Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Markus Klyver greatest math fool of Sweden-- thinks an ellipse is a conic section
339 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted
Dan Christensen
Aug 3, 2017, 12:52:21 AM8/3/17
to
On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 12:37:31 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Hey Markus, Markus Klyver, try fitting a ellipse into a cone, you half brained propelled idiot.
>
Ummmm... Archie, an ellipse really is a conic section. You are looking like an complete idiot here.
Dan
> Hey Markus, Markus Klyver, try fitting a ellipse into a cone, you half brained propelled idiot.
>
Ummmm... Archie, an ellipse really is a conic section. You are looking like an complete idiot here.
Dan
Archimedes Plutonium
Aug 3, 2017, 5:49:43 AM8/3/17
to
He is far far too stupid to actually take a cylinder and cut out a ellipse and then take a cone and try to fit a ellipse into a cone.
Far too stupid.
The reason Trump is tight on immigration is that Trump doesn't want the likes of Dan kook roaming around in the USA
bassam king karzeddin
Aug 3, 2017, 6:10:36 AM8/3/17
to
However, many unnamed were more famous earlier, but they had chosen to hide suddenly and completely after so many debates
There are also still few unnoticeable Trolls with masked names as Python or Shio..., but they must finally hide
So, let us clean up the sci.math for sure
BKK
Dan Christensen
Aug 3, 2017, 10:35:17 AM8/3/17
to
On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 5:49:43 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 11:52:21 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 12:37:31 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > Hey Markus, Markus Klyver, try fitting a ellipse into a cone, you half brained propelled idiot.
> > >
> >
> > Ummmm... Archie, an ellipse really is a conic section. You are looking like an complete idiot here.
> >
> >
> > Dan
>
> Dan is one of the greatest kooks of math Canada ever produced, for the fiend thinks a vertex has a derivative.
>
A derivative can be defined on either side of the vertex, e.g. as in y=|x|. Such distinctions are lost on an idiot like AP. He probably half-read and completely misunderstood a Wikipedia article on calculus and now figures he's an expert. Typical crank.
> On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 11:52:21 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 12:37:31 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > Hey Markus, Markus Klyver, try fitting a ellipse into a cone, you half brained propelled idiot.
> > >
> >
> > Ummmm... Archie, an ellipse really is a conic section. You are looking like an complete idiot here.
> >
> >
> > Dan
>
> Dan is one of the greatest kooks of math Canada ever produced, for the fiend thinks a vertex has a derivative.
>
> He is far far too stupid to actually take a cylinder and cut out a ellipse and then take a cone and try to fit a ellipse into a cone.
>
Dan
Dan Christensen
Aug 3, 2017, 10:47:19 AM8/3/17
to
On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 6:10:36 AM UTC-4, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
>
> Adding to them the Encylopedia math man (bursegan), then those are the most famous stubborn idiots in sci.math today
This from an idiot who believes that 40 degree angles don't exist. Why? Because he can't make one with his antiquated drafting tools! His goofy system of mathematics is going nowhere. After several years, it seems he is still unable to establish even the most elementary results of basic arithmetic, e.g. the associativity and commutativity of addition. Typical crank.
>
> Adding to them the Encylopedia math man (bursegan), then those are the most famous stubborn idiots in sci.math today
Dan
bassam king karzeddin
Aug 3, 2017, 11:58:34 AM8/3/17
to
This only proves how a perpetual ignorant you are especially in mathematics
Go and get educated about the subject and from zero moron, you are really
outdated for sure
BKK
Dan Christensen
Aug 3, 2017, 1:34:20 PM8/3/17
to
On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 11:58:34 AM UTC-4, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 5:47:19 PM UTC+3, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 6:10:36 AM UTC-4, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Adding to them the Encylopedia math man (bursegan), then those are the most famous stubborn idiots in sci.math today
> >
> > This from an idiot who believes that 40 degree angles don't exist. Why? Because he can't make one with his antiquated drafting tools! His goofy system of mathematics is going nowhere. After several years, it seems he is still unable to establish even the most elementary results of basic arithmetic, e.g. the associativity and commutativity of addition. Typical crank.
> >
> >
> > Dan
>
> Of course, you want it simply by eye marking using Protractor, great, then no problem in mathematics at all, anyone can so simply trisect any arbitrary angle, not only that but can so simply multi section any given angle for sure
>
As you would expect of any mathematical system used to land a spacecraft on Mars. You certainly couldn't use one without 40 degree angles and circles. (Does Mars exist in your universe, BKK?)
> On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 5:47:19 PM UTC+3, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 6:10:36 AM UTC-4, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Adding to them the Encylopedia math man (bursegan), then those are the most famous stubborn idiots in sci.math today
> >
> > This from an idiot who believes that 40 degree angles don't exist. Why? Because he can't make one with his antiquated drafting tools! His goofy system of mathematics is going nowhere. After several years, it seems he is still unable to establish even the most elementary results of basic arithmetic, e.g. the associativity and commutativity of addition. Typical crank.
> >
> >
> > Dan
>
> Of course, you want it simply by eye marking using Protractor, great, then no problem in mathematics at all, anyone can so simply trisect any arbitrary angle, not only that but can so simply multi section any given angle for sure
>
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 software at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Archimedes Plutonium
Aug 3, 2017, 3:37:45 PM8/3/17
to
And giving math back to the LOGICAL MIND, the mind that is prepared to accept only LOGICAL MATH TRUTHS, not the crap of individuals who have flawed minds of reason.
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 12:25:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder
section. Failures of math- Wiles, Klyver,Hales,Christensen,Tao,Burse, Appel & Haken
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2017 19:25:30 +0000
Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder section. Failures of math- Wiles, Klyver,Hales,Christensen,Tao,Burse, Appel & Haken
Easy experiment, easy
Just get a tin can of vegetables, cut the end as you usually do and let the lid fall through the CYLINDER.
The lid is round as a circle and is able to fall through the can because it is shorter and it forms a ELLIPSE as it falls through.
The CONE is different than the cylinder, it is asymmetrical in a fall through of the lid, meaning that the lid will not fall through, it will be quickly impeded in falling. Why? Because the lid as a circle gets stopped by the walls of the cone impeding the fall. So a Cross Section of the Cylinder is a Ellipse, but the cross section of a Cone is a OVAL.
Now the Ancient Greeks seldom if ever did a hands on experiment. They liked to do everything in their head, which often can get you the wrong answer.
Now, in modern times there is no excuse for not doing this experiment. You simply get a cylinder and a cone of about the same size and you make a oblique angle cut and see what figure comes out. In the Cylinder cut, the figure is a ELLIPSE, yet in the Cone cut the figure is a OVAL.
Now here is a short list of math failures who just cannot be bothered to hands on experiment but rather are failures of mathematics for all they can do is dictate that the ellipse is a conic section. Dictate because they are far far too stupid to ever actually experiment to see if their memorized crap in their minds is really true, or, just memorized crap.
Markus Klyver
Jan Burse
Dan Christensen
Jan Bielawski
Terry Tao
Andrew Wiles
John Conway
Appel & Haken
qbwrfmix
Eastside
Konyberg KON
Beal, of Beal conjecture
All of them, failures of mathematics, for they never are able to get beyond memorization of mathematics, whether utterly false math, and worst yet, they preach this crap to younger generations and scold the young students-- that their crap math is what they must learn.
AP
Don Redmond
Aug 3, 2017, 5:03:36 PM8/3/17
to
> Subject: Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder
>
>
> Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder section. Failures of math- Wiles, Klyver,Hales,Christensen,Tao,Burse, Appel & Haken
>
> Easy experiment, easy
>
> Just get a tin can of vegetables, cut the end as you usually do and let the lid fall through the CYLINDER.
>
> The lid is round as a circle and is able to fall through the can because it is shorter and it forms a ELLIPSE as it falls through.
>
Since a circle is a special case of the ellipse this is hardly surprising. It was an ellipse when it started.
>
> Easy experiment, easy
>
> Just get a tin can of vegetables, cut the end as you usually do and let the lid fall through the CYLINDER.
>
> The lid is round as a circle and is able to fall through the can because it is shorter and it forms a ELLIPSE as it falls through.
>
> The CONE is different than the cylinder, it is asymmetrical in a fall through of the lid, meaning that the lid will not fall through, it will be quickly impeded in falling. Why? Because the lid as a circle gets stopped by the walls of the cone impeding the fall. So a Cross Section of the Cylinder is a Ellipse, but the cross section of a Cone is a OVAL.
>
Don
burs...@gmail.com
Aug 3, 2017, 5:23:40 PM8/3/17
to
Sometimes an ellipse is more complicated than a circle.
For example the perimeter of an ellipse is nontrivial:
Math. Scientist 35, 122—131 (2010)
Printed in England
© Applied Probability Trust 2010
THE PERIMETER OF AN ELLIPSE
TIRUPATHI R. CHANDRUPATLA * AND
THOMAS J. OSLER,** Rowan University
http://web.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/~mcasquilho/compute/com/,ellips/PerimeterOfEllipse.pdf
For example the perimeter of an ellipse is nontrivial:
Math. Scientist 35, 122—131 (2010)
Printed in England
© Applied Probability Trust 2010
THE PERIMETER OF AN ELLIPSE
TIRUPATHI R. CHANDRUPATLA * AND
THOMAS J. OSLER,** Rowan University
http://web.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/~mcasquilho/compute/com/,ellips/PerimeterOfEllipse.pdf
Archimedes Plutonium
Aug 3, 2017, 8:44:03 PM8/3/17
to
On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 4:03:36 PM UTC-5, Don Redmond wrote:
> > Subject: Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder
> >
> > Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder section. Failures of math- Wiles, Klyver,Hales,Christensen,Tao,Burse, Appel & Haken
> >
> > Easy experiment, easy
> >
> > Just get a tin can of vegetables, cut the end as you usually do and let the lid fall through the CYLINDER.
> >
> > The lid is round as a circle and is able to fall through the can because it is shorter and it forms a ELLIPSE as it falls through.
> >
>
> Since a circle is a special case of the ellipse this is hardly surprising. It was an ellipse when it started.
>
Take a can of vegetables and with can opener, open it all the way except for a little bit attachment. Now you can swivel the lid and see that it is an ellipse in the cylinder. Now imagine it as a cone with the lid, and you easily see it is a oval.
> > Subject: Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder
> >
> > Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder section. Failures of math- Wiles, Klyver,Hales,Christensen,Tao,Burse, Appel & Haken
> >
> > Easy experiment, easy
> >
> > Just get a tin can of vegetables, cut the end as you usually do and let the lid fall through the CYLINDER.
> >
> > The lid is round as a circle and is able to fall through the can because it is shorter and it forms a ELLIPSE as it falls through.
> >
>
> Since a circle is a special case of the ellipse this is hardly surprising. It was an ellipse when it started.
>
> > The CONE is different than the cylinder, it is asymmetrical in a fall through of the lid, meaning that the lid will not fall through, it will be quickly impeded in falling. Why? Because the lid as a circle gets stopped by the walls of the cone impeding the fall. So a Cross Section of the Cylinder is a Ellipse, but the cross section of a Cone is a OVAL.
> >
> So which curve (oh wait you don't believe in curves; well for the sake of argument...) the oval or the ellipse is the one with the reflection property? If I remember properly, Apollonius showed that the curve you get from a cylinder or the cone with an oblique cut is the same curve, namely an ellipse. Since his proof was purely geometric it must be correct, since geometry is so special.
>
> Don
Don will never accept that, old horses need to be old horses, feed them an apple along with the hay.
AP
Message has been deleted
Archimedes Plutonium
Aug 4, 2017, 4:09:08 AM8/4/17
to
On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 1:49:25 AM UTC-5, qbwr...@gmail.com wrote:
> A month ago, probably the last time you were claiming the intersection of
> a plane and a cone was not an ellipse, I took the time to send you an email
> showing step by step that the intersection of a plane and a cone COULD BE
> an ellipse.
>
> In that email I showed the cone around the z axis x^2+y^2=z^2 and the
> inclined plane 1/3x+1=z could be rotated together about the y axis until
> the cone was inclined and the plane was parallel with the xy plane.
>
> I did this in this way because you had in the past objected to an
> ellipse that was on an inclined plane instead of being horizontal.
>
> I showed the resulting intersection is (x-9/(4 sqrt(10)))^2+5/4 y^2=45/32
> or if you prefer an approximation (x-0.711512)^2+1.25 y^2=1.40625.
>
> In that email I stated this is exactly the equation of an ellipse,
> not an oval. And that this was a proof by construction.
>
> I stated in that email, as I have many times, that I fully expected that
> in a few weeks or a month that you would have completely forgotten this
> and you would again be screeching that the intersection of a cone and a
> plane could never be an ellipse, just like you have done in the past when
> I and others have shown you counter examples to your claims. I have seen
> dementia do exactly this to other people, but without a mental status exam
> I can't know whether that is the cause of this for you.
>
> I have repeatedly begged you to produce precise detailed clear understandable step-by-step proofs of each of your astonishing claims.
> You have never done that.
>
> I might hope that your attempting to do this would enable you to discover
> some of your mistakes before you spend a year screeching them at the world.
>
> Perhaps you have simply lost the ability to construct such proofs. Perhaps
> you have learned over the years that providing details only results in
> people pointing out your mistakes. And perhaps your compulsion to claim
> astonishing results means that you will never be able to find a correct
> claim of your own, whether you could ever prove it or not.
>
> I realize you have little algebra skill left. That makes it almost
> impossible for you to detect even simple mistakes, like claiming that
> sinusoids are actually semicircles or claiming the intersection of a cone
> and a plane is never an ellipse or that you can't just add Maxwell's
> equations together and get anything sensible or that even a little bit of
> algebra shows your asymmetric magnetic forces results in the production of
> infinite amounts of energy.
>
> I understand that you have to claim that everyone who has ever lived and
> everything that has been done is all wrong. If you couldn't do that then
> you would have nothing left to claim for yourself.
>
> I probably cannot imagine the toll that it has taken on your mind to be
> told daily for the last three decades and perhaps last six decades that
> everything you claim is wrong, that you are a crank brain and that you
> are mentally ill. I would have guessed that this would be the cause of
> your current condition, but reading about your history indicates that you
> were this way even before you discovered the internet.
>
> I think you need to find some way to verify that your claims are in fact
> false and do this before you spend a year screeching them at the world.
> That might let you use your limited time on things that are more important.
>
> I think you should sincerely apologize to the people you have insulted,
> a few of which have actually tried to help you by pointing out exactly
> where you have made a mistake.
>
> Never bring a crank to a brain fight
I no longer recall, when, perhaps a year or two ago I blocked your emails, as too depressing. You have lost sense of reality, and is in crazy land, lost sense of reality, in that the only thing on your mind is hate hate hate.
Why cannot an idiot like you cut open a can lid and swivel the lid, seeing that a cone cannot yield a ellipse, while a cylinder yields an ellipse.
Your hatred is astounding.
Over in sci.physics I see lots of subjective fools of science-- asking them to step outside with IR thermometers to measure Greenhouse Effect, purely measure it and prove Global Warming. But deniers are crazy people also, subjective crazy.
You cannot open a can lid and see a cone cannot support a ellipse, you cannot step outside and prove Greenhouse Effect.
The only thing people like you can do is rant hatred hatred hatred
Get lost
> a plane and a cone was not an ellipse, I took the time to send you an email
> showing step by step that the intersection of a plane and a cone COULD BE
> an ellipse.
>
> In that email I showed the cone around the z axis x^2+y^2=z^2 and the
> inclined plane 1/3x+1=z could be rotated together about the y axis until
> the cone was inclined and the plane was parallel with the xy plane.
>
> I did this in this way because you had in the past objected to an
> ellipse that was on an inclined plane instead of being horizontal.
>
> I showed the resulting intersection is (x-9/(4 sqrt(10)))^2+5/4 y^2=45/32
> or if you prefer an approximation (x-0.711512)^2+1.25 y^2=1.40625.
>
> In that email I stated this is exactly the equation of an ellipse,
> not an oval. And that this was a proof by construction.
>
> I stated in that email, as I have many times, that I fully expected that
> in a few weeks or a month that you would have completely forgotten this
> and you would again be screeching that the intersection of a cone and a
> plane could never be an ellipse, just like you have done in the past when
> I and others have shown you counter examples to your claims. I have seen
> dementia do exactly this to other people, but without a mental status exam
> I can't know whether that is the cause of this for you.
>
> I have repeatedly begged you to produce precise detailed clear understandable step-by-step proofs of each of your astonishing claims.
> You have never done that.
>
> I might hope that your attempting to do this would enable you to discover
> some of your mistakes before you spend a year screeching them at the world.
>
> Perhaps you have simply lost the ability to construct such proofs. Perhaps
> you have learned over the years that providing details only results in
> people pointing out your mistakes. And perhaps your compulsion to claim
> astonishing results means that you will never be able to find a correct
> claim of your own, whether you could ever prove it or not.
>
> I realize you have little algebra skill left. That makes it almost
> impossible for you to detect even simple mistakes, like claiming that
> sinusoids are actually semicircles or claiming the intersection of a cone
> and a plane is never an ellipse or that you can't just add Maxwell's
> equations together and get anything sensible or that even a little bit of
> algebra shows your asymmetric magnetic forces results in the production of
> infinite amounts of energy.
>
> I understand that you have to claim that everyone who has ever lived and
> everything that has been done is all wrong. If you couldn't do that then
> you would have nothing left to claim for yourself.
>
> I probably cannot imagine the toll that it has taken on your mind to be
> told daily for the last three decades and perhaps last six decades that
> everything you claim is wrong, that you are a crank brain and that you
> are mentally ill. I would have guessed that this would be the cause of
> your current condition, but reading about your history indicates that you
> were this way even before you discovered the internet.
>
> I think you need to find some way to verify that your claims are in fact
> false and do this before you spend a year screeching them at the world.
> That might let you use your limited time on things that are more important.
>
> I think you should sincerely apologize to the people you have insulted,
> a few of which have actually tried to help you by pointing out exactly
> where you have made a mistake.
>
> Never bring a crank to a brain fight
I no longer recall, when, perhaps a year or two ago I blocked your emails, as too depressing. You have lost sense of reality, and is in crazy land, lost sense of reality, in that the only thing on your mind is hate hate hate.
Why cannot an idiot like you cut open a can lid and swivel the lid, seeing that a cone cannot yield a ellipse, while a cylinder yields an ellipse.
Your hatred is astounding.
Over in sci.physics I see lots of subjective fools of science-- asking them to step outside with IR thermometers to measure Greenhouse Effect, purely measure it and prove Global Warming. But deniers are crazy people also, subjective crazy.
You cannot open a can lid and see a cone cannot support a ellipse, you cannot step outside and prove Greenhouse Effect.
The only thing people like you can do is rant hatred hatred hatred
Get lost
Jan
Aug 4, 2017, 2:36:57 PM8/4/17
to
On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 9:37:31 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Hey Markus, Markus Klyver, try fitting a ellipse into a cone, you half brained propelled idiot.
Ellipse is a conic section.
> Hey Markus, Markus Klyver, try fitting a ellipse into a cone, you half brained propelled idiot.
End of story.
--
Jan
Dan Christensen
Aug 4, 2017, 2:53:18 PM8/4/17
to
Dan
Markus Klyver
Mar 17, 2018, 9:37:31 PM3/17/18
to
Den torsdag 3 augusti 2017 kl. 06:37:31 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> Hey Markus, Markus Klyver, try fitting a ellipse into a cone, you half brained propelled idiot.
>
> Ellipse goes inside a cylinder not a cone, you Swedish creep
> Hey Markus, Markus Klyver, try fitting a ellipse into a cone, you half brained propelled idiot.
>
>
>
>
> Markus Klyver
> 5:01 PM (6 hours ago)
>
> Translate message to English
>
>
> No... m^2/(A*s) is the SI unit for pressure reduced electric field strength. And I*B*L is the formula for the force on a straight conductor of length L carrying a current of magnitude I in a perpendicular constant magnetic field with strength B.
>
> You're, as always, clueless.
An ellipse is a conic section.
Tappet Manifolds
May 28, 2021, 9:42:17 AM5/28/21
to
On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 5:37:31 AM UTC+1, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Hey Markus, Markus Klyver, try fitting a ellipse into a cone, you half brained propelled idiot.
>
> Ellipse goes inside a cylinder not a cone, you Swedish creep
>
>
>
> Markus Klyver
> 5:01 PM (6 hours ago)
>
> Translate message to English
>
>
> No... m^2/(A*s) is the SI unit for pressure reduced electric field strength. And I*B*L is the formula for the force on a straight conductor of length L carrying a current of magnitude I in a perpendicular constant magnetic field with strength B.
>
> You're, as always, clueless.
Markus Klyver is correct, an ellipse is and a circle can indeed be part of a conic section. Hyperbola, parabola are also integral to a conic section. Hodge Index Theorem is another matter altogether. Archimedes Plutonium, run for your wikipedia.
> Hey Markus, Markus Klyver, try fitting a ellipse into a cone, you half brained propelled idiot.
>
> Ellipse goes inside a cylinder not a cone, you Swedish creep
>
>
>
> Markus Klyver
> 5:01 PM (6 hours ago)
>
> Translate message to English
>
>
> No... m^2/(A*s) is the SI unit for pressure reduced electric field strength. And I*B*L is the formula for the force on a straight conductor of length L carrying a current of magnitude I in a perpendicular constant magnetic field with strength B.
>
> You're, as always, clueless.
Eram semper recta
Sep 14, 2021, 12:05:04 PM9/14/21
to
On Friday, 4 August 2017 at 00:03:36 UTC+3, Don Redmond wrote:
> > Subject: Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder
> >
> > Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder section. Failures of math- Wiles, Klyver,Hales,Christensen,Tao,Burse, Appel & Haken
> >
> > Easy experiment, easy
> >
> > Just get a tin can of vegetables, cut the end as you usually do and let the lid fall through the CYLINDER.
> >
> > The lid is round as a circle and is able to fall through the can because it is shorter and it forms a ELLIPSE as it falls through.
> >
> Since a circle is a special case of the ellipse this is hardly surprising. It was an ellipse when it started.
What utter rubbish. A circle and ellipse are two different conic sections. They do not morph into each other. Too funny.
> > Subject: Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder
> >
> > Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder section. Failures of math- Wiles, Klyver,Hales,Christensen,Tao,Burse, Appel & Haken
> >
> > Easy experiment, easy
> >
> > Just get a tin can of vegetables, cut the end as you usually do and let the lid fall through the CYLINDER.
> >
> > The lid is round as a circle and is able to fall through the can because it is shorter and it forms a ELLIPSE as it falls through.
> >
> Since a circle is a special case of the ellipse this is hardly surprising. It was an ellipse when it started.
It's like mathematics was mathematics when it started and then morphed into mythmatics? :)
> > The CONE is different than the cylinder, it is asymmetrical in a fall through of the lid, meaning that the lid will not fall through, it will be quickly impeded in falling. Why? Because the lid as a circle gets stopped by the walls of the cone impeding the fall. So a Cross Section of the Cylinder is a Ellipse, but the cross section of a Cone is a OVAL.
> >
> So which curve (oh wait you don't believe in curves; well for the sake of argument...) the oval or the ellipse is the one with the reflection property? If I remember properly, Apollonius showed that the curve you get from a cylinder or the cone with an oblique cut is the same curve, namely an ellipse.
> Since his proof was purely geometric it must be correct, since geometry is so special.
Still think the Lipschitz condition is the same as my historic geometric identity [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) ?
If Labarre really did have my understanding, then please tell how is it he didn't proceed to define the definite integral in terms of the same identity?
Sickened by your stupidity and dishonesty.
>
> Don
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 14, 2021, 2:40:32 PM9/14/21
to
Archimedes Plutonium
Aug 2, 2017, 11:37:31 PM
to
Hey Markus, Markus Klyver, try fitting a ellipse into a cone, you half brained propelled idiot.
Aug 2, 2017, 11:37:31 PM
to
Hey Markus, Markus Klyver, try fitting a ellipse into a cone, you half brained propelled idiot.
Message has been deleted
markus...@gmail.com
Sep 14, 2021, 11:18:42 PM9/14/21
to
Dan Christensen
Sep 15, 2021, 2:05:17 AM9/15/21
to
Dan
Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 13, 2023, 4:02:55 PM7/13/23
to
Markus on math failures.
Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales like Markus are blind in geometry with their ellipse and cylinder 2 axes of symmetry yet Cone and Oval 1 axis, yet these math failures still attribute slant cut of Cone as ellipse.
Eram semper photo profile
Eram semper
,...
Markus
39
2:51PM
The Holy Grail of Calculus
Fred Jeffries replacing Andrew Wiles Oxford Uni math failure?? For at least Jeffries can ask the question which is slant cut of cone -- oval or ellipse, Run Wiles Hide Wiles
> On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 5:59:58 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 1:49:50 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 7:00:38 PM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:
> > > > *
> > > > Several of you have questioned: Is the ellipse a conic section? The answer depends.
> > > > If you are Archimedes Plutonium, the answer is no. If you are one of the other 398,726 mahematicians living today, the answer is yes.
> > > >
> > > > earle
> > > > *
> > > The failed meathead Earle Jones, looks like you have 398,726 subtract 1, as it appears Fred Jeffries below in this thread is starting to question the second axis of symmetry in the slant cut of cone.
> > > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 5:41:05 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 6:23:18 PM UTC-8, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Disney did a nice animation on it:
> > > > >
> > > > http ----------
> > > > But it also fails to show how to find the second axis of symmetry
>
More of Fred Jeffries-- and his failure to follow through---
On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 5:59:58 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 1:49:50 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 7:00:38 PM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:
> > > *
> > > Several of you have questioned: Is the ellipse a conic section? The answer depends.
> > > If you are Archimedes Plutonium, the answer is no. If you are one of the other 398,726 mahematicians living today, the answer is yes.
> > >
> > > earle
> > > *
> > The failed meathead Earle Jones, looks like you have 398,726 subtract 1, as it appears Fred Jeffries below in this thread is starting to question the second axis of symmetry in the slant cut of cone.
> > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 5:41:05 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 6:23:18 PM UTC-8, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > >
> > > > Disney did a nice animation on it:
> > > >
> > > > https://.....
> > > But it also fails to show how to find the second axis of symmetry
> > But this does not change the scene by much for every math professor across the globe fails simple geometry with their memorized answer-- ellipse a conic section when it never was, for most math professors are lazy couch potatoes unwilling to experiment with paper cone and drop a coin inside and see that it is impossible to have a 2nd axis of symmetry as Fred Jeffries points out.
> He 'points out' no such thing. He does NOT point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a second axis of symmetry. He only points out that the particular video does not find that second axis of symmetry.
>
> And while he has read very few of the messages on that subject, he will point out that none of the detractors have shown how to find the second axis of symmetry, or even understood that it is a problem.
On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 8:29:19 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>"not one single marble of commonsense in my entire brain"
>"Drag Queen of Math"
> fails at math and science:
Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Beal, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Gerald Edgar, AMS, no-one there can do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, all they can offer is a limit analysis, so shoddy in logic they never realized that "analyzing" is not the same as "proving" for analyzing is much in the same as "measuring but not proving". And yet, none can do a geometry proof and the reason is quite clear for none can even see that the slant cut in single right-circular cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So they could never do a geometry proof of FTC even if they wanted to. For they have no logical geometry brain to begin to do anything geometrical. Is it that Andrew Wiles and Terence Tao cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Not having a Logical brain to do math, for any rational person would be upset by Wiles, Tao saying truth table of AND is TFFF when it actually is TTTF. Is that why neither Terence Tao or Andrew Wiles can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?
>
> Maybe they need to take up Earle Jones offer to wash dishes or pots at Stanford Univ or where ever, for they sure cannot do mathematics.
> Why are these people failures of Math?? For none can even contemplate these 4 questions.
>
> 1) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
> 2) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
> 3) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
> 4) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sap-heads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.
>
>
> Is Jim Holt, Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
> John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason, more of propagandists and belong in "Abnormal Psychology" dept than in the department of logic, like Dan Christensen a laugh a minute logician? Probably because none can admit slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, due to axes of symmetry for cone and oval have 1 while ellipse has 2. Why they cannot even count beyond 1. Yet their minds were never good enough to see the error nor admit to their mistakes. They failed logic so badly they accept Boole's insane AND truth table of TFFF when it is TTTF avoiding the painful 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Or is it because none of these logicians has a single marble of logic in their entire brain to realize calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not a "limit analysis" for analysis is like a measurement, not a proving exercise. Analysis does not prove, only adds data and facts, but never is a proof of itself. I analyze things daily, and none of which is a proof. So are all these logicians like what Clutterfreak the propaganda stooge says they are.
>
> 3rd published book
>
> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN : B07PLSDQWC
> • Publication date : March 11, 2019
> • Language : English
> • File size : 1621 KB
> • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> • Print length : 20 pages
> • Lending : Enabled
> •
> •
>
> Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
>
> Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
>
> In the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence proof. Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN : B081TWQ1G6
> • Publication date : November 21, 2019
> • Language : English
> • File size : 827 KB
> • Simultaneous device usage : Unlimited
> • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> • Screen Reader : Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> • Print length : 51 pages
> • Lending : Enabled
>
> #12-2, 11th published book
>
> World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
> Preface:
> Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
>
> Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.
>
> To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
>
> Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
>
>
> Product details
> ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
> Publication date : March 14, 2019
> Language : English
> File size : 1309 KB
> Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> Screen Reader : Supported
> Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> X-Ray : Not Enabled
> Word Wise : Not Enabled
> Print length : 154 pages
> Lending : Enabled
> Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> #2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> #134 in Calculus (Books)
> #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales like Markus are blind in geometry with their ellipse and cylinder 2 axes of symmetry yet Cone and Oval 1 axis, yet these math failures still attribute slant cut of Cone as ellipse.
Eram semper photo profile
Eram semper
,...
Markus
39
2:51PM
The Holy Grail of Calculus
Fred Jeffries replacing Andrew Wiles Oxford Uni math failure?? For at least Jeffries can ask the question which is slant cut of cone -- oval or ellipse, Run Wiles Hide Wiles
> On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 5:59:58 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 1:49:50 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 7:00:38 PM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:
> > > > *
> > > > Several of you have questioned: Is the ellipse a conic section? The answer depends.
> > > > If you are Archimedes Plutonium, the answer is no. If you are one of the other 398,726 mahematicians living today, the answer is yes.
> > > >
> > > > earle
> > > > *
> > > The failed meathead Earle Jones, looks like you have 398,726 subtract 1, as it appears Fred Jeffries below in this thread is starting to question the second axis of symmetry in the slant cut of cone.
> > > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 5:41:05 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 6:23:18 PM UTC-8, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Disney did a nice animation on it:
> > > > >
> > > > http ----------
> > > > But it also fails to show how to find the second axis of symmetry
>
More of Fred Jeffries-- and his failure to follow through---
On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 5:59:58 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 1:49:50 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 7:00:38 PM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:
> > > *
> > > Several of you have questioned: Is the ellipse a conic section? The answer depends.
> > > If you are Archimedes Plutonium, the answer is no. If you are one of the other 398,726 mahematicians living today, the answer is yes.
> > >
> > > earle
> > > *
> > The failed meathead Earle Jones, looks like you have 398,726 subtract 1, as it appears Fred Jeffries below in this thread is starting to question the second axis of symmetry in the slant cut of cone.
> > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 5:41:05 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 6:23:18 PM UTC-8, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > >
> > > > Disney did a nice animation on it:
> > > >
> > > > https://.....
> > > But it also fails to show how to find the second axis of symmetry
> > But this does not change the scene by much for every math professor across the globe fails simple geometry with their memorized answer-- ellipse a conic section when it never was, for most math professors are lazy couch potatoes unwilling to experiment with paper cone and drop a coin inside and see that it is impossible to have a 2nd axis of symmetry as Fred Jeffries points out.
> He 'points out' no such thing. He does NOT point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a second axis of symmetry. He only points out that the particular video does not find that second axis of symmetry.
>
> And while he has read very few of the messages on that subject, he will point out that none of the detractors have shown how to find the second axis of symmetry, or even understood that it is a problem.
On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 8:29:19 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>"not one single marble of commonsense in my entire brain"
>"Drag Queen of Math"
> fails at math and science:
Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Beal, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Gerald Edgar, AMS, no-one there can do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, all they can offer is a limit analysis, so shoddy in logic they never realized that "analyzing" is not the same as "proving" for analyzing is much in the same as "measuring but not proving". And yet, none can do a geometry proof and the reason is quite clear for none can even see that the slant cut in single right-circular cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So they could never do a geometry proof of FTC even if they wanted to. For they have no logical geometry brain to begin to do anything geometrical. Is it that Andrew Wiles and Terence Tao cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Not having a Logical brain to do math, for any rational person would be upset by Wiles, Tao saying truth table of AND is TFFF when it actually is TTTF. Is that why neither Terence Tao or Andrew Wiles can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?
>
> Maybe they need to take up Earle Jones offer to wash dishes or pots at Stanford Univ or where ever, for they sure cannot do mathematics.
> Why are these people failures of Math?? For none can even contemplate these 4 questions.
>
> 1) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
> 2) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
> 3) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
> 4) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sap-heads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.
>
>
> Is Jim Holt, Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
> John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason, more of propagandists and belong in "Abnormal Psychology" dept than in the department of logic, like Dan Christensen a laugh a minute logician? Probably because none can admit slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, due to axes of symmetry for cone and oval have 1 while ellipse has 2. Why they cannot even count beyond 1. Yet their minds were never good enough to see the error nor admit to their mistakes. They failed logic so badly they accept Boole's insane AND truth table of TFFF when it is TTTF avoiding the painful 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Or is it because none of these logicians has a single marble of logic in their entire brain to realize calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not a "limit analysis" for analysis is like a measurement, not a proving exercise. Analysis does not prove, only adds data and facts, but never is a proof of itself. I analyze things daily, and none of which is a proof. So are all these logicians like what Clutterfreak the propaganda stooge says they are.
>
> 3rd published book
>
> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN : B07PLSDQWC
> • Publication date : March 11, 2019
> • Language : English
> • File size : 1621 KB
> • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> • Print length : 20 pages
> • Lending : Enabled
> •
> •
>
> Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
>
> Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
>
> In the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence proof. Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN : B081TWQ1G6
> • Publication date : November 21, 2019
> • Language : English
> • File size : 827 KB
> • Simultaneous device usage : Unlimited
> • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> • Screen Reader : Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> • Print length : 51 pages
> • Lending : Enabled
>
> #12-2, 11th published book
>
> World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
> Preface:
> Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
>
> Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.
>
> To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
>
> Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
>
>
> Product details
> ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
> Publication date : March 14, 2019
> Language : English
> File size : 1309 KB
> Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> Screen Reader : Supported
> Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> X-Ray : Not Enabled
> Word Wise : Not Enabled
> Print length : 154 pages
> Lending : Enabled
> Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> #2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> #134 in Calculus (Books)
> #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
Message has been deleted
markus...@gmail.com
Jul 13, 2023, 4:50:41 PM7/13/23
to
Eram semper recta
Jul 13, 2023, 4:52:28 PM7/13/23
to
markus...@gmail.com
Jul 14, 2023, 5:05:39 AM7/14/23
to
Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 14, 2023, 3:54:33 PM7/14/23
to
Andrew Wiles, Roger Penrose,Prof. Ursula Martin CBE FREng FRSE FBCS FIET FIMA Markus-- same situation in Sweden??? Huge list of math professors awarded and praised, yet not a single one cares or knows the truth of mathematics-- slant cut of cone is not an ellipse but is an Oval. No wonder students hate math, for the professors of math hate true math.
Is Roger Penrose not on the list, Andrew Wiles, because not only can Roger not do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, much less a valid proof, but that Roger Penrose cannot even tell apart a ellipse from Oval, for the slant cut of Cone is a Oval.
2-Kibo, is Andrew Wiles always wrong as you continually rant? Sure, Andrew cannot tell what a Oval is from ellipse and cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, let alone a valid proof, not the idiotic nonsense of a limit hornswaggle, but surely Andrew can at least tie his shoes without getting that wrong, surely.
People list
Academic Faculty
Prof. Luis Fernando Alday FRS
Prof. Konstantin Ardakov
Prof. Ruth Baker
Prof. Paul Neville Balister
Dr Murad Banaji
Prof. Christopher Beem
Prof. Dmitry Belyaev
Prof. Emmanuel Breuillard
Prof. Chris Breward
Prof. Martin Bridson FRS
Prof. Francis Brown
Prof. Helen Byrne
Prof. José A. Carrillo
Prof. Alvaro Cartea
Prof. Coralia Cartis
Prof. S. Jon Chapman
Prof. Gui-Qiang G. Chen
Prof. Dan Ciubotaru
Prof. Samuel Cohen
Prof. Rama Cont
Prof. Andrew Dancer
Prof. Xenia de la Ossa
Prof. Paul J. Dellar
Prof. Christopher Douglas
Prof. Cornelia Drutu
Prof. Marcus Du Sautoy FRS
Dr Richard Earl
Prof. Artur Ekert FRS
Prof. Radek Erban
Prof. Alison M Etheridge FRS
Prof. Doyne Farmer
Prof. Patrick Farrell
Prof. Victor Flynn
Prof. Eamonn Gaffney
Prof. Mike Giles
Dr Kathryn Gillow
Prof. Alain Goriely FRS
Prof. Ben J. Green FRS
Prof. Ian Griffiths
Prof. Peter Grindrod CBE
Prof. Massimiliano Gubinelli
Prof. Ben Hambly
Prof. Heather Harrington
Prof. Raphael Hauser
Prof. Andre Henriques
Prof. Ian Hewitt
Dr Christopher Hollings
Prof. Blanka Nora Horvath
Prof. Peter Howell
Prof. Sam Howison
Prof. Ehud Hrushovski FRS
Prof. Hanqing Jin
Prof. Dominic Joyce FRS
Prof. Andras Juhasz
Prof. Jon Keating FRS
Prof. Peter Keevash
Prof. Dawid Kielak
Prof. Frances Kirwan FRS
Prof. Jochen Koenigsmann
Prof. Yakov Kremnitzer
Prof. Jan Kristensen
Prof. Marc Lackenby
Prof. Renaud Lambiotte
Prof. Alan Lauder
Prof. Jason D Lotay
Prof. Terry Lyons FLSW FRSE FRS
Prof. Philip K. Maini FRS FMedSci FRSB
Prof. Lionel J Mason
Prof. James Maynard
Prof. Kevin McGerty
Prof. Mark Mezei
Prof. Andrea Mondino
Prof. Michael Monoyios
Prof. Irene Moroz
Prof. Derek Moulton
Prof. Andreas Münch
Prof. Yuji Nakatsukasa
Prof. Vidit Nanda
Dr James Newton
Prof. Luc Nguyen
Prof. Nikolay Nikolov
Prof. Harald Oberhauser
Prof. Jan Obloj
Prof. James Oliver
Prof. Panagiotis Papazoglou
Prof. Jonathan Pila FRS
Prof. Zhongmin Qian
Prof. Christoph Reisinger
Prof. Oliver Riordan
Prof. Alexander Ritter
Prof. Damian Charles Rössler
Prof. Melanie Rupflin
Prof. Tom Sanders
Prof. Sakura Schafer-Nameki
Prof. Alex Scott
Prof. Justin Sirignano
Prof. James Sparks
Prof. Endre Suli FRS
Prof. Jared Tanner
Prof. Ulrike Tillmann FRS
Prof. Nick Trefethen FRS
Dr Christoph Uhlemann
Prof. Dominic Vella
Dr Christopher Voyce
Prof. Qian Wang
Prof. Sarah Waters
Prof. Andrew Wathen
Prof. Stuart Andrew White
Prof. Sir Andrew Wiles FRS
Dr Catherine Wilkins
Emeritus
Dr David John Acheson
Prof. John E Allen
Dr David Allwright
Prof. Sir John Ball FRS
Prof. Charles Batty
Prof. Bryan Birch FRS
Prof. Philip Candelas FRS
Prof. Michael Collins
Dr Peter Collins
Dr William Alan Day
Dr Janet Dyson
Dr David Edwards
Dr Karin Erdmann
Dr Chris L. Farmer
Prof. Andrew Fowler
Prof. Ian Grant FRS
Dr Keith Hannabuss
Prof. Richard G Haydon
Prof. Roger Heath-Brown FRS
Prof. Nigel Hitchin FRS
Prof. Andrew Hodges
Prof. Ioan James FRS
Dr Glenys Luke
Prof. Ursula Martin CBE FREng FRSE FBCS FIET FIMA
Prof. Colin McDiarmid
Prof. Bill Morton
Prof. James D. Murray FRS, FRSE, FRSB
Dr John Norbury
Dr Hilary Ockendon
Prof. John R. Ockendon FRS
Prof. Colin Please
Prof. Hilary Priestley
Dr Christopher Prior
Prof. Subir Sarkar
Prof. Dan Segal
Dr Graeme Segal FRS
Prof. Gregory Seregin
Prof. Ian Sobey
Dr Brian Steer
Dr Brian Stewart
Prof. David Stirzaker
Sir Martin Taylor FRS
Prof. Paul Tod
Dr Tsou Sheung Tsun
Dr Graham Vincent-Smith
Prof. Dominic Welsh
Prof. J S Wilson
Prof. Nick Woodhouse
Prof. J.D. Maitland Wright
Prof. Boris Zilber
> Kibo-on Andrew Wiles math failure & mentally ill says Kibo while pounding his male rectum (so he says).
>
> On Friday, December 3, 1993 at 7:36:50 PM UTC-6, Andrew Wiles wrote:
> > In view of the speculation on the status of my work on the
>
> Andrew, will your entire life be that of fake and con-art math, or is there some room for growth and maturity-- slant cut of cone is Oval, not your mindless ellipse. And can you comprehend a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, or is your math all a waste, waste of time, waste of science?
>
> You are a failure Andrew Wiles of math, a utter low class failure. Why you are so stupid in math logic, you never even saw that Euler had no proof in exponent 3 for Euler forgot that a proof of exp 3 required him to prove all three A,B,C are not even numbers, no, Euler just was too dumb in logic same as you Andrew to realize he had to prove A,B,C were not all three even. And to put a finer point on it-- why you Andrew Wiles is a math failure, is that you are so stupid in geometry as to still think a slant cut of cone is a ellipse when it is a oval. That is probably why you could never do a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for how could you when you cannot tell apart a ellipse from a oval.
>
> Your FLT fakery of 1990s is just con-art-- not mathematics, for AP proved FLT in 1991, see below.
>
>
> Kibo Parry Moron-ey-Volney, why is this stalker arsewipe allowed to even post in sci.math or sci.physics, instead, he should be flushed down the toilet some 30 years ago.
> On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 10:03:19 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> >Re: Showing the flaws in Stewart,Fisher & Ziebur, Ellis & Gulick, Strang, Apostol of their fake proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus in AP's new book // Overhaul & Revitalization of Calculus// Math-psychology-sociology (Amazon's Kindle)
> > Botfly of Math and Blowfly of Physics
> >"mentally ill"
> > I Pound His Male Rectum
> > The Delicious Rump Man
>
> AP wrote this for his new book: Overhaul & Revitalization of Calculus// Math-psychology-sociology
> by Archimedes Plutonium
>
> Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> 1:20 PM, July 1, 2023
>
>
>
> to Plutonium Atom Universe
> Everytime AP goes over his science and math, some new item comes up that I can elaborate and detail more about.
>
> In this diagram proof below, the A and B are discrete points of the Function Graph Curve with no numbers existing between A and B, and the midpoint "m" is fetched by hauling in higher Grid systems. Every number in Decimal Grid systems all the way out to infinity borderline 1*10^604 is ending in nothing but 0 digits, which insures a midpoint.
>
> What is so fantastically different from AP's New Math proof of FTC, which Old Math could never handle, is that the derivative is actually part and parcel the same as the Function Graph Curve.
>
> In all my proofs of FTC, I never showed the reverse of starting with a rectangular cell and then building the Function Graph Curve from the rectangle. Instead I showed just the trapezoid with the derivative inside as the right-traingle sitting atop the midpoint then swiveling-down the right-triangle to form the integral rectangle.
>
>
> From this:
> B
> /|
> / |
> m /----|
> / |
> |A |
> |____|
>
> To this:
>
> __m__
> | |
> | |
> | |
> ---------
>
> Now, let me start with a integral rectangle for a specific Grid System. Let me say I chose the Grid System to be 1000, then each cell along the x-axis is a width of 0.001 wide. Now how far out do I need to go to borrow to cover all midpoints? Well, for 0 to 0.001, I need 0.0005 to have a midpoint. Is that as far as I need to go? Will the 10,000 Grid System cover all midpoints?? Suppose I had 1.333, is the 10,000 Grid sufficient in borrowing? That comes to 0.6665 and so far so good.
>
> So I have these cells all up and down the x-axis, and reaching all the way to 1000 on the y-axis. I do not even have a function yet that is going to criss-cross through all the widths resting on the x-axis. I do not know what the function is that the mathematics-god is going to give me to plot. Now the math-god hands me the function x^2 --> Y.
>
> Alright, now I fill each empty cell.
>
> Each cell is looking like this empty rectangle only very tall and thin as the height is 1000 and the width is 0.001.
>
> __m__
> | |
> | |
> | |
> ---------
>
>
> And I focus on the cell from 1 to 1.001. I could pick any cell, but I chose a cell to avoid a fraction only cell, a cell away from 1. For I am teaching and students have a hard time of numbers that are fractions only-- those numbers between 0 and 1. So I chose a number equal or after 1.
>
> __m__
> | |
> | |
> | |
> ---------
> 1 1.001
>
> Now I apply the function that the math-god gave me. I apply x^2 --> Y.
>
> For 1 the x^2 is 1.
>
> For 1.001 the x^2 is 1.002001.
>
> In other words, I had the integral rectangle before I had the function itself, and now I graph that function.
>
> Now I draw in that cell the A = 1 and the B = 1.002001. My cell looks like this.
>
>
> B
> /|
> / |
> m /----|
> / |
> |A |
> |____|
>
>
> The midpoint of my cell "m" is 2 divided into 2.001 = 1.0005. I carved into the side wall of the integral rectangle to fetch a right triangle whose vertex points are A, and m, and B was where A is.
>
> Now I fill in the actual function graph curve that runs through my cell, as a derivative that is a straightline segment that goes from (1,1) to (1,1.002001).
>
> This is True Calculus, where the derivative and the function graph curve are the same thing.
>
> In Old Math, their derivative was an alien tangent line to a curve graph at a point.
>
> In New True Math, the derivative and the function graph curve are one and the same.
>
> The Reason, the Utter Reason calculus is so Valuable as a math tool is that given A, it predicts what B is going to be. For heaven's sake, that is why calculus is so valuable to physics law, it tells the physics law, given A, the derivative predicts B.
>
> Old Math professors of math are fools and village idiots that think a tangent to a point on a curved graph predicts anything, only shows us how empty headed they are in logic, Old Math professors have no logical marbles of a brain when it comes to calculus, for a tangent is not going to predict the next point of the Function graph curve.
>
> AP, King of Science, especially Physics & Logic
>
> My 245th published book of science
>
>
> Overhaul & Revitalization of Calculus// Math-psychology-sociology
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
>
>
> Preface: The purpose of this book is to move the dial on calculus education to where all of mathematics is easy, simple, clear, and understandable to even High School students. Where calculus is taught in early High School. All of this is possible when mistakes are corrected in Old Math. And when those mistakes are corrected, it is seen that calculus is just a tiny bit harder than learning the 4 operators of math-- add, subtract, multiply, divide. The last two operators of math are derivative and integral and not much harder to learn than add, subtract, multiply, divide. Provided, Old Math mistakes are corrected and or thrown out. We throw out the Reals as numbers of math and replace them with Decimal Grid Numbers. We throw out all functions of math, except polynomial functions. Anything else that looks like a function, we have to convert to a polynomial, first, over a interval, and then we can work with it. When we do this, and a little more, we end up with a mathematics and a calculus that is ultra simple, ultra easy, ultra clear, and fun to work with. But because of the psychology of math professors and the social environment of math careers, we have this ugly mess of math and especially calculus as torture chambers, nightmares and nervous breakdowns. So horrid has math education become, that most students steer clear of mathematics. When in truth, once the errors of Old Math are fixed, that math is really the easiest of the physical sciences. It is the psychology and sociology that has made math the worst science and filled with error.
>
>
> Cover Picture: My cover picture is my iphone photograph of my own handwriting of Decimal Grid Numbers, the numbers that replace the Reals of Old Math, plus the types of polynomials, sitting a-top a sheet of graphing paper. Those three dots after the numbers and polynomials means they continue and I have room to show only three kinds. Calculus is after all, a science of geometry for derivative is rate of change of dy to dx, and integral is after-all the area under the function graph.
>
>
> Product details
> • ASIN : B0C9P5F755
> • Publication date : June 27, 2023
> • Language : English
> • File size : 530 KB
> • Print length : 116 pages
>
>
> My 6th published book
>
> World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
>
> Last revision was 29Apr2021. This is AP's 6th published book.
>
> Preface: Truthful proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem// including the fake Euler proof in exp3 and Wiles fake proof.
>
> Recap summary: In 1993 I proved Fermat's Last Theorem with a pure algebra proof, arguing that because of the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4 that this special feature of a unique number 4, allows for there to exist solutions to A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That the number 4 is a basis vector allowing more solutions to exist in exponent 2. But since there is no number with N+N+N = N*N*N that exists, there cannot be a solution in exp3 and the same argument for higher exponents. In 2014, I went and proved Generalized FLT by using "condensed rectangles". Once I had proven Generalized, then Regular FLT comes out of that proof as a simple corollary. So I had two proofs of Regular FLT, pure algebra and a corollary from Generalized FLT. Then recently in 2019, I sought to find a pure algebra proof of Generalized FLT, and I believe I accomplished that also by showing solutions to Generalized FLT also come from the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4. Amazing how so much math comes from the specialness of 4, where I argue that a Vector Space of multiplication provides the Generalized FLT of A^x + B^y = C^z.
>
> Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem type of equations.
>
> As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).
>
> Product details
> • ASIN : B07PQKGW4M
> • Publication date : March 12, 2019
> • Language : English
> • File size : 1503 KB
> • Best Sellers Rank: #4,327,817 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #589 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
> ◦ #3,085 in Number Theory (Books)
>
> AP, King of Science, especially Physics and Logic
>
> On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 8:03:22 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> >"Imp of Science"
> > "always wrong"
>
> P.S. AP suspects that someone in the Kibo gang of stalkers has again hacked and disabled AP's music sound, for it was 5 minutes into a reply of Kibo, that my sound went off. The gang needs jail time.
>
> On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 3:26:59 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> >"always wrong"
Is Roger Penrose not on the list, Andrew Wiles, because not only can Roger not do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, much less a valid proof, but that Roger Penrose cannot even tell apart a ellipse from Oval, for the slant cut of Cone is a Oval.
2-Kibo, is Andrew Wiles always wrong as you continually rant? Sure, Andrew cannot tell what a Oval is from ellipse and cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, let alone a valid proof, not the idiotic nonsense of a limit hornswaggle, but surely Andrew can at least tie his shoes without getting that wrong, surely.
People list
Academic Faculty
Prof. Luis Fernando Alday FRS
Prof. Konstantin Ardakov
Prof. Ruth Baker
Prof. Paul Neville Balister
Dr Murad Banaji
Prof. Christopher Beem
Prof. Dmitry Belyaev
Prof. Emmanuel Breuillard
Prof. Chris Breward
Prof. Martin Bridson FRS
Prof. Francis Brown
Prof. Helen Byrne
Prof. José A. Carrillo
Prof. Alvaro Cartea
Prof. Coralia Cartis
Prof. S. Jon Chapman
Prof. Gui-Qiang G. Chen
Prof. Dan Ciubotaru
Prof. Samuel Cohen
Prof. Rama Cont
Prof. Andrew Dancer
Prof. Xenia de la Ossa
Prof. Paul J. Dellar
Prof. Christopher Douglas
Prof. Cornelia Drutu
Prof. Marcus Du Sautoy FRS
Dr Richard Earl
Prof. Artur Ekert FRS
Prof. Radek Erban
Prof. Alison M Etheridge FRS
Prof. Doyne Farmer
Prof. Patrick Farrell
Prof. Victor Flynn
Prof. Eamonn Gaffney
Prof. Mike Giles
Dr Kathryn Gillow
Prof. Alain Goriely FRS
Prof. Ben J. Green FRS
Prof. Ian Griffiths
Prof. Peter Grindrod CBE
Prof. Massimiliano Gubinelli
Prof. Ben Hambly
Prof. Heather Harrington
Prof. Raphael Hauser
Prof. Andre Henriques
Prof. Ian Hewitt
Dr Christopher Hollings
Prof. Blanka Nora Horvath
Prof. Peter Howell
Prof. Sam Howison
Prof. Ehud Hrushovski FRS
Prof. Hanqing Jin
Prof. Dominic Joyce FRS
Prof. Andras Juhasz
Prof. Jon Keating FRS
Prof. Peter Keevash
Prof. Dawid Kielak
Prof. Frances Kirwan FRS
Prof. Jochen Koenigsmann
Prof. Yakov Kremnitzer
Prof. Jan Kristensen
Prof. Marc Lackenby
Prof. Renaud Lambiotte
Prof. Alan Lauder
Prof. Jason D Lotay
Prof. Terry Lyons FLSW FRSE FRS
Prof. Philip K. Maini FRS FMedSci FRSB
Prof. Lionel J Mason
Prof. James Maynard
Prof. Kevin McGerty
Prof. Mark Mezei
Prof. Andrea Mondino
Prof. Michael Monoyios
Prof. Irene Moroz
Prof. Derek Moulton
Prof. Andreas Münch
Prof. Yuji Nakatsukasa
Prof. Vidit Nanda
Dr James Newton
Prof. Luc Nguyen
Prof. Nikolay Nikolov
Prof. Harald Oberhauser
Prof. Jan Obloj
Prof. James Oliver
Prof. Panagiotis Papazoglou
Prof. Jonathan Pila FRS
Prof. Zhongmin Qian
Prof. Christoph Reisinger
Prof. Oliver Riordan
Prof. Alexander Ritter
Prof. Damian Charles Rössler
Prof. Melanie Rupflin
Prof. Tom Sanders
Prof. Sakura Schafer-Nameki
Prof. Alex Scott
Prof. Justin Sirignano
Prof. James Sparks
Prof. Endre Suli FRS
Prof. Jared Tanner
Prof. Ulrike Tillmann FRS
Prof. Nick Trefethen FRS
Dr Christoph Uhlemann
Prof. Dominic Vella
Dr Christopher Voyce
Prof. Qian Wang
Prof. Sarah Waters
Prof. Andrew Wathen
Prof. Stuart Andrew White
Prof. Sir Andrew Wiles FRS
Dr Catherine Wilkins
Emeritus
Dr David John Acheson
Prof. John E Allen
Dr David Allwright
Prof. Sir John Ball FRS
Prof. Charles Batty
Prof. Bryan Birch FRS
Prof. Philip Candelas FRS
Prof. Michael Collins
Dr Peter Collins
Dr William Alan Day
Dr Janet Dyson
Dr David Edwards
Dr Karin Erdmann
Dr Chris L. Farmer
Prof. Andrew Fowler
Prof. Ian Grant FRS
Dr Keith Hannabuss
Prof. Richard G Haydon
Prof. Roger Heath-Brown FRS
Prof. Nigel Hitchin FRS
Prof. Andrew Hodges
Prof. Ioan James FRS
Dr Glenys Luke
Prof. Ursula Martin CBE FREng FRSE FBCS FIET FIMA
Prof. Colin McDiarmid
Prof. Bill Morton
Prof. James D. Murray FRS, FRSE, FRSB
Dr John Norbury
Dr Hilary Ockendon
Prof. John R. Ockendon FRS
Prof. Colin Please
Prof. Hilary Priestley
Dr Christopher Prior
Prof. Subir Sarkar
Prof. Dan Segal
Dr Graeme Segal FRS
Prof. Gregory Seregin
Prof. Ian Sobey
Dr Brian Steer
Dr Brian Stewart
Prof. David Stirzaker
Sir Martin Taylor FRS
Prof. Paul Tod
Dr Tsou Sheung Tsun
Dr Graham Vincent-Smith
Prof. Dominic Welsh
Prof. J S Wilson
Prof. Nick Woodhouse
Prof. J.D. Maitland Wright
Prof. Boris Zilber
> Kibo-on Andrew Wiles math failure & mentally ill says Kibo while pounding his male rectum (so he says).
>
> On Friday, December 3, 1993 at 7:36:50 PM UTC-6, Andrew Wiles wrote:
> > In view of the speculation on the status of my work on the
>
> Andrew, will your entire life be that of fake and con-art math, or is there some room for growth and maturity-- slant cut of cone is Oval, not your mindless ellipse. And can you comprehend a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, or is your math all a waste, waste of time, waste of science?
>
> You are a failure Andrew Wiles of math, a utter low class failure. Why you are so stupid in math logic, you never even saw that Euler had no proof in exponent 3 for Euler forgot that a proof of exp 3 required him to prove all three A,B,C are not even numbers, no, Euler just was too dumb in logic same as you Andrew to realize he had to prove A,B,C were not all three even. And to put a finer point on it-- why you Andrew Wiles is a math failure, is that you are so stupid in geometry as to still think a slant cut of cone is a ellipse when it is a oval. That is probably why you could never do a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for how could you when you cannot tell apart a ellipse from a oval.
>
> Your FLT fakery of 1990s is just con-art-- not mathematics, for AP proved FLT in 1991, see below.
>
>
> Kibo Parry Moron-ey-Volney, why is this stalker arsewipe allowed to even post in sci.math or sci.physics, instead, he should be flushed down the toilet some 30 years ago.
> On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 10:03:19 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> >Re: Showing the flaws in Stewart,Fisher & Ziebur, Ellis & Gulick, Strang, Apostol of their fake proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus in AP's new book // Overhaul & Revitalization of Calculus// Math-psychology-sociology (Amazon's Kindle)
> > Botfly of Math and Blowfly of Physics
> >"mentally ill"
> > I Pound His Male Rectum
> > The Delicious Rump Man
>
> AP wrote this for his new book: Overhaul & Revitalization of Calculus// Math-psychology-sociology
> by Archimedes Plutonium
>
> Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> 1:20 PM, July 1, 2023
>
>
>
> to Plutonium Atom Universe
> Everytime AP goes over his science and math, some new item comes up that I can elaborate and detail more about.
>
> In this diagram proof below, the A and B are discrete points of the Function Graph Curve with no numbers existing between A and B, and the midpoint "m" is fetched by hauling in higher Grid systems. Every number in Decimal Grid systems all the way out to infinity borderline 1*10^604 is ending in nothing but 0 digits, which insures a midpoint.
>
> What is so fantastically different from AP's New Math proof of FTC, which Old Math could never handle, is that the derivative is actually part and parcel the same as the Function Graph Curve.
>
> In all my proofs of FTC, I never showed the reverse of starting with a rectangular cell and then building the Function Graph Curve from the rectangle. Instead I showed just the trapezoid with the derivative inside as the right-traingle sitting atop the midpoint then swiveling-down the right-triangle to form the integral rectangle.
>
>
> From this:
> B
> /|
> / |
> m /----|
> / |
> |A |
> |____|
>
> To this:
>
> __m__
> | |
> | |
> | |
> ---------
>
> Now, let me start with a integral rectangle for a specific Grid System. Let me say I chose the Grid System to be 1000, then each cell along the x-axis is a width of 0.001 wide. Now how far out do I need to go to borrow to cover all midpoints? Well, for 0 to 0.001, I need 0.0005 to have a midpoint. Is that as far as I need to go? Will the 10,000 Grid System cover all midpoints?? Suppose I had 1.333, is the 10,000 Grid sufficient in borrowing? That comes to 0.6665 and so far so good.
>
> So I have these cells all up and down the x-axis, and reaching all the way to 1000 on the y-axis. I do not even have a function yet that is going to criss-cross through all the widths resting on the x-axis. I do not know what the function is that the mathematics-god is going to give me to plot. Now the math-god hands me the function x^2 --> Y.
>
> Alright, now I fill each empty cell.
>
> Each cell is looking like this empty rectangle only very tall and thin as the height is 1000 and the width is 0.001.
>
> __m__
> | |
> | |
> | |
> ---------
>
>
> And I focus on the cell from 1 to 1.001. I could pick any cell, but I chose a cell to avoid a fraction only cell, a cell away from 1. For I am teaching and students have a hard time of numbers that are fractions only-- those numbers between 0 and 1. So I chose a number equal or after 1.
>
> __m__
> | |
> | |
> | |
> ---------
> 1 1.001
>
> Now I apply the function that the math-god gave me. I apply x^2 --> Y.
>
> For 1 the x^2 is 1.
>
> For 1.001 the x^2 is 1.002001.
>
> In other words, I had the integral rectangle before I had the function itself, and now I graph that function.
>
> Now I draw in that cell the A = 1 and the B = 1.002001. My cell looks like this.
>
>
> B
> /|
> / |
> m /----|
> / |
> |A |
> |____|
>
>
> The midpoint of my cell "m" is 2 divided into 2.001 = 1.0005. I carved into the side wall of the integral rectangle to fetch a right triangle whose vertex points are A, and m, and B was where A is.
>
> Now I fill in the actual function graph curve that runs through my cell, as a derivative that is a straightline segment that goes from (1,1) to (1,1.002001).
>
> This is True Calculus, where the derivative and the function graph curve are the same thing.
>
> In Old Math, their derivative was an alien tangent line to a curve graph at a point.
>
> In New True Math, the derivative and the function graph curve are one and the same.
>
> The Reason, the Utter Reason calculus is so Valuable as a math tool is that given A, it predicts what B is going to be. For heaven's sake, that is why calculus is so valuable to physics law, it tells the physics law, given A, the derivative predicts B.
>
> Old Math professors of math are fools and village idiots that think a tangent to a point on a curved graph predicts anything, only shows us how empty headed they are in logic, Old Math professors have no logical marbles of a brain when it comes to calculus, for a tangent is not going to predict the next point of the Function graph curve.
>
> AP, King of Science, especially Physics & Logic
>
> My 245th published book of science
>
>
> Overhaul & Revitalization of Calculus// Math-psychology-sociology
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
>
>
> Preface: The purpose of this book is to move the dial on calculus education to where all of mathematics is easy, simple, clear, and understandable to even High School students. Where calculus is taught in early High School. All of this is possible when mistakes are corrected in Old Math. And when those mistakes are corrected, it is seen that calculus is just a tiny bit harder than learning the 4 operators of math-- add, subtract, multiply, divide. The last two operators of math are derivative and integral and not much harder to learn than add, subtract, multiply, divide. Provided, Old Math mistakes are corrected and or thrown out. We throw out the Reals as numbers of math and replace them with Decimal Grid Numbers. We throw out all functions of math, except polynomial functions. Anything else that looks like a function, we have to convert to a polynomial, first, over a interval, and then we can work with it. When we do this, and a little more, we end up with a mathematics and a calculus that is ultra simple, ultra easy, ultra clear, and fun to work with. But because of the psychology of math professors and the social environment of math careers, we have this ugly mess of math and especially calculus as torture chambers, nightmares and nervous breakdowns. So horrid has math education become, that most students steer clear of mathematics. When in truth, once the errors of Old Math are fixed, that math is really the easiest of the physical sciences. It is the psychology and sociology that has made math the worst science and filled with error.
>
>
> Cover Picture: My cover picture is my iphone photograph of my own handwriting of Decimal Grid Numbers, the numbers that replace the Reals of Old Math, plus the types of polynomials, sitting a-top a sheet of graphing paper. Those three dots after the numbers and polynomials means they continue and I have room to show only three kinds. Calculus is after all, a science of geometry for derivative is rate of change of dy to dx, and integral is after-all the area under the function graph.
>
>
> Product details
> • ASIN : B0C9P5F755
> • Publication date : June 27, 2023
> • Language : English
> • File size : 530 KB
> • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> • Screen Reader : Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> • Sticky notes : On Kindle Scribe
> • Screen Reader : Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> • Print length : 116 pages
>
>
> My 6th published book
>
> World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
>
> Last revision was 29Apr2021. This is AP's 6th published book.
>
> Preface: Truthful proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem// including the fake Euler proof in exp3 and Wiles fake proof.
>
> Recap summary: In 1993 I proved Fermat's Last Theorem with a pure algebra proof, arguing that because of the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4 that this special feature of a unique number 4, allows for there to exist solutions to A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That the number 4 is a basis vector allowing more solutions to exist in exponent 2. But since there is no number with N+N+N = N*N*N that exists, there cannot be a solution in exp3 and the same argument for higher exponents. In 2014, I went and proved Generalized FLT by using "condensed rectangles". Once I had proven Generalized, then Regular FLT comes out of that proof as a simple corollary. So I had two proofs of Regular FLT, pure algebra and a corollary from Generalized FLT. Then recently in 2019, I sought to find a pure algebra proof of Generalized FLT, and I believe I accomplished that also by showing solutions to Generalized FLT also come from the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4. Amazing how so much math comes from the specialness of 4, where I argue that a Vector Space of multiplication provides the Generalized FLT of A^x + B^y = C^z.
>
> Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem type of equations.
>
> As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).
>
> Product details
> • ASIN : B07PQKGW4M
> • Publication date : March 12, 2019
> • Language : English
> • File size : 1503 KB
> • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> • Screen Reader : Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> • Print length : 156 pages
> • Screen Reader : Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> • Best Sellers Rank: #4,327,817 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #589 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
> ◦ #3,085 in Number Theory (Books)
>
> AP, King of Science, especially Physics and Logic
>
> On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 8:03:22 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> >"Imp of Science"
> > "always wrong"
>
> P.S. AP suspects that someone in the Kibo gang of stalkers has again hacked and disabled AP's music sound, for it was 5 minutes into a reply of Kibo, that my sound went off. The gang needs jail time.
>
> On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 3:26:59 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> >"always wrong"
Archimedes Plutonium
Aug 3, 2023, 6:18:32 PM8/3/23
to
Can_Dr.Max Tegmark,King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden,Dr.Paul Crutzen,Dr.Tony Hansson, Stockholm Univ --Please- please-step into the Stockholm Univ physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. Once weighed the hydrogen test tube should be 1/4 the weight of the oxygen test tube for H4O but if mainstream chemistry is correct then 1/8 atomic mass units. My weighing scales do not go up to 0.00001 gram, and sure that Stockholm has far better precision. Thanks , much appreciated, especially the King of Sweden.
> > Markus endless spam freak
>
> Jew Lover's profile photo
> Jew Lover
> , …
> markus...@gmail.com
> 92
> unread,
> I am the terror of mainstream academic cranks who call themselves professors of mathematics.
> 9:08 AM
>
> Eram semper recta's profile photo
> Eram semper recta
> , …
> markus...@gmail.com
> 85
> unread,
> 4 February 2022: New visitors to sci.math: What a degree from Oops-Allah (Uppsala) university might get you: (2x5)/2 means 2 is a factor of 5.
> 9:04 AM
>
>
> This conversation has been hidden because you reported it for abuse.
> Eram semper recta's profile photo
> Eram semper recta
> , …
> markus...@gmail.com
> 14
> Macademics (non-mathematicians) are morons.
> torsdag 3 augusti 2023 kl. 13:14:03 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta: > On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at
> 7:48 AM
>
> Eram semper recta's profile photo
> Eram semper recta
> , …
> markus...@gmail.com
> 72
> unread,
> Want to know what is a factor in mathematics?
> torsdag 3 augusti 2023 kl. 13:11:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta: > On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at
> 7:46 AM
>
Stockholm Univ physics
Tony Hansson, Markus Hennrich, Tommy Ohlsson, Paul Crutzen,
Swedish physics, et al
Bo Thide, Max Tegmark, Cecilia Jarlskog, Lars Bergstrom, Lars Samuelson
Anders Flodstrom, Hans Ryde, Anders Barany, Gunnar von Heijne
Claes-Goran Granqvist, Joakim Edsjo, Carl Falthammar, Sven Hansson, Arne Kaijser
Pres. Sigbritt Karlsson (KTH)
University Gothenburg
Bernt Wennberg
Aila Sarkka
Univ Stockholm Physics dept
Gunnar Benediktsson, Clas Blomberg, Bo Cartling
Olle Edholm, Goran Grimvall, Goran Lindblad
Hakan Snellman, Jouko Mickelsson, Anders Rosengren
John Rundgren
> > > > > > > +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within
> > > >
> > > > > > > +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3m views Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In Old Chemistry and Old Physics, their subatomic particles were do nothing and no function and no job particles that sit around as balls or whiz around the outside of balls doing nothing but pointless circling.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In New Physics and New Chemistry-- All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. Every subatomic particle has a job a function a purpose as to the Laws of Electromagnetism--- Faraday law, Coulomb law, Ampere law, Capacitor law.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A proton is a torus of 840MeV with 840 windings, while the muon is the true electron of Atoms and is encased inside the proton torus thrusting through and producing electricity-- magnetic monopoles.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The neutron of Atoms is a parallel plate capacitor storing the electricity of proton+muon and is skin cover on the outside of the proton torus in the form of parallel plates.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can hydrogen be a Atom if it is just a proton+muon? No, all atoms require to have a capacitor such as at least one neutron. Thus the Hydrogen Atom is H2 where you have 2 proton+muon where 1 of the 2 proton+muon acts like a neutron to the other proton+muon. Thus, water molecule is not H2O but rather is H4O.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > AP is waiting for experimental chemists and physicists to prove him correct that Water is H4O.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In the meantime we have Hydroxyl which in Old Chemistry, especially Biology is OH, while AP says that is wrong and that is really H2O.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now glycerine is a hydroxyl with formula C3H8O3. And what I am thinking at this moment, is that hydroxyls will be an easier proof that Water is truly H4O, rather than wait for experimentalists to actually "weigh the electrolysis test tubes of oxygen and hydrogen".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You see, with H4O as water, glycerine is C3(2 waters)O with an extra oxygen. If Water is H2O then glycerine is C3(4 waters) deficit O. It is missing an oxygen if water is H2O.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The reason glycerine is so effective as a skin ointment is because it has glycerine, the extra O oxygen. If water were H2O, then glycerine would be a missing oxygen and not a skin lotion that works, but makes skin even more dry.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > 12:24 AM (13 hours ago)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---
> > > > > > > Perhaps there is only two Faraday laws on Electrolysis. I am looking at the one that states: Faraday's first law of electrolysis relates the mass of a substance liberated (or deposited) at an electrode to the electric charge used (Q). A proportionality constant Z can be used:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > m = ZQ = (E/96485)(Q)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > m = mass, Q = total charge rewritten as Q = I*t amperes x time in seconds.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This website gives an example: 5amps passed through molten Sodium Chloride for 3 hours. Calculate the mass of Sodium. E=23/1.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > m = (23/96485) (5) (3*60*60) approx 12.87 grams.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- end quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now has such a experiment been performed on Water to see how much atomic mass of hydrogen and of oxygen results??? If AP is correct, the formula of water is H4O, if Old Physics, Old Chemistry is correct the formula is H2O. So which is it???
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > AP
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, sorry no, Faraday's Law of Electrolysis is not going to tell the correct mass of hydrogen.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Reading Wikipedia on Faraday's Electrolysis law.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- quoting Wikipedia ---
> > > > > > > A monovalent ion requires 1 electron for discharge, a divalent ion requires 2 electrons for discharge and so on. Thus, if x electrons flow,
> > > > > > > x/v atoms are discharged.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So the mass m discharged is
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > m= (xM)/vN_A) = (QM)/(eN_A *v) = (QM) / (vF)
> > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > N_A is the Avogadro constant;
> > > > > > > Q = xe is the total charge, equal to the number of electrons (x) times the elementary charge e;
> > > > > > > F is the Faraday constant.
> > > > > > > --- end quoting Wikipedia ---
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, the Faraday law of Electrolysis will not work on water with a correct answer, because H is not an atom but H2 is an Atom. And where one of the proton+muon converts to being a neutron to the other proton+muon.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So if Faraday's law of Electrolysis was applied to water, thinking it would deliver a true answer is mistaken because the one H converts to neutron.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So it appears that we need to directly measure the test tube of oxygen and the test tube of hydrogen by a direct mass measurement.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > AP
> > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > 1:14 AM (12 hours ago)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > > > > > I doubt we can measure a test tube of hydrogen or test tube of oxygen, too small to determine the mass on some sort of weight scale.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But here is a possible lucrative idea. We should be able to get pure deuterium water. Then run the electrolysis. Collect the test tubes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now have some sort of balancing beam weight scale. Place the regular water of hydrogen test tube on one side, and place the deuterium water hydrogen test tube on other side. If they stay balanced, then AP is correct and Water is really H4O.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > AP
> > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > 1:48 AM (11 hours ago)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > > > > > Cosmic Rays from Sun
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 90% of Sun's cosmic rays are 840MeV proton+muon inside = H. The hydrogen Atom is H2 where one of the H proton+muon converts to being a neutron.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When these proton+muon hit Earth atmosphere, they can turn into pions and muons.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I commented that H alone is a subatomic particle and that makes sense in the idea that Sun's cosmic rays are 90% these proton+muon.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now is interstellar hydrogen H2 and intergalactic hydrogen H2 formed when one H cosmic ray joins up with another H cosmic ray to form H2 atom?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is this how we get H2 in outer space? From the splitting apart of H2 into H cosmic rays?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So how much of the Sun's hydrogen is H2 and how much is H ready to join with another H and reform back into H2. Probably little of the Sun's H is H alone, and the vast majority of the Sun's hydrogen is H2.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How much deuterium in the Sun? And it is a higher percentage than the deuterium in water on Earth?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > AP
> > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > 3:11 AM (10 hours ago)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > > > > > Water is the only known non-metallic substance that expands when if freezes; its density decreases and it expands approximately 9% by volume. (Source: web Lunar and Planetary Institute)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have to wait for experimental chemists and physicists to weigh the mass of test tubes from electrolysis, as to the verdict-- water is H4O.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But until that news comes in, I will look for other means of proof.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So AP says that the H2 is not a molecule but is the hydrogen Atom itself, where one proton+muon converts to a neutron and capacitates the other proton+muon which undergo the Faraday law.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are subatomic particles of H in the form of Cosmic Rays from the Sun, but most of the Sun's hydrogen is H2, and flips back and forth from H to rejoining to form H2. Some gets away from the Sun and is cosmic rays.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But H2 is an Atom and H is a fleeting subatomic particle.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So can I prove Water is H4O from the data of Spectral lines of H2 is the same as deuterium, only slight difference is that the deuterium is a full fledged neutron not a makeshift proton+muon of H.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I suspect that special trait of water freezing is a proof that Water is H4O. Because the 840MeV proton torus with muon inside doing the Faraday law acting as a makeshift neutron capacitor for the other 840MeV proton torus with muon inside, is where H2 gets that expansion characteristic.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A neutron is a parallel plate capacitor and those plates can expand when frozen temperature occurs. As the temperature gets colder, those plates move further apart.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now does deuterium which truly has a full neutron, does it expand also when frozen?? If so, does it expand as much as H2 which is 2 protons with 2 muons inside?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So comparing the freezing and expansion of the parallel plates of a neutron in deuterium with the freezing and expansion of one of the proton+muon that is acting as a makeshift neutron in H2.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If I can numbers correlate the H2 expansion with the Deuterium expansion would be a alternative proof that Water is really H4O and not H2O.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > AP
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > So now on Blankenship's book "Molecular Mechanisms of Photosynthesis", 2014, page 134, shows The structure of ATP, ADP, AMP. And within that structure are OH hydroxyls.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In New Chemistry, water is truly H4O, and where hydroxyls are now H2O. And we have first proof of this in the Figure 8.1 of Blankenship's "Chemical structure of ATP".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For in the lower left corner of the diagram, Blankenship has a H+ all alone, (really a mindless error) and has P surrounded by O-, O-, O and OH. The OH is really H2O for hydroxyls are H2O and water itself is H4O, and that would leave that mindless H+ as being hydrogen Atom of H2.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The world of physics and chemistry should drop what they are doing and weigh the electrolysis test tube of hydrogen and oxygen to discover the correct true formula of water is H4O.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > AP is total confident, becuase an Atom cannot exist if it has no capacitor structure such as a neutron, or one of the H in H2 acting as a neutron. I am totally confident that Water formula is truly H4O. And I need look only to methane of H4C, to realize that there is no HC, no H2C, no H3C, but starts with H4C, and that tells me water starts with H4O. Totally confident that Old Chemistry, Old Physics did electrolysis experiments and the moment they saw hydrogen test tube be 2x volume of oxygen test tube, they dropped their work and went out for a Danish and coffee break, rather than finish their work--- actual physics weighing of atomic mass units (not the Faraday electrolysis law for it does not apply to water).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When water electrolysis is physics weighed, AP is confident that there are 4H per every one oxygen O. And that Water is truly H4O.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > AP, King of Science
> > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > > > > 9:34 AM (15 minutes ago)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 8:56:57 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > > > > > Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now modern day physics and chemist experimenters can really do a marvelous job if they wanted to. For they could freeze the test tubes of oxygen and hydrogen to where they are liquid and compare liquids from water electrolysis.
> > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > > > > 10:01 AM (5 hours ago)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > So, what AP is saying here is that we do electrolysis of water. We collect the two test tubes, one with oxygen the other with hydrogen.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To prove Water is truly the formula H4O and not H2O we must weigh the masses of the two tubes to find that the ratio is 1 x 16amu to 4 x 1amu.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The silly grotesque science error of the past was to look at volumes in the two test tubes-- "Hey-- the hydrogen is twice the volume of oxygen so the formula of water is H2O".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, way was that science good practice. For the correct formula of water needs to be measured by mass, by atomic mass units where Oxygen is 16amu and hydrogen is 1amu.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I suspect a balance beam scale is good enough to see the hydrogen test tube will be 1/4 as massive as the oxygen test tube. To get within precision of electronic weighing scale of 0.00001 gram we just have to make a larger test tube of electrolysis of water.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > AP is betting that the readings will be hydrogen test tube 1/4 the mass of oxygen test tube proving Water formula is truly H4O.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Old Physics and Old Chemistry is betting that the mass experiment will have the hydrogen test tube be 1/8 the mass of the oxygen test tube, proving Water formula is H2O.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > AP does not have these precision equipment to conduct an at-home experiment of this nature.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > AP
> > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > > > > 12:38 PM (4 hours ago)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > So, once Water is found to actually be H4O, not H2O, we move on to methane, and ask the same question of its hydrogen bonds. Is Methane really that of H8C and not H4C.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well, looking in the literature for anomalies to methane, I come across a arXiv "Low and high-temperature anomalies in the physical properties of solid methane "The anomalous behavior of thermodynamic, spectral, plastic, elastic and some other properties of solid methane is discussed near 20.48K and...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > AP wonders: if they can get methane to solid form, well, I am then hopeful that the mass of the molecule can be determined. Because if methane is truly H8C, that difference of H4 in atomic mass units would be very much noticeable difference.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Chemistry Europe--
> > > > > > > "The Anomalous Deuterium Isotope Effect in the NMR Spectrum of Methane...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > P Vermeeren, 2023
> > > > > > > "The abnormally long and weak methylidyne C-H bond.."
> > > > > > > "The C-H bond of the methylidyne radical, CH*, is abnormally long and weak, even longer and..."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > AP asks, are these anomalies solved if we consider methane is actually H8C and not H4C?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > AP
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My 250th published book.
> > > >
> > > > TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY; H2 is the hydrogen Atom and water is H4O, not H2O// Chemistry
> > > >
> > > > Preface: This is my 250th book of science, and the first of my textbooks on Teaching True Chemistry. I have completed the Teaching True Physics and the Teaching True Mathematics textbook series. But had not yet started on a Teaching True Chemistry textbook series. What got me started on this project is the fact that no chemistry textbook had the correct formula for water which is actually H4O and not H2O. Leaving the true formula for hydroxyl groups as H2O and not OH. But none of this is possible in Old Chemistry, Old Physics where they had do-nothing subatomic particles that sit around and do nothing or go whizzing around the outside of balls in a nucleus, in a mindless circling. Once every subatomic particle has a job, task, function, then water cannot be H2O but rather H4O. And a hydrogen atom cannot be H alone but is actually H2. H2 is not a molecule of hydrogen but a full fledged Atom, a single atom of hydrogen.
> > > >
> > > > Cover Picture: Sorry for the crude sketch work but chemistry and physics students are going to have to learn to make such sketches in a minute or less. Just as they make Lewis diagrams or ball & stick diagrams. My 4-5 minute sketch-work of the Water molecule H4O plus the subatomic particle H, and the hydrogen atom H2. Showing how one H is a proton torus with muon inside (blue color) doing the Faraday law. Protons are toruses with many windings. Protons are the coils in Faraday law while muons are the bar magnets. Neutrons are the capacitors as parallel plates, the outer skin cover of atoms.
> > > >
> > > > Product details
> > > > • ASIN : B0CCLPTBDG
> > > > • Publication date : July 21, 2023
> > > > • Language : English
> > > > • File size : 788 KB
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > y z
> > > > | /
> > > > | /
> > > > |/______ x
> > Markus endless spam freak
>
> Jew Lover's profile photo
> Jew Lover
> , …
> markus...@gmail.com
> 92
> unread,
> I am the terror of mainstream academic cranks who call themselves professors of mathematics.
> 9:08 AM
>
> Eram semper recta's profile photo
> Eram semper recta
> , …
> markus...@gmail.com
> 85
> unread,
> 4 February 2022: New visitors to sci.math: What a degree from Oops-Allah (Uppsala) university might get you: (2x5)/2 means 2 is a factor of 5.
> 9:04 AM
>
>
> This conversation has been hidden because you reported it for abuse.
> Eram semper recta's profile photo
> Eram semper recta
> , …
> markus...@gmail.com
> 14
> Macademics (non-mathematicians) are morons.
> torsdag 3 augusti 2023 kl. 13:14:03 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta: > On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at
> 7:48 AM
>
> Eram semper recta's profile photo
> Eram semper recta
> , …
> markus...@gmail.com
> 72
> unread,
> Want to know what is a factor in mathematics?
> torsdag 3 augusti 2023 kl. 13:11:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta: > On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at
> 7:46 AM
>
Stockholm Univ physics
Tony Hansson, Markus Hennrich, Tommy Ohlsson, Paul Crutzen,
Swedish physics, et al
Bo Thide, Max Tegmark, Cecilia Jarlskog, Lars Bergstrom, Lars Samuelson
Anders Flodstrom, Hans Ryde, Anders Barany, Gunnar von Heijne
Claes-Goran Granqvist, Joakim Edsjo, Carl Falthammar, Sven Hansson, Arne Kaijser
Pres. Sigbritt Karlsson (KTH)
University Gothenburg
Bernt Wennberg
Aila Sarkka
Univ Stockholm Physics dept
Gunnar Benediktsson, Clas Blomberg, Bo Cartling
Olle Edholm, Goran Grimvall, Goran Lindblad
Hakan Snellman, Jouko Mickelsson, Anders Rosengren
John Rundgren
> > > > > > > +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within
> > > >
> > > > > > > +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3m views Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In Old Chemistry and Old Physics, their subatomic particles were do nothing and no function and no job particles that sit around as balls or whiz around the outside of balls doing nothing but pointless circling.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In New Physics and New Chemistry-- All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. Every subatomic particle has a job a function a purpose as to the Laws of Electromagnetism--- Faraday law, Coulomb law, Ampere law, Capacitor law.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A proton is a torus of 840MeV with 840 windings, while the muon is the true electron of Atoms and is encased inside the proton torus thrusting through and producing electricity-- magnetic monopoles.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The neutron of Atoms is a parallel plate capacitor storing the electricity of proton+muon and is skin cover on the outside of the proton torus in the form of parallel plates.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can hydrogen be a Atom if it is just a proton+muon? No, all atoms require to have a capacitor such as at least one neutron. Thus the Hydrogen Atom is H2 where you have 2 proton+muon where 1 of the 2 proton+muon acts like a neutron to the other proton+muon. Thus, water molecule is not H2O but rather is H4O.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > AP is waiting for experimental chemists and physicists to prove him correct that Water is H4O.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In the meantime we have Hydroxyl which in Old Chemistry, especially Biology is OH, while AP says that is wrong and that is really H2O.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now glycerine is a hydroxyl with formula C3H8O3. And what I am thinking at this moment, is that hydroxyls will be an easier proof that Water is truly H4O, rather than wait for experimentalists to actually "weigh the electrolysis test tubes of oxygen and hydrogen".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You see, with H4O as water, glycerine is C3(2 waters)O with an extra oxygen. If Water is H2O then glycerine is C3(4 waters) deficit O. It is missing an oxygen if water is H2O.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The reason glycerine is so effective as a skin ointment is because it has glycerine, the extra O oxygen. If water were H2O, then glycerine would be a missing oxygen and not a skin lotion that works, but makes skin even more dry.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > 12:24 AM (13 hours ago)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---
> > > > > > > Perhaps there is only two Faraday laws on Electrolysis. I am looking at the one that states: Faraday's first law of electrolysis relates the mass of a substance liberated (or deposited) at an electrode to the electric charge used (Q). A proportionality constant Z can be used:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > m = ZQ = (E/96485)(Q)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > m = mass, Q = total charge rewritten as Q = I*t amperes x time in seconds.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This website gives an example: 5amps passed through molten Sodium Chloride for 3 hours. Calculate the mass of Sodium. E=23/1.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > m = (23/96485) (5) (3*60*60) approx 12.87 grams.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- end quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now has such a experiment been performed on Water to see how much atomic mass of hydrogen and of oxygen results??? If AP is correct, the formula of water is H4O, if Old Physics, Old Chemistry is correct the formula is H2O. So which is it???
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > AP
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, sorry no, Faraday's Law of Electrolysis is not going to tell the correct mass of hydrogen.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Reading Wikipedia on Faraday's Electrolysis law.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- quoting Wikipedia ---
> > > > > > > A monovalent ion requires 1 electron for discharge, a divalent ion requires 2 electrons for discharge and so on. Thus, if x electrons flow,
> > > > > > > x/v atoms are discharged.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So the mass m discharged is
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > m= (xM)/vN_A) = (QM)/(eN_A *v) = (QM) / (vF)
> > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > N_A is the Avogadro constant;
> > > > > > > Q = xe is the total charge, equal to the number of electrons (x) times the elementary charge e;
> > > > > > > F is the Faraday constant.
> > > > > > > --- end quoting Wikipedia ---
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, the Faraday law of Electrolysis will not work on water with a correct answer, because H is not an atom but H2 is an Atom. And where one of the proton+muon converts to being a neutron to the other proton+muon.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So if Faraday's law of Electrolysis was applied to water, thinking it would deliver a true answer is mistaken because the one H converts to neutron.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So it appears that we need to directly measure the test tube of oxygen and the test tube of hydrogen by a direct mass measurement.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > AP
> > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > 1:14 AM (12 hours ago)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > > > > > I doubt we can measure a test tube of hydrogen or test tube of oxygen, too small to determine the mass on some sort of weight scale.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But here is a possible lucrative idea. We should be able to get pure deuterium water. Then run the electrolysis. Collect the test tubes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now have some sort of balancing beam weight scale. Place the regular water of hydrogen test tube on one side, and place the deuterium water hydrogen test tube on other side. If they stay balanced, then AP is correct and Water is really H4O.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > AP
> > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > 1:48 AM (11 hours ago)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > > > > > Cosmic Rays from Sun
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 90% of Sun's cosmic rays are 840MeV proton+muon inside = H. The hydrogen Atom is H2 where one of the H proton+muon converts to being a neutron.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When these proton+muon hit Earth atmosphere, they can turn into pions and muons.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I commented that H alone is a subatomic particle and that makes sense in the idea that Sun's cosmic rays are 90% these proton+muon.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now is interstellar hydrogen H2 and intergalactic hydrogen H2 formed when one H cosmic ray joins up with another H cosmic ray to form H2 atom?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is this how we get H2 in outer space? From the splitting apart of H2 into H cosmic rays?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So how much of the Sun's hydrogen is H2 and how much is H ready to join with another H and reform back into H2. Probably little of the Sun's H is H alone, and the vast majority of the Sun's hydrogen is H2.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How much deuterium in the Sun? And it is a higher percentage than the deuterium in water on Earth?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > AP
> > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > 3:11 AM (10 hours ago)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > > > > > Water is the only known non-metallic substance that expands when if freezes; its density decreases and it expands approximately 9% by volume. (Source: web Lunar and Planetary Institute)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have to wait for experimental chemists and physicists to weigh the mass of test tubes from electrolysis, as to the verdict-- water is H4O.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But until that news comes in, I will look for other means of proof.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So AP says that the H2 is not a molecule but is the hydrogen Atom itself, where one proton+muon converts to a neutron and capacitates the other proton+muon which undergo the Faraday law.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are subatomic particles of H in the form of Cosmic Rays from the Sun, but most of the Sun's hydrogen is H2, and flips back and forth from H to rejoining to form H2. Some gets away from the Sun and is cosmic rays.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But H2 is an Atom and H is a fleeting subatomic particle.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So can I prove Water is H4O from the data of Spectral lines of H2 is the same as deuterium, only slight difference is that the deuterium is a full fledged neutron not a makeshift proton+muon of H.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I suspect that special trait of water freezing is a proof that Water is H4O. Because the 840MeV proton torus with muon inside doing the Faraday law acting as a makeshift neutron capacitor for the other 840MeV proton torus with muon inside, is where H2 gets that expansion characteristic.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A neutron is a parallel plate capacitor and those plates can expand when frozen temperature occurs. As the temperature gets colder, those plates move further apart.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now does deuterium which truly has a full neutron, does it expand also when frozen?? If so, does it expand as much as H2 which is 2 protons with 2 muons inside?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So comparing the freezing and expansion of the parallel plates of a neutron in deuterium with the freezing and expansion of one of the proton+muon that is acting as a makeshift neutron in H2.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If I can numbers correlate the H2 expansion with the Deuterium expansion would be a alternative proof that Water is really H4O and not H2O.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > AP
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > So now on Blankenship's book "Molecular Mechanisms of Photosynthesis", 2014, page 134, shows The structure of ATP, ADP, AMP. And within that structure are OH hydroxyls.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In New Chemistry, water is truly H4O, and where hydroxyls are now H2O. And we have first proof of this in the Figure 8.1 of Blankenship's "Chemical structure of ATP".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For in the lower left corner of the diagram, Blankenship has a H+ all alone, (really a mindless error) and has P surrounded by O-, O-, O and OH. The OH is really H2O for hydroxyls are H2O and water itself is H4O, and that would leave that mindless H+ as being hydrogen Atom of H2.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The world of physics and chemistry should drop what they are doing and weigh the electrolysis test tube of hydrogen and oxygen to discover the correct true formula of water is H4O.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > AP is total confident, becuase an Atom cannot exist if it has no capacitor structure such as a neutron, or one of the H in H2 acting as a neutron. I am totally confident that Water formula is truly H4O. And I need look only to methane of H4C, to realize that there is no HC, no H2C, no H3C, but starts with H4C, and that tells me water starts with H4O. Totally confident that Old Chemistry, Old Physics did electrolysis experiments and the moment they saw hydrogen test tube be 2x volume of oxygen test tube, they dropped their work and went out for a Danish and coffee break, rather than finish their work--- actual physics weighing of atomic mass units (not the Faraday electrolysis law for it does not apply to water).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When water electrolysis is physics weighed, AP is confident that there are 4H per every one oxygen O. And that Water is truly H4O.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > AP, King of Science
> > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > > > > 9:34 AM (15 minutes ago)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 8:56:57 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > > > > > Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now modern day physics and chemist experimenters can really do a marvelous job if they wanted to. For they could freeze the test tubes of oxygen and hydrogen to where they are liquid and compare liquids from water electrolysis.
> > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > > > > 10:01 AM (5 hours ago)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > So, what AP is saying here is that we do electrolysis of water. We collect the two test tubes, one with oxygen the other with hydrogen.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To prove Water is truly the formula H4O and not H2O we must weigh the masses of the two tubes to find that the ratio is 1 x 16amu to 4 x 1amu.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The silly grotesque science error of the past was to look at volumes in the two test tubes-- "Hey-- the hydrogen is twice the volume of oxygen so the formula of water is H2O".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, way was that science good practice. For the correct formula of water needs to be measured by mass, by atomic mass units where Oxygen is 16amu and hydrogen is 1amu.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I suspect a balance beam scale is good enough to see the hydrogen test tube will be 1/4 as massive as the oxygen test tube. To get within precision of electronic weighing scale of 0.00001 gram we just have to make a larger test tube of electrolysis of water.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > AP is betting that the readings will be hydrogen test tube 1/4 the mass of oxygen test tube proving Water formula is truly H4O.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Old Physics and Old Chemistry is betting that the mass experiment will have the hydrogen test tube be 1/8 the mass of the oxygen test tube, proving Water formula is H2O.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > AP does not have these precision equipment to conduct an at-home experiment of this nature.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > AP
> > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > > > > 12:38 PM (4 hours ago)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > So, once Water is found to actually be H4O, not H2O, we move on to methane, and ask the same question of its hydrogen bonds. Is Methane really that of H8C and not H4C.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well, looking in the literature for anomalies to methane, I come across a arXiv "Low and high-temperature anomalies in the physical properties of solid methane "The anomalous behavior of thermodynamic, spectral, plastic, elastic and some other properties of solid methane is discussed near 20.48K and...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > AP wonders: if they can get methane to solid form, well, I am then hopeful that the mass of the molecule can be determined. Because if methane is truly H8C, that difference of H4 in atomic mass units would be very much noticeable difference.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Chemistry Europe--
> > > > > > > "The Anomalous Deuterium Isotope Effect in the NMR Spectrum of Methane...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > P Vermeeren, 2023
> > > > > > > "The abnormally long and weak methylidyne C-H bond.."
> > > > > > > "The C-H bond of the methylidyne radical, CH*, is abnormally long and weak, even longer and..."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > AP asks, are these anomalies solved if we consider methane is actually H8C and not H4C?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > AP
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My 250th published book.
> > > >
> > > > TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY; H2 is the hydrogen Atom and water is H4O, not H2O// Chemistry
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
> > > > Prologue: This textbook is 1/2 research history and 1/2 factual textbook combined as one textbook. For many of the experiments described here-in have not yet been performed, such as water is really H4O not H2O. Written in a style of history research with date-time markers, and fact telling. And there are no problem sets. This book is intended for 1st year college. Until I include problem sets and exercises, I leave it to the professor and instructor to provide such. And also, chemistry is hugely a laboratory science, even more so than physics, so a first year college student in the lab to test whether Water is really H4O and not H2O is mighty educational.
> > > >
> > > > Preface: This is my 250th book of science, and the first of my textbooks on Teaching True Chemistry. I have completed the Teaching True Physics and the Teaching True Mathematics textbook series. But had not yet started on a Teaching True Chemistry textbook series. What got me started on this project is the fact that no chemistry textbook had the correct formula for water which is actually H4O and not H2O. Leaving the true formula for hydroxyl groups as H2O and not OH. But none of this is possible in Old Chemistry, Old Physics where they had do-nothing subatomic particles that sit around and do nothing or go whizzing around the outside of balls in a nucleus, in a mindless circling. Once every subatomic particle has a job, task, function, then water cannot be H2O but rather H4O. And a hydrogen atom cannot be H alone but is actually H2. H2 is not a molecule of hydrogen but a full fledged Atom, a single atom of hydrogen.
> > > >
> > > > Cover Picture: Sorry for the crude sketch work but chemistry and physics students are going to have to learn to make such sketches in a minute or less. Just as they make Lewis diagrams or ball & stick diagrams. My 4-5 minute sketch-work of the Water molecule H4O plus the subatomic particle H, and the hydrogen atom H2. Showing how one H is a proton torus with muon inside (blue color) doing the Faraday law. Protons are toruses with many windings. Protons are the coils in Faraday law while muons are the bar magnets. Neutrons are the capacitors as parallel plates, the outer skin cover of atoms.
> > > >
> > > > Product details
> > > > • ASIN : B0CCLPTBDG
> > > > • Publication date : July 21, 2023
> > > > • Language : English
> > > > • File size : 788 KB
> > > > • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> > > > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > > > • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > > > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > > > • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > > • Sticky notes : On Kindle Scribe
> > > > • Print length : 168 pages
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > y z
> > > > | /
> > > > | /
> > > > |/______ x
Archimedes Plutonium
Aug 5, 2023, 3:59:47 AM8/5/23
to
Can_Dr.Lars Bergstrom,Dr.Cecilia Jarlskog,Dr.Max Tegmark,King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden,Dr.Paul Crutzen,Dr.Tony Hansson, Stockholm Univ --Please- please-step into the Stockholm Univ physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. Once weighed the hydrogen test tube should be 1/4 the weight of the oxygen test tube for H4O but if mainstream chemistry is correct then 1/8 atomic mass units. My weighing scales do not go up to 0.00001 gram, and sure that Stockholm has far better precision. Thanks , much appreciated, especially the King of Sweden.
> > >
> > > > > Markus endless spam freak, instructed by Jan Burse, Spam Phd from ETH, showing Markus how to dive-bomb spam, sponsored by Dan Christensen from cockpit of Univ. Western Ontario.
markus...@gmail.com
122
481
unread,
Learn why it is wrong to say 0.333... = 1/3.
Why are you so boring Johnny Boy? Constructive logic is used all over the place. Only you are on the
2:39 AM
26
unread,
Macademics (non-mathematicians) are morons.
lördag 5 augusti 2023 kl. 02:38:51 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta: > On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 16
2:35 AM
22
unread,
Cantor's Misguided Diagonal "Argument" (actually a non-argument)
lördag 5 augusti 2023 kl. 02:32:53 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta: > On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 16
2:32 AM
95
> > >
> > > > > Markus endless spam freak, instructed by Jan Burse, Spam Phd from ETH, showing Markus how to dive-bomb spam, sponsored by Dan Christensen from cockpit of Univ. Western Ontario.
markus...@gmail.com
122
unread,
I am the terror of mainstream academic cranks who call themselves professors of mathematics.
2:42 AM
I am the terror of mainstream academic cranks who call themselves professors of mathematics.
Jew Lover's profile photo
Jew Lover
, …
Mild Shock (Jan Burse)
Jew Lover's profile photo
Jew Lover
, …
481
unread,
Learn why it is wrong to say 0.333... = 1/3.
Why are you so boring Johnny Boy? Constructive logic is used all over the place. Only you are on the
2:39 AM
26
unread,
Macademics (non-mathematicians) are morons.
lördag 5 augusti 2023 kl. 02:38:51 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta: > On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 16
2:35 AM
22
unread,
Cantor's Misguided Diagonal "Argument" (actually a non-argument)
lördag 5 augusti 2023 kl. 02:32:53 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta: > On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 16
2:32 AM
95
unread,
4 February 2022: New visitors to sci.math: What a degree from Oops-Allah (Uppsala) university might get you: (2x5)/2 means 2 is a factor of 5.
2:30 AM
4 February 2022: New visitors to sci.math: What a degree from Oops-Allah (Uppsala) university might get you: (2x5)/2 means 2 is a factor of 5.
Archimedes Plutonium
Aug 7, 2023, 7:54:44 PM8/7/23
to
Can_Dr.Paul Crutzen,Dr.Frank Wilczek,Dr.Lars Bergstrom,Dr.Cecilia Jarlskog,Dr.Max Tegmark,King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden,Dr.Paul Crutzen,Dr.Tony Hansson, Stockholm Univ --Please- please-step into the Stockholm Univ physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. Once weighed the hydrogen test tube should be 1/4 the weight of the oxygen test tube for H4O but if mainstream chemistry is correct then 1/8 atomic mass units. My weighing scales do not go up to 0.00001 gram, and sure that Stockholm has far better precision. Thanks , much appreciated, especially the King of Sweden.
markus...@gmail.com
31
unread,
What is this the Lim{n--> 00}(0.999...)^n = ?
torsdag 27 juni 2019 kl. 18:39:33 UTC+2 skrev bassam king karzeddin: > On Thursday, June 27, 2019
6:25 PM
202
unread,
Zero is NOT a number.
torsdag 13 februari 2020 kl. 15:30:37 UTC+1 skrev Eram semper recta: > Poor idiot mainstream
6:24 PM
191
unread,
True but of no significance?? Chuckle. Jean Pierre Messager (aka Python) admits error! - This is a first!!!
6:23 PM
110
120
unread,
A lesson for the morons on this forum who never learned what it means to be a number. 1/3 =/= 0.333...
5:59 PM
35
5:58 PM
38
5:55 PM
31
unread,
John Gabriel's Historic Geometric Theorem (HGT) of January 2020 _IS_ most absolutely the Holy Grail of Calculus.
5:54 PM
154
> > > >
> > > > > > Markus endless spam freak, instructed by Jan Burse, Spam Phd from ETH, showing Markus how to dive-bomb spam, sponsored by Dan Christensen from cockpit of Univ. Western Ontario.
, …
> > > > > > Markus endless spam freak, instructed by Jan Burse, Spam Phd from ETH, showing Markus how to dive-bomb spam, sponsored by Dan Christensen from cockpit of Univ. Western Ontario.
markus...@gmail.com
31
unread,
What is this the Lim{n--> 00}(0.999...)^n = ?
torsdag 27 juni 2019 kl. 18:39:33 UTC+2 skrev bassam king karzeddin: > On Thursday, June 27, 2019
6:25 PM
202
unread,
Zero is NOT a number.
torsdag 13 februari 2020 kl. 15:30:37 UTC+1 skrev Eram semper recta: > Poor idiot mainstream
6:24 PM
191
unread,
True but of no significance?? Chuckle. Jean Pierre Messager (aka Python) admits error! - This is a first!!!
6:23 PM
110
unread,
4 February 2022: New visitors to sci.math: What a degree from Oops-Allah (Uppsala) university might get you: (2x5)/2 means 2 is a factor of 5.
6:01 PM
4 February 2022: New visitors to sci.math: What a degree from Oops-Allah (Uppsala) university might get you: (2x5)/2 means 2 is a factor of 5.
120
unread,
A lesson for the morons on this forum who never learned what it means to be a number. 1/3 =/= 0.333...
5:59 PM
35
unread,
Cantor's Misguided Diagonal "Argument" (actually a non-argument)
måndag 7 augusti 2023 kl. 14:31:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta: > On Monday, 7 August 2023 at 05
Cantor's Misguided Diagonal "Argument" (actually a non-argument)
5:58 PM
38
unread,
Macademics (non-mathematicians) are morons.
måndag 7 augusti 2023 kl. 14:27:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta: > On Monday, 7 August 2023 at 05
Macademics (non-mathematicians) are morons.
5:55 PM
31
unread,
John Gabriel's Historic Geometric Theorem (HGT) of January 2020 _IS_ most absolutely the Holy Grail of Calculus.
5:54 PM
Jew Lover's profile photo
Jew Lover
, …
Fritz Feldhase
Jew Lover's profile photo
Jew Lover
, …
154
unread,
I am the terror of mainstream academic cranks who call themselves professors of mathematics.
I am the terror of mainstream academic cranks who call themselves professors of mathematics.
Archimedes Plutonium
Aug 8, 2023, 6:09:34 PM8/8/23
to
Can_Dr.Frank Wilczek,Dr.Lars Bergstrom,Dr.Cecilia Jarlskog,Dr.Max Tegmark,King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden,Dr.Paul Crutzen,Dr.Tony Hansson, Stockholm Univ --Please- please-step into the Stockholm Univ physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. Once weighed the hydrogen test tube should be 1/4 the weight of the oxygen test tube for H4O but if mainstream chemistry is correct then 1/8 atomic mass units. My weighing scales do not go up to 0.00001 gram, and sure that Stockholm has far better precision. Thanks , much appreciated, especially the King of Sweden.
> > > > >
Markus & Gabriel spam mill
4
Zero: Bullshit and more bullshit.
tisdag 8 augusti 2023 kl. 18:27:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta: > With the inception of zero, a
4:59 PM
42
4:50 PM
> > > > >
Markus & Gabriel spam mill
4
Zero: Bullshit and more bullshit.
tisdag 8 augusti 2023 kl. 18:27:00 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta: > With the inception of zero, a
4:59 PM
42
unread,
Macademics (non-mathematicians) are morons.
tisdag 8 augusti 2023 kl. 18:40:26 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta: > On Tuesday, 8 August 2023 at
Macademics (non-mathematicians) are morons.
4:50 PM
Archimedes Plutonium
Aug 8, 2023, 8:02:44 PM8/8/23
to
Can_Dr.Lars Bergstrom,Dr.Cecilia Jarlskog,Dr.Max Tegmark,King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden,Dr.Paul Crutzen,Dr.Tony Hansson, Stockholm Univ --Please- please-step into the Stockholm Univ physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. Once weighed the hydrogen test tube should be 1/4 the weight of the oxygen test tube for H4O but if mainstream chemistry is correct then 1/8 atomic mass units. My weighing scales do not go up to 0.00001 gram, and sure that Stockholm has far better precision. Thanks , much appreciated, especially the King of Sweden.
510
5:30 PM
11
unread,
How stupid are mainstream math professors?
tisdag 8 augusti 2023 kl. 18:32:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta: > On Thursday, 18 June 2020 at
5:28 PM
39
5:28 PM
> > > > > >
Jew Lover's profile photo
Jew Lover
, …
markus...@gmail.com
Jew Lover's profile photo
Jew Lover
, …
510
unread,
Learn why it is wrong to say 0.333... = 1/3.
tisdag 8 augusti 2023 kl. 18:41:47 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta: > On Tuesday, 8 August 2023 at
Learn why it is wrong to say 0.333... = 1/3.
5:30 PM
11
unread,
How stupid are mainstream math professors?
tisdag 8 augusti 2023 kl. 18:32:20 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta: > On Thursday, 18 June 2020 at
5:28 PM
39
unread,
Cantor's Misguided Diagonal "Argument" (actually a non-argument)
tisdag 8 augusti 2023 kl. 18:36:23 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta: > On Monday, 7 August 2023 at 21
Cantor's Misguided Diagonal "Argument" (actually a non-argument)
5:28 PM
Archimedes Plutonium
Aug 9, 2023, 5:34:48 PM8/9/23
to
Can_Dr.Max_Tegmark,King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden,Dr.Paul Crutzen,Dr.Tony Hansson, Stockholm Univ --Please- please-step into the Stockholm Univ physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. Once weighed the hydrogen test tube should be 1/4 the weight of the oxygen test tube for H4O but if mainstream chemistry is correct then 1/8 atomic mass units. My weighing scales do not go up to 0.00001 gram, and sure that Stockholm has far better precision. Thanks , much appreciated, especially the King of Sweden.
> > > > > > >
Markus daily spam mill
13
How to use a Chat Bot most effectively.
onsdag 9 augusti 2023 kl. 22:22:23 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta: > On Wednesday, 9 August 2023 at
4:30 PM
43
41
unread,
The junk concept of infinity is not used in the New Calculus integral.
fredag 12 april 2019 kl. 14:33:20 UTC+2 skrev Jew Lover: > On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 1:26:32 AM
4:27 PM
> > > > > > >
Markus daily spam mill
13
How to use a Chat Bot most effectively.
onsdag 9 augusti 2023 kl. 22:22:23 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta: > On Wednesday, 9 August 2023 at
4:30 PM
43
unread,
John Gabriel's Historic Geometric Theorem (HGT) of January 2020 _IS_ most absolutely the Holy Grail of Calculus.
4:30 PM
John Gabriel's Historic Geometric Theorem (HGT) of January 2020 _IS_ most absolutely the Holy Grail of Calculus.
41
unread,
The junk concept of infinity is not used in the New Calculus integral.
fredag 12 april 2019 kl. 14:33:20 UTC+2 skrev Jew Lover: > On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 1:26:32 AM
4:27 PM
Archimedes Plutonium
Aug 13, 2023, 10:55:01 AM8/13/23
to
;Can_Dr.Max_Tegmark,King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden,Dr.Paul Crutzen,Dr.Tony Hansson, Stockholm Univ --Please- please-step into the Stockholm Univ physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. Once weighed the hydrogen test tube should be 1/4 the weight of the oxygen test tube for H4O but if mainstream chemistry is correct then 1/8 atomic mass units. My weighing scales do not go up to 0.00001 gram, and sure that Stockholm has far better precision. Thanks , much appreciated, especially the King of Sweden.
> > > > > > > >
>
> Markus daily spam mill
4
The BIG STUPID foiled but no admission of error.
torsdag 3 november 2016 kl. 01:39:57 UTC+1 skrev John Gabriel: > On Wednesday, 2 November 2016 17:
9:47 AM
3
unread,
Jews go after anyone they don't like. They are a vicious cabal.
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:09:41 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote: > [Jews] are reptiles
9:46 AM
John Gabriel's profile photo
John Gabriel
, …
markus...@gmail.com
96
unread,
S = Lim S: Realising their entire fake mythmatics is about to crumble, mainstream morons have hired paid trolls!
9:45 AM
50
> > > > > > > >
>
> Markus daily spam mill
4
The BIG STUPID foiled but no admission of error.
torsdag 3 november 2016 kl. 01:39:57 UTC+1 skrev John Gabriel: > On Wednesday, 2 November 2016 17:
9:47 AM
Eram semper recta's profile photo
Eram semper recta
, …
Fritz Feldhase
Eram semper recta's profile photo
Eram semper recta
, …
3
unread,
Jews go after anyone they don't like. They are a vicious cabal.
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:09:41 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote: > [Jews] are reptiles
9:46 AM
John Gabriel's profile photo
John Gabriel
, …
markus...@gmail.com
96
unread,
S = Lim S: Realising their entire fake mythmatics is about to crumble, mainstream morons have hired paid trolls!
9:45 AM
50
unread,
John Gabriel's Historic Geometric Theorem (HGT) of January 2020 _IS_ most absolutely the Holy Grail of Calculus.
9:41 AM
John Gabriel's Historic Geometric Theorem (HGT) of January 2020 _IS_ most absolutely the Holy Grail of Calculus.
Message has been deleted
Archimedes Plutonium
Aug 30, 2023, 4:21:28 AM8/30/23
to
Can_Dr.John Rundgren,Dr.Max_Tegmark,King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden,,Dr.Tony Hansson, Stockholm Univ --Please- please-step into the Stockholm Univ physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. Once weighed the hydrogen test tube should be 1/4 the weight of the oxygen test tube for H4O but if mainstream chemistry is correct then 1/8 atomic mass units. My weighing scales do not go up to 0.00001 gram, and sure that Stockholm has far better precision. Thanks , much appreciated, especially the King of Sweden.
Archimedes Plutonium
Aug 31, 2023, 11:34:26 AM8/31/23
to
2-Can_Dr.John Rundgren,Dr.Max_Tegmark,King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden,,Dr.Tony Hansson, Stockholm Univ --Please- please-step into the Stockholm Univ physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. Once weighed the hydrogen test tube should be 1/4 the weight of the oxygen test tube for H4O but if mainstream chemistry is correct then 1/8 atomic mass units. My weighing scales do not go up to 0.00001 gram, and sure that Stockholm has far better precision. Thanks , much appreciated, especially the King of Sweden.
Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 27, 2023, 7:40:59 PM10/27/23
to
3-Can_Dr.John Rundgren,Dr.Max_Tegmark,King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden,,Dr.Tony Hansson, Stockholm Univ --Please- please-step into the Stockholm Univ physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. Once weighed the hydrogen test tube should be 1/4 the weight of the oxygen test tube for H4O but if mainstream chemistry is correct then 1/8 atomic mass units. My weighing scales do not go up to 0.00001 gram, and sure that Stockholm has far better precision. Thanks , much appreciated, especially the King of Sweden.
Markus daily spam mill
John Gabriel
Markus daily spam mill
, …
markus...@gmail.com
43
unread,
I am the first to debunk Einstein theory of relativity.
On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 21:07:28 UTC-4, bassam karzeddin wrote: > On Wednesday, February
4:15 PM
351
unread,
John Gabriel's Historic Geometric Theorem (HGT) of January 2020 _IS_ most absolutely the Holy Grail of Calculus.
4:14 PM
John Gabriel's Historic Geometric Theorem (HGT) of January 2020 _IS_ most absolutely the Holy Grail of Calculus.
3
unread,
The story of how I defeated mainstream calculus Orthodoxy and revealed the illuminating truths.
4:12 PM
9
unread,
An excerpt from the only NON-FICTION book on the origins and history of calculus.
4:12 PM
64
unread,
I, and I alone solved the tangent line and area problem rigorously, not Newton, not Leibniz, not Cauchy or any of your moronic math professors or teachers.
4:10 PM
Eram semper recta's profile photo
Eram semper recta
, …
mitchr...@gmail.com
Eram semper recta's profile photo
Eram semper recta
, …
53
unread,
Zero: Bullshit and more bullshit.
On Monday, 16 October 2023 at 16:12:00 UTC-4, Mathin3D wrote: > On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 4:
4:08 PM
0 new messages