part 6. Superdeterminism (quantum entanglement) and how it affects Logic.


Part 7. More examples of Reasoned-Arguments.


Part 8. More details of Equalities of Logic, which Old Logic called "Rules of Inference".


Part 9. More details of Logic Law-structures such as Occam's Razor.


Part 10. Infinity well-defined.


Part 11. Fallacies of Logic committed by logicians from DeMorgan, Boole, Jevons onward.


Part 12. The concept of "time" as analyzed by Logic.


Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
May 16, 2026, 2:21:42 AMMay 16
to Plutonium Atom Universe

----------
Text
----------

Introduction


This textbook has a main theme, in that Ideas come from out-of-the-body from the Atom Totality Control Center and these ideas are shot by Light-photons into human minds much the same as like a tv antenna receiver picks up signals. And this is core science of Psychology due to the Hertz experiment of 1887 and due to Bell-test-experiments 1972-1982 resulting in superdeterminism.

I have prescribed that all science students seeking a degree in science be required to take two years mandatory logic in college or university. The Elementary and Intermediate Logic textbooks fulfills that requirement, in my opinion. But some, who find these two textbooks enjoyable, I recommend they take Advanced Logic where I make case studies of famous scientists and how Logic would have spared them that embarrassment of messing-up.

I bring in philosophy as a subset of Logic, especially the philosophy of Pragmatism as the best philosophy system of all since its mechanism is the 'scientific method'. Meaning is future actions. Knowledge is in the "doing". Ideas for a pragmatist are weapons for purposeful future actions.

In my Elementary Logic textbook I listed a table -- a glossary of well defined terms used in science, logic and math and I repeat that glossary here so that we can keep straight in our minds what we are talking about.


Terms for science, especially physics but all the other sciences included.
----------------

(1) Statement-- Some call them fact or facts.

(2) Concept -- A collection of statements, that is a collection of facts.

(3) Hypothesis-- Some call them implies as in material implication, some call them prediction.

(4) Law-structure-- Some call them Principle--- these are borne from experiments especially physics. Just today in 21April2026 I am reading a National Geographic of May 2026 issue titled "Secrets of the Bees" with loads and loads of experiments performed upon bees, and was stunned to find out that humanity was spraying the bees to get rid of mites, but the spray itself was killing the poor bees.

(5) Theory-- Is a collection of law-structures or principles.

(6) Universal Axiom-- Is a summary of the total science.

For the science of Physics, this universal-axiom says--- All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. The Universal Axiom for Biology which includes Bees is very much different than the one for Physics. I bring up bees because May of 2026 National Geographic has a feature article on bees "The hidden genius of one of nature's most essential creatures". And yes, bees are logical. But humans are often illogical, and I say that because many beekeepers were trying to treat their bees with a mite chemical, but the chemical itself was killing the bees. Not logical at all.

This last one (6) is a big surprise to me, for I had called it Primal Axiom for many years in Usenet and newsgroups that I had posted to from 1993 through 2026, but now it is the Universal Axiom. I suppose Science ends with a summary, each science having a summary and for Physics, that would be--- All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism.

Alas, well, I maybe able to get rid of the use of the word "law" by calling all laws simply "principle" so that human society with their jurisprudence and the law enforcement can have "law" all for themselves and science use "principle"-- Faraday principle or Ohm principle the gravity principle. You see, I hate it when ordinary language uses the term "law" to mean something far different than what science means when it says "law". For in science, laws are universal, not man-made-- here today-gone tomorrow.
 

Terms for Logic
-------------

(1) Statement-- An idea which is either word or sentence algebra or picture-image which can have various truth values, T, F or partial T, partial F.

(2) Premiss--Checking the statements to see if true by best science on the subject matter. A statement is a raw, unvalued for truth idea. Once a statement is evaluated by science it is given a truth value. And premisses are statements of a large percentage of truth.

(3) Connector-structure -- This is easy for these are the 6 connectors of logic-- Existential quantifier, Not-Equal, AND, OR, If-->Then, Universal quantifier. These are similar to the 6 operators of mathematics.

(4) Reasoning, Discourse, Argument, -- a collection of premisses leading to a conclusion, the smallest is a 2 premiss argument called a Syllogism.
So take my pick, logical-reasoning, logical-discourse, logical-argument? In math this would be called a proof. I am going to stick with Reasoning.
 
(5) Equalities--  Some call them Rules of Induction or Rules of Inference such as commutative, associative, distributive, transposition. Copi in his "Introduction to Logic on inside front cover and back cover lists 19 Rules of Inference starting with Modus Ponens and ending with Tautology. Here in New Logic, we have very few Equalities because math has very few equalities among math's operators. Math does have add equals to subtraction as inverses and written like this Addition = Inverse[subtraction] and math has Multiplication = Inverse[division]. Math has equalities of commutative, associative and distributive and so does Logic. When Old Logic makes their many mistakes, they end up with 19 Rules of Inference. If Old Logic made no mistakes, they end up with only a few rules of inference which I call equalities.

(6) Law-structure-- The summary of Logic in such structures as NonContradiction in logic and Occam's Razor in logic, EI existential instantiation, EG existential generalization, UI universal instantiation, UG universal generalization.


Terms for mathematics
-----------------------

(1) Statement-- Either in number algebra written out in symbols or numbers, or a picture of geometry figures.

(2) Axiom (some call them postulates and not to be confused with principle)-- Accepted statements without proof. In science we get to doing mathematics and we come to where we have to agree on truth that is common-sense and not able to be further analyzed, and so we accept them fully as true. Axioms such as add, subtract, multiply, divide, differentiate, integrate, and the proof deduction mechanism are accepted without any further analysis.

(3) Operator-structure-- These are the 6 operators of mathematics-- add, subtract, multiply, divide, derivative of calculus, integral of calculus.

(4) Proof -- Is a stepwise deduction using axioms and other data. The logic reasoned-argument becomes the math proof.

(5) Theorem -(corollary-is a smaller theorem)-- Is a statement with a given deductive proof, step by step proof.

(6) Theory-- The summary of parts of mathematics such as a geometry theory or algebra number theory or probability theory or set theory even a total mathematics theory.

Bizarrely, or should I say awesomely, that there appears some spin rotation in these crucial terms of science, logic, math.

So for **Science** we have Statement, Concept, Hypothesis, Law-structure, Theory, Universal Axiom.

For **Logic** we have Statement, Premiss, Connector-structure, Reasoning, Equalities, Law-structure.

For **Math** we have Statement, Axiom, Operator-structure, Proof, Theorem, Theory

Notice that Math ends in summary as a theory which is 2nd from bottom of science. Notice that Logic ends with summary of Law-structure which is 3rd from bottom for Science.

All three start with "statement". For physics that would be a observation, for logic that would be a idea in word-sentence form or picture-image form, and for math that would be a sentence of number algebra or geometry figure image.

So now, as I go further into this textbook, I will use those terms above, even though other scientists are rather loose on terms and thereby making mistakes.



Part 1. What is Logic and Knowledge and where does Logic fit in?



Before I discuss and define logic and knowledge, I need to well-define what is Science and how science works, for Logic is a science and knowledge is a product of science.

Science has a method called the Scientific Method. It is the gain of knowledge of the world by observation and experiments and careful logical ideas. Science uses math for precision and accuracy. Science is the only knowledge that can predict the future by the patterns of the law-structures such as the Atomic theory and electromagnetism forces. By knowing how gravity works, we can predict where our spacecrafts visiting the moon are located and will be in the near future. Physics is the top science for it has the most experiments and law-structures of electromagnetism.

Logic is another science but much lower of importance than physics. Logic is the science of precise and accurate Ideas, while math is the science of numbers and geometry figures; Logic is the science of Ideas.

Math is the lowest of sciences for it is that of precision and accuracy when using quantity, measure, formulas and geometry. Math actually is the easiest of the sciences and not only the lowest of the sciences. The only reason that math is difficult today as of May 2026, is that the math community uses the fake numbers of Reals and uses a fake calculus. In New Math of AP, all calculus textbooks can be reduced to 300 pages instead of the recent Stewart calculus textbook, his 5th edition, 2003 of over 1168 pages. The reason he needs so many pages is because he is in "fake calculus" that uses Reals, never understood Polynomials are the only valid function and thinks the derivative is a tangent line to the function graph at a point. No wonder Stewart could never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, mired down in all those phony ideas.

Logic has had its share of horrible mistakes, in fact, the AP textbooks on Logic are the world's first logic textbooks that has all the 4 simple and the 6 crucial Logic connectors taught correctly, I am speaking of Existential quantifier, Equal-Not, AND, OR, If-->Then, Universal Quantifier.

It is a sad and a horrible reflection that not one single logician in modern times had AND, OR, Equal-Not, If-->Then, correct. In fact so ludicrous is Old Logic that they thought OR is addition as can be seen inside the front cover of Copi's logic textbook, 4th edition, 1972 where he writes
as Rules of Inference
9. Addition (Add)
p
therefore p or q

That entails... that means that Copi thought the AND connector is subtraction. Sad, weird, upsetting to think people had the notion of AND as a form of subtraction, with OR as addition.

No wonder that people in Old Math, especially math professors could never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus nor could tell the difference between a ellipse and a oval, because, well, they had no logical mind to even understand that AND has to be addition and OR has to be subtraction-- as remove. Remove either p or remove q.

Logic is the science that helps you: Think Straight and Think Clearly, and Think Correctly, and woe to any scientist who is bad in logic. But woe to any person who is not logical for life will have many stumbling blocks and losses to those that are illogical.

This is why I insist in College and University for all science majors to have 2 years of logic study, mandatory.

So, take the simple Logic test, right here, right now. What is the slant cut of a cone, a right-circular cone? As shown in the pictures below.

This is your first homework assignment in class. Write a one page paper on whether the slant cut of Cone is ellipse or is it a oval, and why you think so. This assignment is easy for those who took Elementary Logic for it is the same first homework assignment. This test is simple and easy to understand, but shows that in the history of science, a mistake can last for 2026 + 190 = over 2,200 years when Apollonius of Ancient Greeks wrote that the slant cut of cone was a ellipse.


--- quoting Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia---





--- end quoting Wikipedia---
ppp

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
May 16, 2026, 2:40:38 AMMay 16
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Again, the easiest definition of Logic is taken from mathematics numbers. Instead of playing around with numbers in mathematics, we substitute Ideas for numbers and play around with ideas. But of course, well, we compare math to logic, we still have geometry besides having numbers. So in this book we explore the idea concept as to whether it is words and sentence ideas and whether there are picture-image ideas. Just as math is split between numbers and geometry, we consider that Logic is split between words-sentence ideas and picture-image ideas.

Archimedes Plutonium Mar 11, 2026, 3:11:52 AM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.

In "Elementary Logic" textbook, I often stated that truth of ideas comes from the best available science on the topic. And we can make a list such as this of all knowledge evaluated by science.


                                        Physics
                                       /
                                   Chemistry
                                    /
                                  Astronomy, Geology
                                  /
                                Biology which includes Sociology and language, medicine, political science,
                                              history
                                /
                              Logic = statements + images
                             /
                           Mathematics = numbers + geometry figures


But the trouble with a diagram like that--- it does not show relationships such as math is connected directly to physics. The diagram should not be linear but rather circular where one science influences other sciences.

A sphere would be nice to show this interconnectedness, but a modified Rubik's Cube would be even better.

A Rubik's Cube has 9 small cubes in 3 rows per face, there are 6 faces so that equals 27 small cubes with 54 small cube faces.  Now the faces showing in a Rubik Cube would be 9 times 6 = 54 small faces showing at any one instant of time. Now, if we give physics 9 small cube faces then we have 54-9= 45 remaining small cubes. Now we give chemistry 4 small cube faces and give biology 4 small cube faces and so we have remaining 45-8 = 37. Now astronomy we give it 2 small cubes, geology 1 small cube, leaving us with 37-3= 34.

Now, surprisingly we need to give Logic 2 small cube faces and give Mathematics 2 small cube faces, for the reason that mathematics is split into two houses-- numbers and geometry figures. Logic is also split into two houses--- ideas as words, sentence statements and ideas as picture-images.

The images of the world, whether an eyesight image, a photograph a painting picture, is geometry, compared to say text of word-sentence-statement as algebra. Say, the difference of watching a movie of Noah's Ark and reading it in the Bible.

This geometrical-logic of picture-images is the philosophy Pragmatism. And since pragmatism is the finest logic-philosophy, we can say that Logic = statements + images. Similar to Mathematics = numbers + geometry figures.

Now in the AP cube I wanted to give a sense of interconnectedness, where chemistry small cube faces are near physics small cube faces and where Logic and Math small cube faces are near physics small cube faces.

We can visualize other so called sciences like economics, political science, history as far away from the all physics face of 9 small cube faces.

Archimedes Plutonium Mar 11, 2026, 3:25:02 AM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.

So what I have in mind is all the blue colored small squares be Physics, 4 for chemistry, 4 for biology, until all sciences are represented by a small square. Logic would have 2 small square faces and math would have 2 and be near the Physics square faces. This is how I can best relate the idea of interconnectedness of science.

AP's opinion:: if such a cube were manufactured, it would be utterly simple to play, for the rule would be to just get all the blue physics onto 1 large cube face. Question:: Is the AP (rubik)cube the Most Simple of all rubik Cubes, after you have a cube face that is totally all one color, where you actually do not need to move anything at all???? Silly people are always looking to make things difficult, when we should look to make things easy. Such as AP's books on Calculus, reducing calculus to just add or subtract 1 from exponent of polynomial , because the only valid function in all of math is the Polynomial.

--- quoting Wikipedia---

free encyclopedia

Rubik's Cube

pp
--- quoting Wikipedia---
free encyclopedia
Rubik's Cube

Other names

Magic Cube, Cube

Type

Combination puzzle

Invented by

Ernő Rubik

Company

Rubik's Brand Ltd (Spin Master)[1]

Country

Hungary

Availability

1977: as Hungarian Magic Cube, first test batches released in Budapest
As Rubik's Cube, worldwide, 1980–present
An illustration of an unsolved Rubik's Cube

 

ppp

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
May 16, 2026, 6:32:06 PMMay 16
to Plutonium Atom Universe

Archimedes Plutonium Mar 11, 2026, 3:35:38 AM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.

Homework: take a real light colored Rubik's cube and mark 6 x 27 = 162, all 162 small faces with a number from 1 to 162 of the small cubes with a light pencil to erase later and see if you can fit Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc. If no cube available, make sketches of the 6 faces with the sciences in each of the 162 small squares.

Archimedes Plutonium Mar 12, 2026, 8:24:43 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.

Alright, I am momentarily stuck here and need to resolve the issue before I continue with the textbook.

I have arrived at the idea where all of philosophy, be it pragmatism or any other philosophy is a branch of Logic --- the picture-image branch of Logic, where Logic is split into geometry picture-images, and into algebra of word-sentence-statement. So, here, Logic is two branches, picture-images and word-sentence-statement, and all philosophy is the picture-image branch of Logic.

When I do the logic syllogism: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal. Is composed of 2 premisses and conclusion in statement form and is ____algebraic logic____. Realizing of course that picture images spring into my mind as I read the syllogism.

When I do logic by these pictures--- showing a slant cut in cylinder and showing a slant cut in cone--- concluding that the cylinder is ellipse slant cut and cone is oval slant cut. I am doing Geometry Logic as seen in pictures below.

[picture of slant cut of cone, cylinder]

You see, for decades now, AP has been trying to get the math and physics community to correct their big ugly mistake, that the slant cut of Cone is not a ellipse but is an Oval, and so far, for 2 decades now, not a single math professor that I know of has at least more than a 1/2 marble of logical intelligence especially Terence Tao of UCLA and Steve Huffman Univ Virginia with their list of Lunatics, math professors.

Univ Virginia Steve Huffman lists science lunatics:
Reddit (symbol) r/math, 3 years ago Genius meets Lunatic: 1994 discussion between Terry Tao and Ludwig Plutonium
I remember Archimedes Plutonium and sci.math. He calculated the chromatic number of the plane: and it is 1 (color everything...

Univ Virginia math dept: Peter Abramenko, Julie Bergner, Mikhail Ershov, Jeffrey Holt, John Imbrie, Thomas Koberda, Slava Krushkal, Thomas Mark, Jennifer Morse, Ken Ono, Andrei Rapinchuk, Christian Reidys, Jim Rolf, Charles Dunki, Ira Herbst, James Howland, Craig Huneke, Thomas Kriete, Nicholas Kuhn, Irena Lasiecka, Barbara MacCluer, Kevin McCrimmon, Karen Parshall, Loren Pitt, Donald Ramirez, James Rovnyak, Leonard Scott, Lawrence Thomas, Roberto Triggiani, Harold Ward


UCLA chancellor: Gene D. Block (biology)

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

UCLA math dept.

Donald Babbitt, Kirby Baker, Andrea Bertozzi, Mario Bonk, Lennart Carleson, Tony F-C Chan, Shiu-Yuen Cheng, Robert Edwards, Gregory Eskin, Hector Fattorini, Thomas Ferguson, Theodore Gamelin, John Garnett, David Gillman, Mark Green, Nathaniel Grossman, Alfred Hales, Robert Jennrich, Paul Johnson, Alan Laub, Thomas Liggett, Donald Martin, Sidney Port, James Ralston, Paul Roberts, Bruce Rothschild, Murray Schacher, Roberto Schonmann, Masamichi Takesaki, Terence Tao, Veeravalli Varadarajan, James White, Donald Ylvisaker


AP asks:: Steve Huffman, no wonder you are banned in Australia with your constant spamming false math and propaganda, and why cannot a single professor of UCLA or University of Virginia math department admit the truth about slant cut of cone is a Oval, not ellipse?? Why has that become impossible for them to admit the truth??????

Now some ideas in Logic, since ideas come in either word-sentence-statement form or come in picture-image form, some ideas are purely pictures. As seen in this image of the proof of the Pythagorean Theorem of geometry mathematics which has no words-sentences-statements.

[picture of Pythagorean Theorem proof]

Now some ideas in Logic, since ideas come in either word-sentence-statement form or come in picture-image form, some ideas are purely pictures. As seen in this image of the proof of the Pythagorean Theorem of geometry mathematics which has no words-sentences-statements.

[picture of Pythagorean Theorem proof]

--- quoting Wikipedia on Pythagorean theorem proof---
Proofs using constructed squares
Rearrangement proof of the Pythagorean theorem.
(The area of the white space remains constant throughout the translation rearrangement of the triangles. At all moments in time, the area is always c2. And likewise, at all moments in time, the area is always a2 + b2.)
Rearrangement proofs

In one rearrangement proof, two squares are used whose sides have a measure of  and which contain four right triangles whose sides are ab and c, with the hypotenuse being c. In the square on the right side, the triangles are placed such that the corners of the square correspond to the corners of the right angle in the triangles, forming a square in the center whose sides are length c. Each outer square has an area of (a + b)2 as well as 2ab + c2, with 2ab representing the total area of the four triangles. Within the big square on the left side, the four triangles are moved to form two similar rectangles with sides of length a and b. These rectangles in their new position have now delineated two new squares, one having side length a is formed in the bottom-left corner, and another square of side length b formed in the top-right corner. In this new position, this left side now has a square of area (a + b)2 as well as 2ab + a2 + b2. Since both squares have the area of (a + b)2 it follows that the other measure of the square area also equal each other such that 2ab + c2 = 2ab + a2 + b2. With the area of the four triangles removed from both side of the equation what remains is a2 + b2 = c2.

---end quoting Wikipedia on Pythagorean Theorem---

ppp

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
May 17, 2026, 12:52:32 AMMay 17
to Plutonium Atom Universe
What is often left-out in the discussion of the Pythagorean Theorem is the geometry that you Need a 90degree angle.

And the importance of this theorem, linking numbers to 90 degrees if you hand me lengths 3.5, 4, 5, that it cannot form a right-triangle. It forms a triangle, but not a right-triangle. When three numbers A,B,C obey A^2 + B^2 = C^2 those three numbers form a right angle triangle, and those three numbers are called Pythagorean triples. Some Pythagorean triples are <3,4,5> another is <5,12,13>, another is <8,15,17>, etc. The Pythagorean Theorem makes what physics calls quantum duality of magnetism to electricity or particle to circuit, makes in mathematics a duality of number to that of geometry.

Physics uses the Pythagorean theorem everywhere for the law-structures of Electromagnetism depend on the perpendicular, the 90 degree right-angle, such as Faraday law-structure, where only the 90 degree component of the magnetic field in the thrusting bar magnet through copper wire coil translates into electric current in the galvanometer reading.

It looks as though the video above of the proof of the Pythagorean theorem made it through.

Now since Logic is the science of communicating well formed-straight and clear ideas, and correct ideas, we had better know what "ideas" are in the first place. And so we see ideas can come in two forms: one of word-sentence-statement and another in pictures-images.

However, this causes a huge problem of determining how much is a statement/s or premiss/s be that of algebra words-sentence or that of geometry of picture-images????

And one can say, that every algebra statement has a mix of algebra with geometry and every geometry statement has a mix of both.

For example: Statement: Jack ran up the hill until he reached the top. Jack walked down the hill, after he reached the top.

So, in that Logic Statement, we can see there is an algebraic component, but there is also a geometry component in our minds as we form pictures of the events that occurred.

You see, my big problem here is that Old Logic saw all of logic as just "algebraic statements". While New Logic sees statements of Logic can be totally geometrical and not all algebraic. Or a mixture of the two forms.

For example: It is dark nighttime and you turn off the light, nearby the bed. You have a few steps to walk to get to the bed. You turned off the light, but your mind geometrically remembers you have to avoid a cord and avoid a table top. And all of that is possible because the mind has a geometry picture of those next events that take place.

So here I need to spend some time on furnishing New Logic with two branches--- an algebraic symbolic branch and then a branch that can be fully pictures and geometry.

Those 2 pictures earlier, above, of slant cut in cylinder and cone is Geometry Logic, as well as the pictures of the proof of Pythagorean theorem.

The Ideas of Logic come in two forms and often mixed together-- as algebraic form of words-sentences-statements and the geometry picture-image form of idea.


Part 2. Fundamental Elements of Physics of Logic and of Mathematics.



Part 2. Fundamental Elements of Physics of Logic and of mathematics.

Archimedes Plutonium Mar 15, 2026, 5:40:00 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.

The Elements of Physics, Mathematics and Logic
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Since physics dominates the world of ideas and where Logic is a subset of physics and where mathematics in total is a subset of Logic, we should spend some time on exposing what the fundamental elements of physics, logic and mathematics are.

For Physics the base elements of that science are Atoms, and chemistry enshrines the elements in what it calls the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements.

This is a chart of the Atomic Theory, the greatest single science theory in all of human history.

Atoms are the base foundation elements of Physics.

In 5th edition, "Chemistry: The Central Science", by Brown, LeMay, Bursten, goes up to element 105 Ha with 262 nucleons. But looking in Wikipedia, they go up to 118 Og with 294 nucleons.

The elements of Physics are the Atoms, one of 118 known chemical elements. The mistake and huge mistake most people make is that they see the world not composed of these 118 elements but rather see the world of atoms as swimming inside a ocean of subatomic particles such as Light-photons, protons, electrons, neutrons and many other subatomic particles. And swimming around inside of what they think and see as "empty space". This viewpoint is a mistake.

These are a list of ______ subatomic particles______.

Light-photons
Electrons as Muons of 105 MeV as stuck inside a hydrogen atom proton
Magnetic Monopoles of 0.5MeV
Protons as 840MeV proton toruses
Neutrons as growing from 1MeV all the way up to 945MeV when fully grown


Archimedes Plutonium Mar 15, 2026, 9:38:33 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.

When I was taking Logic in college-- 1968-1972 at University of Cincinnati for my degree in mathematics, I took 2 years of Logic one taught from Introduction to Logic, Copi, and one taught from Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Thomason. I remember the thought in both classes, a lack of science in examples or even the comparison of science and math to that of logic. If I look in the index for subject matter for "physics" or for "mathematics" I find nothing in either Thomason or Copi.

But to Copi's credit on page 417, he describes how Pauli in 1930 gave a logical solution to the contradiction of the neutrino and the conservation of energy. Pauli, logically, declared a new particle.

All Old Logic textbooks are junk for the singular reason, alone, they do not recognize the role of Science as the truth giver of the basic elements of Logic---- IDEAS.

The basic Elements of Physics are the atoms, 1 of 118 known chemical atoms. And Atoms in the Atomic Theory---- All things are made up of Atoms or parts of atoms and compose the entire Universe, and the Universe itself is one of those 1 in 118 atoms--- specifically plutonium. In Elementary Logic textbook you learned that the Universe itself must be one of those 118 elements in the Periodic Table. Do you remember why it "must be so"? It must be so, otherwise the Atomic theory of physics is not a universal law-structure. It is a mere rule that is sometimes true but often wrong.

Now in Ancient Greek Atomic Theory the empty space makes up a vast part of the Universe, of dark empty space. But recently in my researches, we find that Microwave Light-photons make up 10^7 more than the rest-mass matter of the universe. This means, in a sense, the entire universe is a single big Plutonium Atom and the dark empty space we see, is occupied by Microwave Photons. In other words, every atom is full of either rest mass particles or photon radiation and _____ no dark empty space vacuum____.

The basic Elements of Mathematics are what?? Is there anyone in this classroom who knows the basic elements of Mathematics??? Probably not, because virtually 100% of math professors in all colleges and universities across the world do not know the basic Elements of Mathematics.

The basic elements of Math are numbers and geometry figures, for the numbers are the Decimal Grid Systems starting with 10 Grid, next 100 Grid, next 1000 Grid until we end up and reach 10^604 Grid where the infinity borderline lies.

Here are all the integer numbers of mathematics for the first 100 integers.

91, 92, 93, 94, 95 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10
00

This is the 10 Grid with a counting successor unit as .1 because you get the next number from any given number by adding .1.

9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5 9.6, 9.7, 9.8, 9.9, 10.0
8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 8.8, 8.9, 9.0
7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9, 8.0
6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 7.0
5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 6.0
4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 5.0
3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 4.0
2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 3.0
1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 2.0
0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0
00

The 10 Grid if we ignore 0 has exactly 100 elements. How many elements would the next higher Grid, the 100 Grid have??

Homework: Write out the __last 100 elements__ of the Decimal 100 Grid. Careful, your last number should be 100.00.

Archimedes Plutonium Mar 15, 2026, 10:18:25 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.

Now Mathematics has two sets of Elements--- numbers for algebra and geometry figures for geometry. The two branches of elements are connected through Pythagorean Theorem and is the reason that theorem is so important in mathematics. Numbers are dual to geometry figures. In Logic, the Existential quantifier is dual to Universal quantifier, and in physics the electricity is dual to magnetism.

It is easy to list all the Number elements of math although time consuming as we list 10 Grid, 100 Grid, 1000 Grid on up to and including 10^604 Grid.

If you do not know it yet, Old Math with their Reals, rationals, irrationals, complex, imaginary and all manner of silly stupid numbers were fools of mathematics. So dumb has the mathematics community become that in the year 1900, Max Planck in Germany showed the world that Physics, all of Physics obeys Quantum Mechanics. Quantum means "discrete". The Decimal Grid numbers are discrete. The Reals are of the continuum and are stupid silly numbers. The endless fools of Old Math never stood up and realized what Planck had discovered, instead, they doubled down into insanity with Cohen seeking ever more continuums. Rather than admitting Quantum Mechanics changed not only physics but all of mathematics.

The geometry branch of Elements of Mathematics is difficult to list, for geometry figures are an enormous list of varying types. We can start off with Point, then line segment, then line out to infinity. But we have to be careful for in True Geometry because Space is Discrete, has ____ no curved line segment or line beyond infinity____. A curved line is a string of small tiny straight-line-segments strung together. And so small are the tiny straight lines that our eyes and mind are fooled into thinking it is a smooth curve line, no, it is tiny straight lines strung together. The smaller the segments, the more the figure looks like a smooth curve.

Geometry Figure Elements
------------------------------------------
Point
Straight line segment
Straight line to infinity borderline
Closed straight line figures triangle, square, rectangle, trapezoid
Curved-straight line figures that are closed -- circle, ellipse, oval (remembering that if we examined these figures under a microscope, they would be tiny straight line figures strung together)
Many more, in fact so many more that a picture or image may contain 10^12 such geometry figures

So to my comment earlier, that while I was in college a teenager and reaching age 21-22, in logic classrooms, I noticed an absence of the sciences like physics or mathematics discussed in Logic. It is as if the subject of logic in academics had become a down-trodden feeble annoying subject that could only once in awhile open its mouth about physics and math and the other sciences.

What AP textbooks on Logic is beginning to show is that Logic is filled with science and that logic dominates over math, all of math and that it is Logic, so powerful that it is tearing down vast swathes of Old Physics with their purported nucleus of Atoms that never existed and their messed up view of thinking Sun and stars shine from fusion, when in truth, they shine from Faraday law-structure.

AP logic textbooks puts Logic back on center stage of wherever science is done, whether it be physics on down to psychology.

No longer is logic some shadow subject.... and I recommend 2 years mandatory course to get a science degree.

Archimedes Plutonium Mar 16, 2026, 4:29:12 AM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.

Since mathematics has 2 Elements to construct it (1) numbers-algebra, (2) geometry figures, that it stands to reason that Logic, the superior set over mathematics must have 2 Elements that builds Logic and those would be (1) word-sentence-statement Ideas and (2) pictures-images as Ideas.

Then we would have to go back to Physics and ask if the Elements also come in a duality? We have in Physics the Atomic Theory where atoms are all the Elements. But, as noted earlier, atoms have subatomic particles and especially Electromagnetic Photons. These photons fill up the space all inside an atom and all the space outside of the atom/s. In other words the universe has ___ no empty space___. So the 2 Elements of Physics are (1) Atoms (2) Space which is subatomic particles such as photons that is the Space between atoms.

Now the Elements of Logic (1) word-sentence ideas (2) picture-images as ideas allows us to build a science of Psychology, plus a science of Mind-Brain, plus a science of Language. This is all possible when a science has Dualistic Elements.

Science of Psychology built from word sentence + picture-images
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All life has DNA. The geometry of DNA is a double helix. A Photon-Light is a closed circuit pencil ellipse. When we inspect a Photon it is also a double helix of E-field and B-field, which I have named "pure DNA".

|__|__]___[##]___\___/___|  one Photon segment can look like this of its E and B field

Another can look like this [__]___\___[____|_##]___|____|

These photons are composed of bits of geometry such as |__| is a bit of geometry such as a square or rectangle. And one Light-photon can inscribe an entire picture such as a photograph of you or a photograph of me.



Part 3. Theory of the Mind and the basis of the science of Psychology comes from Physics.




Since ideas are the elements of Logic, and come in two forms--- word-sentence-statement form or in picture-image form, the next logical question to ask is where do the Ideas themselves originate from? For most of my life, I thought all ideas come from inside my body from the brain, specifically. But when I discovered the Atom Totality theory in 1990, along with that theory comes Quantum Mechanics entanglement which John Bell summarized with his concept of "superdeterminism". As the years rolled by after 1990 and I gradually got an appreciation and sense of what Superdeterminism means, I ended up with the realization that the Mind and brain of a human body only process ideas that come from outside the body. That ideas come from the control-center of the Atom Totality as if it were a TV station broadcaster or a radio station broadcaster.

That Quantum Mechanics of a Atom Totality Universe, a Plutonium Atom Totality Universe Control Center shoots Photons into our bodies which are picked up in the kidney and brains as antennae and process those Photons to be our every thought and idea. In other words, every living organism mind is a TV station receiving broadcasts from the Atom Totality Control Center.

In astronomy, where is this control center? I am not sure because I do not yet know if our galaxy, The Milky Way is in the Cosmic Muon or Cosmic Proton or one of the Cosmic Neutrons (neutrons are capacitor batteries). If I had to guess, the Cosmic Protons are likely to be the control center of the Cosmos. But then again, it could well be the Cosmic Neutrons for we can say that the batteries of a car are the brains of a car.

So the elements of Logic are Ideas and ideas come in two forms-- word-sentence-statement algebra or in picture-image geometry form.

So, let us investigate how Ideas can come from outer space and are shot into our mind-brain where they are thence received.

Archimedes Plutonium Mar 13, 2026, 8:52:02 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.

Theory of the Mind
------------------------

A theory of the mind has to account for both memory and where new ideas come from.

In a Plutonium Atom Totality, new ideas come from the Atom Control Central as it shoots photons into our body and gives us new thoughts.

But, where is Memory in an Atom Totality. Here the brain is the memory station and the brain is a large capacitor.

A capacitor is where photons are like electricity, just go round and round in the brain.

The photons of Light are pure DNA, and pure DNA is geometrical. The ATGC of DNA are geometry figures such as squares, triangles, circles etc.

When we see something in life our eyes form a image of the sight and that is converted to photons-of-Light that is storaged in the brain as electric current going round and round.

When a new thought comes into our mind from the Atom Control Central it can link up with one of these photons going around and around in our brain, link up and where we relive the images.

Now, I have learned that the modern technology of Cloud for computers works in such a way that if I send a message that is too large. The Cloud divides up the message leaving tags on each message to reassemble into one document upon receipt by another computer. In this manner, we can think of human memory in psychology as to where a tagged Light photon going round and round in the mind, meets up with its counterpart tagged Light photon, and in that instant of time we experience a "Memory of thought".

How Much of an Idea is an algebra statement or an image statement?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since Memory is all stored images, means that all ideas from memory start out as Geometry.

Archimedes Plutonium Mar 14, 2026, 4:20:46 AM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.

If this theory pans out as true, it will certainly be one of my finest science discoveries ever.

It will change all of psychology as a science.

It will give structure to the Brain-Mind and well define both.

So let me go slowly on explaining this.

A few days ago, I was starting to get into trouble about what constitutes an Idea for Logic????

We are all familiar with Logic statements like this.


All men are mortal. Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

Plenty of ideas in those statements.

But then I ran into a difficulty.

Are there images, or pictures statements of logic??

Seems reasonable that instead of just words as logic ideas, that a picture probably packs far more ideas in a single image or picture than a sentence or words.

So, then, I fell into this vast pit of wondering if Images and Pictures should be allowed as Ideas, as statements as premisses even as conclusions.

And what I ended up saying, is that the Mind itself starts out all ideas as being Images, as pictures, that DNA is geometry and that Photon-Light is perfect DNA. That electricity is perfect DNA.

Hence, the Mind is a battery capacitor of electric signals all made up of perfect DNA, and that Memories are these constant circuits of the brain of this electric signals. When we have a past memory, we simply turn on a switch that gives us some of those electric currents full of past pictures revealing themselves in our mind, or that one tagged light-photon is tagged with another to form a Memory, much like modern day computers and phones tag up messages in the Cloud computing and why so much electricity in data-centers are needed. Where we make the skies the brains of modern day life.

Of course, during the waking day-- our eyes capture images of the world and our eyes transform those images into electric currents that hold those pictures in our mind as a battery-capacitor.

Few of our Ideas are sentences of words. Most of our Ideas are images and pictures.

Like reading a magazine. Each sentence can be construed as an algebraic idea. But each sentence forms a picture in our mind as the idea.

Our Minds as Memories does not hold the algebraic sentence, no, it transforms the algebra of words and we hold in our mind-memory a picture.

Archimedes Plutonium Mar 14, 2026, 3:04:17 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.

So there I was, several days back-ago. I had arrived upon this Logic idea, that a statement or premiss need not be a sentence, but be, actually a whole entire picture or image.

A sentence being a algebra of words.

A picture or image being a geometry.

And, come to think of it, whenever one reads or writes a sentence that forms a Statement or Premiss of Logic, it is extremely difficult to keep that sentence to not form a picture or imagine.

In other words, I had a fight on my hands a few days back-ago.

And the resolution of this--- is spectacular. It involves a complete revolution in the science of Psychology.

Our brains are the hardware of a Mind of Thoughts. And all thought is ---- Pictures and Imagines. Plants do not have a word-sentence format.

The bodies of plants and animals is composed of DNA. These are molecules constructed from ATCG which are geometric figures. The Photon-Light is actually perfect DNA and is electric current.

What this resolves into being is that the Brain is an organ that is a battery capacitor, in which it circulates electric current all composed of geometry figures. These figures were formed from the eyes seeing the world around us and making pictures that are transcribed into electric current. We can recall such a long past picture because we have that picture circulating around in our head as long as we live.

In other words images and pictures are turned into electric current that is kept circulating in our brain and is our Memory when one tagged message intersects with another tagged message.

Archimedes Plutonium Mar 14, 2026, 3:13:09 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.

I need pictures of the brain and try to see if I can make out the image of a car battery as Parallel Plate Capacitor.

All those folds, can we say the folds are like parallel-plates?????

So that the electric currents that are constantly flowing around and around remain in the brain forming a Mind and Memory.

[pictures of the brain]
--- quoting Wikipedia---
free encyclopedia 

Brain

Brain of a chimpanzee

Model of a human brain

Details

Part of

Nervous system

Identifiers

Latin

cerebrum

Greek

ἐγκέφαλος (enképhalos)

MeSH

D001921

NeuroNames

21

TA98

A14.1.03.001

TA2

5415

Anatomical terminology

The brain is an organ that serves as the center of the nervous system in all vertebrate and most invertebrateanimals. It consists of nervous tissue and is typically located in the head (cephalization), usually near organs for special senses such as visionhearing, and olfaction. Being the most specialized organ, it is responsible for receiving information from the sensory nervous system, processing that information (thoughtcognition, and intelligence) and the coordination of motor control(muscle activity and endocrine system).

While invertebrate brains arise from paired segmental ganglia (each of which is only responsible for the respective body segment) of the ventral nerve cord, vertebrate brains develop axially from the midline dorsal nerve cord as a vesicular enlargement at the rostral end of the neural tube, with centralized control over all body segments. All vertebrate brains can be embryonically divided into three parts: the forebrain (prosencephalon, subdivided into telencephalon and diencephalon), midbrain (mesencephalon) and hindbrain(rhombencephalon, subdivided into metencephalon and myelencephalon). The spinal cord, which directly interacts with somatic functions below the head, can be considered a caudal extension of the myelencephalon enclosed inside the vertebral column. Together, the brain and spinal cord constitute the central nervous system in all vertebrates.

In humans, the cerebral cortex contains approximately 14–16 billion neurons,[1] and the estimated number of neurons in the cerebellum is 55–70 billion.[2] Each neuron is connected by synapses to several thousand other neurons, typically communicating with one another via cytoplasmic processes known as dendrites and axons. Axons are usually myelinated and carry trains of rapid micro-electric signal pulses called action potentialsto target specific recipient cells in other areas of the brain or distant parts of the body. The prefrontal cortex, which controls executive functions, is particularly well developed in humans.

--- end quoting Wikipedia---

Archimedes Plutonium Mar 14, 2026, 4:57:29 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.

I have never really understood this physiological brain structure of neurons, axon, synapse, until now.

Until now, for it is beginning to make sense, as the eyes are like a Photo-Camera and wants the picture to be converted into a electric current that stays trapped inside the brain, going around and around, like electricity in a car battery.
--- quoting Wikipedia---
Cellular structure
drawing showing a neuron with a fiber emanating from it labeled "axon" and making contact with another cell. An inset shows an enlargement of the contact zone.Neurons generate electrical signalsthat travel along their axons. When an electrical impulse reaches a junction called a synapse, it causes a neurotransmitter to be released, which binds to receptors on other cells and thereby alters their electrical activity.

The brains of all species are composed primarily of two broad classes of brain cellsneurons and glial cells. Glial cells (also known as glia or neuroglia) come in several types, and perform a number of critical functions, including structural support, metabolic support, insulation, and guidance of development. Neurons, however, are usually considered the most important cells in the brain.[8] In humans, the cerebral cortex contains approximately 14–16 billion neurons,[1] and the estimated number of neurons in the cerebellum is 55–70 billion.[2] Each neuron is connected by synapses to several thousand other neurons. The property that makes neurons unique is their ability to send signals to specific target cells, sometimes over long distances.[8] They send these signals by means of an axon, which is a thin protoplasmic fiber that extends from the cell body and projects, usually with numerous branches, to other areas, sometimes nearby, sometimes in distant parts of the brain or body. The length of an axon can be extraordinary: for example, if a pyramidal cell (an excitatory neuron) of the cerebral cortex were magnified so that its cell body became the size of a human body, its axon, equally magnified, would become a cable a few centimeters in diameter, extending more than a kilometer.[9] These axons transmit signals in the form of electrochemical pulses called action potentials, which last less than a thousandth of a second and travel along the axon at speeds of 1–100 meters per second. Some neurons emit action potentials constantly, at rates of 10–100 per second, usually in irregular patterns; other neurons are quiet most of the time, but occasionally emit a burst of action potentials.[10]

ppp
Message has been deleted

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
May 17, 2026, 2:26:16 AMMay 17
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So here we have the picture of ideas coming from the Control Center of the Plutonium Atom Totality Universe. An idea is contained within a Light-photon that is shot into the brain or liver as the antenna receiver of a human. That Light-photon is then processed in the Brain of the human. What is the antenna for plants, and what would be the brain organ of plants? Here, for plants the likely antenna are Meristem Roots and Meristem Cambium.

So that Ideas come from outside the body and shot into a animal or plant body where it is processed to make the animal or plant engage in future actions. Much like a tv station broadcasts to an area and people receive the signal by an antenna which the TV set processes the Light-photons in a picture and sound on the TV screen.

[picture of Liver of human]

[picture of Meristem roots and Meristem cambium]

--- quoting Wikipedia---
Surfaces
Normal human liver at autopsy

On the diaphragmatic surface, apart from a triangular bare area where it connects to the diaphragm, the liver is covered by a thin, double-layered membrane, the peritoneum, that helps to reduce friction against other organs.[20] This surface covers the convex shape of the two lobes where it accommodates the shape of the diaphragm. The peritoneum folds back on itself to form the falciform ligament and the right and left triangular ligaments.[21]

These peritoneal ligaments are not related to the anatomic ligaments in joints, and the right and left triangular ligaments have no known functional importance, though they serve as surface landmarks.[21] The falciform ligament functions to attach the liver to the posterior portion of the anterior body wall.

--- end quoting Wikipedia---

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
May 17, 2026, 2:34:45 AMMay 17
to Plutonium Atom Universe

[picture of Meristem roots and Meristem cambium]

So, does the liver look like a animal body antenna? Does the Meristem of plants look like a antenna-- especially the cambium?

The brain of animals looks more like the Faraday coil in Faraday law-structure rather than a antenna. Which would mean, if true, that the brain processes the incoming Light-photons.

Is the liver of animals a bunch of parallel-plates as in a parallel plate capacitor? If so, the liver would be more of a storage of Light-photons rather than as antenna. The reason I am fixated on the liver is that most animals when born have the liver come into formation before the brain starts to form, meaning the liver is more essential than the brain.

Here I am trying to figure out which organ does which job of receiving ideas shot into our bodies, then processing those ideas and storaging for memory, those ideas.

--- quoting Wikipedia---
Root apical meristem
10× microscope image of root tip with meristem
  1. quiescent center
  2. calyptrogen (live rootcap cells)
  3. rootcap
  4. sloughed off dead rootcap cells
  5. procambium

Unlike the shoot apical meristem, the root apical meristem produces cells in two dimensions. It harbors two pools of stem cells around an organizing center called the quiescent center (QC) cells and together produces most of the cells in an adult root.[21][22] At its apex, the root meristem is covered by the root cap, which protects and guides its growth trajectory. Cells are continuously sloughed off the outer surface of the root cap. The QC cells are characterized by their low mitotic activity. Evidence suggests that the QC maintains the surrounding stem cells by preventing their differentiation, via signal(s) that are yet to be discovered. This allows a constant supply of new cells in the meristem required for continuous root growth. Recent findings indicate that QC can also act as a reservoir of stem cells to replenish whatever is lost or damaged.[23] Root apical meristem and tissue patterns become established in the embryo in the case of the primary root, and in the new lateral root primordium in the case of secondary roots.

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
May 17, 2026, 4:16:50 AMMay 17
to Plutonium Atom Universe

Part 4. The logic of how Ideas are made by Psychology, the out-of-body Ideas.


Basically this is Quantum Entanglement which I prefer to call "superdeterminism". It was discovered by John Bell with his test on quantum mechanics. Many NOVA tv shows are trying to explain it for beginners.

What makes superdeterminism real and true is the fact that Light-photons are not rays with a head and tail. But are closed loop circuits. When a circuit of a Light reaches opposite sides of the Cosmos, of course, a change in one is simultaneously a change in the other because they were never separate Light-photons.

In a world of superdeterminism, there is ___no free will____. And thus all ideas have to be created by a super-entity, a Plutonium Atom Totality, to create the next Atom Totality. Humans in this case are tools to create the next Atom Totality and thus humans have to be precisely controlled on every action they take. And the only way of doing that is for the Control Center of the Atom Totality to shot ideas into the body of every human that forces them to act and behave what they do.

Since the ---basic elements of Logic--- are Ideas that come in two formats-- word-sentence-statement algebra and in picture-images geometry form; we must investigate how Ideas are created by the Plutonium Atom Totality. It is logical to study and investigate and research as to how Ideas are created.

Archimedes Plutonium Mar 15, 2026, 5:11:11 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.

Review of What is Logic, since ideas come from out of the body
------------------------------------------------------

Logic is the science that is larger than mathematics and contains all of mathematics inside of Logic. But Logic is small compared to physics for logic is a subset of physics. Physics is the science of everything. While logic is the science that makes ideas clear, straight and correct via the scientific method, and manipulates ideas through the 6 logic connectors of Existential quantifier, Not-Equal, AND, OR, If-->Then, Universal quantifier. The truth of ideas is determined not by logic but the best available science at the moment on that specific topic--- physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etc etc. The ideas of Logic come in two forms--- they can be either word-sentence algebra form or be a picture-image geometry form and often the case is any idea is a mixture of word-sentence and picture-image. Ideas come from out of body from the Control Central of the Plutonium Atom Totality, as proven true by quantum mechanics superdeterminism.

Archimedes Plutonium Mar 16, 2026, 5:15:40 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.

This is difficult, for it is self analysis.

I am looking for how much of my "thoughts-ideas" are in picture form and how much in text-word-sentence form.

Most of the night in sleep is that of Picture-image form and unable to find a single text-form. Perhaps this is the reason for the rapid-eye-motion.

I did notice that as I woke up, the first "thoughts-ideas" were the words "time?" What is the time. And apparently most science thoughts-ideas are in Question format of text. That means most of science is word-sentence-text and less so in picture-image format.

Archimedes Plutonium Mar 16, 2026, 6:04:31 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.

How much of science is an enterprise of asking questions??? I would say considerable and asking questions is text-word-sentence-statement format, not picture format.

A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z

26 letters alphabet with 5 vowels, 21 consonants.

Safe to say that hearing and phonetics comes first before visual seeing to create text-word-sentence ideas.

I am always curious.
--- quoting the Internet---
Iron is pretty much a trace element in the human body (about 60 ppm); the heaviest element with a significant presence (in excess of 0.1%) is Calcium. Among elements that are at least 1 ppm and play a known biological role the heaviest is Zinc; the heaviest known to have a biological role is Iodine.
--- end quoting the Internet---

Iron is element 26.
Calcium is element 20.
Zinc is element 30.
Iodine is element 53.

Looking up to see who has the least letters of a alphabet to form a language--- Papua New Guinea the Rotokas language gets by with only 12 letters. Probably just coincidence that the English language alphabet has 26 letters and that iron has 26 protons.

I started the History of Logic textbook with the story of Neanderthals in UK some 400,000 years ago who made fire from striking flint with iron pyrite to make sparks.

By logical reasoning, they must have had a phonetic language to communicate--- Sun, fire, and thus these sparks. They must have had words for the flint rock and the iron pyrite rock. A word for striking the two upon one another.

When they spoke these words, thoughts-ideas came into the other members of the Neanderthal tribe.

Archimedes Plutonium Mar 17, 2026, 4:06:11 AM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.

Alright, I promised that I would develop these ideas-theories.

1) the true subject of Psychology as science, a world's first
2) a theory of Mind-brain
3) theory of Memory
4) true science of Language
5) the subject-matter of Philosophy as a segment of Logic science

Now that looks to be a mess of various subjects and the reader probably questioning how or why on Earth would all five of those come up all at once. And the answer is, all 5 came up as I saw that pictures-images are Ideas in Logic, not just words-sentences-statements in Logic. The same as mathematics is split up into two segments of numbers-algebra and geometry figures. So too, must Logic have two compartments  --- words-sentences-statement ideas and also picture-images ideas. This duality in mathematics has a duality in Logic and ultimately the duality of quantum mechanics physics of electricity to magnetism.

So, only recently we come to realize the Logic duality of ideas as words-sentences-statement and now the picture-image idea.

When Ideas have a duality, then Old Psychology is in the weeds. When ideas have duality then Mind-brain theory can be formed. When Ideas have word to picture duality a theory of Language emerges. When the other half of Logic of pictures-images emerges then the field of Philosophy is seen as not a separate subject but as the picture image Ideas of Logic.

I have commented several times in my books that making a new theory is best served by projecting forward to an answer immediately. And then seeing if your guess fits the theory in details. It is the fastest way to develop a new theory--- guess the answer --- then research and experiment if your guess is correct.

But before I guess the above 5 new theories, let me list what I consistently know as the truth that relates to these 5 theories.

Confident Truths
--------------------------
1) Quantum Mechanics
2) The EM Spectrum from radio to microwave to infrared to Visible to UV to X-ray to gamma ray.
3) Bell Inequality with Superdeterminism
4) Atom Totality and its control-center
5) Photon-Light are perfect DNA
6) DNA in biology is imperfect photon-light
7) All cells of biology have DNA
8) Electricity is motion, force while magnetism is space-geometry
9) The pilot-wave of DeBroglie
10) The major law-structure of EM theory-- New Ohm's law-structure, Faraday law-structure, Ampere law-structure, Coulomb law-structure, capacitor law-structure.

Now let me make an analogy based on observations. The Mind-brain can have at least 3 ideas simultaneously at any given moment. (1) brain controlling bodily functions on remote-pilot-automatic like breathing; (2) brain can see images of the environment via eyesight; (3) brain can be thinking abstractly in word-sentence-statement format, all three performed simultaneously.

Now let me build a Analogy of those 3 simultaneous Ideas by saying the Mind brain is 3 TV sets simultaneously broadcasting. I live in a part of the USA where on a good day of weather I receive South Dakota PBS, Iowa PBS, and Nebraska PBS. Imagine the Mind-Brain as those 3 stations playing simultaneously.

Preliminary Guess of Psychology, Mind-brain, Memory, Language, Philosophy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Psychology
-------------
Psychology is the science of the brain, and how it works is that the brain is a large number of cells each containing DNA. Thoughts-ideas enter the brain in two major ways-- through the senses such as eyes, ears, touch, smell and they are transformed into either pictures (especially eyes) or into word-sentence abstractions (especially language-sounds). And the ideas can come completely from outside the body from the Atom Totality by shooting photon messages into the brain (possibly liver as antennae).

Axons and synapses are the transformation boxes in the brain that converts these EM signals into picture images or into word-sentence abstractions.

The brain has to storage these Ideas and it stores them in the myriad convolutions as EM rays that go round and round until called for by a EM pilot wave which triggers a memory. Memories are like the Cloud in computing where messages are tagged, and when two messages intersect the message of the past is brought forward to the present day.

But ideas can come completely from outside the body from the Plutonium Atom Totality Control Center. These EM rays enter the brain much as picking up a radio or a PBS TV station and once inside the brain can instruct every DNA inside every cell of the brain (superdeterminism). This out of body instruction can be both word-sentence or be picture-image.

Mind-brain
-------------
This is the theory that the mind-brain is a constant flow of word-sentence ideas plus picture-image ideas.

Memory
--------

The geometry shape of the brain is such that it is a physics capacitor, much the same way that a car battery is a physics capacitor. And EM photons move round and round in this capacitor until called into use by a switching on of that memory.

Language
-----------

This requires two senses-- hearing phonetics and seeing eyesight. We build the alphabet from phonetics and then we memorize words that relate to an object. For example: the word "cat" is memorized with a picture image of a house cat. The axons and synapse transform EM photons so that they are saturated full of the word "Cat" and full of picture images of cats that circulate constantly in the brain battery capacitor. When a new cat appears in our environment, a pilot wave seeks out the cat photons already in circulation. And axons and synapse then can create another photon to circulate with the older cat photons.

The circulating rays in our brain battery have some special photons that are full of words, our own personal dictionary, mind-brain dictionary. What I am fascinated by is that when I was young I tried to learn words and their meanings in hope of using them. And only now, in old age, is it paying off in that those words seem to come forth in memory some 50 years later.

Philosophy
------------

It was thought that Philosophy is a separate subject from most other subjects, except perhaps religion. In Universities, philosophy is usually found in a department that has both religion and philosophy together. I contend that the picture-image Ideas of Logic (half of Logic) is philosophy itself. This is easily seen in Pragmatism being the Scientific Method-- and in turn--- the Scientific Method being a part of Logic as well as a part of physics.

Archimedes Plutonium Mar 17, 2026, 6:58:29 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.

I do not recall the definition of death in a hospital? Is it when no more heart beat, or is it no more electrical activity of the brain? Of course the two are likely connected.

Archimedes Plutonium Mar 18, 2026, 3:22:37 AM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.

So, now, when I get to writing my textbook on Psychology I should start out first with explaining Plutonium Atom Totality Universe and how superdeterminism causes events to take place and happen. This means all thought and ideas come from Out Of The Body that is shot into the brains (possibly liver) (or that the DNA in every cell is the antennae) of animals and forcing them to think what they think.

Yes, the antennae should be the collective DNA in every cell of a animal or plant. This should be the case for then plants are covered.

And the best analogy to this is the Crystal Radio set with its Faraday coil and its ferrite slide rod.

But with a radio, you get only sounds and words-sentence ideas.

To get pictures-images I need the most primitive TV set that turns Photons-Light from the broadcast station into pictures and sound on the TV.

So, I use Analogies to describe and explain Brain science, the analogy of crystal radio and of the TV set.

Looking at the Human brain and looking at a crystal radio or TV, can we say some brain parts are similar to the radio and TV. Yes, most definitely yes as the Brain is mostly these convoluted lobes shaped like the Faraday coil.

Now in the crystal radio there is a sliding ferrite rod inside the coil, and in human brain anatomy there is glial cells and neurons.

So, in forming True Psychology as a science requires me to say the brain is a TV set. The thoughts and ideas that come to the brain come mostly from outside the body from the Atom Totality Control Center. When these photons enter the brain or kidney and funneled into the brain, they are processed for their information content and the brain has the ideas of a word-sentence or a picture-image.

Archimedes Plutonium Mar 18, 2026, 6:07:50 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.

To understand Mind-brain and understand Psychology is to understand how a TV works.

A TV is far more complex than a radio receiver, for a radio receiver can be built without powered by internal energy while a TV needs electricity to work.



--- quoting Wikipedia---
free encyclopedia

Cathode ray tube cross section diagram (not to scale) with its focused and deflected electron beam (in green)

--- end quoting Wikipedia

--- quoting Wikipedia---
free encyclopedia
Cathode ray tube cross section diagram (not to scale) with its focused and deflected electron beam (in green)

--- end quoting Wikipedia---
ppp

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
May 17, 2026, 6:05:33 PMMay 17
to Plutonium Atom Universe

Archimedes Plutonium Mar 18, 2026, 6:28:20 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.

Theory of Mind-brain and Psychology can run on just being a "Radio receiver" and so a radio receiver is a good primitive analogy of how Mind-brain and Psychology works, but a better analogy is how a TV works. And if we assume the human mind brain is at least 3 TV receivers running simultaneously.

I have watched about 10 Youtube films on radio receiver and tv receiver, and sorry to say, none of those authors seems to know the Maxwell Equations (or the AP revised EM equations). No author said anything about Faraday, Ampere, capacitor law-structures. I suppose it is possible that you can be a skilled expert in Radio and TV yet not know the law-structures of Electromagnetism.

--- quoting Wikipedia---

Pictorial diagram from 1922 showing the circuit of a crystal radio. This common circuit did not use a tuning capacitor, but used the capacitance of the antenna to form the tuned circuit with the coil. The detector was a cat whisker detector, consisting of a piece of galena with a thin wire in contact with it on a part of the crystal, making a diode contact
As a crystal radio has no power supply, the sound power produced by the earphone comes solely from the transmitter of the radio station being received, via the radio waves captured by the antenna.[3] The power available to a receiving antenna decreases with the square of its distance from the radio transmitter.[31]Even for a powerful commercial broadcasting station, if it is more than a few miles from the receiver the power received by the antenna is very small, typically measured in microwatts or nanowatts.[3] In modern crystal sets, signals as weak as 50 picowatts at the antenna can be heard.[32]: 42  Crystal radios can receive such weak signals without using amplification only due to the great sensitivity of human hearing,[3][33]: 297–304 which can detect sounds with an intensity of only 10−16 W/cm2.[34] Therefore, crystal receivers have to be designed to convert the energy from the radio waves into sound waves as efficiently as possible. Even so, they are usually only able to receive stations within distances of about 25 miles for AM broadcast stations,[22]: 144 [35] although the radiotelegraphy signals used during the wireless telegraphyera could be received at hundreds of miles,[35] and crystal receivers were even used for transoceanic communication during that period.[36]

--- end quoting Wikipedia---

I must add about my own personal history. When I was about 17 years old, for Christmas, I was at my uncle's house with my father, and received a Xmas gift which was a toy radio receiver. It looked somewhat like the above picture of 1922. Trouble was, I kept reading the instructions to assemble it but could not get it to work. My father was in the Army in WW2 and was a instructor on electricity and radios. Naturally, my father would give me a gift of a model radio. And I am thankful of that gift of 1967 for it stuck in my mind all that time and becomes the central point of how Psychology and Mind-brain actually work. A key idea is that ***Ideas and Thoughts*** are mostly (perhaps all) are Out-Of-Body messages shot into our Mind-Brain.

Archimedes Plutonium Mar 18, 2026, 8:27:14 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.

When a question arises in physics--- "What are the EM law-structures of TV and radio???" I usually start off with Feynman Lectures and looking in the indexes, nothing on how radio or TV works, at least in the indexes, and if Feynman mentions them in the text, it is not worth my time searching through. Then I go to Halliday & Resnick, nothing there either on radio and TV how they work.

Then I go through a motley collection of physics textbooks-- nothing there.

Finally I come to my old High School physics textbook--- PSSC Physics and a very nice explanation on page 414, 575, 584.

Then I never forget to look in the gem of physics history-- Asimov gives a nice discussion of radio 524-528, 575 and a nice discussion of television on pages 528-530.

The physics of radio and TV work, in my estimation, should be in all school textbooks once the EM spectrum is reached and the EM law-structures are taught. Sadly, you have to hunt down any physics explanation of how a radio or TV works, and that is a blight on physics education.

Archimedes Plutonium Mar 18, 2026, 8:55:38 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.

What I think I know so far on how Radio and TV work.

The Radio works much in the same way as the old vinyl phonograph sound disc works as the needle is the crystal for radio. And the grooves in the record disc is much the same as radio waves E and B field. The Radio needs only one Faraday coil. And the Radio needs no internal energy to work.

The TV needs 2 Faraday coils to work and needs an internal electrical energy source. The TV station produces EM-photons that are built from taking a planar image, line segment by line segment and transforming that planar image into a EM-photon.

From a Planar Image into a photon

#####
#####
#####  turn that image into a EM-photon of ========================> which lands on my antenna of the TV. Once it lands, the TV splits it into sound ray and visual ray going through at least 2 Faraday coils and 2 capacitor plates.

Now, I am looking up to see if DNA, 1 molecule, if it were stretched to form a line, how long of a line would that be???

From various sources on Internet (sorry I can never trust AI overviews seeing how they butchered AP overview) say that stretching DNA out into a line is about 1 meter for a single 1 DNA molecule. The human body has roughly 3.7 *10^10 cells meaning a line that is 3.7*10^7 kilometers long. And the entire DNA molecules in a human when stretched out into a line would be the distance from the Sun to Neptune and back---- 4 times!!!!!!!

AP writes: which makes me wonder if DNA is the antenna of the body?????

Archimedes Plutonium Mar 19, 2026, 2:48:58 AM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.

"The History of Physics" 1966, 1984 by Asimov is an excellent book at explaining Radio and TV.

Since radio-waves can carry that much information to run a TV, imagine what the human body DNA as a ray that can stretch around the Sun and Neptune of 4 times can carry.

Archimedes Plutonium Mar 19, 2026, 3:21:29 AM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.

The point of talking about these issues as mind-brain, psychology was the fact that Ideas, the elements of Logic come in 2 forms--- the word-sentence-statement form and the picture-image form. And so we need to know how Ideas are created in the first place, then how those ideas enter our body and then how our body reacts to those ideas.

In Old Logic-- that is all logic had before AP 1991, had only one form of Idea as word-sentence-statement. And that was a huge mistake.

In Introductory Logic, I define Logic as the science of clear straight thinking of Ideas manipulated to form clear straight correct conclusions. But now, considering that most Ideas come from Out of the Body from the Plutonium Atom Totality Control Center, we have to look at a more refined definition of Logic. The truth value of Logic comes from the best available science of the time on that topic. And where the Scientific Method is a part of Logic, so that truth value is a part of Logical endeavor to make sure the Scientific Method is adhered to. But then since ideas come from Out Of Body, we have to ask if a major function of Logic is to inspect for ---- Clarity --- Precision ---- and Correct Thinking??? Science focuses on truth value, but logic seems to focus more on Clarity and Straight-Direct and Correct Thought.



Part 5. The magnificent 1887 Hertz Experiment explaining the creation of Ideas and the movement of ideas in the cosmos.



The Hertz Experiment of 1887 tells us how much that Light-Photons can carry information, and send it a long distance where a antenna and TV can reproduce that information inside a TV set.

What the Hertz 1887 Experiment shows is that Ideas that plants and animals have are created outside the body and like a TV set are shot into the body already formed and our body acts as a antenna receiver to show the idea in our brain as a big screen.

Archimedes Plutonium Mar 20, 2026, 8:55:31 PM to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup.

So how exactly is a TV able to bring pictures and sounds of word-sentences from a distance away into my home?

Not until a few weeks ago had I learned the fabulous Experiment by Hertz in 1887 that unlocks the answers to how a TV works, how a radio works, and thus, how ideas are created in the Mind-body, psychology.

Let us dissect the 1887 Hertz Experiment.

After-all, Ideas are the mainspring element of Logic, so we need to know how Ideas are formed in the first place, but that Ideas can take two formats-- word-sentence-statement or as pictures-images, much like math is split into two houses--- numbers-algebra and then there is geometry figures.


The most under-rated Physics Experiment in all of human history.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Hertz Experiment of 1887 was a magnificent experiment and still today in 2026 is little understood. What Hertz showed is that a electric current that causes a spark in its circuit is duplicated by radio-wave frequency in a distant circuit, duplicating a current and a spark, although of lower strength than original. This is the basis for radio sets and TV sets.

So, we can interpolate here. That instead of duplicating a spark, we duplicate a idea formed at A and carried by EM-radio-pulses to a distant tv screen or radio box.

In Asimov's book he often talks of the Hertz Experiment on how it produces Radio-waves. This is crucial for the production of radio-waves is what the Radio or TV is meant to decipher as they are receivers.

I look at the analogy of a cookie cutter. If we view the cookie as the TV program, and we view the cookie cutter and dough as the TV station that produces the cookie. So the TV is the cookie and how is the show produced in the first place???? That we go to Hertz Experiment.

--- quoting The History of Physics, Asimov, page 512---

The attempt to form long wavelength radiation was made in 1887 by a German physicist, Heinrich Rudolf Hertz (1857-1894). He set up an electric circuit that would produce a spark across a small air gap under conditions that would bring about an electrical oscillation of the sort that Maxwell said would produce electromagnetic radiation. To detect the radiation, if any was produced, Hertz used a simple rectangle of wire broken by a small air gap. The electromagnetic radiation crossing the wire receiver would cause electric current to flow and produce a spark across the air gap.
--- end quoting The History of Physics, Asimov, page 512---

So the Hertz Experiment shows that the radio-pulses carry the entire Idea a distance away where an antennae fetches the pulses and duplicates or regenerates the same picture and sound.

Much the same as a vinyl record player where the cookie cutter cut grooves matching a song into the disc and now the needle will ride around in those grooves as receiver to play back the song.

The Hertz transmitter is what a TV station does to create tv EM-photons.

My High School physics textbook PSSC Physics, Haber Schaim, Cross, Dodge, Walter, 3rd edition page 545 shows a picture "Figure 23-27 (a) If we walk along beside a moving charge, we see only its Coulomb field. (b) If the charge moves past us, we also see a magnetic field in the same region."

In a different High School textbook (at least I think it is High School, 5th edition, PHYSICS : Its Methods and Meanings by Taffel, page 542 writes "This moving combination of electric and magnetic fields regenerating each other as they move forward together at the speed of light constitutes an electromagnetic pulse."

Showing a picture where

"Figure 28-3. Moving magnetic and electric fields regenerate each other.

B moving at velocity c generates E which also moves at velocity c

E moving at velocity c generates B' which also moves at velocity c and is equal to B."

AP writes:: you see, I was thinking that it is terribly difficult to explain how a TV station or radio station can convey pictures and voice a distance away. But once you understand the Hertz experiment-- the Radio-EM-photons themselves carry all that information down the antennae to the receiver.

The author Taffel calls it _____regeneration_______ and I called it simply duplication of what happened at A, happens a distance away at B carried by Radio-pulses.

The Hertz 1887 Experiment connects up with quantum mechanics of superdeterminism and the Atom Totality Control Center. If I were to guess where this center is located in astronomy, the control center is likely to be in the Cosmic Neutrons as Parallel Plate Capacitors, a so to speak Cosmic Brain. Whether the Sun and Earth are in the Cosmic Proton, or the Cosmic Muon or the Cosmic Neutron is unknown to me at this time.

What is the utility of a Logic education when Ideas are out-of-body?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

My undergraduate degree in mathematics from University of Cincinnati, 1968-1972 where I took 2 years of Logic was extremely valuable to me as I cannot imagine doing any science of noteworthiness without that Logic training.

And even the classroom was mostly filled up by students wanting to become lawyers and required to take Logic.

But as we see that Ideas, the basic element of Logic come from out-of-body as messages from the Atom Totality Control Central, we must ask the question, what is the use of Logic when the ideas themselves come from elsewhere?

I am a poor singer and a poor dancer. Would training in either singing or dancing make me a good singer, a good dancer? I doubt it. I suspect training would improve my singing and improve my dancing but not elevate me to becoming a good singer or good dancer. Much in the same way that training in logic will improve one's logic oversight.

Socrates said a long time ago--- " The unexamined life is not worth living."

Considering Logic that all Ideas come from out-of-body, the Unexamined Idea is not worth blurting out.

We often consider the person who is quick to talk and not ponder over ideas is the foolish person.

While I was a officer in the US Navy we had the saying: "Engage the brain, before opening the mouth."

This brings up the formulation of what Logic as a science is concerned with. Logic has ideas arise within us, but then Logic is where we inspect and weigh those ideas before we open our mouths and talk about those ideas.

Logic is the inspection of Ideas that have entered our mind-brain and to evaluate those ideas with other ideas and only after that weighing do we talk about the ideas. This in western society is often called wisdom. To be logical is to be wise.

So as we take Logic in school to help us think straight, clear, and correctly, we have inspected and investigated Ideas that have entered our mind. We evaluate and weigh the ideas with other ideas, and then we open our mouth for discussion. Being Logical is this evaluation of ideas.


Summary: So because Logic is the science of making Ideas be clear, correct, straight and truthful, that Logic has to inspect where Ideas come from in the first place, are they in-body-creations or are they out of the body creations shot into our brain (perhaps liver) as antennas that decipher the photon-message that is an idea. Quantum Mechanics superdeterminism in an Atom Totality Universe tells us that ideas come from out of the body from the control center of the Atom Totality. So what is there for Logic to do when Ideas come from a control center? Logic is the science that checks those ideas in our mind-brain, checks them for correctness, for clarity, for being straightforward and for truth value. Checks ideas before we do actions on those ideas, and before we blurt those ideas out to others via communication.

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
May 17, 2026, 6:20:30 PMMay 17
to Plutonium Atom Universe

An example of this checking of ideas, for just yesterday, 16May2026, I was going to write on Doppler Redshift in astronomy, and I had falsely remembered that when you send white light through a prism, that the red light was at the bottom of the rainbow, blue at top, and that the red light was a larger band than the blue light band. So I go to check with my prism here at home and with websites on the Internet, and sure enough, the red light in the prism break-up is at top, blue light at bottom and none has a larger band than the other. And if I had posted of what I remembered without doing due diligence of ___checking___, would have been a huge embarrassment.

But, however, here in this example we have to double double check, for many images of the rainbow colors from shooting white light into a prism, show the red on bottom and the blue on top, and where the red band is the largest band of all, the violet a tiny band.

So, the job of Logic is check, check, and more checking of data and ideas.

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
May 18, 2026, 4:32:08 AMMay 18
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Part 6. Superdeterminism (quantum entanglement) and how it affects Logic.

AP well-defining Superdeterminism.

First I have to well-define what is Classical Physics and what is Quantum Mechanics? Quantum Mechanics starts in year 1900 with Max Planck finding that the numbers in physics come in a discrete form, not a continuum. Every thing in physics before 1900 thought and assumed energy can come in all numbers, a continuum of numbers.

So with the emerging new physics of quantum physics some strange ideas in the fight between Classical physics and Quantum physics such as -- speeds faster than light-- quantum probabilities-- superpositions of states-- collapse of the wavefunction-- and spooky action at a distance.

So how was one to tell which is true, the Classical physics of Newton or the new physics ushered in by Planck?

And so, John Bell in 1964 formulated a inequality that could tell which is true-- Classical or Quantum physics.

Superdeterminism-- John Bell coined the term after he published his Bell Inequality. And what Bell means by Superdeterminism is the complete absence of free-will. A World where every action, or thought is made by some superior power and humans as puppets are forced to make those actions and thoughts of the super power.

Actually, here I have where John Bell well-defines superdeterminism himself.

Here is John Bell defining what Superdeterminism is:
--- Bell stated on the BBC ---
"There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and
spooky action at a distance. But it (Superdeterminism) involves
absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free
will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just
inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our
behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears.
There is no need for a faster than light signal to tell particle A what
measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe,
including particle A, already "knows" what that measurement, and its
outcome, will be."
--- end Bell quote ---

--- further statement by John Bell to the BBC on Superdeterminism ---
"The only alternative to quantum probabilities, superpositions of
states, collapse of the wavefunction, and spooky action at a distance,
is that everything is superdetermined. For me it is a dilemma. I think
it is a deep dilemma, and the resolution of it will not be trivial; it will require a substantial change in the way we look at things."
--- end Bell quote---

Of course AP found the solution, and wished that John Bell had lived to far beyond November 1990, but John died in October 1990. It was not until 1993 that the Atom Totality was published on the Internet. A Atom Totality is the super power that causes Superdeterminism--- the total absence of free-will. We are all puppets to the Plutonium Atom Totality and controlled by its Control Center.

Actually there is a recent up to date experimental proof of "quantum entanglement" that is easy to show and validates superdeterminism and it starts with the phenomenon of double refraction.

[ Double Refraction explained as Light-photons are a circuit]

---quoting Wikipedia on Birefringence, double refraction---

--- quoting Wikipedia on Double Refraction---
calcite crystal laid upon a graph paper with blue lines showing the double refractionIn this example, optic axis along the surface is shown perpendicular to plane of incidence. Incoming light in the s polarization (which means perpendicular to plane of incidence – and so in this example becomes "parallel polarisation" to optic axis, thus is called extraordinary ray) sees a greater refractive index than light in the p polarization (which becomes ordinary ray because "perpendicular polarisation" to optic axis) and so spolarization ray is undergoing greater refraction on entering and exiting the crystal.
--- end quoting Wikipedia on Double Refraction---

ppp

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
May 18, 2026, 4:37:39 AMMay 18
to Plutonium Atom Universe

Double Refraction is never explained by Light-waves as rays with a head and tail but easily explained along with Superdeterminism by Light-Circuits. We consider Light-photons not to be waves, no, but rather consider Light as a Circuit a long long pencil ellipse that can stretch the distance of the Cosmos if not intercepted or absorbed or collides into matter. When light is taken as a Circuit, much the same as a electric circuit, that as the light hits the calcite crystal as shown in the pictures above, the forward motion of the circuit is one image while the regress motion of the circuit is the second image.

The Light-Circuit also explains Superdeterminism as a form of double refraction. Suppose a Light-photon emanates from a atom. It is a circuit, not a wave. It is firmly attached and connected with that atom that gave the Light-photon its existence. Attached unless and until the Light-photon collides with a new atom and then it is lost from its starting atom. Because the Light-photon is a circuit, that if we say alter the spin of the forward motion of the Light circuit at billions of light years away, then we would see a alteration of the spin of the regress motion of the circuit which is at the opposite side of the Universe, a simultaneous alteration.

Because Light is a circuit, also changes the Uncertainty Principle, to be exactly the opposite of its conclusion. For the double-slit experiment, when Light is a circuit, not a wave, means that the photons display both the particle nature and the circuit nature when measured in the experiment.

In other words, we got the Uncertainty Principle all screwed up because we assumed Light was a wave with a head and tail when Light is a circuit of 1/2 forward motion and 1/2 regress motion.  And so, the new true name is not Uncertainty Principle, but rather Certainty Principle because Light is a circuit. And science of physics is more the achievement of certainty through the ages and not the silly idea that we are heading for more and more Uncertainty.

AP, King of Science

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
May 18, 2026, 4:48:45 AMMay 18
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Curious note to above on birefringence. The explanation given as a result of polarization, would allow for trirefringence. But there is no case of a material substance like calcite that can observe trirefringence. Which leads me to conclude, that trirefringence is only a hypothetical phenomenon resulting from a false explanation of how birefringence actually works. The Circuit explanation of birefringence makes no claim of existence for trirefringence. And even though I see papers published on "trirefringence" the onus, and burden of proof--- show us a case example of a material with trirefringence.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
May 20, 2026, 7:45:21 PMMay 20
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Part 7. More examples of Reasoned-Arguments.

The bulk of a Logic textbook should be about doing logical-reasoned-arguments. What can be called the exercise training in using logic. And that was a deficit in my Elementary Logic textbook, not many reasoned arguments, and only a few arguments shown. I had to explain more than I could to afford time for reasoned argument in my Elementary Logic textbook. But now, here in Intermediate Logic textbook I can afford to give 10 long reasoned arguments. That is the bulk of doing logic in life-- reasoned arguments.

To make up for that deficit, I am going to spend a large amount of time on reasoned arguments in this textbook. Ten reasoned-arguments. And starting with the argument I left-off with in the last chapter by saying that Light was not a wave but rather a Circuit. Light-photon and Light-circuits exist but Light-waves are fake science. Fake science from those who lacked the Logical Reasoning, not just from modern day thinkers in science but by even those of the long past history.

Before I start these 10 Reasoned Logical Arguments, I should review the terms of Logic to be sure I have the terms correct.

Now my glossary list of terms for Science, Logic, and Math of 6 terms in order, in each, was this.

So for **Science** we have Statement, Concept, Hypothesis-experiments, Law-structure (principle), Theory, Universal Axiom.

For **Logic** we have Statement, Premiss, Connector-structure, Reasoned-argument, Equalities, Law-structure.

For **Math** we have Statement, Axiom, Operator-structure, Proof, Theorem, Theory.

For science, the Logic reasoned argument is called the "hypothesis-experiments" which for math it is called the "proof". The hypothesis-experiment is the same as reasoned-argument same as proof.

In this chapter we do 10 new long reasoned-arguments. In the Elementary Logic textbook we did a syllogism of the Plutonium Atom Totality consisting of 2 premisses and a conclusion, and then we did a "long argument of 23 paragraphs of Plutonium Atom Totality".

In this chapter we do more reasoned-arguments, for that is the heart of Logic as a science, reasoning of clear, straight, correct ideas to reach a valid conclusion. The bulk of doing and being in Logic is making these Reasoned Arguments.

10 Reasoned Arguments
-------------------------------

(1) Physics Reasoned Argument on Light as Particle to Circuit, __not__ particle to wave.

1-1) Particle to Circuit duality, not particle to wave. A wave has a head and tail as a single ray vector. A circuit is always a closed loop and for Light-photons is a pencil ellipse closed loop.

1-2) What is Reflection, Refraction, Double Refraction when Light is a photon particle or a circuit, but never a wave.

1-3) Certainty Principle is true while Uncertainty principle is false when Light is photon and circuit, not wave.

1-4) Redshift is all due to the Cosmos being a spherical prism, the further out, the more red.

(2) Astronomy-Cosmology Reasoned Argument-- where do we live in the Cosmic Plutonium Atom Totality?

2-1) How many Cosmic rings of galaxies can we observe, if, in a given size of sphere-- like the Earth; if we are limited by curvature 16km out of  40,000 km circumference due to curvature is 16/40000 = 0.0004, Pu Atom Totality has 840 x 94 = 78960 x .0004= approximately 32.

(3) Physics Reasoned Argument-- Atoms have no nucleus, instead they have a proton torus.

3-1)

(4) Growing Earth Argument-- gigantic insects of the past.

4-1)

(5) Biology life on Earth will go extinct and into oblivion unless we make Europe our new home.

5-1)

(6) Biophysics: Light-photons are "perfect DNA"


(7) Mathematics-- the true numbers are discrete numbers and are the Decimal Grid Numbers.

(8) Physics: the Principle of Maximum Energy production inside a proton torus.



(9) Reincarnation of biology is real and true as recycling of DNA.

(10) Logic: Occam's Razor is a Law-structure or some prefer to say principle.

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
May 24, 2026, 12:11:16 AMMay 24
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Notice that the statement is the first idea in a Reasoned-Argument. It is the first idea in science and in logic and in mathematics.


10 Reasoned Arguments
-------------------------------

(1) Physics Reasoned Argument on Light as Particle to Circuit, __not__ particle to wave.

Statement: Physics of Light is a Particle to Circuit duality, and __not__ a particle to wave.

1-1) Particle to Circuit duality, not particle to wave. A wave has a head and tail as a single ray vector. A circuit is always a closed loop and for Light-photons is a pencil ellipse closed loop. Reason: well defining a wave versus a circuit.

1-2) What is Reflection? Now in High School 1967, I took physics of PSSC and the first chapter was "How Light Behaves" dealing with reflection. When I reached University Cincinnati, 1968 it was Halliday & Resnick with first chapter on measurement then motion then Newton law-structure of classical physics, and optics was chapter 39, way in the back of the book, almost near the end. So, how can physics taught in High School have reflection, refraction at the start and in University be the last chapters? I believe the answer to that question, is Light behavior is easy to experiment with in High School and a simple math formula of Angle of Incidence equals Angle of Reflection and a practice in using trigonometry.

1-3) In the PSSC book, shows a picture of a boat harbor reflected in water on page 11 and asks the reader if the picture is right-side up or upside down? I looked for any "written words" to tell me the answer. But the more important question, is can you have nearly perfect reflection if Light is a Wave or a Circuit? So US appears upside down as SN. Can a letter or number appear upside down if Light were a straightline arrow with head and tail, or does the Light need a Circuit where the bottom half of the circuit is flipped upside down to reverse the letters US.

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
May 24, 2026, 4:35:20 AMMay 24
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Notice that the statement is the first idea in a Reasoned-Argument. It is the first idea in science and in logic and in mathematics terms.

10 Reasoned Arguments
-------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Physics Reasoned Argument on Light as Particle to Circuit, __not__ particle to wave in physics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement: Physics of Light is a Particle to Circuit duality, and __not__ a particle to wave with respect to optics in physics.

1-1) Particle to Circuit duality, not particle to wave. A wave has a head and tail as a single ray vector. A circuit is always a closed loop and for Light-photons is a pencil ellipse closed loop. Reason: well defining a wave versus a circuit.

1-2) What is Reflection? Now in High School 1967, I took physics of PSSC and the first chapter was "How Light Behaves" dealing with reflection. When I reached University Cincinnati, 1968 it was Halliday & Resnick with first chapter on measurement then motion then Newton law-structure of classical physics, and optics was chapter 39, way in the back of the book, almost near the end. So, how can physics taught in High School have reflection, refraction at the start and in University be the last chapters? I believe the answer to that question, is Light behavior is easy to experiment with in High School and a simple math formula of Angle of Incidence equals Angle of Reflection and a practice in using trigonometry.
Reasoning: I would be to say the authors were keen on getting High School students into the laboratory with experiments and Optics is a nice introduction.

1-3) In the PSSC book, shows a picture of a boat harbor reflected in water on page 11 and asks the reader if the picture is right-side up or upside down? I looked for any "written words" to tell me the answer. But the more important question, is can you have nearly perfect reflection if Light is a Wave or a Circuit? So US appears upside down as SN. Can a letter or number appear upside down if Light were a straightline arrow with head and tail, or does the Light need a Circuit where the bottom half of the circuit is flipped upside down to reverse the letters US. Reasoning, the reflection of straightline ray with head and tail cannot turn around a image, but a circuit-- half going one direction, half the opposite can turn a image upside down.

1-4) In physics optics we describe Refraction as the bending of Light as it transits one medium into a different medium and call it refraction of Light. We ask the question can Light as a Wave-ray be bent and Light as a circuit be bent. We have to admit that bending of light as wave-ray or as circuit is acceptable.  However, there is another phenomenon of Refraction called Double Refraction where a image is duplicated when calcite is placed on the pages of a book. This can only be explained as Light being a Circuit where the top half of light produces one image and the bottom half of light produces a second image. Reasoning: duplication means Light consists of two sides, not a single ray.

1-5) Certainty Principle is true while Uncertainty principle is false when Light is photon and circuit, not wave. In the Double Slit Experiment, Light is put through a demonstration of behavior as a beam of light passes through two narrow slits, and is in a diffraction pattern where a screen in the background records if Light is particle or Light is something else. We have interference pattern and we have particle results. Depending on what you want to measure-- particle you get particle clicks as it hits the measuring device, but you want interference pattern, you have circuit for one circuit can reinforce another circuit or if going in opposite direction, can cause a null result. A single ray for Light cannot yield a pattern of constructive interference and destructive interference pattern, but a circuit can. Two or more circuits can reinforce to make constructive interference or they can destroy one another. Reasoning: Interference patterns of bright fringe next a dark fringe then bright fringe then dark fringe can occur when Light is a circuit, but not when Light is a single ray wave.

1-6) Conclusion: Since the circuit description of Light answers the phenomenon of Light, while the wave concept falters or fails completely, then we conclude Light is a photon particle and a circuit all in one.


Here is that same reasoned-argument argued from the point of view of quantum mechanics duality

(1) Physics Reasoned Argument on Light as Particle to Circuit, __not__ particle to wave in from duality of quantum mechanics physics.

Statement: Physics of Light is a Particle to Circuit duality, and __not__ a particle to wave with respect to duality in quantum mechanics.

1-1) In Quantum Mechanics, electricity is the dual of magnetism, and what is meant by that is the Faraday law-structure produces electricity from a thrusting bar magnet in a closed loop copper wire coil. While the Ampere law-structure produces magnetism from a current flowing in a copper wire. Quantum Duality is where one aspect of nature is the same as another aspect of nature and only transformed from one to the other in an experiment. Reason: defining quantum duality.

1-2) In Quantum duality, the two aspects need to be as close together in design as possible. A particle can be seen as this O while a circuit can be seen as this <==> and if we broaden out that circuit we can simply see it can easily form O. While it is far too difficult to transform a ray wave of head and tail >^v^v^> into a particle O, unless the head closes in on its tail to form a closed loop circuit. Dualities in Quantum Mechanics like Electricity to Magnetism have to be so so similar that one can transform into the other with ease.

1-3) Conclusion: Since the circuit description of nature is the very most similar geometry to the particle nature, where one slips into or slips out of one to the other, makes the case that Light is both photon and circuit, not a wave.

Theme of this Logic Argument: After analyzing the above argument on Circuit replacing wave in physics. I come to the logical theme that it was apparent in the Maxwell Equations of Ampere law-structure and Faraday law-structure and New Ohm's law-structure that Copper Wire Circuits were essential in electromagnetism. Essential to having electricity is the circuit. But waves, were they essential in anything??? No. Physicists of the past knew they had something unlike a particle to make interference patterns, and they picked the most available alternative present--- a wave. But they never logically examined if the "wave concept" was a good fit with particle.
To match the duality of Electricity to Magnetism, you need two items that are closely related that one transforms into the other with ease. A wave does not transform into a particle with ease, but a circuit does. You can almost say a Circuit is a Particle with its interior removed.

This is why I keep harping on colleges and universities to require two years of Logic in college or university before getting a degree in science or math, to help our young think straight, clear, and correctly.

AP writes: I do not want to concentrate too much on physics, but like to mix it up. So let us have an argument on geology Earth and biology Life.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Growing Earth Argument-- gigantic insects of the past.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2-1) 



I was searching for the image I had seen of this ancient dragonfly insect landing on the arm of a human--- awesome yet scary

Google search of giant dragonflies.

Insect
Image of Meganeura Dragonfly Tail stock illustration. Illustration of genus - 125876382
Source: Dreamstime.com
Image of This pretty large dragonfly we found : r/mildlyinteresting
Image of The Largest Dragonfly That Ever Existed – Geology In
Facebook
Meganeura : The largest insect ever existed was a giant dragonfly Meganeura is a genus of extinct insects from the Carboniferous period (approximately 300 million years ago), which resembled and are related to ...
This fossil is of a giant prehistoric dragonfly-like insect called Meganeura. It lived about 300 million years ago during the Carboniferous...
Feb 3, 2026
The genus belongs to the Meganeuridae, a family including other similarly giant dragonfly-like insects ranging from the Late Carboniferous to Middle Permian.Read more
giant dragonfly from en.wikipedia.org
People also ask
Meganisoptera is an extinct order of large dragonfly-like insects, informally known as griffenflies or (incorrectly) as giant dragonflies.Read more
giant dragonfly from en.wikipedia.org
Mar 13, 2025 — Many evolutionists and some early creationists believe that giant growth was once fueled by “hyperoxia” (excessive oxygen) in the atmosphere's past.Read more
giant dragonfly from creationmuseum.org
Videos
Mar 25, 2026 — Huge dragonfly-like insects called griffinflies had wingspans of 70cm – five times the size of the largest modern dragonflies. These giant ...Read more
giant dragonfly from theconversation.com
300 million years ago, giant dragonfly-like insects called griffinflies filled the skies. With wingspans that stretched up to a whopping 71 centimetres.Read more
giant dragonfly from www.nhm.ac.uk
In the Carboniferous Period, Dragonflies Had Wingspans of 70 cm — Larger Than Many Modern Hawks. Millipedes Were 2.5 Metres Long. The Reason They Were So Large Was Oxygen. Today's Oxygen Level Would Kill Them. The insects were different when the air was different. The Carboniferous period (approximately 359–299 million years ago) is known in part for an extraordinary phenomenon: gigantism in insects and other arthropods. Meganeura — the giant dragonfly — had confirmed wingspans up to 70 cm. Arthropleura — a myriapod (millipede relative) — reached 2.5 metres in length. The mechanism: atmospheric oxygen. Insects breathe through a passive diffusion system — spiracles (holes in the body wall) leading to a tracheal network that carries oxygen directly to tissues. This system is efficient but has a size limit: at current atmospheric oxygen levels (~21%), passive diffusion can only supply oxygen to tissues within a few centimetres of the spiracle. Larger insects cannot get enough oxyge
30+ likes · 1 week ago
wildlenschronicleswlc
Instagram
Mar 27, 2026 — Giant dragonflies once roamed earth's skies. New research upends the textbook theory of why they went extinct.Read more
giant dragonfly from www.australiangeographic.com.au
The largest known insect of all time was a predator resembling a dragonfly but was only distantly related to them. Its name is Meganeuropsis.Read more
giant dragonfly from eartharchives.org
---- end quoting a Google Search of giant dragonflies---


ppp

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
May 24, 2026, 4:53:01 AMMay 24
to Plutonium Atom Universe
AP writes: So, what I am going to proffer in this Reasoned Argument, to account for a gigantic insect dragonfly is say that the size of Earth was a fraction of what it is today. Many scientists had a struggle in figuring out how the BumbleBee can fly given its massive body and small wings. Now we have to reckon with a Dragonfly that would dwarf a bald eagle.

I lived through the days that we landed on the Moon and where the astronauts walking on the Moon looked like they could easily win an Olympics high jump.

I was looking through the hypothesis to explain gigantism in insects in the Carboniferous. None struck a note of intuition in me. The problem with insects flying is they have no lungs and so the oxygen imposes a barrier to gigantism. But, if the force of gravity was so much lower in the Carboniferous, then, well, Gigantic Dragonflies is a no brainer.

I wrote my 104th book of science on this subject topic.


How Gigantic insects, plants evolved in Devonian, Dragonflies // evolution series, book 3
by Archimedes Plutonium


This is AP's 104th 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: The Devonian geological age had gigantism of plants and animals. Some ferns and horsetails grew to the size of trees and many insects grew to a huge size, such as Dragonflies the size of a human arm. Several attempts have been given to account for this gigantic size, but none seem plausible. So I offer a theory to explain it, because it has to be some physical characteristics of Earth itself, during the Devonian to account for gigantism in both plants and animals.

Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of a Google search on "dragonfly Devonian".

-----------------------------
Table of Contents
-----------------------------

1) Gigantic sized dragonflies in the Geological time of Devonian.

2) Growing Earth theory means gravity was less in Devonian.

3) Earth 1/4 the mass in Devonian geological time than it is now.

4) In Devonian, Earth was 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/8 the mass it is today.

5) Devonian even had giant fungus as trees.

6) Looking to connect the doubling time interval of 140,000,000 years with a constant of physics.

7) Summary.

pp
--- quoting Wikipedia---
Paleobiology
Evolution of large body size

There has been some controversy as to how insects of the Carboniferous period were able to grow so large. The way oxygen is diffused through the insect's body via its tracheal breathing system puts an upper limit on body size, which prehistoric insects seem to have well exceeded.

High oxygen levels hypothesis

It was originally proposed by railway engineer Édouard Harlé in 1911 that Meganeurawas able to fly only because the atmosphere of Earth at that time contained more oxygen than the current 20%.[29] This hypothesis was initially dismissed, though did find some support after further study into the relationship between gigantism and oxygen availability.[30][31] If this hypothesis is correct, these insects would have been susceptible to falling oxygen levels and certainly could not survive in Earth's modern atmosphere. However, this hypothesis was predicated largely on the idea that insects did not actively breathe. Later research indicates that insects do indeed breathe, with "rapid cycles of tracheal compression and expansion".[32] Recent analysis of the flight energetics of modern insects and birds suggests that both the heightened oxygen levels and air density of the Carboniferous provide an upper bound on size.[31] A general problem with all oxygen-related explanations of giant griffenflies is the fact that very large meganisopterans (Arctotypus sp.)[33] with a wingspan of 45 cm (18 in) also occurred in the Upper Permian of Lodève in France, when the oxygen content of Upper Permian atmosphere was much lower than any other geologic stage.[34] A 2026 study by Edward P. Snelling and colleagues suggested that there was little correlation between body size and atmospheric oxygen content in invertebrates, based on the fact that the space occupied by tracheoles does not significantly differ between small and large species, despite the fact that an increase with body size would likely be advantageous in that it would reduce the diffusion distance for oxygen; if such a correlation existed, then an increase would be expected. Snelling and colleagues therefore concluded that there is probably no connection between diffusive oxygen transport mechanisms and a large body size.[35]

Air dominance hypothesis

As such, other explanations for the large size of meganeurids compared to living relatives are have been put forward.[16] In 2004, paleontologist Günter Bechly suggested that the lack of aerial vertebrate predators allowed pterygote insects to evolve to maximum sizes during the Carboniferous and Permian periods, perhaps accelerated by an evolutionary arms race for increase in body size between plant-feeding Palaeodictyoptera and Meganisoptera as their predators. In Bechly's model, the evolution of flying tetrapods such as pterosaurs, which were more agile and less restricted by drag, may have provided a predatorial threat which the giant insects of the Palaeozoic could not overcome.[36]

It has been suggested that the diversification of true odonatans in the Mesozoic may correspond to the extinction of meganisopterans around the time of the Permian-Triassic extinction event.[3]

Flight mechanics

Given the absence of nodal flexion structures it is unlikely that Meganeura and other large griffenflies were as aerially adept as damselflies or dragonflies, and they were probably incapable of the abrupt turns modern species can execute.[37] The wingspans of certain taxa (such as Meganeurites) may have further hindered their mobility.[25] In 2018, Alan E. R. Cannell suggested that Meganeura's wings may have beat at a frequency of 3 Hz; the largest modern dragonfly in terms of overall dimensions, Petalura ingentissima, has a wingbeat of 18 Hz. Cannell suggested that due to its size and capacity for air flow, and to avoid overheating, Meganeura may have spent much of its time perching to oxygenate its tissues, flying in short bursts. He did, however, note that differences in atmospheric medium could have alleviated these issues (see below).[22]

Thermoregulation

In 1982, Michael L. May wrote on the difficulty which meganisopterans such as Meganeura would have faced with thermoregulation. May suggested three hypotheses. Firstly, he proposed that meganisopterans may have been crepuscular, hunting before sunrise and after sunset. Secondly, he suggested that heat production may have been interrupted by occasional switches from powered flight to gliding. Thirdly, he suggested that they may have evolved endothermy (the regulation of a constant metabolic rate to maintain a steady body temperature). By maintaining a relatively high internal body temperature while augmenting cooling rates through by increasing the circulation of haemolymph between the thorax and abdomen (as in modern damselflies and dragonflies), a meganisopteran could have achieved the relatively high body temperature required to sufficiently power its flight muscles whilst avoiding overheating.[21] However, Alan E. R. Cannell noted in 2018 that the crepuscular hypothesis is likely not viable, given that ambient temperatures in tropical environments remain high at night, and a sight-oriented predator such as Meganeura would face great difficulty hunting in low-light conditions. Further, he contended that the third hypothesis was unlikely given that it would have been constrained by respiratory air flow. Cannell suggested that the higher oxygen levels (and thus air density, 1.5–1.6 bar as opposed to ~1 bar in the present day) of the Carboniferous may have both provided an adequate oxygen supply for constant flight and meant that less muscular power was required for flight. With less energy being invested into wing flapping, Meganeura would have produced far less body heat, and would have been at a reduced risk of overheating.[22]

Paleoecology
Meganeura sculpture in Commentry, France

Research on close relatives Meganeurula and Meganeurites suggest that Meganeura was adapted to open habitats, and similar in behaviour to extant hawkers. It may have patrolled open forests, including above the canopy, and waterside environments such as lakes and rivers for prey. The eyes of Meganeura were likely enlarged relative to body size. Meganeura had spines on the tibia and tarsi sections of the legs, which would have functioned as a "flying trap" to capture prey.[25]

Meganeura is one of many insects recovered from coal mines on the outskirts of Commentry, France. Commentry was a major component of France's 19th century coal industry, but it also gained renown among paleontologists as one of the best sources of Carboniferous insect fossils in the world. The fossils of Commentry are from the Gzhelian stage of the Carboniferous, about 304 to 299 million years ago.[25] Also known from Commentry is Meganeurites, on which Meganeura may have predated.[25] The giant myriapod Arthropleura is also known from the Commentry Shales.[38]



Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
May 24, 2026, 5:22:23 AMMay 24
to Plutonium Atom Universe
It has fascinated me to no end on how paleontologists, and biologists, never seem to put Earth into their hypothesis for explanations that are confounding.

(1) Take for example --- Gigantism in plants and insects--- an easy solution is to consider that Earth in Devonian was 1/8 the mass it is now. Solved-- move on to the next problem.

(2) Take for example that dinosaurs lived and prospered on both North pole and South pole which today are almost completely uninhabitable. Solution: The Moon had not yet arrived until 90 million years ago where Earth is alone and thus a year and a day were the very same  thing since 1/2 of Earth constantly stared into the sun and thus 1/2 of Earth constantly warm and sunny while the backside of Earth was constant darkness and cold. In fact, for dinosaurs living at the North and South Poles were the choice land masses to live in because the tropics with the constant permanent sunshine was dreadfully way way too hot. When the Moon arrived 90 million years ago Earth spun faster on its axis and all of a sudden, all of Earth has a night and a day. But when the Moon arrived 90 million years ago it carried with it in tow some bolides and one of those bolides would crash into Earth 60 million years ago causing the 4 seasons with a Earth axis tilt and only 60 million years ago we have the poles uninhabitable.

So why are Paleontologists and biologists never able to factor in the geology of Earth whenever they come up with puzzling problems??? I think it is because they never learned Logic while in college and university and once they hit the tarmac of doing their science, their brain capacity could never include Earth to explain perplexing problems.

(3) Take for example the flying dinosaurs the pterosaurs, which many call the "Flying Giraffes" because those animals were the size and weight-mass of modern day giraffes. And a person who has even a 1/100 of a marble of logical intelligence knows to go to a aeronautical engineer for their opinion, can a giraffe possibly fly, as seen in a David Attenborough show??? Of course the engineer will vehemently deny such nonsense. So, what can AP say about geology of Earth and Pterosaurs that allegedly had wings and flew in the air, flying giraffes.

Here, AP solves the problem with a feature of geology Earth. That during the time of the Pterosaurs the Moon had not yet arrived or had recently arrived and many animals lived in the Oceans and seas on the 1/2 side of Earth that was permanently staring into the Sun. Much of life on Earth was in the oceans and water. And so, what appears to be wings on Pterosaurs is not wings to fly but to use as oar and sail. You can move around well on top of water with wings that boat oar row sail. And perhaps, that is the way evolution gradually moved these boat oar sails appendages, ready to evolve into wings should the mass of the animal be reduced to where the oar becomes wings to fly in the air.

Again, the reason so many scientists with careers in science can do great experiments, great fossil finds, but the moment in time they need to INTERRUPT and EXPLAIN the Experiment, or fossil, they fail miserably and end up losing their life's work to someone with a logical brain to interrupt what their experiment or fossil means. TAKE 2 years of formal Logic training in college or university from the 4 textbooks written by AP. My 4 textbooks have the 6 simple logic connectors correct, and all the past logic textbooks are riddled full of error.

AP, King of Science



Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
May 24, 2026, 6:00:43 PMMay 24
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
4:01 PM (1 hour ago) 
image.png
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
4:47 PM (3 minutes ago) 
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Let me tell you, it is painful writing a textbook on Logic. I know from personal experience in doing these 4 Logic textbooks that it is a long painful process. Reason: not only do you have to provide valuable content on Logic, but you have to write the book itself--- write it logically and that is the difficult nature in writing a logic textbook. Every idea has to be in a *logical order*, every paragraph every chapter, logically coherent and of substance. I have written math textbooks and physics textbooks and never felt any pressure upon me, until I wrote these 4 logic textbooks. So if you want the do the hardest book writing in the world, try writing a textbook on Logic.

I am doing a Long Logic Argument on the Growing Earth theory and answering why dragonflies and ferns were Gigantic in the Devonian and Carboniferous geological time period. My answer and explanation is the Earth was 1/8 the gravity and mass in that past time than Earth has now. And if you measure a large dragonfly today and multiply it by 8 times, you have the Dragonfly of the Carboniferous.

Growing Earth theory// How Earth got its Water// geology series, book 1
_______________________________________________________________________

By Archimedes Plutonium


This is AP's 58th published book of science published on Internet, Plutonium-Atom-Universe,
Preface: Growing Earth theory was proposed by me in 2008 having read Dirac's book "Directions in Physics" having read that in 1991 and realizing that Dirac's "new radioactivities" would grow the planets and all astronomy bodies from a single "seed atom" if given enough time. This idea dismisses the Nebular Dust Cloud theory of star and planet origins. And this idea gives us some sense of why the inner planets are rock balls, while the outer planets are mostly gas giants.

Also, in 2008-2009, with Dirac's New Radioactivities, I began to assemble a theory to account for the huge amount of water that Earth has.

But then came 2017, and my discovery that the real proton was 840MeV, not 938 and the real electron was the muon at 105 MeV and the tiny particle of 0.5MeV that JJ Thomson discovered in 1897 was actually Dirac's magnetic monopole. This discovery changes all the hard sciences and makes every science textbook that says the electron of atoms is the 0.5MeV particle as obsolete science and to be thrown out. For now, the view of the inside of atoms is where the proton is a Faraday coil where all the protons form one large proton torus and the muons as electrons inside the proton torus acting as bar magnets thrusting through the proton torus in the Faraday law-structure, producing new electricity, that some of which is stored in the neutrons configured as parallel plate capacitors around the proton torus. This is the mechanism of growth of atoms and of the entire Cosmos. 

As Dirac said in his book "Directions in Physics" a form of radioactivity that multiplies up the atoms in the Cosmos, hence how the Universe grows. 

All the hard sciences change once we realize the true nature of atoms and their interior. And the science of Geology is affected immensely. So I started this book in 2008 and only now am able to add all these in insights and discoveries.

Cover picture is a collection of some of the globes I saved, and I tried to arrange them from small to large to give a sense of a Growing Earth over time, because every atom inside of Earth is also growing bigger.

-----------------------------
Table of Content
-----------------------------

1) My history on this subject matter.

2) Continents have a triangle shape to them.

3) Simulation models for triangle shaped continents.

4) Is the age of Earth closer to 10 billion years, not 5 billion years?

5) Speculation of how Earth got most of its water.

6) Comets have twice as much heavy water as Earth water.

7) Modeling continental-drift by soap cakes a-top a refrigerator that is vibrating.

8) How Earth got its water.

9) Dirac radioactivities manufacturing new heavier elements on stars and planets.

10) Tying together Dirac new radioactivities with AP's 2016-2017 discovery that the muon is the true electron of Atoms and doing the Faraday law with its associated proton torus.



How Gigantic insects, plants evolved in Devonian, Dragonflies // evolution series, book 3
_______________________________________________________________________________________

by Archimedes Plutonium


This is AP's 104th 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: The Devonian geological age had gigantism of plants and animals. Some ferns and horsetails grew to the size of trees and many insects grew to a huge size, such as Dragonflies the size of a human arm. Several attempts have been given to account for this gigantic size, but none seem plausible. So I offer a theory to explain it, because it has to be some physical characteristics of Earth itself, during the Devonian to account for gigantism in both plants and animals.

Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of a Google search on "dragonfly Devonian".

-----------------------------
Table of Contents
-----------------------------

1) Gigantic sized dragonflies in the Geological time of Devonian.

2) Growing Earth theory means gravity was less in Devonian.

3) Earth 1/4 the mass in Devonian geological time than it is now.

4) In Devonian, Earth was 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/8 the mass it is today.

5) Devonian even had giant fungus as trees.

6) Looking to connect the doubling time interval of 140,000,000 years with a constant of physics.

7) Summary.

AP writes:: Now I traced back in time to a Doubling Effect. How many millions of years does it take for a planet or star to double in mass because of the Faraday law-structure going on inside every atom. That number was about 140,000,000 years. Then I looked up what important Physics constant matches that number.

In my 260th book of science I wrote this about Planck's constant.


> Alright on 9APR2020, AP discovered the New Physics Planck’s constant from the math technique of Divisional Inverse. 


The Divisional Inverse Technique is what one can think of as being-- a Physics Constant in the large scale as in astronomy or physics at large, has the same physics constant on the microscope scale. For example, the time it takes for a hydrogen atom to reproduce itself by its muon thrusting through its proton of 840 windings (proton is 840MeV) as a torus coil in Faraday law is 132,000,000 years which in seconds is 1.32*10^8 * (3.1*10^7) = 4.1*10^15 seconds. And thus, the discreteness of the Atom in Planck's constant is 4.1*10^-15 eV*seconds. Special note:: AP gets 3.1*10^7 as the amount of seconds in a single year.


Deriving Planck's constant from the mere idea of the doubling of hydrogen atom systems.


Planck's constant is 4.1*10^-15 eV*seconds.

The Divisional Inverse of Planck's constant is 4.1*10^15, numerically. And when you multiply 1.32 *10^8 years by 3.1*10^7 seconds in a year you get 4.1*10^15.


April 2024 add-on detail of Planck's constant being 4.135*10^-15 eV*second. For in the course of writing my 294th book of science on the existence of a 6th Regular Polyhedron-- which in fact is the sphere itself for in Quantum Mechanics Physics, geometry is discrete, not a continuum. I wrote this in my 294th book but the facts of Planck's constant from this book is used.


What is the smallest quantity of microscopic regular hexagons to craft a sphere = 6th regular polyhedron?


Archimedes Plutonium

Apr 30, 2024, 1:31 AM

to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup


Re: AP proudly announcing his 294th published book of science-- My 294th published book of science. The sphere in geometry is actually the 6th Regular Polyhedron-- hexagonal faces at infinity // Math proof by Archimedes Plutonium


Now Planck's constant is this-- 4.135*10^-15 eV*secondMost scientists are not accustomed to seeing Planck's constant in EM form, and it is h= 4.135*10^-15 eV*second.


Now the surface of a sphere follows the formula of 4 pi r^2 while volume follows the formula 4/3 pi r^3.


Now what is (4/3)pi equal to?? It is (1.3333...)(3.1415....) = 4.188....


Now let us take the Sigma Error of 4.135 and 4.188 and we have 4.188/4.135 and we have a sigma error of 1.2%. Now take the Sigma Error of surface area of 4 versus 4.188 and we have 4.188/4 = 4.7%. 


(snipped)



So where do I get 132,000,000 years? I get it from biology and geology.


The Faraday Law-structure inside of each atom is a doubling over time of that same atom of hydrogen. So at t_0 we have one atom of hydrogen and at t_1 we have 2 atoms of hydrogen, and at the same interval of time t_2 we doubled the 2 to be 4 now. So a doubling in physics. So we write out a chart. 



Number of Hydrogen atoms       Doubling time interval      Math form 


1                                                          t_0                                2^0 

2                                                          t_1                                2^1 

4                                                          t_2                                2^2 

8                                                          t_3                                2^3 

16                                                        t_4                                2^4 

32                                                        t_5                                2^5 

.                                                             .                                    . 

.                                                             .                                    . 

1,073,741,824                                     t_30                              2^30 

2,147,483,648                                     t_31                              2^31 

4,294,967,296                                     t_32                              2^32 


Now I stop there because it is nearby to the total time covered of 4,500,000,000, the 4.5 billion years.


And here is where I divide that time of Earth existence by the number 32 in order to get what the doubling time interval is all about. 


4,500,000,000/ 32 = approximately 140,000,000, the 140 million years.


So my time interval in Nature for a hydrogen atom to double itself by Faraday law electricity going on inside the hydrogen atom is approximately 140 million years of a time interval. Every hydrogen atom in Nature, in the Universe doubles itself in 140 million years. 

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
May 24, 2026, 6:07:52 PMMay 24
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Out of curiousity, what is the volume and mass difference between Moon and Earth today?? The mass of the Moon is 0.01 of Earth and the volume is 0.02 of Earth.

Remember the astronauts of Apollo 11 on the Moon surface in 1969. Remember how a step on the Moon would be like a high jump attempt on Earth, the gravity so light.

A lower gravity on Earth in Devonian and Carboniferous time allows gigantic dragonflies and gigantic trees of soft tissue, even gigantic fungus.

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
May 24, 2026, 10:23:00 PMMay 24
to Plutonium Atom Universe
As soon as you solve a problem in science, or life in whole, then, soon after there appears a new problem, related to the old one to solve.
So if the Light is a particle photon and a Circuit in a particle-circuit duality, up pops the question of what is the so called frequency of Light as a circuit and the wavelength of Light as a circuit? Does a Circuit have a Frequency characteristic and a so called wavelength characteristic yet no longer a wave itself? Perhaps Sound can help where you have pulses of compression and rarefaction?



-Statement: Physics of Light is a Particle to Circuit duality, and __not__ a particle to wave with respect to duality in quantum mechanics.

-1-1) In Quantum Mechanics, electricity is the dual of magnetism, and what is meant by that is the Faraday law-structure produces electricity from a thrusting bar magnet in a closed loop copper wire coil. While the Ampere law-structure produces magnetism from a current flowing in a copper wire. Quantum Duality is where one aspect of nature is the same as another aspect of nature and only transformed from one to the other in an experiment. Reason: defining quantum duality.

-1-2) In Quantum duality, the two aspects need to be as close together in design as possible. A particle can be seen as this O while a circuit can be seen as this <==> and if we broaden out that circuit we can simply see it can easily form O. While it is far too difficult to transform a ray wave of head and tail >^v^v^> into a particle O, unless the head closes in on its tail to form a closed loop circuit. Dualities in Quantum Mechanics like Electricity to Magnetism have to be so so similar that one can transform into the other with ease.

-1-3) Conclusion: Since the circuit description of nature is the very most similar geometry to the particle nature, where one slips into or slips out of one to the other, makes the case that Light is both photon and circuit, not a wave.

-Theme of this Logic Argument: After analyzing the above argument on Circuit replacing wave in physics. I come to the logical theme that it was apparent in the Maxwell Equations of Ampere law-structure and Faraday law-structure and New Ohm's law-structure that Copper Wire Circuits were essential in electromagnetism. Essential to having electricity is the circuit. But waves, were they essential in anything??? No. Physicists of the past knew they had something unlike a particle to make interference patterns, and they picked the most available alternative present--- a wave. But they never logically examined if the "wave concept" was a good fit with particle.

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
May 25, 2026, 2:17:24 AMMay 25
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Sunday, May 24, 2026 at 9:23:00 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
As soon as you solve a problem in science, or life in whole, then, soon after there appears a new problem, related to the old one to solve.
So if the Light is a particle photon and a Circuit in a particle-circuit duality, up pops the question of what is the so called frequency of Light as a circuit and the wavelength of Light as a circuit? Does a Circuit have a Frequency characteristic and a so called wavelength characteristic yet no longer a wave itself? Perhaps Sound can help where you have pulses of compression and rarefaction?

AP writes:: Better yet, the second long argument should be that Light-photon is a circuit but relates to biology in that it is a circuit of "perfect DNA". This will give me structure to Light as circuit, give me a frequency and a wavelength, much like DNA is a spiral staircase as the wave and from one CGAT gives me a wavelength.

So in replacing Wave with circuit, I could not throw it out altogether, for I need parameters of a frequency for Energy is frequency times Planck's constant.

My second long logic argument has to be this, to back-up and support my first long logic argument.

(2) Biophysics: Light-photons are "perfect DNA"

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
May 25, 2026, 5:37:36 PM (13 days ago) May 25
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So in my quest to get rid of Wave out of physics, and replace it with Circuit, I am caught in a problem. As I rid physics of Wave, I need a wavelength and frequency of Light to remain.

So I bring in the DNA of biology, and the mitochondrial DNA is a circuit, a closed loop.

Now I ask myself, that can the DNA provide for a Frequency and for a Wavelength.

To keep the speed of light a constant, if the frequency is large, the wavelength is small and vice versa.

What in DNA can be played around with to follow that rule???

So, let me think of Mitochondrial DNA which is a closed loop already a circuit. If I make the total distance of the closed loop be the wavelength, then the frequency would become the density of pulses of A,T, G, C inside the DNA. So if you pack the A,T,G,C close together to where they almost touch one another, you have X-ray gamma rays. If the A,T,G,C are a large distance apart in spacing, you have radio waves. So to compensate for the dense spacing, the overall closed loop is small in total circumference distance. For the loose spacing in Radio waves you have to compensate that with a large closed loop so the Speed of Light is a constant speed.

Since my first long argument is that Light is a Circuit, I now must make the second long argument be that of Light is "perfect DNA".

It is not the first time I have used the term "perfect" in physics science. But when I unified the 4 forces of physics in the 1990s, I used that concept of "Perfect" asking which of the 4 forces is the most "perfect force", for which ever force that be, would be the unifying force and the other 3 forces would be transformations of the one and only unifying force.

Is there another term for "perfect" that makes more logical sense????? When writing my #369 book of science--- the History of Logic--- I discovered the a major mistake in science is not adhering to Symmetry. The Logic argument that the Universe is a single big Atom of Plutonium is argued from the logical point of view, that if not, then the Atomic Theory is no longer a universal law and has the exception of the Cosmos in full, and so the Atomic Theory is not a theory but a "rule of thumb".

Ever since Apollonius discovered the Conic Sections and claiming the slant cut was a ellipse when in truth it is an oval, is due to symmetry. A cylinder has the symmetry for slant cut being a ellipse, a cone does not.

Is there another Logic Term for symmetry????? Yes of course--- it is Consistency. Symmetry is the geometry word for Logic--- Consistency.

What about the concept of Perfect????? Is Perfect just another term that really means Logical Consistency????????? Is Perfect the same as Symmetrical, the same as Consistent?????


AP, King of Science

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
May 25, 2026, 6:05:27 PM (13 days ago) May 25
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Another monster mistake in science started in the 1860s with the Maxwell Equations. There was asymmetry in the Maxwell Equations with Gauss's law that magnetic monopoles do not exist. This was upsetting to the mind of Pierre Curie and to Paul Dirac who had a logical mind to say--- that cannot be true and that the magnetic monopole must exist.

The magnetic monopole does exist and is so abundant for it is the 0.5MeV particle and the true electron of atoms is the Muon 105MeV stuck inside a proton torus.

Someone in the history of science blurted out a comment that "Science abhors a vacuum". If that is true, then, for sure, "Science above all abhors Asymmetry".

So, I have thrown out the Wave in physics and replaced it with Circuit, but my work is not finished because I still need a concept for frequency of a Circuit. Because Frequency times Planck's constant = Energy in quantum mechanics.

That can be achieved by making Light be "Perfect DNA" and where the density of the A,T, G, C particles inside the DNA is taken to be frequency. If a high density of A,T,G,C then a small circumference of circuit and this being a X-ray or gamma ray. If a low density of A,T,G, C in the circuit of DNA, then the circumference has to be large, very large to make the speed of Light be a constant speed.

Do we have any Observational Proof of this??? Yes, of course, Olbers paradox of why the Night Sky is always dark--- because White Light and higher frequency light are short lived in travel in space due to their small circumference. And the reason we see distant galaxies in the Redshift, is because only Redshift with Light of large circumference can travel those distances yet still survive the journey.

AP, King of Science

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
May 26, 2026, 4:32:50 AM (13 days ago) May 26
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So I threw out the Wave concept in physics and replaced it with Circuit. However, I need to find what is--- frequency and what is wavelength.

The Frequency is the density of the A,T, G, C while the Wavelength is the distance of circuit circumference.

This would explain Olbers paradox-- the night sky is dark, for Light is mostly "tired light", the redshift surviving better than the blue light UV, X-ray, gamma ray. Radio waves surviving the longest.


--- quoting Wikipedia---
Mitochondrial DNA is the small circular chromosome found inside mitochondria. These organelles, found in most eukaryotic cells, are the powerhouse of the cell.[1] The mitochondria, and thus mitochondrial DNA, are passed exclusively from mother to offspring through the egg cell.Duration: 33 seconds.Illustration of the location of mitochondrial DNA in human cellsElectron microscopy reveals mitochondrial DNA in discrete foci. Bars: 200 nm. (A) Cytoplasmic section after immunogold labelling with anti-DNA; gold particles marking mtDNA are found near the mitochondrial membrane (black dots in the upper right). (B) Whole mount view of cytoplasm after extraction with CSK buffer and immunogold labelling with anti-DNA; mtDNA (marked by gold particles) resists extraction. From Iborra et al., 2004.[jargon][2]

Mitochondrial DNA (mDNA or mtDNA) is the DNA located in the mitochondria organelles in a eukaryotic cell that converts chemical energy from food into adenosine triphosphate (ATP). Mitochondrial DNA is a small portion of the DNA contained in a eukaryotic cell; most of the DNA is in the cell nucleus, and, in plants and algae, the DNA also is found in plastids, such as chloroplasts.[3] Mitochondrial DNA is responsible for coding of 13 essential subunits of the complex oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) system which has a role in cellular energy conversion.[4]

Human mitochondrial DNA was the first significant part of the human genome to be sequenced.[5] This sequencing revealed that human mtDNA has 16,569 base pairs and encodes 13 proteins. As in other vertebrates, the human mitochondrial genetic code differs slightly from nuclear DNA.[6]

Since animal mtDNA evolves faster than nuclear genetic markers,[7][8][9]it represents a mainstay of phylogenetics and evolutionary biology. It also permits tracing the relationships of populations, and so has become important in anthropology and biogeography.



--- end quoting Wikipedia---
ppp

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
May 26, 2026, 4:59:55 PM (12 days ago) May 26
to Plutonium Atom Universe

Notice that the statement is the first idea in a Reasoned-Argument. It is the first idea in science and in logic and in mathematics terms.


10 Reasoned Arguments

-------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Physics Reasoned Argument on Light as Particle to Circuit, __not__ particle to wave in physics.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statement: Physics of Light is a Particle to Circuit duality, and __not__ a particle to wave with respect to optics in physics. 


1-1) Particle to Circuit duality, not particle to wave. A wave has a head and tail as a single ray vector. A circuit is always a closed loop and for Light-photons is a pencil ellipse closed loop. Reason: well defining a wave versus a circuit.


1-2) What is Reflection? Now in High School 1967, I took physics of PSSC and the first chapter was "How Light Behaves" dealing with reflection. When I reached University Cincinnati, 1968 it was Halliday & Resnick with first chapter on measurement then motion then Newton law-structure of classical physics, and optics was chapter 39, way in the back of the book, almost near the end. So, how can physics taught in High School have reflection, refraction at the start and in University be the last chapters? I believe the answer to that question, is Light behavior is easy to experiment with in High School and a simple math formula of Angle of Incidence equals Angle of Reflection and a practice in using trigonometry.

Reasoning: I would be to say the authors were keen on getting High School students into the laboratory with experiments and Optics is a nice introduction.


1-3) In the PSSC book, shows a picture of a boat harbor reflected in water on page 11 and asks the reader if the picture is right-side up or upside down? I looked for any "written words" to tell me the answer. But the more important question, is can you have nearly perfect reflection if Light is a Wave or a Circuit? So US appears upside down as SN. Can a letter or number appear upside down if Light were a straightline arrow with head and tail, or does the Light need a Circuit where the bottom half of the circuit is flipped upside down to reverse the letters US. Reasoning, the reflection of straightline ray with head and tail cannot turn around a image, but a circuit-- half going one direction, half the opposite can turn a image upside down.


1-4) In physics optics we describe Refraction as the bending of Light as it transits one medium into a different medium and call it refraction of Light. We ask the question can Light as a Wave-ray be bent and Light as a circuit be bent. We have to admit that bending of light as wave-ray or as circuit is acceptable.  However, there is another phenomenon of Refraction called Double Refraction where a image is duplicated when calcite is placed on the pages of a book. This can only be explained as Light being a Circuit where the top half of light produces one image and the bottom half of light produces a second image. Reasoning: duplication means Light consists of two sides, not a single ray.


1-5) Certainty Principle is true while Uncertainty principle is false when Light is photon and circuit, not wave. In the Double Slit Experiment, Light is put through a demonstration of behavior as a beam of light passes through two narrow slits, and is in a diffraction pattern where a screen in the background records if Light is particle or Light is something else. We have interference pattern and we have particle results. Depending on what you want to measure-- particle you get particle clicks as it hits the measuring device, but you want interference pattern, you have circuit for one circuit can reinforce another circuit or if going in opposite direction, can cause a null result. A single ray for Light cannot yield a pattern of constructive interference and destructive interference pattern, but a circuit can. Two or more circuits can reinforce to make constructive interference or they can destroy one another. Reasoning: Interference patterns of bright fringe next a dark fringe then bright fringe then dark fringe can occur when Light is a circuit, but not when Light is a single ray wave.


1-6) Conclusion: Since the circuit description of Light answers the phenomenon of Light, while the wave concept falters or fails completely, then we conclude Light is a photon particle and a circuit all in one.



Here is that same reasoned-argument argued from the point of view of quantum mechanics duality.


(1) Physics Reasoned Argument on Light as Particle to Circuit, __not__ particle to wave in from duality of quantum mechanics physics.


Statement: Physics of Light is a Particle to Circuit duality, and __not__ a particle to wave with respect to duality in quantum mechanics. 


1-1) In Quantum Mechanics, electricity is the dual of magnetism, and what is meant by that is the Faraday law-structure produces electricity from a thrusting bar magnet in a closed loop copper wire coil. While the Ampere law-structure produces magnetism from a current flowing in a copper wire. Quantum Duality is where one aspect of nature is the same as another aspect of nature and only transformed from one to the other in an experiment. Reason: defining quantum duality.


1-2) In Quantum duality, the two aspects need to be as close together in design as possible. A particle can be seen as this O while a circuit can be seen as this <==> and if we broaden out that circuit we can simply see it can easily form O. While it is far too difficult to transform a ray wave of head and tail >^v^v^> into a particle O, unless the head closes in on its tail to form a closed loop circuit. Dualities in Quantum Mechanics like Electricity to Magnetism have to be so so similar that one can transform into the other with ease.


1-3) Conclusion: Since the circuit description of nature is the very most similar geometry to the particle nature, where one slips into or slips out of one to the other, makes the case that Light is both photon and circuit, not a wave.


Theme of this Logic Argument: After analyzing the above argument on Circuit replacing wave in physics. I come to the logical theme that it was apparent in the Maxwell Equations of Ampere law-structure and Faraday law-structure and New Ohm's law-structure that Copper Wire Circuits were essential in electromagnetism. Essential to having electricity is the circuit. But waves, were they essential in anything??? No. Physicists of the past knew they had something unlike a particle to make interference patterns, and they picked the most available alternative present--- a wave. But they never logically examined if the "wave concept" was a good fit with particle.

To match the duality of Electricity to Magnetism, you need two items that are closely related that one transforms into the other with ease. A wave does not transform into a particle with ease, but a circuit does. You can almost say a Circuit is a Particle with its interior removed.


This is why I keep harping on colleges and universities to require two years of Logic in college or university before getting a degree in science or math, to help our young think straight, clear, and correctly.


AP writes: Having disposed of the wave concept, I am not clear of it yet, for physics needs a "frequency and distance concept" to keep the speed of light a constant. And also, because Energy equals frequency times Planck's constant, we need a replacement for "frequency". The next long logic reasoned-argument offers what is called a "model" designed to help us find the frequency replacement.



(2) Biophysics: Light-photons are "perfect DNA" helping us explain what Light frequency and wavelength are.



2-1) Modeling Light-circuit as "perfect DNA" helps us explain what Light frequency and wavelength are for the circuit.


Statement: Modeling Light-circuit as "perfect DNA" helps us explain what Light frequency and wavelength are for the circuit.


2-2) We need to know details of Light as a Particle versus Circuit. Quantum duality requires duals to be closely like one another, so they easily transform from one to the other. Light as a particle is called the photon and Light as a circuit is a closed loop and when you collapse the closed loop it becomes a photon particle. When we energize a particle we transform it into a circuit. So how do we get details of the Circuit aspect of Light, details of frequency and of wavelength? We model Light with "perfect DNA".


2-3) In a way, a model is a physics experiment to help us understand the underlying phenomenon. When we say that a Light-photon is "perfect DNA" we have a ready made model of what Light is.


[show picture of mitochondrial DNA]


Mitochondrial DNA is a circuit as a closed loop circle. But light circuits are more like a pencil ellipse looking like this in ascii-art.


<================> Light as pencil ellipse, long, thin and a bend at both ends.



2-4) DNA model is the first experiment, the second experiment is obtain a glass triangle prism so you can see the Light spectrum of red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet. When white light is bent by going through a prism, it yields the rainbow of colors. Each of those colors would be a different frequency and a different distance of a circuit circumference, what Old Physics called wavelength now becomes a circuit circumference.


Red light has a low frequency but high circumference distance in a DNA pencil ellipse. The frequency is the number amount of A,T, G, C particles inside the DNA pencil ellipse. The circumference distance going around the DNA circuit is the wavelength. Blue light has a small circumference distance but packs the A,T,G,C densely in a large amount. Physics requires that Frequency times wavelength distance equals the constant value that is the Speed of Light. A large frequency density means small wavelength distance, and vice versa a small frequency means a large wavelength distance. Light Speed must always remain constant with a value of 3.16 x 10^8 meters per second.


2-5) The night sky in astronomy is dark is a common known fact, and, even has a name called the Olbers' paradox. Another fact of astronomy is what is called a Redshift of galaxies spectrum. Most galaxies spectrum are shifted to the red, and only a small few are shifted towards blue.


What can explain this redshift of most galaxies with only a few blueshift? Answer: Space is like a prism, in fact a Cosmic Proton Torus that bends light as it is traveling in space of this proton torus. The larger the distance traveled, the more bent is the white light until it is so red that it becomes dark and invisible.


Blue light, or white light comes from a hot blue star and is nearby and is not bent so much in its travel. We end up seeing it as white or blue light.


Theme of this Logic Argument: Using models is a experiment that helps answer questions.


-So I threw out the Wave concept in physics and replaced it with Circuit. However, I need to find what is--- frequency and what is wavelength.

-The Frequency is the density of the A,T, G, C while the Wavelength is the distance of circuit circumference.

-This would explain Olbers paradox-- the night sky is dark, for Light is mostly "tired light", the redshift surviving better than the blue light UV, X-ray, gamma ray. Radio waves surviving the longest.


---- quoting Wikipedia---
Mitochondrial DNA is the small circular chromosome found inside mitochondria. These organelles, found in most eukaryotic cells, are the powerhouse of the cell.[1] The mitochondria, and thus mitochondrial DNA, are passed exclusively from mother to offspring through the egg cell.Duration: 33 seconds.Illustration of the location of mitochondrial DNA in human cellsElectron microscopy reveals mitochondrial DNA in discrete foci. Bars: 200 nm. (A) Cytoplasmic section after immunogold labelling with anti-DNA; gold particles marking mtDNA are found near the mitochondrial membrane (black dots in the upper right). (B) Whole mount view of cytoplasm after extraction with CSK buffer and immunogold labelling with anti-DNA; mtDNA (marked by gold particles) resists extraction. From Iborra et al., 2004.[jargon][2]

Mitochondrial DNA (mDNA or mtDNA) is the DNA located in the mitochondria organelles in a eukaryotic cell that converts chemical energy from food into adenosine triphosphate (ATP). Mitochondrial DNA is a small portion of the DNA contained in a eukaryotic cell; most of the DNA is in the cell nucleus, and, in plants and algae, the DNA also is found in plastids, such as chloroplasts.[3] Mitochondrial DNA is responsible for coding of 13 essential subunits of the complex oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) system which has a role in cellular energy conversion.[4]

Human mitochondrial DNA was the first significant part of the human genome to be sequenced.[5] This sequencing revealed that human mtDNA has 16,569 base pairs and encodes 13 proteins. As in other vertebrates, the human mitochondrial genetic code differs slightly from nuclear DNA.[6]

Since animal mtDNA evolves faster than nuclear genetic markers,[7][8][9]it represents a mainstay of phylogenetics and evolutionary biology. It also permits tracing the relationships of populations, and so has become important in anthropology and biogeography.



---- end quoting Wikipedia---
ppp


Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
May 28, 2026, 5:54:59 AM (11 days ago) May 28
to Plutonium Atom Universe

(2) Biophysics: Light-photons are "perfect DNA" helping us explain what Light frequency and wavelength are.


2-1) Modeling Light-circuit as "perfect DNA" helps us explain what Light frequency and wavelength are for the circuit.

Statement: Modeling Light-circuit as "perfect DNA" helps us explain what Light frequency and wavelength are for the circuit.

2-2) We need to know details of Light as a Particle versus Circuit. Quantum duality requires duals to be closely like one another, so they easily transform from one to the other. Light as a particle is called the photon and Light as a circuit is a closed loop and when you collapse the closed loop it becomes a photon particle. When we energize a particle we transform it into a circuit. So how do we get details of the Circuit aspect of Light, details of frequency and of wavelength? We model Light with "perfect DNA".

2-3) In a way, a model is a physics experiment to help us understand the underlying phenomenon. When we say that a Light-photon is "perfect DNA" we have a ready made model of what Light is.

[show picture of mitochondrial DNA]

Mitochondrial DNA is a circuit as a closed loop circle. But light circuits are more like a pencil ellipse looking like this in ascii-art.

<================> Light as pencil ellipse, long, thin and a bend at both ends.


2-4) DNA model is the first experiment, the second experiment is obtain a glass triangle prism so you can see the Light spectrum of red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet. When white light is bent by going through a prism, it yields the rainbow of colors. Each of those colors would be a different frequency and a different distance of a circuit circumference, what Old Physics called wavelength now becomes a circuit circumference.

Red light has a low frequency but high circumference distance in a DNA pencil ellipse. The frequency is the number amount of A,T, G, C particles inside the DNA pencil ellipse and we can picture them as being the magnetic field units. The circumference distance going around the DNA circuit is the wavelength. Blue light has a small circumference distance but packs the A,T,G,C densely in a large amount. Physics requires that Frequency times wavelength distance equals the constant value that is the Speed of Light. A large frequency density means small wavelength distance, and vice versa a small frequency means a large wavelength distance. Light Speed must always remain constant with a value of 3.16 x 10^8 meters per second.


2-5) The night sky in astronomy is dark is a common known fact, and, even has a name called the Olbers' paradox. Another fact of astronomy is what is called a Redshift of galaxies spectrum. Most galaxies spectrum are shifted to the red, and only a small few are shifted towards blue.

What can explain this redshift of most galaxies with only a few blueshift? Answer: Space is like a prism, in fact a Cosmic Proton Torus that bends light as it is traveling in space of this proton torus. The larger the distance traveled, the more bent is the white light until it is so red that it becomes dark and invisible.

Blue light, or white light comes from a hot blue star and is nearby and is not bent so much in its travel. We end up seeing it as white or blue light.

Theme of this Logic Argument: Using models is a experiment that helps answer questions. However, we must be careful in our models for they can lead us astray as shown in the next Long Logic Argument of the 1906-1913 Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden Experiment that claimed to have found a nucleus of Atoms, when in truth, they found that Atom has no nucleus but rather instead a proton torus with muons inside; doing the Faraday law-structure.


-So I threw out the Wave concept in physics and replaced it with Circuit. However, I need to find what is--- frequency and what is wavelength.

-The Frequency is the density of the A,T, G, C as the magnetic field units while the Wavelength is the distance of circuit circumference.


-This would explain Olbers paradox-- the night sky is dark, for Light is mostly "tired light", the redshift surviving better than the blue light UV, X-ray, gamma ray. Radio waves surviving the longest.


---- quoting Wikipedia---
see Mitochondrial DNA (journal).

Mitochondrial DNA is the small circular chromosome found inside mitochondria. These organelles, found in most eukaryotic cells, are the powerhouse of the cell.[1] The mitochondria, and thus mitochondrial DNA, are passed exclusively from mother to offspring through the egg cell.
Duration: 33 seconds.0:33
Illustration of the location of mitochondrial DNA in human cells

Electron microscopy reveals mitochondrial DNA in discrete foci. Bars: 200 nm. (A) Cytoplasmic section after immunogold labelling with anti-DNA; gold particles marking mtDNA are found near the mitochondrial membrane (black dots in the upper right). (B) Whole mount view of cytoplasm after extraction with CSK buffer and immunogold labelling with anti-DNA; mtDNA (marked by gold particles) resists extraction. From Iborra et al., 2004.[jargon][2]
Mitochondrial DNA (mDNA or mtDNA) is the DNA located in the mitochondria organelles in a eukaryotic cell that converts chemical energy from food into adenosine triphosphate (ATP). Mitochondrial DNA is a small portion of the DNA contained in a eukaryotic cell; most of the DNA is in the cell nucleus, and, in plants and algae, the DNA also is found in plastids, such as chloroplasts.[3] Mitochondrial DNA is responsible for coding of 13 essential subunits of the complex oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) system which has a role in cellular energy conversion.[4]

Human mitochondrial DNA was the first significant part of the human genome to be sequenced.[5] This sequencing revealed that human mtDNA has 16,569 base pairs and encodes 13 proteins. As in other vertebrates, the human mitochondrial genetic code differs slightly from nuclear DNA.[6]

Since animal mtDNA evolves faster than nuclear genetic markers,[7][8][9]it represents a mainstay of phylogenetics and evolutionary biology. It also permits tracing the relationships of populations, and so has become important in anthropology and biogeography.
---- end quoting Wikipedia---

2-6) Conclusion: by the Modeling of Light-circuit as "perfect DNA" has helped us to explain what Light frequency and wavelength are for the circuit. The frequency is the density of the magnetic field where the magnetic field are the A,T, G,C units, and the wavelength of the circuit is the distance of the circumference of the circuit.

Logic theme: Modeling helps to explain what the Light-photon-circuit is all about. Here we used a Model of DNA to tell us about what Light is.

AP writes:: The prior long logic reasoned argument used a Model to help find answers. In this next long logic argument we use another model, but this example shows us we have to be very careful with models for we can easily go astray in reasoning.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(3) Physics Reasoned Argument-- Atoms have no nucleus, instead they have a proton torus.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

3-1) A logical analysis of the 1906-1913 Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden, Bohr Experiment thinking that Atoms have a nucleus when in truth Atoms do not have a nucleus, rather instead they have a proton torus with muons inside doing the Faraday law-structure.

Statement: Atoms are composed of single large proton torus with muons inside doing the Faraday law-structure and the electricity produced is radiated out such as in a star, or the electricity is stored in neutrons acting as capacitor-battery.

3-2) This is an extremely famous experiment, only trouble is, they mis-interpreted the final results. They shot alpha particles into atoms of a gold foil. On occasion, some alpha particles bounced back directly to the source. A 180 degree bounce back on occasion, but, these bounce back alpha particles had more speed, more velocity exiting the gold atoms than upon entering the gold atoms.

3-3) A 180 degree bounce back of alpha particles shot into gold atoms with a greater velocity in exit than in entrance, means the interior of the gold atom had something moving in the opposite direction with a greater momentum than the alpha particle momentum entering the gold atom. This is the analogy of the head on collision of a small car hitting head on with a large truck, that the small car bounces back with a greater velocity than before striking the large truck. This is classical physics of momentum in a head on collision.

3-4) What could possibly be a head on collision of alpha particles inside a gold atom? Well, gold has 79 protons and if we join all 79 protons to form a single big torus and inside the torus would be 79 muons as the electrons of atoms as a bar magnet going thrusting through, round and round inside the proton torus in doing the Faraday law-structure of producing electricity, would answer the problem of how you can have bounce back alpha particles with larger velocity exiting than entering gold.

3-5) Before doing the alpha particle experiment, that Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden modeled the atom as having a dense nucleus of all the protons, each being 938 MeV and neutrons 945 MeV as tiny balls making a bigger ball as nucleus. They thought the neutrons had to cluster together to hold the protons, hold the protons together for they thought protons would fly apart without neutrons. This dense ball conglomerate of both protons and neutrons they reckoned was a nuclear Sun. And they thought the electron was a tiny ball of 0.5MeV, about 1890 smaller in mass than the neutron. And the electron circling around the nucleus as a planet around a nuclear sun.

3-6) The Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden and then later Bohr joined in, thinking the interior of an Atom was modeled after a Sun-planetary system.

3-7) Often a model helps us logically think out the true answer and reality of a perplexing problem. But in the case of Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden, then Bohr, just were too sloppy in looking at the full data of alpha particle scattering. And they fervently stuck with their Nuclear Sun with electrons as planets, all tiny balls. Sad that they did not seem to review their data. The data that bounce back alpha particles with greater velocity out that going in, meant Atom interior was a Proton torus with long string of muons inside traveling nearly the speed of light that slammed head-on into some incoming alpha particles. Sad that they were too sloppy to review their data, because, now, AP will have all the future credit of discovery of the true inside interior of Atoms. This is what I mean, in college and university, study Logic so that you can be a "full scientist", not only make a famous experiment, but have the logical brains to correctly interpret what the result of the experiment means.

Conclusion: Logic cannot tolerate sloppiness in experiments. And where a model does not help, but leads the scientists to a false conclusion of a nucleus, when a proton torus exists, electrons as muons inside the torus and where neutrons are surrounding the outside of the proton torus as capacitors. It makes logical sense that an Atom would not be a large ball composed of proton and neutron balls and little tiny balls of electrons outside the nucleus. Trouble with that picture is balls that have no purpose. Whereas, proton, neutron, muons each have a job, task, function in a law structure of Faraday, Ampere, Coulomb, Ohm. Contrast with balls sitting around do nothing or floating around outside a nuclear ball.

Logic Theme of this long reasoned argument: A model can be dangerous as to be blinding and being sloppy in the data. Models can be helpful, but also be dangerously bad.

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
May 28, 2026, 4:51:01 PM (11 days ago) May 28
to Plutonium Atom Universe

AP writes: I do not want to concentrate too much on physics, but like to mix it up. So let us have a reasoned argument on geology Earth and biology Life.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Growing Earth Argument-- gigantic insects and trees of the past.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
4-1) So, when I came upon these strange data that the Devonian geological time period some 400 million years ago had all these strange gigantic creatures; I had to come up with a solution to fit them all.

Statement: Gigantism in the Devonian such as gigantic soft fiber trees and fungus and dragonflies implied that the gravity of Earth had to be different than the gravity of Earth at present. Earth gravity had to be 1/8 of what it is now and so the mass and size of Earth 1/8 of present Earth.


4-2) I am doing a Long Logic Argument on the Growing Earth theory and answering why dragonflies and ferns were Gigantic in the Devonian and Carboniferous geological time period. My answer and explanation is the Earth was 1/8 the gravity and mass in that past time than Earth has now. And if you measure a large dragonfly today and multiply it by 8 times, you have the Dragonfly of the Carboniferous.


How Gigantic insects, plants evolved in Devonian, Dragonflies // evolution series, book 3
_______________________________________________________________________________________
by Archimedes Plutonium


This is AP's 104th 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: The Devonian geological age had gigantism of plants and animals. Some ferns and horsetails grew to the size of trees and many insects grew to a huge size, such as Dragonflies the size of a human arm. Several attempts have been given to account for this gigantic size, but none seem plausible. So I offer a theory to explain it, because it has to be some physical characteristics of Earth itself, during the Devonian to account for gigantism in both plants and animals.

Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of a Google search on "dragonfly Devonian".

Table of Contents


1) Gigantic sized dragonflies in the Geological time of Devonian.

2) Growing Earth theory means gravity was less in Devonian.

3) Earth 1/8 the mass in Devonian geological time than it is now.


4) In Devonian, Earth was 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/8 the mass it is today.

5) Devonian even had giant fungus as trees.

6) Looking to connect the doubling time interval of 140,000,000 years with a constant of physics.

7) Summary.

4-3)
So my time interval in Nature for a hydrogen atom to double itself by Faraday law-structure electricity going on inside the hydrogen atom is approximately 140 million years of a time interval. Every hydrogen atom in Nature, in the Universe doubles itself in 140 million years.

4-4) If the mass of Earth was the same in Devonian that it is today, it is impossible for gigantism to take place in soft tissue plants and in animals that have to fly in the air.


4-5) Conclusion: Impossible for trees of soft tissue to be enormously tall, even fungus of enormous size and dragonflies 8 times the size of dragonflies today; impossible to fly today on Earth, unless, however, Earth was 1/8 the mass and size it is today. To where the gravity of Earth would allow soft tissue trees and dragonflies to exist in the Devonian.

Logic Theme of this long reasoned argument: The logic theme in this argument is the idea that when scientists in a specific field like biology, come up with a mystery conundrum, that they should expand their horizon look to go outside the box of just biology and look at geology. To many in science stay cloistered in their narrow minded box of study, unable to expand and reach out to other sciences to answer their mystery. When the true Atom in Nature is a proton torus with muons inside thrusting through the torus producing electricity that is stored in neutrons and thus doubling Atoms in 132,000,000 years, means Earth was 1/8 the gravity in the Devonian of present day Earth. Logic is never "narrow minded".

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
May 28, 2026, 7:57:55 PM (10 days ago) May 28
to Plutonium Atom Universe


(5) Astronomy-Cosmology Reasoned Argument-- where do we live in the Cosmic Plutonium Atom Totality?

5-1) The Universe is a single Plutonium Atom Totality and must be true otherwise the greatest theory in science-- the Atomic theory is not a theory at all but just a mere "rule" that works sometimes but does not work all the time. And a Cosmic Plutonium Atom is composed of Cosmic Proton, Cosmic Muons and Cosmic Neutrons and the question then becomes where is Earth located?

Statement: Cosmic Plutonium Atom is composed of Cosmic Proton, Cosmic Muons and Cosmic Neutrons and the question then becomes where is Earth located? Is it in the Cosmic Proton, or the Cosmic Muons, or the Cosmic Neutrons?


5-2) How many Cosmic rings of galaxies can we observe, if, in a given size of sphere-- like the Earth; if we are limited by curvature 16km out of  40,000 km circumference due to curvature is 16/40000 = 0.0004, Pu Atom Totality has 840 x 94 = 78960 x .0004= approximately 32.

5-3) AP seriously determining where Earth resides--Cosmic Proton?--Cosmic Muons? or Cosmic Neutrons? So I am stuck here. And I thought I would do best if I presented some pictures and perhaps given time, can make a breakthrough and answer my question.

I discovered the Plutonium Atom Totality in year 1990, saying that without it, the Atomic Theory-- the greatest ever theory of science (even Feynman concurs on that assessment), that the Atomic theory is not a theory unless the Universe itself is a single big atom of one of the 118 known chemical elements. The Atomic theory is just a rule of thumb, unless the cosmos itself obeys the Atomic Theory.

5-4) I heard of Caltech's Jarrett mapping of the Cosmos in late 1990s and that he found a Ring in 3rd layer. But at that time in my research, I was still on the idea that of a nucleus of atoms and the electrons as 0.5MeV in a dot cloud pattern around the nucleus. So a cosmic ring for me by late 1990s made no big deal.

Then comes the year 2016-17 when I discover Atoms have ___no nucleus___ for Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden in their gold foil experiments 1906-1913 were too sloppy in not noting the bounce back alpha particles at 180 degrees but with a faster exit velocity than a entrance velocity. Meaning??? Meaning that the alpha particles slammed into a chain of 79 muons inside a single proton torus of 79 individual protons with muons inside going round and round at nearly the speed of light in the Faraday law-structure. The incoming alpha particles hit a chain of Muons thrusting through the proton torus and bounced them out of the gold atom with a greater momentum-- greater speed.

(5-5) So, by 2017, my view of the internal Atom was all the protons form a single proton torus with all the muons inside as bar magnets in a Faraday law-structure. Now I need Rings, to compose the proton as being 840MeV, muon as 105MeV and the neutrons which grow from 1 MeV on out to becoming 945MeV. Each 1 MeV of the proton or neutron or muon is a Ring.

5-6) So now I look at the Caltech Jarrett mapping of galaxies with its Ring in 3rd layer and need to determine if Earth is in the Cosmic Proton, or Cosmic Muon, or one of the Cosmic Neutrons which are parallel plate capacitors, storing the electricity produced by the Cosmic Proton + Muons.

The mapping of galaxies is seen here in this picture.


image.png

Next, let me show you the Ring in third layer of Caltech's galaxy mapping (the second picture of 0.01<z < 0.02).

image.png

Next, let me show you a crude model of the Plutonium Atom Totality with its Proton Torus and Muons inside doing a Faraday law. This picture was conceived by me after 2017 when I discovered the true electron of atoms is the muon, not the 0.5MeV particle and had a function of being involved in a Faraday law-structure being inside a huge proton torus with rings of 94 x 840 =78,960 Rings in all. The muons form a chain of 94 x 105=9,870 Rings.

This crude model is just for education sake.

That model is not even a hydrogen atom for I would need the proton torus to be 840 rings of 1MeV each and the single muon inside of 105 rings of 1MeV each, in order to produce Maximum electricity as the muons act as a bar magnet would be a long ellipse that goes perpendicular to the proton torus and stretches completely along the inside of the torus.

Still, I would need to account for the Caltech Single Ring in 3rd layer.

And it is here that I run into the enormous difficulty that the Caltech Ring derived from Doppler Red Shift, is highly questionable. I do not accept nor believe redshift of light has anything to do with distance and with recession of galaxies, but rather has something to do with (1) the curvature of the Cosmos, and, (2) the brightness of a star in shining of light, as if the Cosmos is gigantic round prism. And where redshift is where light is bent the most and could be nearby, rather than a far distance away.

5-7) In the past decade from 2017 to 2026, being a trained mathematician, I proffered the guess, that even if you have a screwed-up Doppler Redshift doing the mapping, that if the Cosmos was this proton torus, muon rings, neutron rings as capacitors, and even if the redshift had nothing to do with the distance away or the speed of galaxies, that the application of redshift would leave always at least One Cosmic Ring. And I endeavored after 2017 in a technique of scooting around galaxies to see if I could come up with 5 Rings instead of the plain just 1 Ring.

5-8) I have increased my experimentation on nailing down what the Doppler Redshift really is with new experiments. Decades back, I did experiments with corrugated translucent fiberglass on oncoming car headlights and found a slight redshift, even though the cars were speeding towards me which should have been a blue shift, not red shift. Trouble with that experiment is that the fiberglass is not clear but seems to have a tint to it and that tint may have caused the red shift.

EXPERIMENT #2 to figure out Doppler Redshift
-------------------------------------------------------------
My new experiment involves a tree lamp of many varieties of bulbs-- 6 bulbs in all some almost pure white, some more yellowish and holding a glass prism to my eyes and looking not directly at the lamps themselves but looking at the lamps reflecting from a distant mirror. What I find, which is fascinating is that the pure white lamps are all blue shifted, while the old type of bulbs that are yellowish light are red shifted. Mind you, there is no motion whatsoever in me or the lamps.

5-9) So, what this tells me is that Doppler Redshift is a galaxy predominantly of smaller stars that are not massive and thus not hot enough. While galaxies with a blue shift means it has many stars that are massive and hot, very hot causing their spectral lines to be blue shifted.

So, what I reckon is, if true, means that when and if Caltech revises their mapping, where distance is not involved with the Doppler shift, that they will see the Cosmos of galaxies looking more like this ascii art diagram.

(( | ))  and perpendicular inside is -------- a linear line up of galaxies.

5-10) If we were in the Cosmic Muons, that is not conducive to life, at such fast speed as the Cosmic Muons thrusting through Proton Torus. And probably all this high enormous energy Cosmic Gamma Rays come from the Cosmic Muons thrusting through the Proton Torus.

So I doubt that Earth is in the Cosmic Muons. That leaves either the Cosmic single Proton Torus or in one of the parallel plates of the Cosmic Neutrons.

The shape of Parallel Plate Capacitors sitting around a Proton Torus can be round shape as well as square or rectangular. Which place would life be most comfortable??? Living in a Proton or living in a Neutron?

5-11) I repeated the experiment of last night, where I find that the old bulbs of incandescent versus these new LED bulbs of more white and blue light in a Lamp Tree. I have grown fond of Tree Lamps that can hold many bulbs for reading. And so I have a Lamp with 3 incandescent bulbs that glow somewhat Yellowish and two bulbs LED.

So, now, I have a glass triangular prism and I hold it up to my eyes and view the 5 bulbs as the light is reflected in a mirror, a beveled edge glass mirror. I will take Photograph pictures of what I see and post it here to this thread-newsgroup.

And what I see is that the 3 incandescent bulbs are redshifted with a long pattern that looks like this ((((((()))))))))))))bulb(((((((()))))))))

And the LED white bulbs are blueshifted with a long pattern that looks like this ((((((((((((()))))bulb(((((((()))))))))))))

5-12) This Implies that Doppler shift is not about motion of light source but simply, all about how big and hot the star is. This makes sense in that most stars are like our Sun or smaller and not that hot and when seen would be redshifted. Only a few stars or galaxies when seen are blueshifted.

5-13) And, well, we can check on this Experiment for it predicts that you can have many constellations in the night sky where one of the stars in the constellation is a blue shifted star while the others are a red shift, which makes sense and logically fits in with my tree lamp observation that shifting of light is due to how hot the object is, not anything dealing with relative motion.

5-14) So, is there a constellation, probably many of them, where one of the stars is blueshifted and the others redshifted--- is proof that Doppler Redshift was invented by logical idiots of physics. For the Doppler shift is true for Sound waves. But for Light, Doppler shift tells only how HOT the object is and nothing to do with relative motion. And that makes sense, because in 1st year college physics the professors tell us--- Light is a constant maximum speed and the relative motion of the source of light plays absolutely no role in shifting of light wavelength. What does play a role is how HOT that star is. If the star is blue hot, you observe a blueshift, but most stars are red hot and so when we see them or the galaxies they reside in, we see a redshift.

5-15) So, what constellation stars do you know of, wherein resides a blue star along with red stars. For the foolish astronomers and physicists would say the blue star is heading towards us at a fast speed while the redshift stars are far away and accelerating to infinity away from us, yet for thousands of years of constellation observing the group of stars are still held together for the same night time observing by millions of people.

Now, I can begin to sense how to fix the Caltech mapping of Cosmos galaxies and that the Ring in 3rd layer is beginning to make sense as not just one ring but at least 3 rings which should better be stated as 3 ribs of a proton torus.

Notice in the first picture above that the lettering of superclusters of galaxies is mostly in the Northern Hemisphere of that map, and if we start to disentangle those superclusters we end up with at least 3 ribs

)))

And taking in the other layers we end up with this configuration of the Cosmos.

(((|))) where we are located in the center rib along side 3 ribs to the left of us and 3 ribs to the right of us.

Indicating that Earth is part of the Cosmic Proton Torus.

5-16) Ribs are not full Rings but partial rings, for our telescopes the best of them can only see a rib of a ring.

Much in the same way we use binoculars to peer out over the ocean water and the curvature of Earth will halt our seeing a long distance, in fact we can see perhaps 16km in all before the Earth curvature halts our vision--- a rib of Earth.

5-17) The Cosmic Muon would be too violent of an environment for life to live on.

I think the Cosmic Neutrons would also be too violent as it collects and stores the energy of Faraday Law-structure from Muons thrusting through Proton Torus.

Strangely, the Cosmic Proton would be the most stable nourishing environment for biology life to live and grow. And that is concurrent with the observation that neutrons are not stable, nor are muons, but protons in the laboratories on Earth, are the most stable of the three and not radioactive of the three.

I will try to get a photo of Experiment 2-- the tree lamp experiment where 2 bulbs are blueshifted while 3 bulbs are redshifted.

The Doppler Redshift of Light was one of science greatest joke hoax maximum idiocy, comparable to the yakkity yak fools of math with their slant cut of cone a ellipse when it is a oval.

5-18) Next, let me show you a crude model of the Plutonium Atom Totality with its Proton Torus and Muons inside doing a Faraday law. This picture was conceived by me after 2017 when I discovered the true electron of atoms is the muon, not the 0.5MeV particle and had a function of being involved in a Faraday law-structure being inside a huge proton torus with rings of 94 x 840 =78,960 Rings in all. The muons form a chain of 94 x 105=9,870 Rings.

5-19) Here is a description of Experiment #1 on Doppler Redshift conducted in May of 2010. In 2010, my conclusion was the Redshift is due to curvature of space and the corrugated fiberglass translucent panel was imitating the curvature of cosmic space. In Experiment #2 on Doppler Redshift conducted in May 2026, I blame the temperature of the star where the light was produced for red shift if not that hot and blueshift if star is very hot.

Archimedes Plutonium
May 2, 2010, 10:52:09 PM
to
Well I repeated the experiment tonight, only outside of my house. For
I took a
single panel 127 cm by 34 cm and about a thickness of 1 to 1.5
millimeters.
Now I do not know how science of optics describes these panels.
Whether they
are translucent for they are not clear, and whether they are opaque
and the difference
between opaque and translucent. They are fiberglass and you can see
white streaks
inside. And if I held a sheet of paper with handwriting on it, if held
up close to the
panel, one can read the writing but at a tiny distance away, the
writing is too blurred
to read.

The panel comes from a small greenhouse, much like a small shed bought
in
Lowes lumber yard. The greenhouse could not stand up to the South
Dakota
winds so I cut it and use it inside the house. It is this use that I
began to notice
redshifting of auto headlights.

So I took this panel outside the house for I was getting too much in
house reflections
that was creating a redshift. So to eliminate the in house reflection
and refraction
causing redshift, I went to the side of the road and to conduct the
experiment directly
on the autos and headlights.

Immediately I spotted all the white light headlights were redshifted
coming towards me.
Only when the autos were close by, could I see any white light from
their headlights.
When they were at a far distance these white lights were redshifted,
and their was
a maximum redshift at a specific distance. This is the same distance
at which the
opposite traffic exposing their taillights of red vanished from view
in the panel.

So in other words, when a car's taillights of red are in view of my
panel, I see a
bright red in the panel but at a select distance away, the auto red
light vanishes
in the panel and is black, but removing the panel, I still see the red
light.
And it is this distance at which is the maximum redshifting of the
oncoming white
light.

Now the tilting of the panel has some role in the lateral spreading
out of the redshift
but not of the intensity of the redshift. Now if I tilted the panel to
becoming more and
more parallel to the road itself, there was a point at which the
whitelight was able to
be seen instead of the predominant redshift.

So now, this is proof that the Cosmic Redshift, need not be a Doppler
Effect of an
expanding Universe wherein Space is moving at the speed of light or
greater and carrying
along with it the galaxies.

In fact, this experiment points out that the speed of an object is
immaterial in causing a
redshift, because the white headlights should be blueshifted, yet none
were blueshifted.
All were redshifted.

So what this experiment implies is that the Geometry of the Cosmos, or
the curvature of the
Cosmos, or perhaps, the opaqueness of the Cosmos causes a redshift.

I returned inside my house to see to what extent that reflections off
walls plays in the redshift
and had a lamp near a white painted wall surface. The lamp itself was
white and not redshifted
but the reflection of the white light on the nearby surface was
redshifted. So to some extent,
reflected light can be redshifted and I do not know the physical
explanation of how the interior
walls can reflect the light so that the fiberglass panels cause a
redshift.

And I tried experimenting with obtaining a blueshift. I took a white
light lamp and I vigorously
waved the sheet back and forth, and I suspect I obtained a blueshift,
however it was
too small to be assured.

The implications of this experiment are grand, because it offers a
more simple explanation
of Cosmic Redshift of galaxies. An explanation that does not depend on
the speed of galaxies,
nor their distance, nor a convoluted concept of Space in motion.

In fact, we can probably decipher what the curvature of Space or the
opaqueness of space,
or the width of Space is from the redshift data. If we have enough
reliable redshifts and the
motion of those bodies derived not from Hubble's style law, but
derived from other tests of
motion, that we should be able to describe the geometry and curvature
of Space.

So what I suspect will happen is that we can gather the data of cosmic
redshift and gather the
data of the motion of astro bodies, without the reliance on redshift,
but the motion derived
by other means. And then we can compute what the curvature or width or
the geometry of
Space has to be in order to have the redshift that we currently have.

5-20)
At the moment I am trying to assemble the quotes of physicists on Doppler Redshift, where they are contradicting themselves.

Carl Sagan in a TV show said this "Color is to light what pitch is to sound". As his way of endorsing Doppler Redshift as a distance measure. But AP would counter Sagan by saying he violates the constant speed of light and no matter what the speed of the source is-- the principle of Special Relativity.

Halliday & Resnick in "Fundamentals of Physics" 1988, 3rd edition, page 400 says " The speed of light has the same value c in all directions and in all inertial reference frames. In measuring the speed of light, the relative velocity of the source of light and the observer simply does not matter."

Halliday & Resnick further go on to write in their PHYSICS Part 2, Extended Version, 1986 on page 929 " The measured frequency and wavelength will change, but always in such a way that their product,  which is the velocity of light, remains constant."

Now I do not expect physicists to be logicians of logical reasoning, but I am a logician and can easily tear into Halliday & Resnick by pointing out that if they are correct, then a measurement of blueshift of Orion of  Saiph or of Enif or of Sadalmelik. Or redshifted Canopus or Rasalgethi, or Rastaban or Betelgeuse or Polaris. That this mix of blueshifted stars and redshifted stars in constellations is contradictory and the constellation will soon disappear. And if true what H & R says that every measurement of the redshift or blueshift, will change over time. So one year a blueshift is measured at a specific number and 10 years later a very different number for the same star due to change in Line-of-Sight between the star and Earth. But there is no noticeable change. And the reason being is that Doppler shifting is not connected to speed of source but is connected to how hot the star is.

5-21) Now my Experiment #2 says the Doppler Shift corresponds to the hottness of the light bulbs-- the LED are blueshifted and no motion is involved. The Incandescent old bulbs are redshifted in my experiment. But now, it is claimed that Barnard's star, the closest star beyond the Sun is a Red Dwarf star at a distance of 6 light years from Earth. And it is claimed to be blueshifted. This would be a counterexample to my hypothesis that Doppler shifting is all about how hot a star or galaxy is. So what gives, is AP wrong just as he gets started on a explanation?? Well if you read the history of research into Barnard's Star you will see many times where people said this and that about it, only to be retracted completely in a few years. Some say it has 4 planets and then Forbes magazine shows that to be false. Some have found a Gigantic Blue Flare but no possible energy source to create the flare other than to say its magnetic field.

And so, Barnard's star is a test case example of how much the whole of the science of Astronomy is in the Weeds of understanding. Here we have what is presumed to be the closest star other than the Sun, and from one year to the next we have overthrowing of what was thought to be true of the star. My guess is that there is something obscuring the collecting of true data from Barnard's star, what is the obstruction????? Is it some of the Oort cloud or perhaps a Oort type of cloud surrounding Barnard's star, and fooling astronomers on Earth in thinking it is a Red Dwarf when in reality it is a Blue Star and has a blueshift because it is a blue star. But it is not coming towards Earth at that enormous velocity, no, it is relatively fixed in place relative to Earth.

5-22) This is what I mean when astronomy is in the Weeds, and will stay in the weeds as long as astronomers think Doppler shifting tells us anything other than the temperature of a star or galaxy.

Then there is the case of Andromeda galaxy which supports AP's hypothesis of Doppler is a temperature of star measure. The astronomers with Doppler telling distance peg Andromeda with a blueshift, large blueshift, where AP would say--- no, Andromeda has a blueshift because a predominant large population of blue giant stars. And so I look up Andromeda , and lo and behold, recent news that  such as NASA. gov "Rare Ultra-blue Stars Found in Neighboring Galaxy's Hub" and then in ESA Space Science "Mysterious disk of blue stars in our neighboring Andromeda Galaxy (M31).

So here, Andromeda supports the AP hypothesis, that M31 has a registered Doppler blueshift __not__ because it is racing towards us, hell no, it is a blueshift because it has a large population of hot giant blue stars.

5-23) Alright, recently I did Experiment #2 to determine what Doppler Redshift of Light means and came to a conclusion that it does not tell distance but rather instead tells how hot the star or galaxy is, and by hot would be blue star/s and by not hot would be red stars and thus redshift.

In a Universe run by Faraday law-structure of inside every atom is a thrusting muon as bar magnet inside a single large proton torus and the electricity produced makes up 90% of starshine whether from a blue star like Rigel or a red star like our Sun.

In this type of Universe, the size of the star and how hot it is-- is directly proportional to the age of the star. All blue stars are old while all red stars are young.

If true, then we look at Caltech's Jarrett mapping of the Cosmos according to layers of redshift. And we can make a deduction, that if a Ring appears in 3rd layer, then we should have rings appear in all the other layers, or the making of a ring. Reason: red starts make Doppler redshift and are young stars directly proportional to age, and the layers are by the size of redshift in Jarrett's mapping.

5-24)

--- quoting the ned dot ipac dot caltech dot edu ---
The Cosmic Web - Figure 1 beautifully unveils the background extragalactic sky from the obscuring foreground Milky Way. Galaxies are color-coded by their inferred redshift (or distance from the Sun), thereby providing depth to the surface distribution of galaxies. Large-scale structures are clearly discerned, from the Local Supercluster (Virgo/Hydra/Centaurus) to the Perseus-Pisces (P-P) and Pavo-Indus (P-I) superclusters. (Figure 2, a key to the large scale structures). Probing orthogonal to this 3-D surface reveals the redshift distibution along the line of sight; an example is shown in Figure 10 for the Shapley Concentration (discussed below).


Figure 10
Figure 10. Redshift slice of the Shapley Concentration region, extending to the limit of the 2MASS galaxy catalog, z ~ 0.1 (400 Mpc). The equatorial RA slice is 90 deg between a declination boundary of -36.5° < Dec < -26.5°. The points are color-coded by redshift (see Figure 1). The "finger of god" radial velocity artifacts trace galaxy clusters, including Abell 3558 (center, yellow). The Hydra-Cen supercluster is foreground (blue fingers) to the Shapley Concentration.

As seen in Figure 1, a continuous chain of structures seems to wrap around Hydra/Virgo, up to Coma to the north, through Hercules to the east, down through P-P and around to P-I to the west, then extending up through the ZoA into the Shapley concentration. This is more easily seen when each redshift layer is shown separately; Figure 11.


Figure 11
Figure 11. 2MASS galaxy distribution separated by redshift layer. The color scheme, when combined, creates the panorama shown in Figure 1.


5-25)

Honestly, I would say the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th layers all have resemblance to 3rd layer. And this would indicate that we can observe at minimum, 5 cosmic ribs of 10 rings.

My mistake, if we see 5 Rings we can see 5 ribs of the Proton torus.

But if we are a part of the Proton torus, we should __not be able to see__ a full ring at all but a rib of a ring. If we are on the inside of the Cosmic Proton Torus on a Muon then we can see full rings.

It looks like the evidence is leaning towards the idea that the Milky Way and Earth are in the Cosmic Muons, the 94 muons which is 94 x 105 =9,870 rings. If we are on the Cosmic Muon we can see full rings of the Cosmic Proton.

5-26) If we are on the Cosmic Proton we can only see ribs of rings. If we are on the Cosmic Neutron (one of 137 neutrons as parallel plate capacitors) we can only see a partial ring, but better than just a rib of a ring).

I am thinking that the Cosmic Muons are too dangerous of a place for life to live. But so far, the evidence points to the Cosmic Muons if we are seeing full Rings.

5-27)

As this model picture below shows, if inside that proton torus, on a cosmic muon then you can see full rings of the Cosmic Proton. But if Earth lies on one of the Rings of the Cosmic Proton, we should see only Ribs of the Cosmic proton.

And then the big question comes into play to the extent at which we can see a Cosmic structure of the Universe itself. Should we be able to see the full extent of the cosmos by seeing a full Ring of the Proton torus. My intuition would say we can only see a tiny fraction of a full Proton Ring.

In the model, do you see that small ring-band inside the Torus???? It represents a Muon thrusting through the Proton torus. If we were riding on that small ring-band we would see, easily 5 full rings of the Proton torus.

Earth on the proton torus would see only 5 ribs. Earth on a Neutron capacitor would see 5 ribs but much more than the ribs of the proton torus. But Earth on a Muon would see Full Rings of the Proton torus.

5-28) So, I am going to have to work through this. Logic is merciless in that we are forced to accept the logic, and so far, Logic is saying that --- Seeing Full Rings of galaxies, means we are on the Cosmic Muon.

Why is that bad?? Being on the cosmic muons??? Because that is likely the most violent environment in all the Universe. Fast speeds in doing the Faraday Law-Structure producing electricity.

5-29)
Now Wikipedia has some excellent pictures of large scale Cosmic structure that I want to share with you.

And I can make out a Muon ring inside a Proton torus ring in one of these pictures. To be discussed further.

But the major point I want to make here is that the Universe in whole is not governed by gravity. And we should have known that 3 or 4 decades back when Solid Body Rotation by Vera Rubin was discovered. Sadly Vera did not know the Maxwell Equations well enough to understand Solid Body Rotation means what Hannes Alfven had been talking about for a long time--- Electricity magnetism, EM, rules the cosmic skies and gravity is only a tiny tiny part of EM.

5-30)
EM easily makes Solid-body Rotation in galaxies for it is a force that is 10^38 larger of a force than is gravity. But no, Vera Rubin introduces the blind nonsense of dark matter and later dark energy which only failed fools of physics understand and yappity yap accept.

But, how do fools of physics, astronomy, cosmology ever attempt to explain why the largest structure of galaxies are in FILAMENTS-- which I like to call Wires.

In AP's Unification of all the forces of Physics as being Electromagnetism force, and then there are the revised Maxwell Equations with Ampere law-structure and Faraday law-structure and New Ohm's law structure, 3 of the 4 forces involve Wires. Gravity is only a tiny tiny fraction of the Coulomb law-structure.

5-31)
If, you have 3 of the 4 forces of Nature requiring "wires", then, obviously, the final structure of galaxies will be ***wire-like***. One day in the future, the name "filaments" will be replaced with "wire".

Look carefully below at the picture of the "The Universe within 1 billion light-years" for in that picture we can say our observable universe is a circle ring and within that ring from a clock perspective at about 12:07 to then 12:37 at a diagonal is a dense line of galaxies-- which I reckon to be a Cosmic Muon, a ring inside a ring.

--- quoting Wikipedia---
Galaxy filament
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Galaxy filaments, walls and voids form web-like structures. Computer simulation.


In cosmology, galaxy filaments are the largest known structures in the universe, consisting of walls of galactic superclusters. These massive, thread-like formations can commonly reach 50 to 80 megaparsecs (160 to 260 megalight-years)—with the largest found to date being Quipu (400 megaparsecs),[1][2] and possibly the still unconfirmed Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall at around 3 gigaparsecs (9.8 Gly) in length—and form the boundaries between voids.[3] Due to the accelerating expansion of the universe, the individual clusters of gravitationally bound galaxiesthat make up galaxy filaments are moving away from each other at an accelerated rate; in the far future they will dissolve.[4]

Galaxy filaments form the cosmic weband define the overall structure of the observable universe.[5][6][7]

Discovery
Discovery of structures larger than superclusters began in the late 1980s. In 1987, astronomer R. Brent Tully of the University of Hawaii's Institute of Astronomy identified what he called the Pisces–Cetus Supercluster Complex. The CfA2 Great Wall was discovered in 1989,[8] followed by the Sloan Great Wall in 2003.[9]

In January 2013, researchers led by Roger Clowes of the University of Central Lancashire announced the discovery of a large quasar group, the Huge-LQG, which dwarfs previously discovered galaxy filaments in size.[10] In November 2013, using gamma-ray bursts as reference points, astronomers discovered the Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall, an extremely large filament measuring more than 10 billion light-years across.[11][12][13]

Filaments
The filament subtype of filaments have roughly similar major and minor axes in cross-section, along the lengthwise axis.

Filaments of galaxies
Filament
Date
Mean distance
Dimension
Notes
Coma Filament



The Coma Supercluster lies within the Coma Filament.[14] It forms part of the CfA2 Great Wall.[15]
Perseus–Pegasus Filament
1985


Connected to the Pisces–Cetus Supercluster, with the Perseus–Pisces Supercluster being a member of the filament.[16]
Ursa Major Filament



Connected to the CfA Homunculus, a portion of the filament forms a portion of the "leg" of the Homunculus.[17]
Lynx–Ursa Major Filament(LUM Filament)
1999
from 2000 km/s to 8000 km/s in redshift space

Connected to and separate from the Lynx–Ursa Major Supercluster.[17]
z=2.38 filament around protocluster ClG J2143-4423
2004
z=2.38
110 Mpc
A filament the length of the Great Wall was discovered in 2004. As of 2008, it was still the largest structure beyond redshift 2.[18][19][20][21]
A short filament was proposed by Adi Zitrin and Noah Brosch—detected by identifying an alignment of star-forming galaxies—in the neighborhood of the Milky Way and the Local Group.[22] The proposal of this filament, and of a similar but shorter filament, were the result of a study by McQuinn et al. (2014) based on distance measurements using the TRGB method.[23]
Galaxy walls
The galaxy wall subtype of filaments have a significantly greater major axis than minor axis in cross-section, along the lengthwise axis.

Walls of galaxies
Wall
Date
Mean distance
Dimension
Notes
CfA2 Great Wall(Coma Wall, Great Wall, Northern Great Wall, Great Northern Wall, CfA Great Wall)
1989
z=0.03058
251 Mpc long: 750 Mly long
250 Mly wide
20 Mly thick
This was the first super-large large-scale structure or pseudo-structure in the universe to be discovered. The CfA Homunculus lies at the heart of the Great Wall, and the Coma Supercluster forms most of the homunculus structure. The Coma Cluster lies at the core.[24][25]
Sloan Great Wall(SDSS Great Wall)
2003
z=0.07804
433 Mpc long
This was the largest known galaxy filament to be discovered,[24] until it was eclipsed by the Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wallfound ten years later.
Sculptor Wall(Southern Great Wall, Great Southern Wall, Southern Wall)


8000 km/s long
5000 km/s wide
1000 km/s deep (in redshift spacedimensions)
The Sculptor Wall is "parallel" to the Fornax Wall and "perpendicular" to the Grus Wall.[26][27]
Grus Wall



The Grus Wall is "perpendicular" to the Fornax and Sculptor Walls.[27]
Fornax Wall



The Fornax Cluster is part of this wall. The wall is "parallel" to the Sculptor Wall and "perpendicular" to the Grus Wall.[26][27]
Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall
2013
z≈2[12]
3 Gpc long,[12]
150 000 km/s deep[12]
(in redshift space)
The largest known structure in the universe.[11][12][13] This is also the first time since 1991 that a galaxy filament/great wall held the record as the largest known structure in the universe.
A "Centaurus Great Wall" (or "Fornax Great Wall" or "Virgo Great Wall")[citation needed] has been proposed, which would include the Fornax Wall as a portion of it (visually created by the Zone of Avoidance) along with the Centaurus Supercluster and the Virgo Supercluster, also known as the Local Supercluster, within which the Milky Way galaxy is located (implying this to be the Local Great Wall).[26][27]
A wall was proposed to be the physical embodiment of the Great Attractor, with the Norma Cluster as part of it. It is sometimes referred to as the Great Attractor Wall or Norma Wall.[28] This suggestion was superseded by the proposal of a supercluster, Laniakea, that would encompass the Great Attractor, Virgo Supercluster, Hydra–Centaurus Superclusters.[29]
A wall was proposed in 2000 to lie at z=1.47 in the vicinity of radio galaxy B3 0003+387.[30]
A wall was proposed in 2000 to lie at z=0.559 in the northern Hubble Deep Field(HDF North).[31][32]
Map of nearest galaxy walls

The Universe within 500 million light years, showing the nearest galaxy walls
Large quasar groups
Large quasar groups (LQGs) are some of the largest structures known.[33] They are theorized to be protohyperclusters/proto-supercluster-complexes/galaxy filament precursors.[34]

Large quasar groups
LQG
Date
Mean distance
Dimension
Notes
Clowes–Campusano LQG
(U1.28, CCLQG)
1991
z=1.28
longest dimension: 630 Mpc

It was the largest known structure in the universe from 1991 to 2011, until U1.11's discovery.
U1.11
2011
z=1.11
longest dimension: 780 Mpc

Was the largest known structure in the universe for a few months, until Huge-LQG's discovery.
Huge-LQG
2012
z=1.27
characteristic size: 500 Mpc
longest dimension: 1.24 Gpc

It was the largest structure known in the universe,[33][34]until the discovery of the Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall found one year later.[12]
Supercluster complex
Pisces–Cetus Supercluster Complex
Maps of large-scale distribution
The universe within 1 billion light-years (307 Mpc) of Earth, showing local superclusters forming filaments and voids
The universe within 1 billion light-years (307 Mpc) of Earth, showing local superclustersforming filaments and voids
 
Map of nearest walls, voids and superclusters
Map of nearest walls, voids and superclusters
2dF survey map, containing the SDSS Great Wall
2dF survey map, containing the SDSS Great Wall
2MASS XSC infrared sky map
2MASS XSC infrared sky map
 
A mosaic MeerKAT image of the Galactic Center at 20 cm with a 4" resolution.[35]
A mosaic MeerKATimage of the Galactic Center at 20 cm with a 4" resolution.[35]

--- end quoting Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia---

AP writes: Wikipedia did a nice job in pictures. I give it a B+. If they had omitted--- like I omitted the propaganda brain wash of Big Bang, they deserve a A-.

5-32)
If they had talked about the idea and fact that gravity cannot explain "filament formation" but that Electromagnetic Force can easily explain why filaments form the largest astronomy structures, then they would deserve a A+, just like AP's posts are A+.

Look carefully below at the picture of the "The Universe within 1 billion light-years" for in that picture we can say our observable universe is a circle ring and within that ring from a clock perspective at about 12:07 to then 12:37 at a diagonal is a dense line of galaxies-- which I reckon to be a Cosmic Muon, a ring inside a ring.
---from Wikipedia---
Maps of large-scale distribution
The universe within 1 billion light-years (307 Mpc) of Earth, showing local superclusters forming filaments and voids
The universe within 1 billion light-years (307 Mpc) of Earth, showing local

What I am talking about is the almost straight line diagonally down from Corona-Borealis superstructure, with Virgo as center (Earth is in Virgo), and at opposite end is Horologium supercluster.

Here I am trying to match up Jarrett's rhetoric with this below picture mapping. I do not know if these two pictures are independent of one another.

--- quoting ---

Caltech's Jarrett mapping

The third layer (0.01 < z < 0.02) is dominated by the P-P
supercluster
 (left side of image) and the P-I supercluster extending up into the
 ZoA terminating as the Great Attractor region (notably Abell 3627)
 disappears behind a wall of Milky Way stars. An intriguing "ring" or
 chain of galaxies seems to circle/extend from the northern to the
 southern Galactic hemisphere (see also Figure 1). It is unknown
 whether this ring-like structure is physically associated with the
 cosmic web or an artifact of projection.
--- end quoting ---

I see a Pisces to the lower left side

5-33)

So I am working on scant news, and tainted news. Scant because I have a vague Ring in 3rd layer and tainted because it comes from false thinking that Doppler Redshift tells us distance. No, Doppler redshift tells us the star or predominant stars in a galaxy are red stars--- young and growing.

Blueshift galaxies like Andromeda are not speeding towards us, no, they are predominantly old stars, big massive blue stars causing a blueshift.

So when you put that together with a Ring in 3rd layer, there likely is far more rings than just one ring.

But, I have to work with what is given.

5-34)
Now here is a nice picture which seems to be newer than other pictures, perhaps X-ray telescope.

And according to the arrows, I make out at least 2 Rings.

I no longer see a dense filament of galaxies from Corona Borealis to that of Horologium as was mentioned earlier.

There is quite a bit of news about mistakes in astronomy as it is now seen that Great Attractor is only 1/10 of the mass believed in before.
--- quoting Wikipedia---

Location

Panoramic view of the entire near-infrared sky. The location of the Great Attractor is shown following the long blue arrow at bottom right.
The first indications of a deviation from uniform expansion of the universe were reported in 1973 and again in 1978. The location of the Great Attractor was finally determined in 1986: It is situated at a distance of somewhere between 150 and 250 Mly (million light-years) (47–79 Mpc), the larger being the most recent estimate, away from the Milky Way, in the direction of the constellations Triangulum Australe (The Southern Triangle) and Norma (The Carpenter's Square).[10] While objects in that direction lie in the Zone of Avoidance (the part of the night sky obscured by the Milky Way galaxy) and are thus difficult to study with visible wavelengths, X-ray observations have revealed that region of space to be dominated by the Norma Cluster (ACO 3627),[11][12] a massive cluster of galaxies containing a preponderance of large, old galaxies, many of which are colliding with their neighbours and radiating large amounts of radio waves.

Debate over apparent mass
In 1992, much of the apparent signal of the Great Attractor was attributed to a statistical effect called Malmquist bias.[13] In 2005, astronomers conducting an X-ray survey of part of the sky known as the Clusters in the Zone of Avoidance (CIZA) project reported that the Great Attractor was actually only one tenth the mass that scientists had originally estimated. The survey also confirmed earlier theories that the Milky Way galaxy is in fact being pulled toward a much more massive cluster of galaxies near the Shapley Supercluster, which lies beyond the Great Attractor, and which is called the Shapley Attractor.

--- end quoting Wikipedia---

I suspect some day soon, the admission will be made that Doppler Redshift says nothing about how far away something is, but tells what the star mass and age --- red means young and small and not hot and blue means very hot and large and blue.

The whitest spots appear to be Shapley Concentrate and Perseus Pisces, and perhaps that is the Cosmic Muon diameter.

5-35)
Sorry, but, this mapping is not in agreement with the next mapping, and using a Hour Clock 12 as true north, 6 as true south we see Persius Pisces at 8 in both pictures but see Corona Borealis as 11 in the picture below and then see it at 2 in the following picture. We see Horologium at 5 in the picture below and in the following picture see it at 7. We see the Shapley in the same spot in both pictures. We see Shapley and Perseus Pisces in the same spot but see Corona Borealis and Horologium-- each switched by 90 degrees--. I am trying to think it is a perspective issue but come to the conclusion it is a mistake.

--- quoting Wikipedia---

Location

Panoramic view of the entire near-infrared sky. The location of the Great Attractor is shown following the long blue arrow at bottom right.

5-36)
I have been looking around all day today for a description of how astronomers determine the speed of galaxies.

They are all over the map on galactic speeds. One web site claims stars traveling at 2 times the speed of Light.

AI Overview claims the Milky Way galaxy is between 370 to 550 km/second.

One web site claims distant galaxies are speeding along at 750 km/second.

The Sun is claimed to be moving at 230km/second.

The speed of Light is 3*10^8 meters/sec which would be 3*10^5 km/second.

So that a galaxy velocity of 750 km/s would be 300,000/750 =400  or 1/400 the speed of Light.

Remember, nothing can travel faster than  the speed of Light.

5-37)
AP is looking for a physics constant that would restrict galaxy and star speeds. For it is just plain commonsense that if a star is moving rapidly it would just break up or leave half the star behind.

The Neutron is 945MeV rest mass.
The magnetic monopole (would dumb old professors thought was the electron of Atoms) is 0.5MeV.
The addition of Proton torus with Muon inside is another 945MeV.
When we double the magnetic monopole we have 1MeV and a Neutron is 945 rings of 1MeV.

So we have 1/945 of the Speed of Light and we have double that to 1/1890 the speed of Light.

300,000/ 945=317.46  and 300,000/ 1890 =158.73

Is 159km/second the maximum Cosmic speed of a galaxy or of a star????

5-38)
On Tuesday, May 26, 2026 at 12:59:59 AM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
I have been looking around all day today for a description of how astronomers determine the speed of galaxies.

No mention of how the calculation goes in my old astronomy textbook.

And even Wikipedia has no separate page on how galactic velocity is determined.
 
They are all over the map on galactic speeds. One web site claims stars traveling at 2 times the speed of Light.

AI Overview claims the Milky Way galaxy is between 370 to 550 km/second.

One web site claims distant galaxies are speeding along at 750 km/second.

The Sun is claimed to be moving at 230km/second.

Sun 230 km/s orbital speed around Milky Way
Mercury, 0.24 yr orbital period, 47.87 km/s orbital speed
Venus, 0.61 yr orbital period, 35.02 km/s orbital speed
Earth, 1 yr orbital period, 29.78 km/s orbital speed 

Moon , 27 days orbit, 1 km/s orbital speed
Mars, 1.8 yrs orbital period, 24.07 km/s orbital speed

Jupiter, 11.86 yrs orbital period, 13.07 km/s orbital speed 

Saturn, 29.45 yrs orbital period, 9.69 km/s orbital speed 

Uranus, 84.32 yrs orbital period, 6.81 km/s orbital speed 

Neptune, 164.79 yrs orbital period, 5.43 km/s orbital speed

The speed of Light is 3*10^8 meters/sec which would be 3*10^5 km/second.

So that a galaxy velocity of 750 km/s would be 300,000/750 =400  or 1/400 the speed of Light.

Remember, nothing can travel faster than the speed of Light.

AP is looking for a physics constant that would restrict galaxy and star speeds. For it is just plain commonsense that if a star is moving rapidly it would just break up or leave half the star behind.

The Neutron is 945MeV rest mass.
The magnetic monopole (which dumb old professors thought was the electron of Atoms) is 0.5MeV.
The addition of Proton torus with Muon inside is another 945MeV.
When we double the magnetic monopole we have 1MeV and a Neutron is 945 rings of 1MeV.

So we have 1/945 of the Speed of Light and we have double that to 1/1890 the speed of Light.

300,000/ 945=317.46  and 300,000/ 1890 =158.73

5-39)
So, is the maximum speed in the Cosmos that of 317 km/second to where massive bodies do not breakup.
Is 159km/second the maximum Cosmic speed for planets going around a star????

5-40)
If we visually see a full ring, means we cannot be on the Cosmic Proton for you would only see a rib, same goes for Cosmic Neutron. The only place you can see a full Ring would be in the Cosmic Muon.

Conclusion: So little data, and much confusion over Doppler Redshift, still, given a full Ring in astronomy observation implies we live in the Cosmic Muons in seeing a full Ring of the Cosmic Proton. Living on the Cosmic Proton torus will not let you see a full Ring, and the same said for Cosmic Neutron.

Logic theme of this long, long reasoned-argument. We can still come to a conclusion even though we have little facts and confused concepts.

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
May 29, 2026, 5:03:03 PM (9 days ago) May 29
to Plutonium Atom Universe

(6) Biology life on Earth needs to move out to Europa because the Sun has gone into Red Giant initiation phase-- every year the Sun gets hotter and hotter.


Statement: Biology life on Earth will go extinct and into oblivion because the Sun is in Red Giant phase and unless we make Europa our new home.

6-1) As the Sun has started Red Giant phase, every year gets hotter and hotter and at some point in the future Earth will lose all its life. Our best bet to survive is to make Europa, a satellite of Jupiter, our new home in the next 1,000 years.

6-2) When you have a false idea of the inside structure of an Atom; thinking atoms have a nucleus when in truth they have a proton torus doing the Faraday law-structure making new electricity very second, and that Sunshine comes predominantly from Faraday law-structure, and very little from fusion. Then humanity has a problem to solve. Do we want to live or go extinct and into oblivion as the Sun grows bigger every day.

6-3) An obvious solution will be to move away from the Sun to a more habitable place, like Europa a satellite of Jupiter. It has plenty of water and we can tap into the magnetic field of Jupiter for almost unlimited powerful clean energy.

6-4) Here on Earth, at this time of May 2026, most humans believe Atoms have a nucleus and the Sun shines from fusion, and that every year gets hotter not because the Sun is going into Red Giant phase, but because fossil fuel burning emits CO2 into the air which is a greenhouse gas and traps heat on Earth. True that CO2, fossil fuel burning causes "global warming", but the largest contributor to every year hotter than the last year is due to the Sun gone Red Giant phase.

6-5) What evidence do we have that hotter years are Sun gone Red Giant rather than fossil fuel greenhouse gas global warming? The evidence is that the poles are accelerated in heat warming more than any other region on Earth. When the Sun radiates more energy, that energy is first seen in the Poles and causes acceleration of ice melt. Greenhouse gas warming of Earth would not be concentrated at the poles but rather where population centers are and be accelerating there, not the poles.

6-6) A rough percentage of how much heating of Earth is caused by Faraday law structure going on inside every atom of the Sun versus how much fusion is going on in the Sun is about 95% Faraday law-structure and 5% fusion. A rough percentage of how much increasing Earth temperature is due to Sun gone Red Giant versus fossil fuel burning climate change is 90% Sun gone Red Giant and 10% fossil fuel burning.

The 95% to 5% is obtained from the idea that Faraday law-structure goes on every instant of time inside every atom of the Sun. While fusion of hydrogen into helium is a probability half-life factor. Comparing every instant of time the muons thrusting through proton torus versus the chance of two atoms fusing is a 95 to 5 percentage comparison.

The increase in Solar radiation because the Sun has every year more atoms than previous years and the constancy of that radiation versus the mechanism of producing greenhouse gases is a 90 to 10 percentage comparison.

6-7) Life on Earth cannot exist in a Solar System of a growing Red Giant Star and must move further away, outward of the yearly increasing Sun gone Red Giant. A Sun gone Red Giant will grow to where the surface of the Sun radiation will swallow Earth in a heat bath.

Conclusion: For life on Earth to exist after thousands of years into the future, it must move out to near Jupiter.

Theme of this long Logic Reasoned Argument: Humanity at present in May 2026 has an attention span of yearly increasing climate heat rises all caused by fossil fuel burning and CO2 greenhouse gases, and utterly no realization the main culprit is the Sun gone Red Giant. The physics and astronomy textbooks still think of Atoms as nucleus with do nothing balls of proton, neutron, 0.5MeV electron and that the stars run by fusion. When in reality, Atom interiors are Proton torus, with muons inside doing the Faraday law-structure producing continual electrical energy both pouring out of the Sun and heating Earth and in creating newer atoms in the Sun, to accelerate heating. The Theme of this logic argument, is how long will it take for scientists to wake up and realize yearly heat extremes in climate is because the Sun went Red Giant? If it takes too long of a time for humanity and its scientists to wake up, then all of life on Earth is the proverbial expression "toast".


(7) Can we move both Earth and Moon out to Europa and near Jupiter?

7-1) Sun gone Red Giant raises the immediate question that life on Earth to not go extinct and into oblivion is to move further out from the Sun. Instead of moving and leaving Earth behind to be swallowed by the Sun, is humanity able to move all of Earth and the Moon out to where Europa of Jupiter lies?

Statement: Can humanity move Earth and Moon to where present day Europa of Jupiter lies?

7-2) Our Sun and all stars shine mostly from Faraday law-structure of Muons thrusting through Proton torus and some of that electricity produces is stored in Neutrons to create more atoms but much of it is released as star shine radiation.

7-3) As Sun gone Red Giant, every year the climate, weather gets hotter and hotter, especially the poles. Much of continents will be underwater as no more ice or snow is possible. And the continents that remain will be desert interiors, with the rims of continents in yearly floods called "atmospheric rivers".

7-4) As scientists finally wake up to the truth of the interior of atoms and that the Sun shines 95% from Faraday law-structure, and then the world general public finally taught the correct physics and the call then to Move as much of Earth and Moon out to nearby Jupiter takes place.

7-5) The question arises on whether we can fully move Earth and Moon out of its orbit and heading for Jupiter.

7-6) Recently, a asteroid and its satellite was experimented with to see if it can be moved out of orbit. The mission of moving was a success. And the physics involved can be scaled up.

7-7) By using Atomic Bomb blasts on Earth at precision spots at precision time intervals, we can nudge planet Earth, similarly the Moon, that every year we can scoot the two out of orbit with the Sun and to where they are scheduled to be repositioned nearby Europa of Jupiter.

7-8) Each year as we atomic bomb blast Earth out of orbit we will experience a Cooling Effect on Earth as to make Earth far better in weather and climate if we had not bomb blasted. So that the so called "ride to Europa, by Earth + Moon" will be a joyful ride, provided that scientists and engineers get all the details worked out.

Theme of this Logic Reasoned-Argument: In Quantum Mechanics of a Atom Totality Universe lies a concept known as quantum entanglement but a better word for it is Superdeterminism. The reason the world had Atomic bombs is exactly the reason that all intelligent life in the cosmos may get stuck in the situation of their home star turning Red Giant. They be toast, if not for several exit strategies such as atomic bomb blasting their way outward from the star gone Red Giant. But, the life on those planets has to wake up before the window of opportunity is closed upon them and they thus get toasted and burned out of existence and thrown into oblivion.

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
May 29, 2026, 6:29:25 PM (9 days ago) May 29
to Plutonium Atom Universe

(8) Mathematics-- the true numbers are discrete numbers and are the Decimal Grid Numbers.

8-1) What are the true numbers of mathematics, for they have to be logically consistent with geometry to be the true numbers of math.

Statement: The true numbers of mathematics are discrete numbers for only discrete numbers allow for the existence of Calculus.

8-2) In the year 1900, out came Max Planck starting a fresh new physics science called quantum mechanics. Quantum means discrete. Discrete means --- not a continuum. Physicists payed attention to Planck of 1900, but mathematicians were far far too stupid to stand up and listen and ask--- should the true numbers of mathematics be the idiotic Reals with their continuum or should the true numbers of math follow what physicists started to follow in year 1900?

8-3) The stupid idiots of mathematics went and followed Cohen into ever more disastrous foolishness of a Continuum Hypothesis, making math professors ever more the laughing stock of all and every science.

8-4) Math professors never minded of cobbling together to build their Reals. They looked upon Counting Numbers as sacred and said, let us divide each Counting Number be one another and produced the Rationals. And they looked upon that and said their work was "fine and great".

Next in cobbling they said let us take square root of every number, and found some were not Rational, so they cobbled these new unknown numbers and called them Irrationals.

Next in cobbling they said--- let us throw into the mix, a negative sign, so that numbers up to now have both positive and negative numbers--- baking a gigantic new cake of nonsense, for the philosophers of the time asked, yes we see a positive rhino, elephant, giraffe in the field, but where is the negative rhino, negative elephant, negative giraffe??

Next in cobbling, seeing that math professors want fame more than they want truth and reality, said--- let us accept Complex Numbers by throwing a "i" for imaginary number unto a Real number, so that we can become famous for inventing quack clap trap nonsense. For we seek fame and fortune more than we seek truth and reality.

8-5) Back to Max Planck in year 1900, setting out and charting a course for Physics-- on the straight and narrow path of Truth. Physics has to be Discrete, never a continuum. And mathematics is a subset of physics. Being a subset of physics, if physics is discrete, forces math to be discrete also. Where do we find the FORCE that forces math to be discrete and so its numbers have to be discrete. Where???? The answer is calculus.

8-6) Calculus is geometry in motion. Calculus has you form a function. A function is motion along x-axis, giving you a unique number on y-axis for every number on x-axis. The derivative is this motion of a straight line segment that goes from coordinate point (x_1, y_1) to the next coordinate point (x_2, y_2). While the integral is the area below the function graph from (x_1, y_1), (x_2, y_2).

8-7) Can the derivative even exist if there are a infinite continuum of points between any two points? No, you need empty space between (x_1, y_1), (x_2, y_2) in order for the derivative to connect up with (x_1, y_1) to the next coordinate point (x_2, y_2).

8-8) The math professor idiot fools who think that a limit analysis argument is a proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus have their heads screwed on backwards. For the moment you ask one of these professors about the Limit, that limit hornswaggle dance-- as a wiggle waggle on the x-axis is the same wiggle waggle on the y point of y-axis--- what on Earth does a wiggle waggle dance have to do with proving derivative is inverse to integral?????? Ask that professor to prove that multiplication is inverse to division by using the Limit analysis dance and make that math professor a fool.

8-9) Geometry is pictures and here is a picture proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus that requires-- is forced to have discrete numbers with empty space in between one number to the next number.


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.

8-10) The true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers. All Grid numbers are discrete with holes and empty space from one number to the next number. The smallest Grid system is the 10 Grid which are 100 numbers not counting 0. The 10 Grid is this 0, .1, .2, .3, ..., 1.0, 1.1, ..., 9.8, 9.9, 10. The next larger Grid system is the 100 Grid and starts out with 0, .01, .02, .03 and ends with 99.98, 99.99, 100.

8-11) For Calculus to exist at all, it requires and is forced to have discrete numbers so that the derivative can form itself from one coordinate point to the next coordinate point.

Conclusion: The true numbers of mathematics have to be discrete otherwise no Calculus can exist. The Decimal Grid Numbers form the true numbers of mathematics and geometry.

Logic Theme of this Reasoned Argument is simple to see. Mathematicians lack logic skill of being Consistent to find the truth. Cobbling together is never Consistency. And the true numbers of math certainly must provide a proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. A minor theme to this story, is the hypocrisy of math professors in thinking some Limit Analysis is the way forward in proving Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, when it is a fallacy of Irrelevant. Applying limit analysis to calculus is as irrelevant in a proof as is "singing My Country, Tis of Thee" in a proof.

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
May 30, 2026, 4:05:28 AM (9 days ago) May 30
to Plutonium Atom Universe

In my next long reasoned-argument of Logic is one of those stories that is dear to my heart. Probably because it is a call for experimentation which has yet to be performed for it shows a laziness on the part of chemists and physicists alike. It is not a difficult experiment but particular in attention to detail. It comes from my pure intuition of what must be for "water", and if shown true once the experiment is performed, it proves water is not only H4O but proves the interior of Atoms has no nucleus and is composed of a proton torus with muons inside and neutrons outside the proton torus as capacitors. If proven correct, it ties theory together in one nice neat consistent whole.


(9) Chemistry-- Is Water really H4O and not H2O?

9-1) Re-do the Water Electrolysis Experiment and instead of stopping with checking on volume of hydrogen versus volume of oxygen, go a step further by actually weighing the mass of hydrogen versus oxygen to determine if water is really H4O and not H2O.

Statement: The Water Electrolysis Experiment performed to where we  actually weigh the mass of hydrogen versus oxygen to determine if water is really H4O and not H2O.


9-2) In the past, where we performed Water Electrolysis Experiments where we separate the hydrogen from oxygen, and the scientists look only at the volume of hydrogen and the volume of oxygen and say from that volume measure that water formula is H2O.


9-3) When the Atom has a proton torus with muons inside doing the Faraday law structure, producing electricity, then the atom must have at least one neutron to storage the electricity produced. Otherwise, for instance, hydrogen as simply a 1 proton + 1 muon has no place to store its electricity and would be a subatomic particle and not a atom of hydrogen. Then, if H2 is formed, where one of the protons converts into being a neutron capacitor, then, that H2 would thus be a Atom.

H by itself as a single proton with muon inside thrusting through in the Faraday law-structure is a subatomic particle. When H bonds with H, one of the protons with muon inside converts to being a neutron to the other H and thus H2 is a atom.

9-4) To find out if water is truly H4O and not H2O we need to perform the Water Electrolysis experiment and stop only after we weigh the mass of the hydrogen versus oxygen. We do not stop with looking at volume.

9-5) The story leading up to my insistence on H4O began in 2016-17 when I was writing a chapter on physics elementary particles in my 8th edition of Atom Totality. I am a mathematician by training and instantly recognized that the proton as listed as 938MeV and electron at 0.5MeV and neutron at 940MeV and muon at 105MeV, I instantly recognized that both proton and neutron were really 9 x 105 = 945. Physics has a concept that is called Sigma Error and what it means is that if the proton is 938 and neutron 940 and muon 105, that really they are 9 x 105 = 945 precisely. As we measure the proton and neutron, that a lot of background energy stops us from getting precision that the proton is really 945MeV as well as neutron is 945MeV with muon truly 105MeV.

9-6) You see Sigma Error in physics is a polite way of saying "the noise" in the experiment gets into the data and makes the measurement of proton be 938 MeV when it really is exactly 945MeV.

9-7) Then in 2017, I realized that the proton was really 840MeV and not 945 MeV because the true electron of atoms was the muon itself and stuck inside of the proton torus 840MeV doing the Faraday law-structure with the proton torus. The Old Physics particle of 0.5MeV, the unit of electricity, is not the electron of atoms but rather, is the magnetic monopole of Atoms. The proton torus with muon inside thrusting through producing electricity is producing the 0.5MeV particles stored in neutrons as parallel plate capacitors that surrounds the proton torus, and converts those eV currents into magnetic monopoles. These magnetic monopoles on parallel plate capacitors is what gives chemistry its bonding capabilities. As positrons and antipositrons of H sticks with another H to form H2 and these positrons and antipositrons on oxygen O bonds O to H2 and H2.

9-8) Bonding in all of chemistry is the interplay of magnetic monopoles 0.5MeV that reside on neutrons of parallel plate capacitors that surround the proton torus.

9.9) Many chemists have noticed many strange things about hydrogen in their career in chemistry. For one, hydrogen to hydrogen bonding is anomalous bonding for its force strength is too high.

9-10) Water Electrolysis performed in Old Chemistry, Old Physics gives the impression that everyone is in a rush to get back to the faculty lounge and get some coffee, cake and donuts, saying that their experiment is finished after looking at volume.

AP says, no, you are not finished. Now you need to precisely weigh the mass of hydrogen compared to oxygen with a precision scale and see if the hydrogen is 1/4 the mass of oxygen would mean water is truly H4O. If the mass of hydrogen is 1/8 that of oxygen, then water is H2O.

9-11) But the experiment needs much attention to detail, for water has deuterium a proton with 1 neutron, and tritium a proton with 2 neutrons. So before we do electrolysis, we must be sure all the deuterium and tritium is removed.

9-12) I hear that a Quartz Crystal Balance can weigh the mass of hydrogen and oxygen in water electrolysis. We need the best available scale possible.

Conclusion: Sloppiness in Logic is bad logic. Why stop at looking at volume, for hydrogen has many strange characteristics. Press on to weigh the mass of hydrogen versus oxygen in electrolysis. Should the result come back that water is really H4O, means that Atoms have no nucleus, they have a proton torus with muons inside and neutrons as parallel plate capacitors responsible for chemical bonding.

Logic Theme: one could say the theme is similar to the Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden experiment of sloppiness in not noticing 180 degree bounce back alpha particles with greater velocity coming out than upon entrance. Is the same sloppiness of scientists just looking at volume, when a complete experiment requires measurement of mass. But I think the best theme of this story is that all of science is intertwined and connected, which mathematicians and logicians alike call consistency. It is consistency that my intuition played upon. If subatomic particles have functions and jobs to perform the proton a coil in Faraday law structure and the muons as bar magnets, the neutrons as storage parallel plates. Then we have a extremely oddball Atom of hydrogen. It makes electricity with its proton and muon but no place to store electricity--- so--- is it even a Atom or is it a subatomic particle. And the true atom of hydrogen is then H2 which chemists would say is a molecule but AP says is an Atom of hydrogen, where one of the proton+muon converts into being a neutron. I guess I love this story because it is a strong example that when you have the theory correct, that you can actually predict the outcome of the water electrolysis----- it is H4O, not H2O.

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
May 30, 2026, 5:13:01 AM (9 days ago) May 30
to Plutonium Atom Universe

Alright, my last long logic reasoned-argument. Again, the bulk of logic, in doing logic is centered on making long reasoned-arguments. All of us do this in our life, only the arguments are usually about some practical actions taken in your daily life. Such as my driving to go shopping on rainy days since I cannot work outside in the lawn and gardens. Or my habit of working late in the night-early morning because of the peacefulness and nothing to bother me. And my last long argument is about an idea as I approach older age and then the inevitable death. Reincarnation, a fascinating prospect. I even have experiments ongoing right now on attempting to graft a blackberry scion to a spruce rootstock and a honeylocust scion to a spruce rootstock. Both are still alive and hoping for success.

(10) Reincarnation of biology is real and true as recycling of DNA.

10-1) Reincarnation of biology is real science and is the recycling of DNA, for why be a wasteful Cosmos that makes new DNA when you can recycle old DNA with a added improvement.

Statement: Reincarnation of biology is real science and is the recycling of DNA, for why be a wasteful Cosmos that makes new DNA when you can recycle old DNA with a added touch of improvement.

10-2) I have tried all my life to capture moments in which I see something in my mind that predicts a future outcome, before it actually happens. Thus hinting of reincarnation. Especially when analyzing dreams.

10-3) I believe myself to be the reincarnation of the Ancient Greek scientist of Archimedes, the one who discovered pi is 3.1415.... and did many engineering feats. But have no solid concrete evidence for this belief.

10-4) Physics has a concept of maximum speed and we know it as the speed of Light, a constant maximum.

10-5) Physics has another concept, only this time it is a Minimum concept called Least Action Principle. This is where the path of a object in motion, takes the path of least action. I call it Least Energy.

10-6) If we apply Least Energy to death and the here after, would it not make logical sense that the DNA of that dead body goes to some realm of the Cosmic Atom Totality and is reconstituted and brought back to life in a new creature of biology, although given a few edits. Why construct a brand new DNA, when you have all this old DNA that can be utilized. Much like a recycling center for humans for Rare Earth Minerals, or aluminum or iron. Better to recycle than dig it out of the ground.

10-7) I have started to graft species from different phylums starting in 2025 with no success. This year 2026, have another new batch of grafts in hopes of success. The idea here is that the scion is dead once it is cut. But being applied to a rootstock, it can come back to life. A reincarnation in plants.

10-8) Since physics has a principle of Least Action (Least Energy), that biology would have Least Energy by recycling dead DNA, making a few edits and bringing that dead former life back to life in the present.

10-9) But of course in an Atom Totality Universe, there would be a Control Center where DNA of dead are received, edited and then shot back out into the Cosmos in the form of Light-photons to make a new life with that DNA.

Conclusion: Applying Logic to physics Least Action implies DNA is recycled from dead creatures to form new creatures.

Logic Theme: I am reminded that when I wrote the History of Logic book that the concept of Symmetry frequently came up as the most brilliant logicians of the past used Symmetry (which is consistency) that brought them fame. Curie and Dirac symmetry of the Maxwell Equations and that the magnetic monopole had to exist. In this argument of Reincarnation, Least Energy becomes almost tantamount, almost equal to the process of Reincarnation.

The Logic theme of Reincarnation is to think of Reincarnation as another recycling mechanism in a Atom Totality Universe.

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
May 30, 2026, 5:24:23 PM (8 days ago) May 30
to Plutonium Atom Universe
As is usual in a case study of me, myself, whenever I do long logic reasoned arguments, I end up with a new argument to pursue. It reminds me of the year 1993 when I first came to and arrived at the Internet and Usenet newsgroups of sci.physics, sci.math and many more. I thought back then and most every observer thought that "science discovery" is enhanced by interaction with other people with same interests. Trouble is, noise usually sets in and then hatemongering stalkers set in and it becomes more of a time waste. Now that Google is gone from Usenet and AP is alone in his own newsgroup, I seem to have made far more progress in that of new scientific discovery than if these past years were back with Internet and all the cabal going on. Instead of taking 2 years to write these 4 textbooks on Logic when I am alone in my own newsgroup, it likely would have taken me 5 years with cabal going on.

So I finished these 10 long reasoned-arguments of logic and need to summarize. And I started the summary below--- saying that in my History of Logic textbook I could not escape noticing that the fame of many a famous scientist is connected with the concept of Symmetry. Maxwell is famous for unification of the structure of electromagnetism and he needed a-lot of symmetry to pull off that feat. However, it escaped Maxwell's attention that the Gauss law in his unification was itself asymmetrical--- where Gauss and Maxwell declare-- no magnetic monopole. Perhaps Maxwell was daunted and intimidated by Gauss's math. But regardless, Maxwell's work garnered Maxwell huge fame, but to straigthen out the monopole asymmetry allows two more famous scientists to achieve fame-- Pierre Curie and Paul Dirac as they insist magnetic monopoles must exist. And of course in 2016-17 AP announces that the very ubiquitous 0.5MeV particle is not the electron of Atoms but is in fact the Curie-Dirac magnetic monopole. The electron of atoms had always been the Muon.

Symmetry is none other than Consistency. A geometrical consistency is what symmetry is.

And I did mention that I myself became famous in science with the Atom Totality theory, which is a discovery of Symmetry and Consistency. Can you have a Universal Atomic Theory, when the Universe itself is not one single big Atom?????? No. If the Universe is not one single big atom, you have asymmetry between the Atomic Theory and the Cosmos. The Atomic theory to be Universal theory and not a mere meager rule of thumb has to include the Cosmos as being a single big atom.

But now, having completed 10 Reasoned-Arguments of Logic, I need to include a 11th reasoned argument of logic, saying that Speed of Light as a constant Maximum Speed is directly related to physics Principle of Least Action (or call it Least Energy). Speed of Light is directly related to Least Action, otherwise, there is asymmetry and inconsistency. And my 11th reasoned logic argument will dive deep into that connection.

On Saturday, May 30, 2026 at 4:13:01 AM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snipped)

Conclusion: Applying Logic to physics Least Action implies DNA is recycled from dead creatures to form new creatures.

Logic Theme: I am reminded that when I wrote the History of Logic book that the concept of Symmetry frequently came up as the most brilliant logicians of the past used Symmetry (which is consistency) that brought them fame. Curie and Dirac symmetry of the Maxwell Equations and that the magnetic monopole had to exist. In this argument of Reincarnation, Least Energy becomes almost tantamount, almost equal to the process of Reincarnation.

The Logic theme of Reincarnation is to think of Reincarnation as another recycling mechanism in a Atom Totality Universe.

So, well, in my History of Logic textbook I cannot help but notice that the fame of many of the most famous scientists was tied to a issue of "symmetry". And I wrote that in the summary of History of Logic.

For a summary of these 10 logic reasoned-arguments, I cannot help but notice that Speed of Light as a constant maximum must be directly related to the Minimum Action or called Least Action.

So how are they related???? Looking at the units of Action it is simply angular momentum.

velocity = LT^-1

acceleration = LT^-2

energy EM = ML^2T^-2

energy = ML^2T^-2

action = ML^2 T^-1

force = MLT^-2

frequency = T^-1

linear momentum  = MLT^-1

Angular momentum = ML^2T^-1

Force = MLT^-2


So we see that velocity is length divided by time and we see that Action is Area divided by time.

Minimum Action involves length squared, will maximum velocity involves length.

What does that relationship remind me off???

It reminds me that derivative is a velocity dy/dx while integral in the same interval is area under function graph.

Thus, Speed of Light as Maximum constant speed is the Derivative, while Least Action is angular momentum or area divided by time.

This tells me that so many proofs of physics what we would call Experimental-Proofs rely on this idea that the Physics Principle of Least Action is the proving mechanism.

Prove Occam's Razor? Simple, inject Least Action, where the path the particle must take is the Minimum path. The true explanation in Occam's Razor has the Minimum number of assumptions.

Prove Reincarnation is true. Simple, use Least Action, where it is the greatest savings of DNA by recycling the DNA upon death and injecting it into new life.

Prove (this is a hard one), prove that the muons inside every single proton torus produce maximum electricity in their thrusting through the proton torus in the Faraday law-structure. Hard one to prove.

AP, King of Science 

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
May 30, 2026, 6:32:14 PM (8 days ago) May 30
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Connecting Least Action Principle directly to Speed of Light. One is the inverse of the other, for Speed of Light is the derivative while Action is Angular Momentum which is the integral.

So many arguments in Logic end up being solved by this Maximum and Minimum inverse relationship. Occam's razor is solved by this technique.

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
May 31, 2026, 5:23:48 PM (7 days ago) May 31
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Old Math and Old Physics were smart enough to have Instantaneous Velocity, but too dumb and stupid to have Instantaneous Energy.

On Saturday, May 30, 2026 at 4:24:23 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(big snips)
So how are they related???? Looking at the units of Action it is simply angular momentum.

velocity = LT^-1

energy = ML^2T^-2

action = ML^2 T^-1

frequency = T^-1

Angular momentum = ML^2T^-1

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AP discovers the Integral is Angular Momentum is Instantaneous Energy while the Derivative as velocity is Instanteous speed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Physics has the Principle that Light is a constant maximum speed. It also has a less known Principle called Least Action which basically says that the motion of a particle follows the path of Least Action or Angular Momentum. I like to call it the Least Energy principle. And what it basically means is that Velocity is the dual of Angular Momentum, just as addition is the dual of subtraction; multiplication the dual of division; derivative the dual of integral; electricity the dual of magnetism.

Old Math not only was stupid in never realizing calculus is geometry and seek a geometry proof of FTC, but they did manage to find "Instantaneous Velocity" in spite of their stupidity. But being dumb often means being sloppy, and Old Math --- finding intantaneous velocity, never followed through. Okay, you found instantaneous velocity but struggling to ever teach it, but you failed miserably in finding Instantaneous energy. And I suppose waiting for AP to discover it for you.

Old Math was never smart enough to have a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, because they never had a understanding that Calculus is geometry and the only way forward with a valid proof of  FTC was to think of derivative and integral as geometrical slope for derivative and area in that particular cell where the derivative is found.

Being dumb and stupid in Logic by Old Math professors they invented the "Limit analysis" as a means of offering a proof of FTC, for they had no proof at all. 

But playing a dance of wiggle waggle on x and y axis as the limit does is Irrelevant. Just ask a math professor who thinks FTC can be proven by talk of a Limit on x and y axis solves anything. Just like asking the math professor how Irrelevant it is to sing the National Anthem in doing the FTC and solving it. If Old Math professors had been required to take 2 years of Logic before getting their degree, surely, some of those wooden heads would have begun to notice that Limit analysis is utterly Irrelevant to a proof of FTC.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Math professors are mostly failures of Logic
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Scientific American, SA, June 2026, Joseph Hewlett interview with mathematicians over the Riemann Hypothesis. Titled by SA as "The Scariest Problem in Math".  Riemann Hypothesis RH, now 170 years old but not true, for AP solved it in early 1990s.

(1)
"An AI that can prove the Riemann hypothesis is not one I'd want to meet," said Andrew Sutherland, a number theorist at .. MIT.

AP writes:: Well Andrew, I certainly would like to meet any math professor at MIT who is not a failure like you who cannot admit slant cut of cone is actually a Oval, not your ellipse. Or, Andrew, understand that Calculus is geometry, thus the only valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires a geometry proof, not your silly stupid "limit dance hornswaggle". And finally, Andrew, how many years of Logic before graduating in school did you take??? Probably none in my guess, because a person with a 1/2 a marble brain in Logic --- could, has the potential to see--- that primes in the Riemann Hypothesis --- that primes are ILL-Defined Concept. And thus no Riemann Hypothesis proof exists because the whole entire conjecture is fantasy land of boneheads of Logic. Andrew-- certainly you can admit that multiplication over the Counting Numbers always turns up ---- another counting number. Logicians call this Consistently Complete to Multiplication. But, now, take any two Counting numbers and divide them--- sometimes they end up being another counting number but more often they end up being a Rational number, not a Counting number. Logicians call that Consistently Incomplete to Division. In other words Andrew--- Primes are figments of the imagination of math failures. 

Reals are not the true numbers of mathematics, but that Decimal Grid Numbers form the true numbers of Mathematics. Spend a moment, Andrew, and examine Decimal Grid Numbers--- the smallest set is 10 Grid with 0, .1, .2, . . ., 9.9, 10 having 100 numbers in all not counting 0, then comes the 100 Grid as 0, .01, .02,...., 99.99, 100, and on and on to the infinity borderline at 10^604. So, Andrew, the million dollar question, is --- Do Prime Numbers exist when the True Numbers of Mathematics are Decimal Grid Numbers? Answer is No. You see Andrew, your career in math was that of living in a bubble-of-nonlogic, a fantasy world of numbers when you have no logical brain to be doing math.

(2)
Joseph Hewlett ponders and writes:: "What is this math puzzle that is so complicated only a truly formidable superintelligence could resolve it?"

AP writes: Joseph you are only pandering to fools to make RH look good. RH was solved by Archimedes Plutonium in early 1990s, but no mathematician wants to listen to the solution, just as no mathematician, and probably you-- Joseph Hewlett wants to listen to the fact you failed conic sections for you still believe slant cut of cone is a ellipse--- not true, it is a oval. And if any mathematician cannot understand slant cut of cone is a oval, not ellipse, they sure as Hell cannot do a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, nor, wrap their microbrain around RH is a flop for Primes are a figment of a hallucination that no primes exist in the true numbers of mathematics--- Decimal Grid Numbers.

Here, Joseph--- AP makes a new proof, a new RH proof in May 2026.

Statement--- the True numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers starting with 10 Grid going up to 10^604 Grid. And we see in every number and integers of those Grid System, that they all have NO PRIME NUMBERS.

Proof that RH is junk:: Since the true numbers of math have no prime numbers, then RH was a delusion by failed Old Math professors.

(3)

"The basic status is: nothing is happening, and I don't really expect anything to happen," says Alex Kontorovich, a mathematician at Rutgers University.

AP writes:: To be expected for AP proves the Ancient over 2,000 year old Apollonius conic section is not a ellipse in slant cut but an oval, proves it is oval in 2016. Nothing is happening in True Math, no, Sunderland and Kontorovich, will go back to the classroom and teach slant cut of cone is ellipse; teach limits as a proof of calculus; teach that primes should fill up your life, when primes as a concept-idea are a decrepit mind illusion. The witches flying on brooms of mathematics.

In 2016, AP proves slant cut of cone is NOT ellipse but oval.
Array:: Analytic Geometry proof that Cylinder section= Ellipse//Conic
section = Oval, never ellipse

Now I did 3 Experiments and 3 models of the problem, but it turns out
that one model is superior over all the other models. One model is the
best of all.

That model is where you construct a cone and a cylinder and then
implant a circle inside the cone and cylinder attached to a handle so
that you can rotate the circle inside. Mine uses a long nail that I
poked holes into the side of a cylinder and another one inside a cone
made from heavy wax paper of magazine covers. And I used a Mason or
Kerr used lid and I attached them to the nail by drilling two holes
into each lid and running a wire as fastener. All of this done so I
can rotate or pivot the circle inside the cylinder and cone. You need
a long nail, for if you make the models too small or too skinny, you
lose clarity.

ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse::


              E
             __
      .-'              `-.
    .'                    `.
  /                         \
 ;                           ;
| G          c              | H
 ;                           ;
  \                         /
   `.                     .'
      `-.    _____  .-'
                F

The above is a view of a ellipse with center c and is produced by the
Sectioning of a Cylinder as long as the cut is not perpendicular to
the base, and as long as the cut involves two points not larger than
the height of the cylinder walls. What we want to prove is that the
cut is always a ellipse, which is a plane figure of two axes of
symmetry with a Major Axis and Minor Axis and center at c.

Side view of Cylinder EGFH above with entry point cut at E and exit
point cut at F and where c denotes the central axis of the cylinder
and where x denotes a circle at c parallel with the base-circle of
cylinder

|                              |
|                              | E
|                              |
|                              |
|x            c              |x
|                              |
|                              |
|                              |
|F                            |
|                              |
|                              |
|                              |


So, what is the proof that figure EGFH is always an ellipse in the
cylinder section? The line segment GH is the diameter of the circle
base of cylinder and the cylinder axis cuts this diameter in half such
that Gc = cH. Now we only need to show that Fc = cE. This is done from
the right triangles cxF and cxE, for we note that by Angle-Side-Angle
these two right triangles are congruent and hence Fc = cE, our second
axis of symmetry and thus figure EGFH is always an ellipse. QED



Array proof:: Analytic Geometry proof that Conic section= Oval// never ellipse

ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Conic Section is a Oval, never an ellipse::


         A
      ,'"   "`.
   /            \
C |     c       | D
 \               /
    ` . ___ .'
         B

The above is a view of a figure formed from the cut of a conic with
center c as the axis of the cone and is produced by the Sectioning of
a Cone as long as the cut is not perpendicular to the base, and as
long as the cut is not a hyperbola, parabola or circle (nor line).
What we want to prove is that this cut is always a oval, never an
ellipse. An oval is defined as a plane figure of just one axis of
symmetry and possessing a center, c, with a Major Diameter as the axis
of symmetry and a Minor Diameter. In our diagram above, the major
diameter is AB and minor diameter is CD.

Alright, almost the same as with Cylinder section where we proved the
center was half way between Major Axis and Minor Axis of cylinder,
only in the case of the Conic, we find that the center is half way
between CD the Minor Diameter, but the center is not halfway in
between the Major Diameter, and all of that because of the reason the
slanted walls of the cone cause the distance cA to be far smaller than
the distance cB. In the diagram below we have the circle of x centered
at c and parallel to base. The angle at cx is not 90 degrees as in
cylinder. The angle of cAx is not the same as the angle cBx, as in the
case of the cylinder, because the walls of the cone-for line segments-
are slanted versus parallel in the cylinder. Triangles cAx and cBx are
not congruent, and thus, the distance of cA is not equal to cB,
leaving only one axis of symmetry AB, not CD.

     /  \A
 x/  c  \x
B/         \

Hence, every cut in the Cone, not a hyperbola, not a parabola, not a
circle (not a line) is a Oval, never an ellipse.






Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
May 31, 2026, 6:11:29 PM (7 days ago) May 31
to Plutonium Atom Universe

2>Scientific American, SA, June 2026, Joseph Hewlett interview with mathematicians over the Riemann Hypothesis. Titled by SA as "The Scariest Problem in Math".  Riemann Hypothesis RH, now 170 years old but not true, for AP solved it in early 1990s.


[snipped]

(4)
"I don't spend too much of my day really thinking about it," says James Maynard, a mathematician at the University of Oxford.

AP writes:: No wonder James for you are a failed mathematician who cannot even admit the truth-- slant cut of cone is not a ellipse but a Oval. Maybe you are just blind in the eyes to fail to see the asymmetry of the cone and the symmetry of the cylinder. And no wonder you could never do a valid proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. I reckon your classrooms in calculus teaching are nothing but a torture chamber with your mindless Limit analysis hornswaggle. Jame, in my opinion you are not a mathematician but a failure of math.

2--- quoting Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia---





2--- end quoting Wikipedia---
pp 

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
May 31, 2026, 6:16:30 PM (7 days ago) May 31
to Plutonium Atom Universe

2>Scientific American, SA, June 2026, Joseph Howlett interview with mathematicians over the Riemann Hypothesis. Titled by SA as "The Scariest Problem in Math".  Riemann Hypothesis RH, now 170 years old but not true, for AP solved it in early 1990s.

Sorry Joseph Howlett, I seemed to have misspelled your name. Was looking to see if my glasses had a smudge mark on it that I mistook an "o" for a "e". No, it was just a typo in haste.

Sorry.... 

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
May 31, 2026, 9:36:50 PM (7 days ago) May 31
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I am going to have to go back to my history of the Riemann Hypothesis, for I did not solve it until 2016 with a disproof. One can easily read my book on the Riemann Hypothesis for free in my newsgroup listed below.

So, what happened was that when I first entered Usenet in 1993, I had given proofs of many outstanding unproven math conjectures, one of them being the Riemann Hypothesis. And so I was believing RH was a piece of true math in 1993 and offered solutions for a proof. Then came 2013 with the discovery that Reals were garbage and the true numbers of mathematics were the Decimal Grid Numbers. That caused me to go back and re-examine my RH analysis and proffered proof. Turns out my proof faded away quickly when the True Numbers of Mathematics are Decimal Grid numbers. There are no prime numbers in Decimal Grid Numbers. And then after 2013 came 2016 and the full realization that Riemann Hypothesis was pure raw garbage, full of error, and no wonder no progress ever made on it since Riemann in 1859 stated the idea.

And I am happy that Joseph Howlett is trying to write a simple explanation for what RH is, rather than have another convoluted math professor who can never state anything "simple and clear" because they never took Logic in school, no, for their minds are just a wrapped up, waddled ball of barb wire for a brain. At least, well, Joseph has a chance at simple and clear explanation.

But, before I post what Joseph explains is RH, let me offer a insight for Joseph Howlett and almost every math professor of today on clarity and simpleness of the RH. What I mean is give an analogy so that High School students can even understand. Throughout my life, I have used High School students as a measuring test for simple, clear true ideas. If they cannot understand it, then the professor or teacher has to go back to the drawing board.

You see, the whole entire problem of RH is a ill-defined concept that beguiles stupid mathematicians. It looks real and true and innocent that  a Counting Number that is divisible by only itself and 1, is a true concept. But looks can be deceiving.

When you TAKE Logic you can come across a idea called a Set Completeness. Give me any two counting numbers and multiply them, and it returns another Counting Number. For example 3 x 8, or 9*10^9 x 8*10^-3 is another counting number. Any two counting numbers when multiplied produces another counting number.

But in RH, are the Counting Numbers Complete to Division??? Hell no, for immediately we have 3/1 is a counting number but 1/3 is a Rational number, not a Counting number. Counting Numbers are COMPLETE to addition and multiplication but not to division or subtraction.

So, any conjecture, any hypothesis over Counting Numbers with a Incomplete Set, is not mathematics at all but pseudoscience.

Try proving the eyes of a witch flying on a broomstick are black eyes. Silly: because witches do not exist. Primes in mathematics exist only in particular but not in general. Since primes as a set is Not Complete over Division.

The problem with RH is that primes is a fake concept and thus RH is a fake hypothesis, never to be proved.

So, I am thinking of an analogy to show the stupid faithful followers of RH, why they are so blithering stupid.

I am here in 31May2026, trying to dream up a analogy counterexample to show that when you dream up these concepts that have no concrete existence, that you end up with a RH type of impossible to prove--- because it is garbage in the first place.

I recall trying to dream up a Factorial on Rationals. Sounds admissible from the start but then the question becomes "did I get all the rationals between 0 and 1 or 1 and 3???

No, I need a better analogy.

Physics has an analogy for a false concept, the Centrifugal force versus Centripetal force. Maybe I should convert that phony concept to math to expose the phoniness of Primes.

Looking to see if Joseph Howlett has any physics experience--- yes it says Joseph is a astroparticle physicist. So, now, let us see if the fakery of the Centrifugal force is a analogy to the Fakery that are Prime numbers in mathematics.

Let me post to my newsgroup to bring up this #25th book of science I published, making it easier on those looking for it.

Disproof of Riemann Hypothesis // Math proof series, book 11
by Archimedes Plutonium

This is AP's 25th published book of science published on Internet, Plutonium-Atom-Universe,
Preface: Old Math came up with a Riemann Hypothesis RH in 1859, a conjecture never proven true until AP solved it in 2016. The reason RH was never solved and can never be solved was that math never had the true numbers that compose mathematics until 2013 as the Decimal Grid Numbers, showing that Reals, and Complex were phony and fake numbers. But in addition to not having the true numbers of mathematics, Old Math never realized that the only valid functions in all of mathematics are the polynomials, hence the Zeta function in RH is also a phony and sham fakery. No wonder RH lay dormant for nearly 200 years.


Cover picture: Riemann Hypothesis deals with fake numbers of mathematics. When what is needed is the true numbers-- Decimal Grid Numbers. We learn Decimal Grid Numbers when very young, when just toddlers, wood counting blocks. All the true numbers of mathematics come from Mathematical Induction-- counting. Mathematical Induction is utterly absent in the Riemann Hypothesis, when it should be central to the hypothesis. There never exists a Riemann Hypothesis when the true numbers of mathematics are Decimal Grid Numbers.

--------------------------
Table of Contents
--------------------------

1) Introduction and framework of this book.

2) My history behind the Riemann Hypothesis disproof.

3) By 2011, I realized the Zeta functions were never equal in the Riemann Hypothesis.

4) True numbers of mathematics are Decimal Grid Numbers, a discovery by me in 2013.

5) True Numbers of mathematics are Decimal Grid Numbers and are discrete, not continuous for they have holes of empty space between one and the next number.

6) Old Math never well-defined Series equality, especially for Euler Zeta and Riemann Zeta.

7) My first disproof of Riemann Hypothesis as seen in 2016.

8) Subtraction Fallacy of Zetas.

9) Derbyshire book "Prime Obsession" 2003 pertinent to subtraction of infinite sum series.

10) By late 2023, I found a better explanation of the Subtraction Paradox with years of a calendar.

11) Was the Prime Number Theorem and Fundamental Theorem of Algebra, also fake conjectures and proofs?

12) Is there a Geometry disproof of the Riemann Hypothesis-- yes quite simple and easy!

13) Ongoing commentary and reflection back.

14) The Summary of Riemann Hypothesis and its Disproof.

15) Recent AI Overview publicity of AP's Riemann Hypothesis Proof.

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
Jun 1, 2026, 12:24:37 AM (7 days ago) Jun 1
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Now I vaguely remember I was looking for a analogy of a ill defined operator concept which is not complete to the Counting Numbers, and thus, no patterns appear such as primes and no formula is possible, and thus a RH type hypothesis over those "incomplete" numbers is doomed to failure because "prime concept" is phony. I remember the best I could do was talk about factorial over rationals, which would be impossible to set up over all Rationals, all incomplete and thus ill-defined.

I did have some success in showing that Subtraction, like Division over Counting numbers is Incomplete and thus ill-defined. Which can be seen in my 25th published book on Riemann Hypothesis.

So it looks as though I am going to have to define Completeness with respect to a set of numbers and functions and Consistency.

I remember way back in college with Galois Algebra, that Group, Ring, Field are defined on addition and multiplication, never subtraction or division. The plain blunt reason is that addition and multiplication form Complete Sets.

Definition of Completeness in mathematics and logic
----------------------------------------------------------------------

A set of numbers and a operator forms a complete set, if and only if every two numbers operated upon returns another number in the original given set. For example, addition on Counting Numbers is Complete because 5+7 or 11+100 return numbers which are also Counting Numbers and every Counting Number is at least represented by A + B. Multiplication is Complete on Counting Numbers for every Counting Number can be represented by an A x B.

The definition is the idea that there is full participation of every Counting Number that returns another Counting Number.

However, Division and Subtraction on Counting Numbers is Not Complete, for there are many A, and B counting numbers that when divided or subtracted deliver numbers not being a Counting Number. For example, 1/3 is a Rational number, not a Counting number and 1-3 is a negative number, a phony number and not a Counting number.

The reason Primes in Old Math have no formula, have no pattern, is because they are not a Complete set. Thus, they are ill-defined and junk math. No hypothesis is true on Primes because they are fictional.

Definition of Consistency in math and logic
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not know which of these two concepts is the more difficult. I think it is Completeness, for it fooled mathematicians over 2 to 3 thousand years now.

Consistency is where never arises the statement A and its negation of Not-A. Sometimes the A and not-A are not easily recognized. I remember my worst example of unrecognized Inconsistency was the time I had cancer-- Liposarcoma-- where my tumor was growing inside my body, growing bigger, yet when I went on the weighing scales I was losing weight. One would think the body plus tumor is growing bigger and so the weight gains not loses. A weight loss seems as though a contradiction and causing a Inconsistency. However, if you realize the tumor is a parasite and eating your blood which you excrete out in poop, that is the cause of weight loss, while the tumor is growing bigger. The cancer parasite is eating up your internal body and you pooping out the body's contents.

Completeness is where any two Counting numbers produces another Counting number. Consistency is where you never have a statement A then also Not-A.

So let me pull up this example of Incompleteness with subtraction. It deals with the fact of my writing science books and how many I published over time intervals of years.

Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 24, 2023, 8:47:49 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Add to my 25th book of science-- Disproof of Riemann Hypothesis, for my version below is a different but abbreviated version of the Hotel Paradox and it is so easy to make this mistake in subtraction. The remedy below is that I needed to start with a nonpublishing year of 2018.

On Sunday, December 24, 2023 at 6:57:45 PM UTC-6 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
So here I am nearly into 1January 2024. I started publishing books in 2019, and as of now have 268 published books (actually 1 was denied publication).

So doing routine math subtraction that is 2023 - 2019 = 4. And 268 / 4 = 67 books per year, which is far more than 1 book per week.

On the other hand if we count the years we have 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023 which is 5 years, not 4 years.

So where is this math paradox coming from. And could some theoretical math such as the Riemann Hypothesis have this paradox embodied, enshrined into it.

It appears math subtraction has a flaw not unlike the paradox of division by 0. And perhaps division by 0 is related to this flaw of subtraction.


As excellent of an example of the Subtraction Paradox from the Hotel story is. As the years passed by since publishing this book in March of 2019, my 25th published book of science, in the ensuing years I found an even easier story to tell of the Subtraction Paradox. Those of us in mathematics know of the division problem or paradox, that you cannot divide by zero or you tear up all of mathematics. And since subtraction is related to division, for division is simply "fast subtraction", while multiplication is fast addition. Since division has a paradox, that subtraction must have some form of paradox. And that paradox in subtraction is **where do we start to subtract?**.

As the Hotel story shows, the true subtraction starts with subtract 5 from 30, the bellman gives 1 dollar to each soldier, and pockets 2 dollars making 25+1+1+1+2 = 30. Whereas the incorrect accounting is subtract 3 from 30 is 27 and the bellman keeps 2 is 27+2 = 29.

In the ensuing years since publishing this book in 2019, I found an even easier subtraction story to tell. One day I was figuring out how many books I had published divided by how many years I had been writing those published books. I started in year 2019 writing books and publishing them and by year 2023, the end of 2023, I had published my 269th book of science. (A minor exception in that my 259th book was censored and not able to be published since it was about a resolution of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, censored and blocked from publication).

So, here is an easier and perhaps finer example of the Subtraction Paradox. If I subtract 2019 from 2023 I get 4, as in 4 years of publishing 269 books of science. Yet the true years are 5 years for we must include 2019 also.

I wanted to know this statistic as to see the rate of writing books and how much time elapsed. So 269/5 is 53.8 books per year, which is slightly more than 1 book written and published per week. That is an awful grueling schedule and pace.

But I recognized in my calculating, I remembered back to writing the Riemann Hypothesis disproof with its Hotel Paradox. I had found an easier story to tell of how subtraction can lead one astray.

For example, this year is now 2024. And suppose I started take vitamin D pills in 2016. How many years have I taken vitamin D pills? A novice would do 2024 subtract 2016 equals 8 years of taking vitamin D. A more circumspect person would count on his fingers 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, and come up with the correct answer of 9 years.

Same goes for the Riemann Hypothesis, their subtraction of series is fakery and so their entire math is false. The concept of Prime Number when the Counting Numbers are involved is a Incomplete set over division, hence, no pattern, no formula and no Riemann Hypothesis.


AP, King of Science




Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
Jun 1, 2026, 4:45:10 AM (7 days ago) Jun 1
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I do not know, how long it has been that AP has stopped proving Outstanding Unsolved Math Conjectures. 

And perhaps this recent post on Scientific American's Riemann Hypothesis has put me, the King of Science in a mood to solve more of these problems that goonclod math professors like Terence Tao dreg up. For Terry Tao is so dumb in math, he still preaches the limit analysis for proof of FTC and still thinks slant cut of cone is ellipse. And Steve Huffman's Reddit is proud to call Terence Tao a Lunatic. Steve, I would not go that far, you might hurt his feelings.

Steve Huffman lists science lunatics:
Reddit (symbol) r/math, 3 years ago Genius meets Lunatic: 1994 discussion between Terry Tao and Ludwig Plutonium
I remember Archimedes Plutonium and sci.math. He calculated the chromatic number of the plane: and it is 1 (color everything
..Is this crank perchance John Gabriel?

Univ Virginia math dept: Peter Abramenko, Julie Bergner, Mikhail Ershov, Jeffrey Holt, John Imbrie, Thomas Koberda, Slava Krushkal, Thomas Mark, Jennifer Morse, Ken Ono, Andrei Rapinchuk, Christian Reidys, Jim Rolf, Charles Dunki, Ira Herbst, James Howland, Craig Huneke, Thomas Kriete, Nicholas Kuhn, Irena Lasiecka, Barbara MacCluer, Kevin McCrimmon, Karen Parshall, Loren Pitt, Donald Ramirez, James Rovnyak, Leonard Scott, Lawrence Thomas, Roberto Triggiani, Harold Ward

So, what I am looking for to warm me up for proving new unproven math conjectures are conjectures like the Riemann Hypothesis where the  entities are ill defined, or vague definition, as the reason the conjecture is impossible to prove.

And I am discarding all conjectures that cannot be stated in simple clear a few paragraphs. I am not going to be bogged down in a string of remote definitions, such as the stupid Birch-Swinnerton-Dyer, or the Hodge conjecture, where you have to spend time in figuring out remote definitions.

So Popular Mechanics has a good list of unsolved problems, of which half of them I solved back in the 1990s, but Popular Mechanics and the rest of the math world has not yet caught up with me, and eventually they will.

But the last two out of 10 in the Popular Mechanics list is the question 9th problem of Pi + E is it Algebraic or is it Transcendental?????? Is the conjecture. Beautiful conjecture to explain and pretty easy for me to solve in 10 minutes.

As I have said so often in the past. A math conjecture and its proof should be aligned in the length of the Statement should approximately equal the length of the proof argument.

So in this Conjecture the Statement is no more than two paragraphs long, involving what it means to be algebraic or transcendental. Means, my proof is no more than two paragraphs long.

Then Popular Mechanics 10th unsolved conjecture is the question of whether the Euler-Mascheroni constant gamma is it Rational or Irrational.

Now, I like conjectures like these because I do not waste time in finding out what scores of remote definitions mean.

Proof of Pi+E = a Decimal Grid Number and all Decimal Grid Numbers are rational, hence Algebraic

Proof of Gamma is a rational number, for all Decimal Grid Numbers are rational.

What Math was missing in the last 126 years was the idea that Max Planck starts Quantum Mechanics in physics. Only mathematicians had just 1/100 of a marble brain to compete with physicists. In year 1900 Planck charts a course for physics with Quantum. Quantum means discrete. The Reals are not discrete but a continuum. The idiots of math never stood up and payed attention to what is going on in physics, no, they barreled ahead in their cesspool of continuum with their mindless Reals. Hardly any mathematician from 1900 to 2026 studied Logic to think straight to think clearly.

If you study logic, you may have the chance to understand that if you define Infinity versus finite, you are required to have a Borderline between them. So that once you reach the infinity borderline, all the numbers beyond are infinite numbers and no longer mathematics. So what is Pi at the infinity borderline? What is E at the infinity borderline? What is Gamma at the infinity borderline. 

Huygens deserved huge credit for discovery of the Tractrix has infinite reach but finite area and we use the Tractrix against the Circle to find that Infinity Borderline is where Tractrix area catches up with circle area. It is 1*10^604 and so all numbers with no more than 604 digits to the right of the decimal point or 604 digits to the left of the decimal point are finite numbers.

Now we must include 1*10^1208 as the Algebraic Completeness borderline. Refering back to the Riemann Hypothesis as junk because Division and Subtraction are NOT Complete to those operators and Prime Numbers are thus junk.

Here is pi to 604 digits rightward of decimal point.

3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286 208998628034825342117067982148086513282306647093844609550582231725359408128481 117450284102701938521105559644622948954930381964428810975665933446128475648233 786783165271201909145648566923460348610454326648213393607260249141273724587006 606315588174881520920962829254091715364367892590360011330530548820466521384146 951941511609433057270365759591953092186117381932611793105118548074462379962749 567351885752724891227938183011949129833673362440656643086021394946395224737190 702179860943702770539217176293176752384674818467669405132000


Pi = Top line
e  = Middle line
phi = Bottom line

14159 26535 89793 23846 26433 83279 50288 41971 69399 37510 
71828 18284 59045 23536 02874 71352 66249 77572 47093 69995 
61803 39887 49894 84820 45868 34365 63811 77203 09179 80576
58209 74944 59230 78164 06286 20899 86280 34825 34211 70679 
95749 66967 62772 40766 30353 54759 45713 82178 52516 64274 
28621 35448 62270 52604 62818 90244 97072 07204 18939 11374
82148 08651 32823 06647 09384 46095 50582 23172 53594 08128 
27466 39193 20030 59921 81741 35966 29043 57290 03342 95260 
84754 08807 53868 91752 12663 38622 23536 93179 31800 60766
48111 74502 84102 70193 85211 05559 64462 29489 54930 38196 
59563 07381 32328 62794 34907 63233 82988 07531 95251 01901 
72635 44333 89086 59593 95829 05638 32266 13199 28290 26788
44288 10975 66593 34461 28475 64823 37867 83165 27120 19091 
15738 34187 93070 21540 89149 93488 41675 09244 76146 06680 
06752 08766 89250 17116 96207 03222 10432 16269 54862 62963
45648 56692 34603 48610 45432 66482 13393 60726 02491 41273 
82264 80016 84774 11853 74234 54424 37107 53907 77449 92069 
13614 43814 97587 01220 34080 58879 54454 74924 61856 95364
72458 70066 06315 58817 48815 20920 96282 92540 91715 36436 
55170 27618 38606 26133 13845 83000 75204 49338 26560 29760 
86444 92410 44320 77134 49470 49565 84678 85098 74339 44221
78925 90360 01133 05305 48820 46652 13841 46951 94151 16094 
67371 13200 70932 87091 27443 74704 72306 96977 20931 01416 
25448 77066 47809 15884 60749 98871 24007 65217 05751 79788
33057 27036 57595 91953 09218 61173 81932 61179 31051 18548 
92836 81902 55151 08657 46377 21112 52389 78442 50569 53696 
34166 25624 94075 89069 70400 02812 10427 62177 11177 78053
07446 23799 62749 56735 18857 52724 89122 79381 83011 94912 
77078 54499 69967 94686 44549 05987 93163 68892 30098 79312 
15317 14101 17046 66599 14669 79873 17613 56006 70874 80710
98336 73362 44065 66430 86021 39494 63952 24737 19070 21798 
77361 78215 42499 92295 76351 48220 82698 95193 66803 31825 
13179 52368 94275 21948 43530 56783 00228 78569 97829 77834
60943 70277 05392 17176 29317 67523 84674 81846 76694 05132 
28869 39849 64651 05820 93923 98294 88793 32036 25094 43117 
78458 78228 91109 76250 03026 96156 17002 50464 33824 37764

XXXXXX
00056 81271 45263 56082 77857 71342 75778 96091 73637 17872 
30123 81970 68416 14039 70198 37679 32068 32823 76464 80429 
86102 83831 26833 03724 29267 52631 16533 92473 16711 12115 xxx

You see, when you are in Math with the wrong numbers of math, thousands upon thousands of stupid conjectures that are impossible to solve and wastes the lifetime of many math professors, wastes their time in life, all because no-one in math studies Logic to think straight and clear.

That Pi + E are rational and thus Algebraic, not Transcendental and that Gamma is Rational because the TRUE NUMBERS OF MATHEMATICS are Decimal Grid Numbers.

No concept of PRIME occurs in Decimal Grid Numbers, yet you have millions of math professors waste the time of their life on such nonsense.

AP, King of Science







Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
Jun 1, 2026, 4:57:41 AM (7 days ago) Jun 1
to Plutonium Atom Universe

Pi = 3.
 1415926535 8979323846 2643383279 5028841971 6939937510  : 50
 5820974944 5923078164 0628620899 8628034825 3421170679  : 100
 8214808651 3282306647 0938446095 5058223172 5359408128  : 150
 4811174502 8410270193 8521105559 6446229489 5493038196  : 200
 4428810975 6659334461 2847564823 3786783165 2712019091  : 250
 4564856692 3460348610 4543266482 1339360726 0249141273  : 300
 7245870066 0631558817 4881520920 9628292540 9171536436  : 350
 7892590360 0113305305 4882046652 1384146951 9415116094  : 400
 3305727036 5759591953 0921861173 8193261179 3105118548  : 450
 0744623799 6274956735 1885752724 8912279381 8301194912  : 500
 9833673362 4406566430 8602139494 6395224737 1907021798  : 550
 6094370277 0539217176 2931767523 8467481846 7669405132  : 600
 0005681271 4526356082 7785771342 7577896091 7363717872  : 650
 1468440901 2249534301 4654958537 1050792279 6892589235  : 700


e = 2.
7182818284 5904523536 0287471352 6624977572 4709369995 :50
9574966967 6277240766 3035354759 4571382178 5251664274 :100
2746639193 2003059921 8174135966 2904357290 0334295260 :150
5956307381 3232862794 3490763233 8298807531 9525101901 :200
1573834187 9307021540 8914993488 4167509244 7614606680 :250
8226480016 8477411853 7423454424 3710753907 7744992069 :300
5517027618 3860626133 1384583000 7520449338 2656029760 :350
6737113200 7093287091 2744374704 7230696977 2093101416 :400
9283681902 5515108657 4637721112 5238978442 5056953696 :450
7707854499 6996794686 4454905987 9316368892 3009879312 :500
7736178215 4249992295 7635148220 8269895193 6680331825 :550
2886939849 6465105820 9392398294 8879332036 2509443117 :600
3012381970 6841614039 7019837679 3206832823 7646480429 :650

5311802328 7825098194 5581530175 6717361332 0698112509 :700

96181881593041690 

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
Jun 1, 2026, 5:03:25 AM (7 days ago) Jun 1
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Most math professors have a difficult time in grasping the idea that Riemann could be wrong in some of his math, especially the RH.

Just as many physicists have a difficult time in grasping the idea that Maxwell's Equations were wrong because his Gauss's law of no magnetic monopoles put his equations into the error zone. In fact, Maxwell, should have taken the Ohm's law, improved it to be a full law, instead of a "rule" for high voltage or high current it was wrong.

The way AP establishes the Laws of Electromagnetism is use a correct New Ohm's law and then all the other laws-- Faraday, Ampere, Coulomb come falling out naturally.

My point is --- many mathematicians worship as hero Riemann and thus they never can understand the hypothesis is garbage.

AP

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
Jun 1, 2026, 5:05:11 AM (7 days ago) Jun 1
to Plutonium Atom Universe
It is sad that in this list of numbers digits of pi and E that telephone numbers across the world are highlighted in blue.

Google, is there a way to filter out telephone numbers when posting large numbers?????????

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
Jun 1, 2026, 10:26:04 PM (6 days ago) Jun 1
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Before I get steered off course with Riemann Hypothesis and Space has only 3 dimensions never 4, I best finish off this idea of Instantaneous Energy that corresponds with Instantaneous Velocity in the Calculus.

This instantanteous concepts of velocity and energy is proof that calculus is really about discrete numbers in Cells that line the x-axis.

On Sunday, May 31, 2026 at 4:23:48 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Old Math and Old Physics were smart enough to have Instantaneous Velocity, but too dumb and stupid to have Instantaneous Energy.

On Saturday, May 30, 2026 at 4:24:23 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(big snips)
So how are they related???? Looking at the units of Action it is simply angular momentum.

velocity = LT^-1

energy = ML^2T^-2

action = ML^2 T^-1

frequency = T^-1

Angular momentum = ML^2T^-1

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AP discovers the Integral is Angular Momentum is Instantaneous Energy while the Derivative as velocity is Instanteous speed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Physics has the Principle that Light is a constant maximum speed. It also has a less known Principle called Least Action which basically says that the motion of a particle follows the path of Least Action or Angular Momentum. I like to call it the Least Energy principle. And what it basically means is that Velocity is the dual of Angular Momentum, just as addition is the dual of subtraction; multiplication the dual of division; derivative the dual of integral; electricity the dual of magnetism.

Old Math not only was stupid in never realizing calculus is geometry and seek a geometry proof of FTC, but they did manage to find "Instantaneous Velocity" in spite of their stupidity. But being dumb often means being sloppy, and Old Math --- finding intantaneous velocity, never followed through. Okay, you found instantaneous velocity but struggling to ever teach it, but you failed miserably in finding Instantaneous energy. And I suppose waiting for AP to discover it for you.

I am begin to recognize that my memory is fading. And especially when I juggle many ideas at one time. Worse yet when I steer off course into a different topic and thus when I return, have lost my concentration of what I was doing.

I want to prove in this section of Logic textbook, that the Speed of Light principle as a maximum speed is related to the Least Action Principle in Physics, so as to easily prove Occam's Razor as an example of Least Action being Least Number of Assumptions.

So let me stay focused and pick up on Riemann Hypothesis and Space is only 3rd dimensional and a New Poincare Conjecture Proof where the Old Poincare Conjecture is deeply flawed and false. If I wander down that road, I will completely forget my train of thought on Least Action.

AP, King of Science 

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
Jun 1, 2026, 10:36:08 PM (6 days ago) Jun 1
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I need Least Action as a proving mechanism in Logic and Science for reasons like this.

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
Jun 2, 2026, 4:38:33 AM (6 days ago) Jun 2
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I am going to write a 11th long logic argument due to the fact that the above 10 arguments yielded this new Long Logic Reasoned-Argument.


(11) Many logic arguments are solved by using the Least Action Principle of Physics, such as Occam's Razor, such as Reincarnation, such as Muons thrusting through Proton Toruses produce maximum electricity.


11-1) Getting started on solving problems of Logic by using the Least Action Principle of Physics.


Statement: Starting to solve problems by using the Least Action Principle of Physics, such as Occam's Razor, such as Reincarnation, such as Muons thrusting through Proton Toruses produce maximum electricity.


Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
Jun 2, 2026, 4:46:46 PM (6 days ago) Jun 2
to Plutonium Atom Universe
(11) Many logic arguments are solved by using the Least Action Principle of Physics, such as Occam's Razor, such as Reincarnation, such as Muons thrusting through Proton Toruses produce maximum electricity.

11-1) Getting started on solving problems of Logic by using the Least Action Principle of Physics.

Statement: Starting to solve problems by using the Least Action Principle of Physics, such as Occam's Razor, such as Reincarnation, such as Muons thrusting through Proton Toruses produce maximum electricity.

11-2) Feynman states the Least Action Principle well as this.

Feynman describes the Principle of Least Energy as this, only he calls it the Principle of Least Action.

--- quoting Feynman in his "Lectures on Physics", 1964, volume 2, page 19-1---

When I was in high school, my physics teacher---_______ called me down one day after physics class and said, "You look bored; I want to tell you something interesting." Then he told me something which I found absolutely fascinating, and have, since then, always found fascinating.
.... the average kinetic energy less the average potential energy is as little as possible for the path of an object going from one point to another.
--- end quoting Feynman---

Let me describe the Principle of Least Energy that is more simple than Feynman's description.

AP Least Energy Principle: the motion of objects in gravity or electricity and magnetism is a path that takes and requires the least amount of energy. Nature is parsimonious when it comes to energy.

Occam's Razor is described as this--- the Most Simple Explanation of what had happened is usually the true explanation for the events that had happened. Some describe it as the explanation with the Least Number of Premisses, the fewest assumptions, as Occam described it himself---  As Occam, a 14th century theologian put it himself--" entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".

Physics enshrines Least Action as a principle and Logic being a subset of physics must have that principle inside of Logic. Only it is not called Least Action nor Least Energy, instead it is called Occam's Razor where the fewest assumptions is the true explanation of what happened.

11-3) We can drill down further into analyzing Least Action for it is a Minimum principle compared to a Maximum principle in physics. There is one great Maximum principle called the Speed of Light. Light travels at a constant maximum speed of 3.16*10^8 meters/second in vacuum. It always travels at that same speed, never more never less. Speed (some call it velocity) has the units of meters/second while Action is Angular Momentum and has the units of mass(meters^2)/second. Velocity is the calculus derivative of dy/dx and Angular Momentum is the calculus integral of area under the function graph as meters^2 rather than just plain meters. In calculus we say the derivative is inverse the integral, just as we say add is the inverse of subtract, or, multiply is the inverse of divide.

AP

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
Jun 4, 2026, 4:37:54 AM (4 days ago) Jun 4
to Plutonium Atom Universe
11-4) The units of Speed, velocity is distance / time while the units of Angular Momentum is mass multiply area / time. Energy is mass multiply area/time^2. Frequency is 1/time. So we can say that Energy is the frequency multiply angular momentum. Every Speed requires a minimum amount of energy, a threshold energy.

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
Jun 4, 2026, 5:47:23 PM (3 days ago) Jun 4
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, I am going to have to start over on my 11 long reasoned-argument and this is just a first draft of 11.

A long reasoned argument can be viewed as a physics Experiment or as a Long Reasoned Argument. And vital to the Experiment as well as Argument is enough Data or facts.

So say we are trying to solve a Crime and using Occam's Razor. If we do not have enough data or facts, we will not be able to come to a conclusion. There needs to be a Threshold of Data. Likewise, if we stop a physics experiment before it is completed to the end, it is difficult to make any valid conclusion.

In this 11 Argument, I want to show that Occam's Razor is Least Action, or Least number of Assumptions is the true explanation. But that cannot be done if a story is not having enough facts and data. I want to prove Reincarnation is recycling of DNA, but if I do not have enough facts and data then the proof does not exist. I want to prove that a Muon inside a Atom proton torus produces maximum electricity, but if I do not have enough facts and data the proof is impossible.

Let me add a few more case examples. So far I have (1) Occam's Razor (2) Reincarnation (3) muon + proton torus yield maximum electricity production.

Let me add (4) AI has no intelligence unless it has a threshold of intelligence marked by (a) self-awareness (b) able to see and do geometry figures, (5) AMOC can weaken but not reverse course (6) Solving a Crime-Mystery.

So far I have the Principle in Physics of Least Action and I need to show it is equivalent to Occam's Razor. But to do that, I need several more concepts such as Thresold of facts and data. You cannot solve a crime adequately, unless you have a body of facts and data able to solve the crime. A valid conclusion in a long logic reasoned-argument needs a Threshold of facts, data to come to a valid conclusion.

AP

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
Jun 4, 2026, 6:00:10 PM (3 days ago) Jun 4
to Plutonium Atom Universe
AMOC story as a Logic Reasoned-Argument
----------------------------------------------------------------------

AMOC, Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation--- need to pay attention to
50 views
Subscribe 
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
3:51 AM (13 hours ago) 4June2026
to Plutonium Atom Universe
William Brangham on PBS Newshour on talking of Trump's stupid cutting of ocean research brought up this topic of AMOC, something I never heard of before. Something more than the Gulf Stream that warms Europe.

But if this AMOC reverses course like that of La Nina and El Nino, then the world climate system is in trouble.

But I question the very concept that AMOC can reverse. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics--- Heat flows from hot to cold. Would that imply AMOC can never reverse??????

AP, King of Science

AMOC, Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation--- need to pay attention to
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
4:54 PM (1 minute ago) 
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So, now the weather pattern of La Nina and El Nino are  reversible because basically it is around the equator and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics would say HEAT GOES ALWAYS FROM HOT TO COLD. 

If one year is El Nino then switches the next year to La Nina does not violate 2nd Law of Thermodynamics because East to West or West to East is all Hot. So they can reverse.

But now, a current direction of Equator to Pole, the Poles are always colder than equator. So a reverse of the current in the Atlantic in AMOC is impossible for it violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

But we still need those global monitor buoys and instruments kept in place, that stupid Trump is trying to remove.

I am going to include this in my Intermediate and Advanced Logic textbooks.

AP, King of Science

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
Jun 4, 2026, 6:13:31 PM (3 days ago) Jun 4
to Plutonium Atom Universe
There is no intelligence in any AI machine, until it is self-aware + see geometry
------------------------------------------------------------------

A long-logic reasoned argument in Advanced Logic, that shows, currently, AI is all hype in order to steal money from suckers in the stock market.

The threshold of Intelligence is (1) the entity is self aware of itself and can act independent of a program (2) can see and do geometry to navigate the environment.

Today as I write, my cats, the flies outside, the slug that eats cat food have Intelligence, but the best machine produced by humanity has 0 intelligence, all because the machine has not met the threshold of Self Awareness and see geometry.

These machines though are extremely dangerous, because all the hype fools politicians and military to think they should plant these chips into a Atomic bomb, and then the chip starts and ignites a Atomic War because none of these chips are intelligent and had a malfunction.

Sadly, in modern times, the greed of money has put a phony name of Artificial Intelligence, when the name should have been something like RI, robot increase, or CI, computer increase.

Sadly, the word "intelligence" is used when there is not a single drop of intelligence going on computer chip research.

AP, King of Science

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
Jun 4, 2026, 8:27:44 PM (3 days ago) Jun 4
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I am going to need more than the physics principle of Least Action. I am going to need Activation Energy along with Least Action Principle.

I am going to need what Chemists call Activation Energy as described on Internet as-- the minimum amount of energy required to initiate a chemical reaction or physical process. ... Energy Difference: Mathematically, activation energy E_a is the difference between the threshold energy needed to start the reaction and the average of the normal reactant molecules.

Also, I am going to need this concept of "Threshold". A concept of threshold inside another concept of Activation Energy.

The Electron Orbits of Old Physics, which is now the Magnetic Monopole orbits in New Physics, for a monopole jumps orbit in discrete quantized amounts or absorbs only in discrete amounts.

The Internet says this of Old Physics-- the electrons in atoms or molecules can only exist at specific, discrete energy values rather than a continuous range. But New Physics would change that to be the "magnetic monopoles" not the "electrons".

So, I need 3 physics concepts of importance and they are closely allied with one another.

(1) Least Action Principle
(2) Activation Energy
(3) Threshold as quantized discrete packets

AP, King of Science

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
Jun 5, 2026, 5:57:26 PM (2 days ago) Jun 5
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Oops, I have to start all over again on all 5 of my textbooks on logic. And my 4th textbook Advanced Logic #471 will be followed by #472 as Logic for High School.

No modern day Logic textbook can be amiss of defining-- Intelligence as we live in the era of so called "Artificial Intelligence AI". A sad fake name in order to cheat investors in the stock market of their money. A slug, a plant, a ant, a worm all have intelligence but no machine ever built by humans has intelligence, and likely never will.

To have Intelligence requires a Threshold of attributes and two of the main attributes are (1) Self Awareness (2) able to see Geometry and respond to that geometry.

The subject of Logic is a unique subject to Well Define Intelligence. And so far, in my 4 which is now 5 textbooks on Logic, I have not made that concept of Intelligence be pronounced and clear. So I have to go back to all 4-5 of my logic textbooks making sure I have a well-defined Intelligence in them.

In this textbook of Intermediate Logic, upon this chapter of proving Occam's Razor, arguably the top idea in all of Logic, is this idea of a Well Defined Intelligence come to front and center.

I was doing 10 Long Logic Arguments and found that Physics Principle of Least Action embodies Occam's Razor. That lead to the concept of Activation Energy in chemistry and physics which requires a Threshold.

Threshold of data and facts to come to a valid conclusion. If you have ___no threshold___ of data and facts you cannot come to a universal valid conclusion.

Long logic arguments of these require a threshold of facts.
1) Occam's Razor
2) Where is planet Earth in the Atom Totality cosmic proton, cosmic muon, cosmic neutrons?
3) Any and all crime mysteries
4) Is Reincarnation true
5) Does the muon and proton torus produce maximum electricity while engaged in the Faraday law structure?
6) Is AI really intelligence at all?

AP, King of Science

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
Jun 5, 2026, 7:15:09 PM (2 days ago) Jun 5
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Friday, June 5, 2026 at 4:57:26 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Oops, I have to start all over again on all 5 of my textbooks on logic. And my 4th textbook Advanced Logic #471 will be followed by #472 as Logic for High School.

No modern day Logic textbook can be amiss of defining-- Intelligence as we live in the era of so called "Artificial Intelligence AI". A sad fake name in order to cheat investors in the stock market of their money. A slug, a plant, a ant, a worm all have intelligence but no machine ever built by humans has intelligence, and likely never will.

To have Intelligence requires a Threshold of attributes and two of the main attributes are (1) Self Awareness (2) able to see Geometry and respond to that geometry.

The subject of Logic is a unique subject to Well Define Intelligence. And so far, in my 4 which is now 5 textbooks on Logic, I have not made that concept of Intelligence be pronounced and clear. So I have to go back to all 4-5 of my logic textbooks making sure I have a well-defined Intelligence in them.

Is Logic unique in well defining intelligence? The elements of math are Numbers and geometry figures. The elements of Logic is (a) ideas and (b) picture, images. Language is a part of Logic, but for mathematics, language is higher, and some call this a "metalanguage". You need a Language like English to describe mathematics. What is the metalanguage of Logic? It is Physics. And ideas are formed in a language. This is why I say, Logic is a unique subject to Well Define Intelligence. As we pull up the relevant physics concepts to define Intelligence. We pull up Least Action compared to Speed of Light, one a minimum and the other a maximum. We pull up Activation Energy for the concept of Threshold.

So when we are forced to Well Define Intelligence, we are forced into looking for threshold of energy that says--- yes-- there is intelligence there--- or no--- there is no intelligence there for a threshold has not been met.

 

In this textbook of Intermediate Logic, upon this chapter of proving Occam's Razor, arguably the top idea in all of Logic, is this idea of a Well Defined Intelligence come to front and center.

I was doing 10 Long Logic Arguments and found that Physics Principle of Least Action embodies Occam's Razor. That lead to the concept of Activation Energy in chemistry and physics which requires a Threshold.

Threshold of data and facts to come to a valid conclusion. If you have ___no threshold___ of data and facts you cannot come to a universal valid conclusion.

Long logic arguments of these require a threshold of facts.
1) Occam's Razor
2) Where is planet Earth in the Atom Totality cosmic proton, cosmic muon, cosmic neutrons?
3) Any and all crime mysteries
4) Is Reincarnation true
5) Does the muon and proton torus produce maximum electricity while engaged in the Faraday law structure?
6) Is AI really intelligence at all?

Science has Experiments to tell us the truth about the world. But in doing experiments, we need ample facts and data to arrive at a final conclusion that is valid. This is why Occam's Razor is related to physics Least Action plus Activation Energy plus Thresholds.

Every Crime scene in the world, must have a threshold of facts and data to proceed by Occam's Razor to pinpoint the truth and thus justice. When we have sparse evidence we cannot tell a complete and truthful story of what happened. Same as in science, when chemists and physicists stop in Water Electrolysis at looking at volume of gas of hydrogen and oxygen, they fail to tell a full true story and that water could be H4O and not H2O. 

Every science experiment that stops midway or near the end but not concluding, is incomplete and cannot tell a full story.

AP






 

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
Jun 5, 2026, 7:39:52 PM (2 days ago) Jun 5
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Logic Well Defines --- Intelligence
-----------------------------------------------------

The definition is a threshold definition. Science has some examples of threshold definitions, for which I must give as examples.

Intelligence requires two threshold parameters for an entity to be called "intelligent".

(1) Self Awareness, the entity must know it exists, but this knowing such as in plants does not need to have a brain, for in plants the meristem can be a replacement brain. For plants-- self awareness-- is the fact that plants respond to stimuli from the surrounding environment. When a animal starts eating the plants leaves, the plant is self aware and starts sending poison chemicals to the remaining leaves.

(2) See and respond to Geometry, the entity must be able to see its environment and respond to that environment. Now plants are thought to have no eyes, but one can argue that every photosynthesis cell in the plant is a eye. Some plants or animals live in deep dark environments, but they have other senses such as bats use sound to tell them of geometry of the environment. Compare that to the pseudo-AI driving cars which alleges it sees the road ahead, when all that is -- is programmed fake sight.

All animals and all plants have Intelligence because they have the minimum threshold for being intelligent.

No machine ever built by humanity has intelligence for they lack the threshold. And it is highly likely that no machine will ---- ever be intelligent. 

Apparently, a entity needs DNA for that entity to ever be ---- Intelligent. And this has as a corollary--- humans will always be smarter than machines for no machine will reach being intelligent for they are not in possession of DNA.

AP

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
Jun 5, 2026, 7:48:08 PM (2 days ago) Jun 5
to Plutonium Atom Universe


On Friday, June 5, 2026 at 6:39:52 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snipped)
Apparently, a entity needs DNA for that entity to ever be ---- Intelligent. And this has as a corollary--- humans will always be smarter than machines for no machine will reach being intelligent for they are not in possession of DNA.

And, we can stretch this out further. Take a human body, and to what extent maximum can we replace the body with machine parts. Certainly the legs can be replaced as well as the arms. But the organs for eating food and drink and the brain to see and operate these organs cannot be replaced.

DNA is the crux of Intelligence. Every plant and every animal has DNA and thus they are--- Intelligent. No machine has DNA and thus they lack intelligence.

AP, King of Science 

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
Jun 6, 2026, 5:37:12 AM (2 days ago) Jun 6
to Plutonium Atom Universe
For High School logic, I list and talk about the 6 connectors. Reminiscent of operators in math such as add, subtract, multiply, divide.

1) AND
2) OR
3) Equal-Not
4) If-->then
5) Existential quantifier
6) Universal quantifier

Keeping it simple and easy with examples out of what a High School student experiences.

Then I list and talk about some great principles in Logic.

7) Well-defined terms or concepts
8) Symmetry
9) Non-Sequitur
10) Ad Hominem
11) Mis-identification
12) Consistency 
13) Completeness
14) Occam's Razor

Then give a series of 10 long logic reasoned arguments.

I am starting the formulation of the High School Logic textbook.

AP

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
Jun 6, 2026, 4:38:52 PM (2 days ago) Jun 6
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Luckily for me, I have the energy, the activation energy to do High School Logic textbook, now that I see the connection between Physics and Logic on Occam's Razor.

We are going to need a new modern day upgrade of the name Occam's Razor to reveal its true nature in full.

It involves the concept of the Science Experiment and when the experiment is complete enough to form a conclusion.

For example in history-- Water Electrolysis stopped at looking at volume without weighing the mass of hydrogen versus oxygen to conclude if water is H4O or is it H2O has never been a complete Experiment.

We could say that Water Electrolysis of the past is Occam's Razor Denied, for it was a shoddy incomplete experiment.

Another example is where I am trying to determine whether Earth is in the Cosmic Proton or Cosmic Muon or in the Cosmic Neutrons. I have but 1 Cosmic ring of Galaxies. Do I have enough data and facts to make the determination?????? If I had more Rings than just the 1 Ring I would be in a better situation to make the conclusion.

So, the concept of Occam's Razor says much about whether a Science Experiment is Complete or needs much more data and facts.

And this is why Occam's Razor of old talks about --- the fewest assumptions provides the true explanation of a event.

A Science Experiment that is Complete provides the essential number of data to make a valid conclusion.

So, well, the name is obvious--- Occam's Razor in modern times becomes *Completed-Experiment*.

AP, King of Science

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
Jun 7, 2026, 12:05:26 AM (yesterday) Jun 7
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Now the best book I have in my personal library, explaining the Bohr atom for its threshold energy that I need for Occam's Razor is Taffel, 5th edition, "Physics: Its Methods and Meanings" 1986. This book in my opinion is far better than my High School physics of PSSC. Plenty of pictures and very clear writing.

On page 591, shows pictures and why electrons stay in stable orbits and do not lose energy. If energy comes into the atom an electron can jump to a higher orbit only on the condition a quantized amount comes in. Likewise an electron can fall from a higher orbit to a lower orbit only in a discrete quantized amount of energy is available. This, to me is "threshold energy".

AP writes: also, the description Taffel gives is Old Physics, for the true electron of atoms is the muon inside proton toruses. What Taffel is describing is the Magnetic Monopoles, the 0.5MeV particles that reside in Neutrons as parallel plate capacitors, and those Magnetic Monopoles can jump to a different parallel plate only in discrete quantized energy amounts.

AP, King of Science

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
Jun 7, 2026, 4:51:32 PM (12 hours ago) Jun 7
to Plutonium Atom Universe
It comes as a huge surprise to me, that I could not write High School Logic textbook until after I had written Intermediate and Advanced Logic, due to completeness, the concept of completeness. A huge surprise because my history is now that of this order.

#366 Elementary Logic
#369 History of Logic
#370 Intermediate Logic
#371 Advanced Logic
#372 High School Logic textbook

The hardest books to write in science is logic, because, well, they have to be written logically, and not only talk about logic but written logically.

Coming near to the end of writing, I realize I could not have written High School Logic without knowing how Intermediate and Advanced Logic will end up. It is Occam's Razor revealed as a Experiment of Science that makes for the concept of Completion.

And a upshot of all of this, is that High School needs to teach the introduction to Calculus--- true calculus, not the phony stuff being peddled in 1st year College, but true calculus.

True-Calculus where the math for Motion is taught. Where the derivative is the predictor of where the next point of the coordinate point of graph will fall, not the silly stupid tangent line to a point on the function graph. And where Calculus has true numbers--- the discrete Decimal Grid Numbers.

The world has never before seen, or experienced Logic where the book is written Logically. And this is the right time in history since we are insulted and bombarded with stupidity that is AI, artificial intelligence which is really artificial ignorance. AI violates Logic due to ______not being well defined________.

The entire point of AI as of this writing, is to sucker screw dumb investors, like a South Sea Bubble, for in truth and reality this is just 2.0 robots with NO Intelligence.

INTELLIGENCE is well defined via Occam's Razor, via Threshold of Energy----- to be intelligent requires (1) self awareness (2) able to see geometry and respond to geometry.

No machine can meet that threshold to be called intelligent. What these machines can do is put parts onto a automobile in a factory assembly plant.

The only danger that AI poses on humanity, is the super hype given to these stupid chips where a group of people put the chip into a atomic missile and the chip malfunctions and starts to blow up the world. All because idiots chose to call these chips AI when the proper name would have been Robots 2.0. AI is the way greedy freaks and jerks sucker money out of ill informed investors. Toppling the entire stock market if not careful.

Any modern day Logic textbook needs to discuss ---- What is Intelligence?. And only after nearly completing my first 4 textbooks, do I come to the realization that I need to well define Intelligence, and only then can I write the High School Logic textbook.

Much of life in modern times is the ability to recognize truth in the World, over that of the fight and greed to make money. Science is of the truth, and cares nothing about the struggle to make money. Science and logic is of super-intelligence, while money grubbing such as AI is about scam and spam your investment dollars.

A fly, a worm, a slug, a tree, a bush has more intelligence than any computer chip produced by humans, for the simple reason--- they possess Self Awareness and can see geometry and react to geometry (plants in photosynthesis).

AI is the modern day version of the South Sea Bubble, where even Sir Isaac Newton lost money in that scam and spam.

AP, King of Science

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages
Search
Clear search
Close search
Google apps
Main menu