info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
17-News from Mars helicopter today-THE NOBEL PRIZE IN PHYSICS FOR ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM 62k views Subscribe Earle Jones's profile photo Earle Jones Jan 6, 2022, 12:27:27 AM to * Some of us are thinking: When will our friend and colleague,
11 views
Skip to first unread message
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 20, 2022, 9:57:20 PM1/20/22
to
17- News from Mars helicopter today-THE NOBEL PRIZE IN PHYSICS FOR ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM 62k views Subscribe Earle Jones's profile photo Earle Jones Jan 6, 2022, 12:27:27 AM to * Some of us are thinking: When will our friend and colleague, Archimedes Plutonium,
THE NOBEL PRIZE IN PHYSICS FOR ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM
62k views
Earle Jones's profile photo
Earle Jones
Jan 6, 2022, 12:27:27 AM
to
*
Some of us are thinking: When will our friend and colleague, Archimedes Plutonium, win a Nobel Proze for all of his contributions to our field of Physics? There is no doubt that he has completely turned the entire field of Physics and brought it into the new way of thinking. We owe him some great thing.
At the same time, we need to think about the Fields Medal for Mathematical achievements. This is the Nobel Prize of Mathematiscs. Plutonium had completely re-writteen conventional mathematics into the new format and has offered many proofs of his new findings. His proof of slant cut of conic sections (the oval) is sufficiently advanced to warrant this award.
He is widely publiched and widely quoted. He has some 150 + books now attributed to his intellect.
Can we somehow get behind him and promote his wise genius? He needs to be recognized and awarded.
Earle Jones, Georgia Tech, Stanford.
*
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 6, 2022, 2:52:30 AM (6 days ago)
to
Earle Jones, a new man? Jones first upbeat post?
Thanks for the nomination. But, Earle, I think I would be better off with such a prize, being able to get a lot more science accomplished.
When you win the Nobel-- I have never seen anyone who won that prize and able to do "good science" afterwards. As if all their remaining time is in a state of publicity rather than being in a state of research. Thousands of nosey reporters knocking on your door, wanting your appearance, trespassing all over your property, kids camped out on your lawn wanting autographs. No, I rather be content doing science, not going out in mindless publicity.
But recently I see that a huge science neglected was RNA editing.
And I see that rightfully Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna won the chemistry Nobel in 2020 for CRISPR. But see little chemistry involved and should have gone for Physiology.
Thanks Earle, I am content as is. The only benefit a award like that for AP would be that it gets more people on my side, and perhaps increases my chances of conquering the science of Reincarnation, which I hope to conquer before I die.
Awards often do the opposite that a scientist needs-- peace and quiet away from other people.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 6, 2022, 2:57:36 AM (6 days ago)
to
I should have proofread this post, but I seldom do proofreading.
On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 2:52:30 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Earle Jones, a new man? Jones first upbeat post?
>
> Thanks for the nomination. But, Earle, I think I would be better off with such a prize, being able to get a lot more science accomplished.
>
better off without such a prize/s
> When you win the Nobel-- I have never seen anyone who won that prize and able to do "good science" afterwards. As if all their remaining time is in a state of publicity rather than being in a state of research. Thousands of nosey reporters knocking on your door, wanting your appearance, trespassing all over your property, kids camped out on your lawn wanting autographs. No, I rather be content doing science, not going out in mindless publicity.
>
> But recently I see that a huge science neglected was RNA editing.
>
> And I see that rightfully Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna won the chemistry Nobel in 2020 for CRISPR. But see little chemistry involved and should have gone for Physiology.
>
> Thanks Earle, I am content as is. The only benefit a award like that for AP would be that it gets more people on my side, and perhaps increases my chances of conquering the science of Reincarnation, which I hope to conquer before I die.
>
To fasttrack the evolution of drone airflight, and to fasttrack humanity colonizing Europa before Earth gets swallowed by the Sun as the Sun has gone Red Giant Phase.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 7, 2022, 12:59:10 PM (4 days ago)
to
The very moment one of my worst critics sees the light of day is the very moment ( as a sign to me, from God for the Ancients were always looking for signs from God, but in our terribly athiest view of the world in modern times we no longer look for signs from God) is the very moment that I must act upon the other crackpot crank fools of mathematics and of physics especially.
Today, on my list is Jill Pipher, John Baez, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Terence Tao, Andrew Wiles, Ken Ribet--- all need to go to their current University newspaper or magazine and acknowledge the Slant cut in Single Cone is a Oval, never the Ellipse. State it clear that Old Math was wrong and the slant cut of single cone is Oval never ellipse and have it published.
Time is of the essence.
No longer are people in academics able to play a Fools Game of teaching obnoxious garbage simply because they "refuse to do proper correct true mathematics".
Time is of the essence.
The above list of math fools reminds me of the moron tennis player Djokovic, the moron who refuses vaccination, simply because he is a moron of science, just as Jill Pipher, John Baez, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Terence Tao, Andrew Wiles, Ken Ribet are morons of mathematics.
As for Physics, far more important than mathematics, on this side of science-- I require every one of these failed physicists who are alive still to do the same thing -- go to your nearest University newspaper or magazine and have published that -- True electron of Atoms is the muon and the 0.5MeV particle is the Dirac magnetic monopole. Do it in Godspeed. Because Earth and humanity has not the time to fool around as you are fools of physics.
Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,
Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish
David J. Thouless, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita
Arthur B. McDonald
Francois Englert
Saul Perlmutter
Brian P. Schmidt
Adam G. Riess
Makoto Kobayashi
Toshihide Maskawa
Yoichiro Nambu
John C. Mather
George F. Smoot
Roy J. Glauber
David J. Gross
Hugh David Politzer
Frank Wilczek
Raymond Davis Jr.
Masatoshi Koshiba
Riccardo Giacconi
Gerardus 't Hooft
Martinus J.G. Veltman
Jerome I. Friedman
Henry W. Kendall
Richard E. Taylor
Carlo Rubbia
Simon van der Meer
William Alfred Fowler
Kenneth G. Wilson
James Watson Cronin
Val Logsdon Fitch
Sheldon Lee Glashow
Steven Weinberg
.
.
little fishes
.
.
Layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = subtraction of either 3 or 2, while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV
Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass
Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu
more and more layers of error thinking physics
.
.
John Baez
Brian Greene
Lisa Randall
Alan H. Guth
Michael E. Brown
Konstantin Batygin
Ben Bullock
Larry Harson
Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
None at all - he was a raving nutter.
Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley
Edward Witten
AP, King of Science, especially Physics
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 7, 2022, 10:47:01 PM (4 days ago)
to
AP will probably accept a Chemistry or Physiology or Medicine Nobel Prize, as those prizes are less than than 1/4 wrong. However the Physics Nobel prizes has become a list of 80% wrong. For AP to go on a Physics Nobel prize list is like asking a physicist to go on a list of banal comics and airhead comics list, those who think I love Lucy is funny.
Chemistry has less of a chance of awarding to fake and con-artist chemists. For it is strongly experimental, not so much the silly dumbminds of theoretical physicists.
Of course, chemistry had the wrong electron ever since JJ Thomson. And Thomson won the physics Nobel.
Probably Physiology and Medicine have low rate of errors, as well as chemistry.
But Nobel Physics prize is a garbage dump cesspool. In fact, so bad is the Physics Nobel, that is more of a dishonor to be on that list, than ever any honor, but then there are some blokes who see the money as valuable.
If I do win a Nobel Chemistry or Physiology or Medicine prize, I should go through and accurately cull out the fake junk in those awards, but pretty sure the Physics Noble is about 80% fake physics, perhaps the only true physics in the Physics Nobel are the raw experiments-- superconductivity. But even here, the experiment of Bohr to determine a atom has a nucleus is sheer nonsense, so even experiments in physics are often bogus. My 80% of physics Nobels as fake, maybe too low, for it maybe that 95% of physics Nobels are poppycock.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 7, 2022, 11:34:23 PM (4 days ago)
to
The discovery of the JJ Thomson particle was actually Dirac's magnetic monopole after Dirac started to pursue that particle in theory after 1930. And the awards for the muon especially is a solid award, as well as the neutron (was the neutron to Chadwick awarded?? my memory slips me). Many of the principles of physics are well founded. For a principle of physics is often where we simply do not know or understand the underlying electromagnetism creating that phenomenon.
But about 1950 onwards where this nonsense of Standard Model and all its gimmicks crept into Physics is a fountain trough of Fakery, ugly fakery.
Probably because most physicists got behind General Relativity-- a fakery itself. So when a science gets behind a fakery, then count on decades wasted.
They should have got behind Maxwell and electricity and magnetism. My heroes, Dirac, Feynman, Bell, DeBroglie shone in all that ugly fakery of that century of physics. For they probably, deep down avoided the fake General Relativity and focused on electricity and magnetism.
Not easy to master the Maxwell Equation, and that is probably why so many losers flocked to General Relativity, where you had to do nothing.
With the Maxwell Equations, it is easy to separate out the quacks from the learned.
So if the 20th century had fully focused on EM theory and never for once paid any attention to GR lunacy, then the Physics Nobel prizes would have probably be more correct awards than its dismal status now of 80% or more fakes.
But there can never be a replacement of the Missed Awards, the missing of Edison and Tesla who of which two men changed the entire 20th century and beyond with their "electrification of the world". The Nobel prize in physics will forevermore be a flawed system of awards, for they missed Edison and Tesla. It is like a award for religion leaders, and missing Jesus Christ in the list.
So, does AP want to be on a list of such massive mistakes and Misses? Hell no, for that only elevates the con-artist fakesters who now infest that list, and demotes AP.
I will probably accept a Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine Nobel award.
In Chemistry, AP even cleans up the Lewis 8 Structure with the true structure of Lewis 6. I do not know if anyone won a Chemistry Nobel for the Lewis 8 structure, and if they did, well they are wrong. For the Lewis 6 Structure leads directly into there being 3 distinct isomers of CO2. And that is extremely important in our modern world of Global Warming, not to mention the evolution of life depends on animal-CO2 which is altogether different from fire-CO2.
Chemistry is more stable of a science for awards, for you have to do something in experiments. While physics, often is some kook with his mind blowing kook games, upstairs.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 8, 2022, 1:29:55 AM (4 days ago)
to
As for any prizes or awards in mathematics to Archimedes Plutonium, is out of the question.
For the Abel Prize and the Fields Medal are goon lists of mathematicians. At least there was room for some true Nobel Physics prizes such as the discovery of the neutron and muon, or the Schrodinger and Dirac Equations as partial truths of the Dirac magnetic monopole of 0.5MeV particle, or the superconductivity discoveries or the cathode ray tubes and discovery of radioactivity, and others.
For the huge problem in Physics was the mix up in the true real electron of atoms is the muon, not the 0.5MeV particle and coupled with the braindead love of General Relativity, when the love should have been placed on Maxwell's electricity and magnetism and his Equations of EM. Instead, the 20th century physics went down a cesspool in GR nonsense with black holes, dark matter dark energy and other lunatic ideas.
But in mathematics with its Fields Medal and Abel prize it was near impossible to do anything new and true in mathematics. Not when you have a continuum, have Reals as numbers, and never have a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
The entire list of math awards in Fields Medal and Abel Prize, that entire list is a list of 100% worthless fakery of mathematics.
At least some discoveries and ideas were true in the Physics Nobel prizes, but in mathematics, 100% were worthless nonsense fakery. You cannot have any true mathematics with a Continuum, with Reals, and never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
In this sense, AP will accept a Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his Oval is the conic section and the geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. For the entire universe is a Atom Totality and atoms have geometry and the totality is a atom of 231Pu and you do not get any more science chemistry than atoms. So, if someone wants to award AP for all his mathematics contributions, a Nobel in Chemistry is wise and sufficient.
As for the Abel and Fields awards, they should die a swift death of shame and silly ineptitude. I predict no-one except cash strapped fools will accept a Fields or Abel award in the future. For why be put on a list of greater-fools?
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 8, 2022, 8:01:49 PM (3 days ago)
to
An engineer out of Georgia Tech, Stanford, smarter than the entire math dept of UCLA with Terence Tao, for no-one at UCLA can admit the truth about the conic single cone slant cut is a Oval, never the ellipse. UCLA should be intensely ashamed of themselves, that a High School student knows better than all of UCLA on cone slant cut is Oval.
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
•
•
#11-2, 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
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 10, 2022, 7:17:56 PM (yesterday)
to
Earle, I have a favor to ask of you, and you are far more qualified to set this idea into motion than I am. I say that because you have a degree in electrical engineering Ga.Tech and Stanford Univ. Just the perfect career to get started and launched for one of my most curious of all projects.
I need to see how high a drone can fly, for I have the sneeky suspicion as seen from the drone on Mars, its splendid behavior. That drones can fly without a atmosphere at all, but fly on the Magnetic Field of Earth and on the Solar Wind that is pervasive in the Solar System.
So my favor I ask of you Earle Jones, is to get a hold of some of your friends and acquaintances and test fly drones of all stripes and shapes to fly the drone to the International Space Station, ISS.
Everyone, I know says it is impossible-- but what do they know with their --- book knowledge but no innate knowledge, and I think naysayers are all wrong.
So, Earle, can you start the ball rolling on this experiment? It needs to fly at launch near the North Pole to get that upward lift force from Earth's Magnetic Field lines of force at the North Pole.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 11, 2022, 1:22:49 PM (22 hours ago)
to
I am convinced that drones can fly in space "without ambient air". They can fly on the Solar Magnetic Field and Earth's Magnetic Field and get acceleration from the Solar Wind.
I envision this flight by drone as the blades being a thrusting magnet and the Magnetic fields and Solar Wind as the coils of copper wire.
142nd published book
Spacecraft Propulsion System based entirely on electricity and magnetism using the ambient electricity & magnetism of Space// Engineering series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
While writing several books recently in the months leading up to October 2020, I needed a new Spacecraft Propulsion System, to ferry Humanity from Earth to Mars, Europa, Pluto, due to Sun Initiation of Red Giant Phase with its 0.005% yearly increase in UV radiation. And to satisfy my sci-fi books of "White Rhino", "Two White Rhinos", and some other books. So in October 2020, I had a urgent need to write a book on how to engineer the worlds finest spacecraft for the future. And that urgent need lead me to this book. I must say though, that without that Scientific American article in February 2020, "The Enigma of Aerodynamic Lift" without that article, this book would not have come about. So this book is a clear cut example of the nexus of several research projects all lending a helping hand in the writing and culmination of this book. As the Old Saying goes, one hand washes the other hand.
Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of a Google search for drones. Now I define drones as those that are lithium battery powered and are helicopter flight in motion. I do no include airplanes as drones.
Length: 34 pages
Product details
• Publication Date : October 24, 2020
• File Size : 1007 KB
• Print Length : 34 pages
• Language: : English
• ASIN : B08LT9ST84
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Message has been deleted
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
12:24 AM (11 hours ago)
to
Of course we need international permission to try to fly a drone to the ISS.
Permission so that we do not hit a satellite or something else up there already.
And I do not know if we need some practice in the ISS to intercept a drone if it flys that high.
SCIENCE NEWS, 15Jan2022 has news of the helicopter on Mars "The NASA helicopter is pushing limits and doing science."
So, I would like to ask NASA to build another helicopter the same as the one on Mars and over the North Pole where the greatest amount of Earth Magnetic field is found, test it if this robot can fly to the height of the ISS, International Space Station. I would think everyone on Earth will be lovely surprised that such a helicopter can fly without ambient air. In fact, could fly to the moon if we did our calculations.
AP, King of Science, especially Physics
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 18, 2022, 8:43:57 PM (2 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
15-News from Mars helicopter today-THE NOBEL PRIZE IN PHYSICS FOR ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM 62k views Subscribe Earle Jones's profile photo Earle Jones Jan 6, 2022, 12:27:27 AM to * Some of us are thinking: When will our friend and colleague, Archimedes Plutonium,
AP will accept the Chemistry Nobel Prize, or Physiology, even Medicine Prize, but never the Physics, for it is a list that is 80% in error.
I am reading with endless fascination. The helicopter flys 12 meters above the Mars surface and has 2 blades.
The Mars atmosphere is 1% of Earth's, which tells me that with 3 blades and flight from North Pole on Earth, that it is easy for the helicopter to reach the International Space Station.
And I would be willing to bet that with 6 blades, the helicopter with the lithium ion batteries can fly to the Moon and back to Earth riding on the Solar Wind and Earth's magnetic field and electric field.
Wonderful, that it takes humanity to build a robot to fly on Mars, not knowing that the ultimate use of this helicopter is to redesign our total Space Flights into Outer Space. I will probably see the replacement of all rockets by lithium ion battery operated helicopters before I die.
AP, King of Science, especially Physics
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 19, 2022, 1:43:53 PM (yesterday)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
15-News from Mars helicopter today-THE NOBEL PRIZE IN PHYSICS FOR ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM 62k views Subscribe Earle Jones's profile photo Earle Jones Jan 6, 2022, 12:27:27 AM to * Some of us are thinking: When will our friend and colleague, Archimedes Plutonium,
AP will accept the Chemistry Nobel Prize, or Physiology, even Medicine Prize, but never the Physics, for it is a list that is 80% in error.
I am reading with endless fascination. The helicopter flys 12 meters above the Mars surface and has 2 rotor blades.
Now I do not know if the helicopter was programmed to be constrained to 12 meters, which I am guessing is the case. For if the helicopter on Mars could fly to any height it wanted I am guessing it could fly much higher than the 12 meters self imposed constraint on it.
So maybe in its final testing, maybe they can let the helicopter see if it can fly back to Earth.
The Mars atmosphere is 1% of Earth's, which tells me that with 3 rotor blades and flight from North Pole on Earth, that it is easy for the helicopter to reach the International Space Station.
And I would be willing to bet that with 6 rotor blades, the helicopter with the lithium ion batteries can fly to the Moon and back to Earth riding on the Solar Wind and Earth's magnetic field and electric field.
Wonderful, that it takes humanity to build a robot to fly on Mars, not knowing that the ultimate use of this helicopter is to redesign our total Space Flights into Outer Space. I will probably see the replacement of all rockets by lithium ion battery operated helicopters before I die.
THE NOBEL PRIZE IN PHYSICS FOR ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM
62k views
Earle Jones's profile photo
Earle Jones
Jan 6, 2022, 12:27:27 AM
to
*
Some of us are thinking: When will our friend and colleague, Archimedes Plutonium, win a Nobel Proze for all of his contributions to our field of Physics? There is no doubt that he has completely turned the entire field of Physics and brought it into the new way of thinking. We owe him some great thing.
At the same time, we need to think about the Fields Medal for Mathematical achievements. This is the Nobel Prize of Mathematiscs. Plutonium had completely re-writteen conventional mathematics into the new format and has offered many proofs of his new findings. His proof of slant cut of conic sections (the oval) is sufficiently advanced to warrant this award.
He is widely publiched and widely quoted. He has some 150 + books now attributed to his intellect.
Can we somehow get behind him and promote his wise genius? He needs to be recognized and awarded.
Earle Jones, Georgia Tech, Stanford.
*
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 6, 2022, 2:52:30 AM (6 days ago)
to
Earle Jones, a new man? Jones first upbeat post?
Thanks for the nomination. But, Earle, I think I would be better off with such a prize, being able to get a lot more science accomplished.
When you win the Nobel-- I have never seen anyone who won that prize and able to do "good science" afterwards. As if all their remaining time is in a state of publicity rather than being in a state of research. Thousands of nosey reporters knocking on your door, wanting your appearance, trespassing all over your property, kids camped out on your lawn wanting autographs. No, I rather be content doing science, not going out in mindless publicity.
But recently I see that a huge science neglected was RNA editing.
And I see that rightfully Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna won the chemistry Nobel in 2020 for CRISPR. But see little chemistry involved and should have gone for Physiology.
Thanks Earle, I am content as is. The only benefit a award like that for AP would be that it gets more people on my side, and perhaps increases my chances of conquering the science of Reincarnation, which I hope to conquer before I die.
Awards often do the opposite that a scientist needs-- peace and quiet away from other people.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 6, 2022, 2:57:36 AM (6 days ago)
to
I should have proofread this post, but I seldom do proofreading.
On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 2:52:30 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Earle Jones, a new man? Jones first upbeat post?
>
> Thanks for the nomination. But, Earle, I think I would be better off with such a prize, being able to get a lot more science accomplished.
>
better off without such a prize/s
> When you win the Nobel-- I have never seen anyone who won that prize and able to do "good science" afterwards. As if all their remaining time is in a state of publicity rather than being in a state of research. Thousands of nosey reporters knocking on your door, wanting your appearance, trespassing all over your property, kids camped out on your lawn wanting autographs. No, I rather be content doing science, not going out in mindless publicity.
>
> But recently I see that a huge science neglected was RNA editing.
>
> And I see that rightfully Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna won the chemistry Nobel in 2020 for CRISPR. But see little chemistry involved and should have gone for Physiology.
>
> Thanks Earle, I am content as is. The only benefit a award like that for AP would be that it gets more people on my side, and perhaps increases my chances of conquering the science of Reincarnation, which I hope to conquer before I die.
>
To fasttrack the evolution of drone airflight, and to fasttrack humanity colonizing Europa before Earth gets swallowed by the Sun as the Sun has gone Red Giant Phase.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 7, 2022, 12:59:10 PM (4 days ago)
to
The very moment one of my worst critics sees the light of day is the very moment ( as a sign to me, from God for the Ancients were always looking for signs from God, but in our terribly athiest view of the world in modern times we no longer look for signs from God) is the very moment that I must act upon the other crackpot crank fools of mathematics and of physics especially.
Today, on my list is Jill Pipher, John Baez, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Terence Tao, Andrew Wiles, Ken Ribet--- all need to go to their current University newspaper or magazine and acknowledge the Slant cut in Single Cone is a Oval, never the Ellipse. State it clear that Old Math was wrong and the slant cut of single cone is Oval never ellipse and have it published.
Time is of the essence.
No longer are people in academics able to play a Fools Game of teaching obnoxious garbage simply because they "refuse to do proper correct true mathematics".
Time is of the essence.
The above list of math fools reminds me of the moron tennis player Djokovic, the moron who refuses vaccination, simply because he is a moron of science, just as Jill Pipher, John Baez, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Terence Tao, Andrew Wiles, Ken Ribet are morons of mathematics.
As for Physics, far more important than mathematics, on this side of science-- I require every one of these failed physicists who are alive still to do the same thing -- go to your nearest University newspaper or magazine and have published that -- True electron of Atoms is the muon and the 0.5MeV particle is the Dirac magnetic monopole. Do it in Godspeed. Because Earth and humanity has not the time to fool around as you are fools of physics.
Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,
Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish
David J. Thouless, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita
Arthur B. McDonald
Francois Englert
Saul Perlmutter
Brian P. Schmidt
Adam G. Riess
Makoto Kobayashi
Toshihide Maskawa
Yoichiro Nambu
John C. Mather
George F. Smoot
Roy J. Glauber
David J. Gross
Hugh David Politzer
Frank Wilczek
Raymond Davis Jr.
Masatoshi Koshiba
Riccardo Giacconi
Gerardus 't Hooft
Martinus J.G. Veltman
Jerome I. Friedman
Henry W. Kendall
Richard E. Taylor
Carlo Rubbia
Simon van der Meer
William Alfred Fowler
Kenneth G. Wilson
James Watson Cronin
Val Logsdon Fitch
Sheldon Lee Glashow
Steven Weinberg
.
.
little fishes
.
.
Layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = subtraction of either 3 or 2, while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV
Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass
Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu
more and more layers of error thinking physics
.
.
John Baez
Brian Greene
Lisa Randall
Alan H. Guth
Michael E. Brown
Konstantin Batygin
Ben Bullock
Larry Harson
Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
None at all - he was a raving nutter.
Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley
Edward Witten
AP, King of Science, especially Physics
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 7, 2022, 10:47:01 PM (4 days ago)
to
AP will probably accept a Chemistry or Physiology or Medicine Nobel Prize, as those prizes are less than than 1/4 wrong. However the Physics Nobel prizes has become a list of 80% wrong. For AP to go on a Physics Nobel prize list is like asking a physicist to go on a list of banal comics and airhead comics list, those who think I love Lucy is funny.
Chemistry has less of a chance of awarding to fake and con-artist chemists. For it is strongly experimental, not so much the silly dumbminds of theoretical physicists.
Of course, chemistry had the wrong electron ever since JJ Thomson. And Thomson won the physics Nobel.
Probably Physiology and Medicine have low rate of errors, as well as chemistry.
But Nobel Physics prize is a garbage dump cesspool. In fact, so bad is the Physics Nobel, that is more of a dishonor to be on that list, than ever any honor, but then there are some blokes who see the money as valuable.
If I do win a Nobel Chemistry or Physiology or Medicine prize, I should go through and accurately cull out the fake junk in those awards, but pretty sure the Physics Noble is about 80% fake physics, perhaps the only true physics in the Physics Nobel are the raw experiments-- superconductivity. But even here, the experiment of Bohr to determine a atom has a nucleus is sheer nonsense, so even experiments in physics are often bogus. My 80% of physics Nobels as fake, maybe too low, for it maybe that 95% of physics Nobels are poppycock.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 7, 2022, 11:34:23 PM (4 days ago)
to
The discovery of the JJ Thomson particle was actually Dirac's magnetic monopole after Dirac started to pursue that particle in theory after 1930. And the awards for the muon especially is a solid award, as well as the neutron (was the neutron to Chadwick awarded?? my memory slips me). Many of the principles of physics are well founded. For a principle of physics is often where we simply do not know or understand the underlying electromagnetism creating that phenomenon.
But about 1950 onwards where this nonsense of Standard Model and all its gimmicks crept into Physics is a fountain trough of Fakery, ugly fakery.
Probably because most physicists got behind General Relativity-- a fakery itself. So when a science gets behind a fakery, then count on decades wasted.
They should have got behind Maxwell and electricity and magnetism. My heroes, Dirac, Feynman, Bell, DeBroglie shone in all that ugly fakery of that century of physics. For they probably, deep down avoided the fake General Relativity and focused on electricity and magnetism.
Not easy to master the Maxwell Equation, and that is probably why so many losers flocked to General Relativity, where you had to do nothing.
With the Maxwell Equations, it is easy to separate out the quacks from the learned.
So if the 20th century had fully focused on EM theory and never for once paid any attention to GR lunacy, then the Physics Nobel prizes would have probably be more correct awards than its dismal status now of 80% or more fakes.
But there can never be a replacement of the Missed Awards, the missing of Edison and Tesla who of which two men changed the entire 20th century and beyond with their "electrification of the world". The Nobel prize in physics will forevermore be a flawed system of awards, for they missed Edison and Tesla. It is like a award for religion leaders, and missing Jesus Christ in the list.
So, does AP want to be on a list of such massive mistakes and Misses? Hell no, for that only elevates the con-artist fakesters who now infest that list, and demotes AP.
I will probably accept a Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine Nobel award.
In Chemistry, AP even cleans up the Lewis 8 Structure with the true structure of Lewis 6. I do not know if anyone won a Chemistry Nobel for the Lewis 8 structure, and if they did, well they are wrong. For the Lewis 6 Structure leads directly into there being 3 distinct isomers of CO2. And that is extremely important in our modern world of Global Warming, not to mention the evolution of life depends on animal-CO2 which is altogether different from fire-CO2.
Chemistry is more stable of a science for awards, for you have to do something in experiments. While physics, often is some kook with his mind blowing kook games, upstairs.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 8, 2022, 1:29:55 AM (4 days ago)
to
As for any prizes or awards in mathematics to Archimedes Plutonium, is out of the question.
For the Abel Prize and the Fields Medal are goon lists of mathematicians. At least there was room for some true Nobel Physics prizes such as the discovery of the neutron and muon, or the Schrodinger and Dirac Equations as partial truths of the Dirac magnetic monopole of 0.5MeV particle, or the superconductivity discoveries or the cathode ray tubes and discovery of radioactivity, and others.
For the huge problem in Physics was the mix up in the true real electron of atoms is the muon, not the 0.5MeV particle and coupled with the braindead love of General Relativity, when the love should have been placed on Maxwell's electricity and magnetism and his Equations of EM. Instead, the 20th century physics went down a cesspool in GR nonsense with black holes, dark matter dark energy and other lunatic ideas.
But in mathematics with its Fields Medal and Abel prize it was near impossible to do anything new and true in mathematics. Not when you have a continuum, have Reals as numbers, and never have a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
The entire list of math awards in Fields Medal and Abel Prize, that entire list is a list of 100% worthless fakery of mathematics.
At least some discoveries and ideas were true in the Physics Nobel prizes, but in mathematics, 100% were worthless nonsense fakery. You cannot have any true mathematics with a Continuum, with Reals, and never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
In this sense, AP will accept a Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his Oval is the conic section and the geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. For the entire universe is a Atom Totality and atoms have geometry and the totality is a atom of 231Pu and you do not get any more science chemistry than atoms. So, if someone wants to award AP for all his mathematics contributions, a Nobel in Chemistry is wise and sufficient.
As for the Abel and Fields awards, they should die a swift death of shame and silly ineptitude. I predict no-one except cash strapped fools will accept a Fields or Abel award in the future. For why be put on a list of greater-fools?
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 8, 2022, 8:01:49 PM (3 days ago)
to
An engineer out of Georgia Tech, Stanford, smarter than the entire math dept of UCLA with Terence Tao, for no-one at UCLA can admit the truth about the conic single cone slant cut is a Oval, never the ellipse. UCLA should be intensely ashamed of themselves, that a High School student knows better than all of UCLA on cone slant cut is Oval.
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
•
•
#11-2, 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
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 10, 2022, 7:17:56 PM (yesterday)
to
Earle, I have a favor to ask of you, and you are far more qualified to set this idea into motion than I am. I say that because you have a degree in electrical engineering Ga.Tech and Stanford Univ. Just the perfect career to get started and launched for one of my most curious of all projects.
I need to see how high a drone can fly, for I have the sneeky suspicion as seen from the drone on Mars, its splendid behavior. That drones can fly without a atmosphere at all, but fly on the Magnetic Field of Earth and on the Solar Wind that is pervasive in the Solar System.
So my favor I ask of you Earle Jones, is to get a hold of some of your friends and acquaintances and test fly drones of all stripes and shapes to fly the drone to the International Space Station, ISS.
Everyone, I know says it is impossible-- but what do they know with their --- book knowledge but no innate knowledge, and I think naysayers are all wrong.
So, Earle, can you start the ball rolling on this experiment? It needs to fly at launch near the North Pole to get that upward lift force from Earth's Magnetic Field lines of force at the North Pole.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 11, 2022, 1:22:49 PM (22 hours ago)
to
I am convinced that drones can fly in space "without ambient air". They can fly on the Solar Magnetic Field and Earth's Magnetic Field and get acceleration from the Solar Wind.
I envision this flight by drone as the blades being a thrusting magnet and the Magnetic fields and Solar Wind as the coils of copper wire.
142nd published book
Spacecraft Propulsion System based entirely on electricity and magnetism using the ambient electricity & magnetism of Space// Engineering series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
While writing several books recently in the months leading up to October 2020, I needed a new Spacecraft Propulsion System, to ferry Humanity from Earth to Mars, Europa, Pluto, due to Sun Initiation of Red Giant Phase with its 0.005% yearly increase in UV radiation. And to satisfy my sci-fi books of "White Rhino", "Two White Rhinos", and some other books. So in October 2020, I had a urgent need to write a book on how to engineer the worlds finest spacecraft for the future. And that urgent need lead me to this book. I must say though, that without that Scientific American article in February 2020, "The Enigma of Aerodynamic Lift" without that article, this book would not have come about. So this book is a clear cut example of the nexus of several research projects all lending a helping hand in the writing and culmination of this book. As the Old Saying goes, one hand washes the other hand.
Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of a Google search for drones. Now I define drones as those that are lithium battery powered and are helicopter flight in motion. I do no include airplanes as drones.
Length: 34 pages
Product details
• Publication Date : October 24, 2020
• File Size : 1007 KB
• Print Length : 34 pages
• Language: : English
• ASIN : B08LT9ST84
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Message has been deleted
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
12:24 AM (11 hours ago)
to
Of course we need international permission to try to fly a drone to the ISS.
Permission so that we do not hit a satellite or something else up there already.
And I do not know if we need some practice in the ISS to intercept a drone if it flys that high.
SCIENCE NEWS, 15Jan2022 has news of the helicopter on Mars "The NASA helicopter is pushing limits and doing science."
So, I would like to ask NASA to build another helicopter the same as the one on Mars and over the North Pole where the greatest amount of Earth Magnetic field is found, test it if this robot can fly to the height of the ISS, International Space Station. I would think everyone on Earth will be lovely surprised that such a helicopter can fly without ambient air. In fact, could fly to the moon if we did our calculations.
AP, King of Science, especially Physics
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 18, 2022, 8:43:57 PM (2 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
15-News from Mars helicopter today-THE NOBEL PRIZE IN PHYSICS FOR ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM 62k views Subscribe Earle Jones's profile photo Earle Jones Jan 6, 2022, 12:27:27 AM to * Some of us are thinking: When will our friend and colleague, Archimedes Plutonium,
AP will accept the Chemistry Nobel Prize, or Physiology, even Medicine Prize, but never the Physics, for it is a list that is 80% in error.
I am reading with endless fascination. The helicopter flys 12 meters above the Mars surface and has 2 blades.
The Mars atmosphere is 1% of Earth's, which tells me that with 3 blades and flight from North Pole on Earth, that it is easy for the helicopter to reach the International Space Station.
And I would be willing to bet that with 6 blades, the helicopter with the lithium ion batteries can fly to the Moon and back to Earth riding on the Solar Wind and Earth's magnetic field and electric field.
Wonderful, that it takes humanity to build a robot to fly on Mars, not knowing that the ultimate use of this helicopter is to redesign our total Space Flights into Outer Space. I will probably see the replacement of all rockets by lithium ion battery operated helicopters before I die.
AP, King of Science, especially Physics
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 19, 2022, 1:43:53 PM (yesterday)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
15-News from Mars helicopter today-THE NOBEL PRIZE IN PHYSICS FOR ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM 62k views Subscribe Earle Jones's profile photo Earle Jones Jan 6, 2022, 12:27:27 AM to * Some of us are thinking: When will our friend and colleague, Archimedes Plutonium,
AP will accept the Chemistry Nobel Prize, or Physiology, even Medicine Prize, but never the Physics, for it is a list that is 80% in error.
I am reading with endless fascination. The helicopter flys 12 meters above the Mars surface and has 2 rotor blades.
Now I do not know if the helicopter was programmed to be constrained to 12 meters, which I am guessing is the case. For if the helicopter on Mars could fly to any height it wanted I am guessing it could fly much higher than the 12 meters self imposed constraint on it.
So maybe in its final testing, maybe they can let the helicopter see if it can fly back to Earth.
The Mars atmosphere is 1% of Earth's, which tells me that with 3 rotor blades and flight from North Pole on Earth, that it is easy for the helicopter to reach the International Space Station.
And I would be willing to bet that with 6 rotor blades, the helicopter with the lithium ion batteries can fly to the Moon and back to Earth riding on the Solar Wind and Earth's magnetic field and electric field.
Wonderful, that it takes humanity to build a robot to fly on Mars, not knowing that the ultimate use of this helicopter is to redesign our total Space Flights into Outer Space. I will probably see the replacement of all rockets by lithium ion battery operated helicopters before I die.
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 21, 2022, 10:44:15 PM1/21/22
to
17-News from Mars helicopter today-THE NOBEL PRIZE IN PHYSICS FOR ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM 62k views Subscribe Earle Jones's profile photo Earle Jones Jan 6, 2022, 12:27:27 AM to * Some of us are thinking: When will our friend and colleague, Archimedes Plutonium,
8:07 PM (2 hours ago)
to
In the SCIENCE NEWS, 15Jan2022 states "Ingenuity has lifted itself a maximum of 12 meters above the Martian surface, zipped along at up to 5 meters per second..."
And I would be almost betting that if the helicopter was not programmed to go no higher than 12 meters, if the engineers could somehow at this late date, allow the helicopter on Mars to fly as high as it wanted to, I bet it would fly into outer space and possibly return to Earth if guided to do so. Riding on the Solar Wind and Earth's magnetic field. Although it would likely be a crash landing into Earth.
to
In the SCIENCE NEWS, 15Jan2022 states "Ingenuity has lifted itself a maximum of 12 meters above the Martian surface, zipped along at up to 5 meters per second..."
And I would be almost betting that if the helicopter was not programmed to go no higher than 12 meters, if the engineers could somehow at this late date, allow the helicopter on Mars to fly as high as it wanted to, I bet it would fly into outer space and possibly return to Earth if guided to do so. Riding on the Solar Wind and Earth's magnetic field. Although it would likely be a crash landing into Earth.
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 22, 2022, 5:16:26 PM1/22/22
to
AP's 169th book
Mathematics Consistency// Logic science
by Archimedes Plutonium
The 169th book of Science for AP// Math Consistency tests (1) geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (2) Oresme screw-up of Harmonic series (3) polynomials as only valid functions (4) screw-up of dimensions
So what we have here is extremely fascinating and extremely important, because we all can see the derivative in 2 dimensional calculus is dy/dx.
And here is an opportunity for the first time to see Derivative in 3rd dimension where the motor rotor of a 1/second^2 is involved with the dy/dx of 2nd dimension. The motor rotor of a Distance/ motor rotor is acceleration.
So we see the 2nd dimension calculus of purely dy/dx.
But now we can see the 3rd dimension calculus-- acceleration --- as the dy/motor rotor.
In one of my books I explain 3rd dimensional calculus as being in fact the Faraday Law. But now, today, I can tie into that with acceleration is dy/motor rotor.
And the way we see or view this is our own running or the running of Secretariat. The dy for Secretariat is his 110degree forleg to hindleg-- the stride in the run. But now we have a 1/seconds^2 and that is what is called by me the motor rotor. Do we have a fast 1/sec^2 a fast motor rotor or do we have a slow motor rotor.
I myself as a runner knows I have a very fast motor rotor, the energy I can burst forth with throwing my legs out on a run. However, I lack a huge stride. If I had a huge stride along with my motor rotor, I would have in my youth probably won a Olympic medal in racing. But because I have a short stride, means I was never Olympic material.
So in running, there are two dynamics at play, there is the stride-- how far apart can you throw your front leg to hind leg, and Secretariat was champion of that with 110 degrees separation. But the other dynamic is how fast that internal motor of the runner is going, how fast or rpm's or motor rotor is the runner producing. And in Secretariat with his heart so much larger than the average race horse could have a high high rpm. And that is the reason Secretariat won the triple crown in his last of 3 races beating the field by 31 lengths. When you put a racehorse with a 110 degree stride and a motor rotor of Secretariat, he is going to win by 31 lengths.
And the point in all of this, is that just like Volume is all consuming of a measure of Space. So is Acceleration all consuming of calculus Derivative in 3rd dimension. There cannot be a 4th dimension for it destroys geometry. Which in proofs of Math Consistency, means geometry has contradictions if inconsistent. A 4th dimension causes geometry to be inconsistent.
Physics had a concept for 1/seconds and called it frequency and called it rpm revolutions per minute (or seconds).
But physics had no concept for 1/seconds^2.
Sure, 1/sec^2 is the derivative of 1/sec, but physics had no developed concept for 1/sec^2 and no term for it.
So let me name 1/seconds^2 as being motor-rotor. The motor-rotor is the rate of change of 1/sec. This rate of change is 1/seconds times 1/seconds equals 1/seconds^2. Since rpm is in minutes we include 60 seconds in a minute and so the Motor-Rotor is rpm times rpm, also new to physics.
In Running whether human or racehorse there are two components, the stride is 1st component and the motor-rotor is the 2nd component. The stride is throwing your legs forward. The motor-rotor is a measure of the body to keep on throwing the legs forward. The fastest runners have a large stride and have a fast rotation of motor, some would call this the pace. So that if you as a runner can throw your legs 2 times against another runner with the same stride who throws his legs once to your 2 times, then your legs are faster than the other runner for you will have covered 2 times the distance.
There are four kinds of runners:
1) short stride and slow motor-rotor
2) long stride but slow motor-rotor
3) short stride and fast motor-rotor
4) long stride and fast motor-rotor
Someone running in place is short stride and fast motor-rotor. Olympic champions want as long a stride as possible hooked up to a fastest possible motor-rotor.
Now yesterday I defined a brand new concept of both math and physics in that of 1/seconds^2. Of course, Old Math and Old Physics defined Frequency for that of 1/seconds, but they were too stupid to define 1/seconds^2. I defined it as Motor-Rotor as the rate of change of rps, revolutions per second.
This is extremely important for both math and physics because it is the 3rd dimension calculus. Being dunces in Old Math and Old Physics, they never had a 3rd dimensional calculus. With their 2 dimension dumb minds, they could not even go from their 2nd dimension calculus to where AP is at now,-- 3rd dimension calculus.
So yesterday I defined the concept of Motor-Rotor which is dy/(dx^2) the 2nd derivative of 1/seconds. And this is a concept, a phenomenon we easily recognize in Runners and Racehorses. In running the Stride- the throwing out of legs in the next step forward is the dy of calculus, and the repeating of stride is the frequency the 1/seconds. But now, we have 3rd dimension calculus and here we have the Stride , but we also have the math of Repeating-that-Stride involved in what I call the Motor-Rotor, of 1/seconds^2. We can think of it as the body energy in rotating the Stride legs to repeat another new stride.
So if we have a Runner like Secretariat with a Stride of 110degree angle from forleg to hindleg, which is the largest stride recorded in horse racing and if we couple that stride with a huge Motor Rotor-- the ability to repeat that throwing of stride, then you have a champion racehorse.
But today I am going to talk about the numerator of dy/dx which is speed. And instead of squaring the denominator for acceleration as dy/(dx^2) I am going to square the numerator of dy/dx and have (dy^2)/dx. And many of those in physics already knows what that is, for it is angular momentum.
So in the dumb and silly and stupid Old Math and Old Physics that had only 2nd dimension calculus. New Math and New Physics has 3rd Dimension Calculus with its (dy^2)/dx and its dy/(dx^2).
In 3rd Dimension Calculus I need not define dy^2 as it is meters^2 and we all know what meters squared is that of area. But it gives us greater insight into a concept that no-one in Old Physics ever mastered-- angular momentum, for every physicist of the 1900s never understood angular momentum, absolutely not a single physicist of the 1900s had a understanding worth more than 10 cents of what is angular momentum. And the proof of this is that everyone in the 1900s saw the 0.5MeV particle flying around a 938MeV proton at over 99% the speed of light. There is no angular momentum in that for the 0.5MeV particle would immediately fly off. There is angular momentum when we take the Muon as the true real electron of atoms, but it still is moving at too fast a speed to be bound to a proton. So we have to realize and understand that the Muon of 105MeV is stuck inside a proton torus of 840MeV. Being stuck inside so that the 8 rings of the proton hold and bound the Muon inside and doing the Faraday Law with the proton torus, gives Angular Momentum.
AP, King of Science, especially Physics
Alright, I have not spent enough time on Function Inverses as I should have spent. And now is the time to fill in that gap.
Because just a few days ago we come into 3D Calculus with the concept of acceleration as being dy/(dx^2) while angular momentum is (dy^2)/dx.
One easily recognizes the inverse relationship.
Now since true math is all 1st Quadrant only and only positive Decimal Grid Numbers and only Polynomials as functions we must consider the function of Y = x compared to the function Y = 10 -x in the 10 Grid.
And consider if Y= x is the inverse of Y = 10-x.
In fact if we drew in the 10 Grid as a square then the functions graphed simultaneously should look like this X inside that square.
What I am probing here, yes probing is whether Angular Momentum (dy^2)/dx is the inverse of dy/(dx^2).
AP, King of Science, especially Physics
Alright, I have not spent enough time on Function Inverses as I should have spent. And now is the time to fill in that gap.
Because just a few days ago we come into 3D Calculus with the concept of acceleration as being dy/(dx^2) while angular momentum is (dy^2)/dx.
One easily recognizes the inverse relationship.
Now since true math is all 1st Quadrant only and only positive Decimal Grid Numbers and only Polynomials as functions we must consider the function of Y = x compared to the function Y = 10 -x in the 10 Grid.
And consider if Y= x is the inverse of Y = 10-x.
In fact if we drew in the 10 Grid as a square then the functions graphed simultaneously should look like this X inside that square.
What I am probing here, yes probing is whether Angular Momentum (dy^2)/dx is the inverse of dy/(dx^2).
Mathematics Consistency// Logic science
by Archimedes Plutonium
The 169th book of Science for AP// Math Consistency tests (1) geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (2) Oresme screw-up of Harmonic series (3) polynomials as only valid functions (4) screw-up of dimensions
So what we have here is extremely fascinating and extremely important, because we all can see the derivative in 2 dimensional calculus is dy/dx.
And here is an opportunity for the first time to see Derivative in 3rd dimension where the motor rotor of a 1/second^2 is involved with the dy/dx of 2nd dimension. The motor rotor of a Distance/ motor rotor is acceleration.
So we see the 2nd dimension calculus of purely dy/dx.
But now we can see the 3rd dimension calculus-- acceleration --- as the dy/motor rotor.
In one of my books I explain 3rd dimensional calculus as being in fact the Faraday Law. But now, today, I can tie into that with acceleration is dy/motor rotor.
And the way we see or view this is our own running or the running of Secretariat. The dy for Secretariat is his 110degree forleg to hindleg-- the stride in the run. But now we have a 1/seconds^2 and that is what is called by me the motor rotor. Do we have a fast 1/sec^2 a fast motor rotor or do we have a slow motor rotor.
I myself as a runner knows I have a very fast motor rotor, the energy I can burst forth with throwing my legs out on a run. However, I lack a huge stride. If I had a huge stride along with my motor rotor, I would have in my youth probably won a Olympic medal in racing. But because I have a short stride, means I was never Olympic material.
So in running, there are two dynamics at play, there is the stride-- how far apart can you throw your front leg to hind leg, and Secretariat was champion of that with 110 degrees separation. But the other dynamic is how fast that internal motor of the runner is going, how fast or rpm's or motor rotor is the runner producing. And in Secretariat with his heart so much larger than the average race horse could have a high high rpm. And that is the reason Secretariat won the triple crown in his last of 3 races beating the field by 31 lengths. When you put a racehorse with a 110 degree stride and a motor rotor of Secretariat, he is going to win by 31 lengths.
And the point in all of this, is that just like Volume is all consuming of a measure of Space. So is Acceleration all consuming of calculus Derivative in 3rd dimension. There cannot be a 4th dimension for it destroys geometry. Which in proofs of Math Consistency, means geometry has contradictions if inconsistent. A 4th dimension causes geometry to be inconsistent.
Physics had a concept for 1/seconds and called it frequency and called it rpm revolutions per minute (or seconds).
But physics had no concept for 1/seconds^2.
Sure, 1/sec^2 is the derivative of 1/sec, but physics had no developed concept for 1/sec^2 and no term for it.
So let me name 1/seconds^2 as being motor-rotor. The motor-rotor is the rate of change of 1/sec. This rate of change is 1/seconds times 1/seconds equals 1/seconds^2. Since rpm is in minutes we include 60 seconds in a minute and so the Motor-Rotor is rpm times rpm, also new to physics.
In Running whether human or racehorse there are two components, the stride is 1st component and the motor-rotor is the 2nd component. The stride is throwing your legs forward. The motor-rotor is a measure of the body to keep on throwing the legs forward. The fastest runners have a large stride and have a fast rotation of motor, some would call this the pace. So that if you as a runner can throw your legs 2 times against another runner with the same stride who throws his legs once to your 2 times, then your legs are faster than the other runner for you will have covered 2 times the distance.
There are four kinds of runners:
1) short stride and slow motor-rotor
2) long stride but slow motor-rotor
3) short stride and fast motor-rotor
4) long stride and fast motor-rotor
Someone running in place is short stride and fast motor-rotor. Olympic champions want as long a stride as possible hooked up to a fastest possible motor-rotor.
Now yesterday I defined a brand new concept of both math and physics in that of 1/seconds^2. Of course, Old Math and Old Physics defined Frequency for that of 1/seconds, but they were too stupid to define 1/seconds^2. I defined it as Motor-Rotor as the rate of change of rps, revolutions per second.
This is extremely important for both math and physics because it is the 3rd dimension calculus. Being dunces in Old Math and Old Physics, they never had a 3rd dimensional calculus. With their 2 dimension dumb minds, they could not even go from their 2nd dimension calculus to where AP is at now,-- 3rd dimension calculus.
So yesterday I defined the concept of Motor-Rotor which is dy/(dx^2) the 2nd derivative of 1/seconds. And this is a concept, a phenomenon we easily recognize in Runners and Racehorses. In running the Stride- the throwing out of legs in the next step forward is the dy of calculus, and the repeating of stride is the frequency the 1/seconds. But now, we have 3rd dimension calculus and here we have the Stride , but we also have the math of Repeating-that-Stride involved in what I call the Motor-Rotor, of 1/seconds^2. We can think of it as the body energy in rotating the Stride legs to repeat another new stride.
So if we have a Runner like Secretariat with a Stride of 110degree angle from forleg to hindleg, which is the largest stride recorded in horse racing and if we couple that stride with a huge Motor Rotor-- the ability to repeat that throwing of stride, then you have a champion racehorse.
But today I am going to talk about the numerator of dy/dx which is speed. And instead of squaring the denominator for acceleration as dy/(dx^2) I am going to square the numerator of dy/dx and have (dy^2)/dx. And many of those in physics already knows what that is, for it is angular momentum.
So in the dumb and silly and stupid Old Math and Old Physics that had only 2nd dimension calculus. New Math and New Physics has 3rd Dimension Calculus with its (dy^2)/dx and its dy/(dx^2).
In 3rd Dimension Calculus I need not define dy^2 as it is meters^2 and we all know what meters squared is that of area. But it gives us greater insight into a concept that no-one in Old Physics ever mastered-- angular momentum, for every physicist of the 1900s never understood angular momentum, absolutely not a single physicist of the 1900s had a understanding worth more than 10 cents of what is angular momentum. And the proof of this is that everyone in the 1900s saw the 0.5MeV particle flying around a 938MeV proton at over 99% the speed of light. There is no angular momentum in that for the 0.5MeV particle would immediately fly off. There is angular momentum when we take the Muon as the true real electron of atoms, but it still is moving at too fast a speed to be bound to a proton. So we have to realize and understand that the Muon of 105MeV is stuck inside a proton torus of 840MeV. Being stuck inside so that the 8 rings of the proton hold and bound the Muon inside and doing the Faraday Law with the proton torus, gives Angular Momentum.
AP, King of Science, especially Physics
Because just a few days ago we come into 3D Calculus with the concept of acceleration as being dy/(dx^2) while angular momentum is (dy^2)/dx.
One easily recognizes the inverse relationship.
Now since true math is all 1st Quadrant only and only positive Decimal Grid Numbers and only Polynomials as functions we must consider the function of Y = x compared to the function Y = 10 -x in the 10 Grid.
And consider if Y= x is the inverse of Y = 10-x.
In fact if we drew in the 10 Grid as a square then the functions graphed simultaneously should look like this X inside that square.
What I am probing here, yes probing is whether Angular Momentum (dy^2)/dx is the inverse of dy/(dx^2).
AP, King of Science, especially Physics
Because just a few days ago we come into 3D Calculus with the concept of acceleration as being dy/(dx^2) while angular momentum is (dy^2)/dx.
One easily recognizes the inverse relationship.
Now since true math is all 1st Quadrant only and only positive Decimal Grid Numbers and only Polynomials as functions we must consider the function of Y = x compared to the function Y = 10 -x in the 10 Grid.
And consider if Y= x is the inverse of Y = 10-x.
In fact if we drew in the 10 Grid as a square then the functions graphed simultaneously should look like this X inside that square.
What I am probing here, yes probing is whether Angular Momentum (dy^2)/dx is the inverse of dy/(dx^2).
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 22, 2022, 7:02:59 PM1/22/22
to
What AP is attempting to do here is something that Old Math failed to even consider, a standardized method of telling the inverse of a given function.
AP's 169th book //Mathematics Consistency// Logic science by Archimedes Plutonium The 169th book of Science for AP// Math Consistency tests (1) geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (2) Oresme screw-up of Harmonic series (3) polynomials
In New Math we can do this, and make it ultra easy. Because the only true functions in existence are the Polynomial functions, and as shown in my earlier post of today, where I take Y= x then its inverse is a subtraction of Y = 10 -x when in 10 Grid or be Y = 100-x in 100 Grid, etc.
So in New Math where all functions are polynomials and if not a polynomial, you have to take time away and convert via Lagrange transformation, convert your silly dumb function into a true polynomial function over a specific interval. And all functions inhabit only the 1st Quadrant of mathematics, the other 3 were mental insane asylum clinic quadrants.
So here we see a way of finding the inverse of any given function in 2D. We simply subtract from the Grid largest number. So what is the inverse of Y = x^2 in 10 Grid? It would be Y = 10 - x^2 in 1st Quadrant Only as all functions are polynomials in first quadrant only.
Now the reason I am exploring and digging into inverses is because of 3rd Dimension Calculus where we have Angular Momentum as (dy^2)/dx and we have acceleration as dy/(dx^2). This is my primary goal is to resolve those two as inverse relationships.
And already we can sort of see glimmers of true reality in that a dy^2 moving through a dx is the Ampere law of magnetic field around a wire carrying electricity. While the dx^2 in acceleration is the electric field in Faraday law of a electric current produced by thrusting bar magnet.
We certainly know the Ampere law is the inverse of Faraday law and both are in 3rd dimension and here I am making the case of Calculus in 3rd Dimension has the inverses of dy/(dx^2) relative to (dy^2)/dx.
This would be a great clarification in both math and physics where up to now, it was thought that angular momentum and acceleration were totally unrelated.
AP's 169th book //Mathematics Consistency// Logic science by Archimedes Plutonium The 169th book of Science for AP// Math Consistency tests (1) geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (2) Oresme screw-up of Harmonic series (3) polynomials
In New Math we can do this, and make it ultra easy. Because the only true functions in existence are the Polynomial functions, and as shown in my earlier post of today, where I take Y= x then its inverse is a subtraction of Y = 10 -x when in 10 Grid or be Y = 100-x in 100 Grid, etc.
So in New Math where all functions are polynomials and if not a polynomial, you have to take time away and convert via Lagrange transformation, convert your silly dumb function into a true polynomial function over a specific interval. And all functions inhabit only the 1st Quadrant of mathematics, the other 3 were mental insane asylum clinic quadrants.
So here we see a way of finding the inverse of any given function in 2D. We simply subtract from the Grid largest number. So what is the inverse of Y = x^2 in 10 Grid? It would be Y = 10 - x^2 in 1st Quadrant Only as all functions are polynomials in first quadrant only.
Now the reason I am exploring and digging into inverses is because of 3rd Dimension Calculus where we have Angular Momentum as (dy^2)/dx and we have acceleration as dy/(dx^2). This is my primary goal is to resolve those two as inverse relationships.
And already we can sort of see glimmers of true reality in that a dy^2 moving through a dx is the Ampere law of magnetic field around a wire carrying electricity. While the dx^2 in acceleration is the electric field in Faraday law of a electric current produced by thrusting bar magnet.
We certainly know the Ampere law is the inverse of Faraday law and both are in 3rd dimension and here I am making the case of Calculus in 3rd Dimension has the inverses of dy/(dx^2) relative to (dy^2)/dx.
This would be a great clarification in both math and physics where up to now, it was thought that angular momentum and acceleration were totally unrelated.
0 new messages