Are you imaginary?

127 views
Skip to first unread message

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 24, 2021, 1:02:28 PM11/24/21
to
That math is rightly named...
it is a formula without a solution.
Because negative one does not
exist that formula does not...

Python

unread,
Nov 24, 2021, 1:18:06 PM11/24/21
to
smitch...@gmail.com wrote:
> That math is rightly named...
> it is a formula without a solution.

equivalence class of polynomial X for ~ (defined by P ~ Q iff
P = Q [X^2+1]) exists in R[X]/~

> Because negative one does not
> exist that formula does not...

Negative one is the equivalence class of (0,1) for
~ on N^2 (defined as (a,b) ~ (c,d) iff a+d = b+c.
It is a set of pairs of natural numbers. It definitely
exists.

Why, Smitch, don't you TRY to learn, ONCE?




Serg io

unread,
Nov 24, 2021, 1:22:27 PM11/24/21
to
here you go; -1

happy now ?

it is what happens when Elvis leaves the room, -1.

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 24, 2021, 1:25:34 PM11/24/21
to
On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 10:22:27 AM UTC-8, Serg io wrote:
> On 11/24/2021 12:02 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > That math is rightly named...
> > it is a formula without a solution.
> > Because negative one does not
> > exist that formula does not...
> >
> here you go; -1
>
You are going to have to do better.
That is just attaching a minus sing to the only real positive 1.
And that does not exist outside of a subtraction.

LORD God

unread,
Nov 24, 2021, 1:27:09 PM11/24/21
to
https://nrich.maths.org/5961

we already covered that a thousand times mitch,
minus .000...1 is the imaginary number,
its square root is .000...1 itself,
one minus one imaginary,
1 - .999 = .000...1,
shorthand,
0

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 24, 2021, 1:28:41 PM11/24/21
to
Add zero to .999 repeating and you still get .999 repeating
you do not get 1...

Mitchell Raemsch

LORD God

unread,
Nov 24, 2021, 1:34:35 PM11/24/21
to
On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 12:28:41 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 10:27:09 AM UTC-8, LORD God wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 12:02:28 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > That math is rightly named...
> > > it is a formula without a solution.
> > > Because negative one does not
> > > exist that formula does not...
> > >
> > https://nrich.maths.org/5961
> >
> > we already covered that a thousand times mitch,
> > minus .000...1 is the imaginary number,
> > its square root is .000...1 itself,
> > one minus one imaginary,
> > 1 - .000...1 = .999...
> > shorthand,
> > 0
>
> Add zero to .999 repeating and you still get .999 repeating
> you do not get 1...
>
> Mitchell Raemsch
>
0 is shorthand for .000...1
.000...1 + .999... = 1
0 + .999... = 1

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 24, 2021, 1:41:12 PM11/24/21
to
> 0 + .999... = 1

No. .999 repeating + 0 is still .999 repeating...
Prove otherwise.

LORD God

unread,
Nov 24, 2021, 1:52:40 PM11/24/21
to
> > 0 is shorthand for .000...1
> > .000...1 + .999... = 1
> > 0 + .999... = 1

Again?

Michael Moroney

unread,
Nov 24, 2021, 3:05:35 PM11/24/21
to
But it does. I can have an electric charge of -1 coulombs just as easily
as a charge of +1 coulombs.

Alt Atheism

unread,
Nov 24, 2021, 5:06:44 PM11/24/21
to
Electricians all know minus 1 A-s
is much less than plus 1 A-s
see math real line proof

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 24, 2021, 10:59:29 PM11/24/21
to
Those are man's relatives.
Show how ions prove negative quantities.
It only shows less positive quantities.

zelos...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 25, 2021, 12:31:02 AM11/25/21
to
false

x^2+1=0

has 2 solutions
i and -i

as always, you are wrong

zelos...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 25, 2021, 12:32:05 AM11/25/21
to
you are wrong on all accounts there. It exists as a negative :)

Because we have in reals that for all a there exists a b such that a+b=0

that means b is the negative of a

Michael Moroney

unread,
Nov 25, 2021, 12:50:55 AM11/25/21
to
How is electric charge related to humans?

> Show how ions prove negative quantities.

Look at the forces they generate.

> It only shows less positive quantities.

Nope. A positively charged proton attracts an electron at a given
distance with a certain force. A negatively charged electron at the
same distance repels the other electron with the same magnitude force.
"Less positive" would mean less attraction, not repulsion. Also there
is a definite zero point. Zero charge produces zero force on other charges.
>

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 25, 2021, 1:08:37 PM11/25/21
to
You don't have negative electrons you have less electrons
in an ion instead...

zelos...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 26, 2021, 12:29:28 AM11/26/21
to
the electron has negative charge and positron has positive charge.

Michael Moroney

unread,
Nov 26, 2021, 1:10:54 AM11/26/21
to
Smitch, the electron has a negative charge all by itself!

Chris M. Thomasson

unread,
Nov 26, 2021, 1:16:26 AM11/26/21
to
You are a con artist right?

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 26, 2021, 12:56:35 PM11/26/21
to
That is just your imagination.
That math is named right.
It is a formula without a solution..

Mitchell Raemsch

Brain Hubbs

unread,
Nov 26, 2021, 1:00:53 PM11/26/21
to
mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

>> You are a con artist right?
>
> That is just your imagination. That math is named right.
> It is a formula without a solution..

Spasiba, Mockba.

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 26, 2021, 1:30:47 PM11/26/21
to
It is named right.
Because in math it is a formula alone
and not a solution.

Earle Jones

unread,
Nov 27, 2021, 2:47:39 PM11/27/21
to
*
Mitchell: Are you familiar with "The fundamental theorem of algebra"? (Gauss, 1799)

Simply, it says: Every poloynomial equation of degree 'n' has 'n' roots.

Example: x^2 -3x + 2 = 0 (This equation is of degree '2' and therefore has two roots.)

The two "roots" are 1 and 2. {Check this: (x-1) times (x-2) = x^2 - 3x + 2) -- it checks!}

Another Example" x^2 + 3x + 3= 0

Please find the two roots.

earle
*

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 27, 2021, 2:51:53 PM11/27/21
to
On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 11:47:39 AM UTC-8, Earle Jones wrote:
> On Wed Nov 24 10:02:23 2021 "mitchr...@gmail.com" wrote:
> > That math is rightly named...
> > it is a formula without a solution.
> > Because negative one does not
> > exist that formula does not...
> *
> Mitchell: Are you familiar with "The fundamental theorem of algebra"? (Gauss, 1799)
>

new algebra has only a single positive quandrant.
No negative polynomial solutions belong. No negative quantities
just subtraction negative with a limit.

Mitchell Raemsch

Python

unread,
Nov 27, 2021, 3:27:16 PM11/27/21
to
schmitch...@gmail.com schwrote:
So your "new algebra" is weak, Smitch. You can stuff it into
your puffy ass. We will keep the stronger real algebra.


mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 27, 2021, 3:31:36 PM11/27/21
to
Algebra has no negative solutions you moron...

konyberg

unread,
Nov 27, 2021, 4:01:21 PM11/27/21
to
You talk like AP. You know he is mad. Are you?
KON

Serg io

unread,
Nov 27, 2021, 4:05:50 PM11/27/21
to
your monkey DNA has -1 on it.

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 27, 2021, 4:20:23 PM11/27/21
to
AP wants to use my work.
I don't believe in anger. Do you?

Mitchell Raemsch

Serg io

unread,
Nov 27, 2021, 4:47:15 PM11/27/21
to
AP is not angry at all, he is generating neo-physics

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 27, 2021, 4:50:12 PM11/27/21
to
Sure he is. It is why he is resentful instead...

Earle Jones

unread,
Nov 28, 2021, 7:30:00 PM11/28/21
to
*
Mitchell: In other words, you do not believe in the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra (Gauss, 1799.)

Is that right?

earle
*

zelos...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 29, 2021, 12:34:18 AM11/29/21
to
False, i is one of the solutions to x^2+1=0

Earle Jones

unread,
Nov 29, 2021, 1:05:39 AM11/29/21
to
On Sat Nov 27 13:20:17 2021 "mitchr...@gmail.com" wrote:
> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 1:01:21 PM UTC-8, konyberg wrote:
*
Mitchell:

I think that you and Archimedes Plutonium should collaborate, since you seem to agree on many mathematical ideas.

You could learn from him and he could also learn from you.

You might also want to borrow from the work of John Gabriel, whose mathematics is more advanced than either you or Archimedes Plutonium. What do you think? Is this a good idea?

earle
*


Serg io

unread,
Nov 29, 2021, 9:42:13 AM11/29/21
to
On 11/29/2021 12:05 AM, Earle Jones wrote:
> On Sat Nov 27 13:20:17 2021 "mitchr...@gmail.com" wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 1:01:21 PM UTC-8, konyberg wrote:
I think it is a fabulous idea! Just think of what they could do! Amazing Math!
They should also invite that sciencie guy James McGinn in sci.physics who knows as much math as his missing water vapor!


Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
Nov 29, 2021, 5:20:59 PM11/29/21
to
Mitch can Alexander Fetter, John Lipa, William Little, Douglas Osheroff, David Ritson, H. Alan Schwettman, John Turneaure, Robert Wagoner, Stanley Wojcicki, Mason Yearian ever, ever ask the question, which is the atom's real electron, the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law or the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. Or are they just plain dumb scientists who cannot even multiply 105 by 9 and see it is in sigma error of 940 or 938.

HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

In 2016-2017, AP discovered that the real proton has a mass of 840 MeV, not 938. The real electron was actually the muon and the muon stays inside the proton that forms a proton torus of 8 rings and with the muon as bar magnet is a Faraday Law producing magnetic monopoles. So this book is all about why researchers of physics and engineers keep getting the number 938MeV when they should be getting the number 840 MeV + 105 MeV = 945 MeV.

Cover Picture is a proton torus of 8 rings with a muon of 1 ring inside the proton torus, doing the Faraday Law and producing magnetic monopoles.
Length: 17 pages

Product details
• Publication Date : December 18, 2019
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 17 pages
• File Size : 698 KB
• ASIN : B082WYGVNG
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled

#1-4, 105th published book

Atom Geometry is Torus Geometry // Atom Totality series, book 4 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Since all atoms are doing the Faraday Law inside them, of their thrusting muon into a proton coil in the shape of a geometry torus, then the torus is the geometry of each and every atom. But then we must explain the neutrons since the muon and proton are doing Faraday's Law, then the neutron needs to be explained in terms of this proton torus with muon inside, all three shaped as rings. The muon is a single ring and each proton is 8 rings. The neutron is shaped like a plate and is solid not hollow. The explanation of a neutron is that of a capacitor storing what the proton-muon rings produce in electricity. Where would the neutron parallel plates be located? I argue in this text that the neutron plates when fully grown from 1 eV until 945MeV are like two parallel plate capacitors where each neutron is part of one plate, like two pieces of bread with the proton-muon torus being a hamburger patty.

Cover Picture: I assembled two atoms in this picture where the proton torus with a band of muons inside traveling around and around the proton torus producing electricity. And the pie-plates represent neutrons as parallel-plate capacitors.
Length: 39 pages

Product details
• Publication Date : March 24, 2020
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• ASIN : B086BGSNXN
• Print Length : 39 pages
• File Size : 935 KB
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,656,820 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#6413 in Mathematics (Kindle Store)
#315 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
#4953 in Physics (Kindle Store)


#1-5, 112th published book

New Perspective on Psi^2 in the Schrodinger Equation in a Atom Totality Universe// Atom Totality series, book 5
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

I first heard of the Schrodinger equation in college chemistry class. We never actually did any problem solving with the equation, and we were only told about it. Then taking physics my next year in college and after I bought the Feynman Lectures on Physics, just for fun for side reading, three volume set did I learn what this Schrodinger equation and the Psi^2 wavefunction was about. I am not going to teach the mathematics of the Schrodinger equation and the math calculations of the Psi or Psi^2 in this book, but leave that up to the reader or student to do that from Feynman's Lectures on Physics. The purpose of this book is to give a new and different interpretation of what Psi^2 is, what Psi^2 means. Correct interpretation of physics experiments and observations turns out to be one of the most difficult tasks in all of physics.

Cover Picture: a photograph taken of me in 1993, after the discovery of Plutonium Atom Totality, and I was 43 years old then, on a wintery hill of New Hampshire. It is nice that Feynman wrote a physics textbook series, for I am very much benefitting from his wisdom. If he had not done that, getting organized in physics by writing textbooks, I would not be writing this book. And I would not have discovered the true meaning of the Fine Structure Constant, for it was Feynman who showed us that FSC is really 0.0854, not that of 0.0072. All because 0.0854 is Psi, and Psi^2 is 0.0072.
Length: 20 pages

Product details
• ASIN : B0875SVDC7
• Publication date : April 15, 2020
• Language: : English
• File size : 1134 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 20 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #240,066 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #5 in 30-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #65 in General Chemistry & Reference
◦ #481 in Physics (Kindle Store)

#1-6, 135th published book

QED in Atom Totality theory where proton is a 8 ring torus and electron = muon inside proton doing Faraday Law// Atom Totality series, book 6 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 

Since the real true electron of atoms is the muon and is a one ring bar magnet thrusting through the 8 ring torus of a proton, we need a whole entire new model of the hydrogen atom. Because the Bohr model with the 0.5MeV particle jumping orbitals as the explanation of Spectral Lines is all wrong. In this vacuum of explaining spectral line physics, comes the AP Model which simply states that the hydrogen atom creates Spectral lines because at any one instant of time 4 of the 8 proton rings is "in view" and the electricity coming from those 4 view rings creates spectral line physics.

Cover Picture: Is a imitation of the 8 ring proton torus, with my fingers holding on the proton ring that has the muon ring perpendicular and in the equatorial plane of the proton rings, thrusting through. This muon ring is the same size as the 8 proton rings making 9 x 105MeV = 945MeV of energy. The muon ring has to be perpendicular and lie on the equator of the proton torus. Surrounding the proton-torus would be neutrons as skin or coating cover and act as capacitors in storing the electricity produced by the proton+muon.


Product details
• ASIN : B08K47K5BB
• Publication date : September 25, 2020
• Language : English
• File size : 587 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 25 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #291,001 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #13 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #52 in General Chemistry & Reference
◦ #334 in General Chemistry



#1-7, 138th published book
The true NUCLEUS of Atoms are inner toruses moving around in circles of a larger outer torus// Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden Experiment revisited // Atom Totality Series, book 7 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

The geometry of Atoms of the Table of Chemical Elements is torus geometry. We know this to be true for the torus geometry forms the maximum electricity production when using the Faraday Law. We see this in Old Physics with their tokamak toruses attempting to make fusion, by accelerating particles of the highest possible acceleration for the torus is that geometry. But the torus is the geometry not only of maximum acceleration but of maximum electrical generation by having a speeding bar magnet go around and around inside a torus== the Faraday law, where the torus rings are the copper closed wire loop. The protons of atoms are 8 loops of rings in a torus geometry, and the electron of atoms is the muon as bar magnet, almost the same size as the proton loops but small enough to fit inside proton loops. It is torus geometry that we investigate the geometry of all atoms.
Length: 41 pages

Product details
• Publication Date : October 9, 2020
• File Size : 828 KB
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print Length : 41 pages
• ASIN : B08KZT5TCD
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled

#1-8, 1st published book

Atom Totality Universe, 8th edition, 2017// A history log book: Atom Totality Series book 8 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)


Last revision 7Apr2021. This was AP's first published science book.

Advisory: This is a difficult book to read and is AP's research log book of the Atom Totality in 2016-2017. I want to keep it for its history value. AP advises all readers wanting to know the Plutonium Atom Totality theory to go to the 9th edition that is the latest up to date account of this theory. The reason AP wants to keep the 8th edition is because of Historical Value, for in this book, while writing it, caused the discovery of the real electron is the muon of atoms. The real proton of atoms is 840MeV and not the 938MeV that most books claim. The particle discovered by JJ Thomson in 1897 thinking he discovered the electron of atoms was actually the Dirac magnetic monopole at 0.5MeV. This discovery changes every, every science that uses atoms and electricity and magnetism, in other words, every science.

Foreward:
I wrote the 8th edition of Atom Totality and near the end of writing it in 2017, I had my second greatest physics discovery. I learned the real electron of atoms was the muon at 105MeV and not the tiny 0.5MeV particle that J.J.Thomson found in 1897. So I desperately tried to include that discovery in my 8th edition and it is quite plain to see for I tried to write paragraphs after each chapter saying as much. I knew in 2017, that it was a great discovery, changing all the hard sciences, and reframing and restructuring all the hard sciences.
Length: 632 pages


Product details
File Size: 1132 KB
Print Length: 632 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLP9NDR
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #578,229 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#1610 in Physics (Kindle Store)
#8526 in Physics (Books)
#18851 in Biological Sciences (Books)

#2-1, 137th published book

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



#1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory

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

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

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

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

#2-2, 145th published book


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

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

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

#2-3, 146th published book

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

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

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


#2-4, 151st published book

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

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

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

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

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09JW5DVYM
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 19, 2021
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1033 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 386 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled


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

Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere.

Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule.

Length: 1150 pages


Product details
• File Size : 2167 KB
• ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ
• Publication Date : March 11, 2019
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 1150 pages
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#181 in General Chemistry & Reference
#1324 in General Chemistry
#1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)


y z
| /
| /
|/______ x

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

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

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

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

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

Stanford's_Marc Tessier-Lavigne, Persis Drell,Alexander Fetter, John Lipa, William Little, Douglas Osheroff,, is McGinn correct that Stanford is failed & incompetent to confirm real proton is 840MeV, real electron=105MeV and .5MeV was Dirac's magnetic monopole

Re: James McGinn, the blubbery cesspool mind of a moron packed inside a single cell atop a foghorn mouth// why California schools have not yet confirmed real proton = 840MeV, electron= muon and .5MeV was Dirac's monopole
157k views
Oct 14, 2019, 10:08:30 AM
by Pete Smith
> I fart you.

On Wednesday, May 29, 2019 at 10:55:04 AM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> >
> > And you too proved yourself incompetent and desperate in that you failed to discuss any of the substance of the argument (the subject of which is way, way over your head).

AP writes: Is the reason Stanford Univ has not yet confirmed real proton is 840MeV not 938, because its scientists like McGinn says is blithering nattering nutter fools-- drinking coffee and eating Danish rolls rather than uncovering the true proton is 840MeV stuck with the real electron as muon doing a Faraday Law dance inside the atom making electricity and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole.

o-:^>___?
`~~c--^c'
Navy dog says: yes, I enjoy my Danish rolls with blended coffee, steaks and eggs in the California sun instead of real physics of the atom

Stanford University, math dept.

Gregory Brumfiel, Daniel Bump, Emmanuel Candès, Gunnar Carlsson, Moses Charikar, Sourav Chatterjee, Tom Church, Ralph Cohen, Brian Conrad, Brian Conrey, Amir Dembo, Persi Diaconis, Yakov Eliashberg, Robert Finn, Jacob Fox, Laura Fredrickson, Søren Galatius, George Schaeffer, Or Hershkovits, David Hoffman, Eleny Ionel, Renata Kallosh, Yitzhak Katznelson, Vladimir Kazeev, Michael Kemeny, Steven Kerckhoff, Susie Kimport, Jun Li, Tai-Ping Liu, Mark Lucianovic, Jonathan Luk, Frederick Manners, Rafe Mazzeo, James R. Milgram, Maryam Mirzakhani, Stefan Mueller, Christopher Ohrt, Donald Ornstein, George Papanicolaou, Lenya Ryzhik, Richard Schoen, Leon Simon, Rick Sommer, Kannan Soundararajan, Tadashi Tokieda, Cheng-Chiang Tsai, Ravi Vakil, András Vasy, Akshay Venkatesh, Jan Vondrák, Brian White, Wojciech Wieczorek, Jennifer Wilson, Alex Wright, Lexing Ying, Xuwen Zhu


President: Marc Tessier-Lavigne (neuroscience)
Provost: Persis Drell (physics)

Stanford physics dept.

Alexander Fetter, John Lipa, William Little, Douglas Osheroff, David Ritson, H. Alan Schwettman, John Turneaure, Robert Wagoner, Stanley Wojcicki, Mason Yearian

CalTech math dept

Michael Aschbacher, Alexei Borodin, Danny Calegari
Matthias Flach, Anton N. Kapustin, Alexander Kechris
Alexei Kitaev, Matilde Marcolli, Nikolai Makarov, Vladimir Markovic, Hiroshi Oguri, Eric Rains, Dinakar Ramakrishnan
Barry Simon, Richard Wilson, Tom Graber, Sergei Gukov,
Elena Mantovan, Yi NI,

Caltech Physics Dept

Barry Barish, Felix Boehm, Steven Frautschi
Murray Gell-Mann, David Goodstein, Thomas Phillips,
John Schwarz, Barry Simon, Kip Thorne, Petr Vogel,
Rochus Vogt, Ward Whaling, Michael E. Brown,
Konstantin Batygin


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

Univ Calif San Diego, physics dept

Henry D. I. Abarbanel, Kam S. Arnold, Daniel P. Arovas, Richard D. Averitt, Julio T. Barreiro, Dimitri N. Basov, Steven Boggs, James G. Branson, Adam J. Burgasser, Leonid V. Butov, Alison Coil, Eva-Maria S. Collins, Max Di Ventra, Patrick H. Diamond, Fred C. Driscoll, Daniel H. Dubin, Olga K. Dudko, Raphael M. Flauger, Michael M. Fogler, Alex Frano, George M. Fuller, Daniel R Green, Kim Griest, Benjamin Grinstein, Alexander Groisman, Tarun Grover, Jorge E. Hirsch, Michael Holst, Terence T. Hwa, Kenneth A. Intriligator, Elizabeth Jenkins, Suckjoon Jun, Brian Keating, Dusan Keres, David Kleinfeld, Quinn Konopacky, Elena F. Koslover, Julius Kuti, Tongyan Lin, Aneesh V. Manohar, M. Brian Maple, John A. McGreevy, Thomas W. Murphy, Kaixuan Ni, Michael L. Norman, Thomas M. O'Neil, Hans P. Paar, Mark Paddock, Jeremie Palacci, Tenio Popmintchev, Wouter-Jan Rappel, Karin M. Sandstrom, Ivan K. Schuller, Lu J. Sham, Vivek Sharma, Tatyana O. Sharpee, Brian Shotwell, Oleg Shpyrko, Elizabeth H Simmons, Sunil K. Sinha, Douglas E. Smith, Harry Suhl



Math dept Univ Calif, San Diego

Edward Bender, James Bunch, Thomas Enright, Ronald Evans, Jay Fillmore, Carl FitzGerald,
Michael Freedman, Adriano Garsia, Fan Graham, Leonard Haff, Hubert Halkin, Richard Hamilton, Bill Helton, Jim Lin, Alfred Manaster, John O'Quigley, Yose Rinott, Burt Rodin, Murray Rosenblatt, Linda Rothschild, Michael Sharpe, Lance Small, Don Smith, Harold Stark, Audrey Terras, Adrian Wadsworth, Nolan Wallach, John Wavrik, Daniel Wulbert



On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 5:29:50 PM UTC-6, James McGinn wrote:
> Weather prediction is not the topic,,,,

John Schwarz,Barry Simon,Kip Thorne,Petr Vogel,Rochus Vogt, of Caltech are you as stupid as McGinn to never understand Angular Momentum for the chemical bond cannot exist with electron=.5MeV, proton=938MeV. You need 105 to 840 to have chemistry

Murray Gell-Mann, David Goodstein, Thomas Phillips, of Caltech are you as stupid as McGinn to never understand Angular Momentum for the chemical bond cannot exist with electron=.5MeV, proton=938MeV. You need 105 to 840 to have chemistry


Stanford's Drs Gregory Brumfiel, Daniel Bump, Emmanuel Candès, Gunnar Carlsson is McGinn the example of how physicists react when told the proton is 840MeV, electron 105MeV to have chemistry bonding


About McGinn, we all know he is an idiot when it comes to science or even thinking straight, and although he deserves 1 or 2 posts per day (some would say that is too much) but he does not deserve 75 posts per day under various names like Denke or Solvingtornado. So either he post 1 or 2, or I recommend he be kicked out permanently as a front page hog spamming jackarse. I hate his practice of just churning his posts, where the creep adds two words, sometimes not even a new word, to his prior post just to get it on the front page again. To think that sci.physics by year 2019 is mostly a airhead spammer on the front page is enough to make any cry and sob into the new year.

On Thursday, January 3, 2019 at 10:19:09 PM UTC-6, James McGinn wrote:
> Aw shucks.


..
.- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
, . `.' ' `.
.' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
. ; .' . `. ;
; . ' `. . '
. ' ` `. |
. '. '
. 0 0 ' `.
' `
; `
.' `
; U `
; '; `
: | ;.. :` `
: `;. ```. .-; | '
'. ` ``.., .' :' '
; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' Hi I am McGinn under various fake names Denk, Pnal etc. My game is to fill sci.physics with nothing but my airhead posts because I love to annoy everybody, and on fast days, I just churn all my old posts by adding a word or sentence, and often pretend I am Pnal, to make believe someone is actually talking with me. You see, my foot is where my head is and my head where my foot is.
` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` `. ````'''''' ' '
` . ' '
/ ` `. ' ' .
/ ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
/ .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
/ .'' ; ` .' `
...'.' ; .' ` .' `
"" .' .' | ` .; \ `
; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
:' | ' ` , `. `
| ' ` ' `. `
` ' ` ; `. |
`.' ` ; `-'
`...'



CalTech's Rochus Vogt, Ward Whaling, Michael E. Brown,Konstantin Batygin are you like McGinn/pnal too stupid to understand Angular Momentum for the chemical bond cannot exist with electron=.5MeV, proton=938MeV. You need 105 to 840 to have chemistry

Too stupid to understand Angular Momentum for the chemical bond cannot exist with electron=.5MeV, proton=938MeV. You need 105 to 840 to have chemistry. The .5MeV particle that Thomson discovered was actually Dirac's magnetic monopole

Why does McGinn simply not ask professors of physics at UCLA why they think the real proton is not 840MeV and real electron = 105MeV with .5 MeV the Dirac Magnetic Monopole

Why does any physicist not believe proton is 840MeV, electron is 105MeV in order to have chemistry bonding, because a ratio of 840 to 105 allows for Angular Momentum
-----------------------------------

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


Stanford University, math dept.

Gregory Brumfiel, Daniel Bump, Emmanuel Candès, Gunnar Carlsson, Moses Charikar, Sourav Chatterjee, Tom Church, Ralph Cohen, Brian Conrad, Brian Conrey, Amir Dembo, Persi Diaconis, Yakov Eliashberg, Robert Finn, Jacob Fox, Laura Fredrickson, Søren Galatius, George Schaeffer, Or Hershkovits, David Hoffman, Eleny Ionel, Renata Kallosh, Yitzhak Katznelson, Vladimir Kazeev, Michael Kemeny, Steven Kerckhoff, Susie Kimport, Jun Li, Tai-Ping Liu, Mark Lucianovic, Jonathan Luk, Frederick Manners, Rafe Mazzeo, James R. Milgram, Maryam Mirzakhani, Stefan Mueller, Christopher Ohrt, Donald Ornstein, George Papanicolaou, Lenya Ryzhik, Richard Schoen, Leon Simon, Rick Sommer, Kannan Soundararajan, Tadashi Tokieda, Cheng-Chiang Tsai, Ravi Vakil, András Vasy, Akshay Venkatesh, Jan Vondrák, Brian White, Wojciech Wieczorek, Jennifer Wilson, Alex Wright, Lexing Ying, Xuwen Zhu


President: Marc Tessier-Lavigne (neuroscience)
Provost: Persis Drell (physics)

Stanford physics dept.

Alexander Fetter, John Lipa, William Little, Douglas Osheroff, David Ritson, H. Alan Schwettman, John Turneaure, Robert Wagoner, Stanley Wojcicki, Mason Yearian


CalTech math dept

Michael Aschbacher, Alexei Borodin, Danny Calegari
Matthias Flach, Anton N. Kapustin, Alexander Kechris
Alexei Kitaev, Matilde Marcolli, Nikolai Makarov, Vladimir Markovic, Hiroshi Oguri, Eric Rains, Dinakar Ramakrishnan
Barry Simon, Richard Wilson, Tom Graber, Sergei Gukov,
Elena Mantovan, Yi NI,

Caltech Physics Dept

Barry Barish, Felix Boehm, Steven Frautschi
Murray Gell-Mann, David Goodstein, Thomas Phillips,
John Schwarz, Barry Simon, Kip Thorne, Petr Vogel,
Rochus Vogt, Ward Whaling, Michael E. Brown,
Konstantin Batygin


/\-------/\
\::O:::O::/
(::_ ^ _::)
\_`-----'_/
You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in sunny California?


And, even though you-- professors of physics, want to remain stupid in not knowing what is really the electron in atoms has to be the muon at 105MeV and proton at 840MeV with Dirac's magnetic monopole being .5MeV, your students deserve better.

And, even though you-- professors of physics/math, want to remain silent and stupid in Real Electron = muon, and true real Calculus with a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, your students deserve better.

Yes, there, what did they say-- the power of Sun and stars is not really fusion but is the Faraday Law inside of atoms creating monopoles and turning Space into energy that fuels the Sun and stars. My rough estimate is that fusion only supplies 10% or less of Sun and stars.

But of course, I could not have discovered the true starpower when under the idiotic idea that the electron was a mere .5MeV when it truly is 105 MeV.

What answer did they give?

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 16, 2021, 9:24:01 PM12/16/21
to
The reality of imaginary math.
math admits It is a formula without a solution.
That is how it got its name.

Mitchell Raemsch

zelos...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 17, 2021, 12:12:07 AM12/17/21
to
false

x^2+1=0

has the solution i and -i

so wrong.

Chris M. Thomasson

unread,
Dec 17, 2021, 12:14:07 AM12/17/21
to
Wrong... If, perhaps, the observer is afraid of it? Then, they say its
wrong?

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 17, 2021, 1:12:16 PM12/17/21
to
What is the solved quantity your imaginary represents?
No. Imaginary math is named rightly.

Mitchell Raemsch

>
> so wrong.

Chris M. Thomasson

unread,
Dec 17, 2021, 6:24:21 PM12/17/21
to
[...]

The imaginary numbers go along the y axis, while the real numbers are on
the x axis. So the two solutions are: 0-1i, and 0+1i. So, the x-axis is
zero for both solutions. The y axes are one unit up, and one unit down:

+y
|
|
-x -----0----- +x
|
|
-y

where x is real, and y is imaginary.



Python

unread,
Dec 17, 2021, 10:38:58 PM12/17/21
to
smitchi...@gmail.com schwrote:
> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 9:12:07 PM UTC-8, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
...
>> x^2+1=0
>>
>> has the solution i and -i
>
> What is the solved quantity your imaginary represents?
> No. Imaginary math is named rightly.

Nothing more or less "imaginary" than any other mathematical
concept Smitch.

i = class of X in R[X]/(X^2+1)

(learn basic algebra if you don't get it, Smitch).

Another silly question, Smitch?


zelos...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 20, 2021, 12:55:51 AM12/20/21
to
it is i and -i, whats so difficult?

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 23, 2021, 2:08:02 PM12/23/21
to
I is just a formula...
Math calls it imaginary because of that..
and rightly so... negatives are just
hidden or not as subtractions...


Mitchell Raemsch
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages