info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: 16-- love you King of Science, kiss kiss, Archimedes Plutonium for bringing us a cure of covid-19 via a MRI or CT scan at resonant frequency that kills a pocket of the virus allowing the white blood cells to kill the rest// König der Wissenschaft
286 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted
Doctor Anagram
Jun 12, 2020, 2:11:30 AM6/12/20
to
The letters in
"Archimedes Plutonium"
can be re-arranged to spell
"Run! Temp home suicidal!"
"Archimedes Plutonium"
can be re-arranged to spell
"Run! Temp home suicidal!"
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Doctor Anagram
Jun 17, 2020, 10:38:35 AM6/17/20
to
The letters in
"Archimedes Plutonium"
can be re-arranged to spell
"Eunuch Laid, Omit Sperm"
"Archimedes Plutonium"
can be re-arranged to spell
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
.
Jun 21, 2020, 9:11:30 PM6/21/20
to
On 6/17/2020 1:42 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Dexamethasone supposedly helps 1in 25 patients, that is 4%.
>
> AP’s MRI & CT scan at resonant frequency supposedly helps more than 90 out of 100, or greater than 90%.
Oh really! Do you happen to have a pointer to the medical research paper
which demonstrated those figures?
> Dexamethasone supposedly helps 1in 25 patients, that is 4%.
>
> AP’s MRI & CT scan at resonant frequency supposedly helps more than 90 out of 100, or greater than 90%.
Oh really! Do you happen to have a pointer to the medical research paper
which demonstrated those figures?
Message has been deleted
.
Jun 22, 2020, 2:03:02 AM6/22/20
to
On 6/22/2020 1:26 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> In answer to a street urchin’s question of how the king knows his MRI cure of covid 19 works over 90% in all cases and even cures hepatitis, HIV, malaria, shingles, MRSA, and many others.
So it's all make believe. No paper, no science.
> In answer to a street urchin’s question of how the king knows his MRI cure of covid 19 works over 90% in all cases and even cures hepatitis, HIV, malaria, shingles, MRSA, and many others.
So it's all make believe. No paper, no science.
Message has been deleted
Doctor Anagram
Jun 25, 2020, 2:44:12 PM6/25/20
to
The letters in
"Archimedes Plutonium"
can be re-arranged to spell
"Manure Him, Police Stud!".
"Archimedes Plutonium"
can be re-arranged to spell
Dan Christensen
Jun 25, 2020, 3:00:27 PM6/25/20
to
On Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 2:27:50 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 24JUN2020
>
> to sci.physics,plutonium-atom-universe
>
>
>
> So how does AP have the instinct intuition feeling that all of biology community got it wrong...
He doesn't, of course. AP seeks only to mislead and promote confusion and failure in US schools.
WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science
AP is a malicious troll who really, REALLY wants you to fail in school just like he must have so long ago (in the 1950's or 60's?). Then he would like to recruit you to his sinister Atom God Cult of Failure. Think I'm making this up? IN HIS OWN WORDS:
AP's fake math that can only be designed to promote failure in schools:
“The last and largest finite number is 10^604.”
--June 3, 2015
“0 appears to be the last and largest finite number”
--June 9, 2015
“0/0 must be equal to 1.”
-- June 9, 2015
“0 is an infinite irrational number.”
--June 28, 2015
“No negative numbers exist.”
--December 22, 2018
“Rationals are not numbers.”
--May 18, 2019
“The value of sin(45 degrees) = 1.” (sin(45 degrees) = 0.707. tan(45 degrees) = 1.)
--May 31, 2019
AP deliberately and repeatedly presented the truth table for OR as the truth table for AND:
“New Logic
AND
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F”
--November 9, 2019
According to AP's “chess board math,” an equilateral triangle is right-triangle.
--December 11, 2019
AP seeks aid of Russian agents to promote failure in schools:
"Please--Asking for help from Russia-- russian robots-- to create a new, true mathematics [sic]"
--November 9, 2017
And if that wasn't weird enough...
AP's sinister Atom God Cult
“The totality, everything that there is [the universe], is only 1 atom of plutonium [Pu]. There is nothing outside or beyond this one atom of plutonium.”
--April 4, 1994
“The Universe itself is one gigantic big atom.”
--November 14, 2019
“Since God-Pu is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Atom Plutonium!
Its truth is marching on.
It has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
It is sifting out the hearts of people before its judgment seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer it; be jubilant, my feet!
Our God-Pu is marching on.”
--December 15, 2018 (Note: Pu is the atomic symbol for plutonium)
Are you ready, kids???
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
> 24JUN2020
>
> to sci.physics,plutonium-atom-universe
>
>
>
> So how does AP have the instinct intuition feeling that all of biology community got it wrong...
He doesn't, of course. AP seeks only to mislead and promote confusion and failure in US schools.
WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science
AP is a malicious troll who really, REALLY wants you to fail in school just like he must have so long ago (in the 1950's or 60's?). Then he would like to recruit you to his sinister Atom God Cult of Failure. Think I'm making this up? IN HIS OWN WORDS:
AP's fake math that can only be designed to promote failure in schools:
“The last and largest finite number is 10^604.”
--June 3, 2015
“0 appears to be the last and largest finite number”
--June 9, 2015
“0/0 must be equal to 1.”
-- June 9, 2015
“0 is an infinite irrational number.”
--June 28, 2015
“No negative numbers exist.”
--December 22, 2018
“Rationals are not numbers.”
--May 18, 2019
“The value of sin(45 degrees) = 1.” (sin(45 degrees) = 0.707. tan(45 degrees) = 1.)
--May 31, 2019
AP deliberately and repeatedly presented the truth table for OR as the truth table for AND:
“New Logic
AND
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F”
--November 9, 2019
According to AP's “chess board math,” an equilateral triangle is right-triangle.
--December 11, 2019
AP seeks aid of Russian agents to promote failure in schools:
"Please--Asking for help from Russia-- russian robots-- to create a new, true mathematics [sic]"
--November 9, 2017
And if that wasn't weird enough...
AP's sinister Atom God Cult
“The totality, everything that there is [the universe], is only 1 atom of plutonium [Pu]. There is nothing outside or beyond this one atom of plutonium.”
--April 4, 1994
“The Universe itself is one gigantic big atom.”
--November 14, 2019
“Since God-Pu is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Atom Plutonium!
Its truth is marching on.
It has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
It is sifting out the hearts of people before its judgment seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer it; be jubilant, my feet!
Our God-Pu is marching on.”
--December 15, 2018 (Note: Pu is the atomic symbol for plutonium)
Are you ready, kids???
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Message has been deleted
Doctor Anagram
Jun 27, 2020, 4:33:31 PM6/27/20
to
The letters in
"Archimedes Plutonium"
can be re-arranged to spell
"The letters in
"Archimedes Plutonium"
can be re-arranged to spell
"Run, Emu! Cops tailed him!"
"Archimedes Plutonium"
can be re-arranged to spell
"The letters in
"Archimedes Plutonium"
can be re-arranged to spell
Message has been deleted
Doctor Anagram
Jun 28, 2020, 1:38:01 AM6/28/20
to
The letters in
"Archimedes Plutonium"
can be re-arranged to spell
"Lie! Nude ham tumor pics!"
"Archimedes Plutonium"
can be re-arranged to spell
Message has been deleted
Doctor Anagram
Jun 28, 2020, 2:59:48 PM6/28/20
to
The letters in
"Archimedes Plutonium"
can be re-arranged to spell
"A clue! Sum mite hid porn!"
"Archimedes Plutonium"
can be re-arranged to spell
Message has been deleted
Doctor Anagram
Jun 29, 2020, 2:03:27 PM6/29/20
to
The letters in
"Archimedes Plutonium"
can be re-arranged to spell
"I rut him! Male nude cops!"
"Archimedes Plutonium"
can be re-arranged to spell
Message has been deleted
Doctor Anagram
Jun 29, 2020, 9:18:25 PM6/29/20
to
The letters in
"Archimedes Plutonium"
can be re-arranged to spell
"Lame porn, tie us, hid cum!"
"Archimedes Plutonium"
can be re-arranged to spell
Message has been deleted
Doctor Anagram
Jun 30, 2020, 3:08:03 PM6/30/20
to
The letters in
"Archimedes Plutonium"
can be re-arranged to spell
"Archimedes Plutonium"
can be re-arranged to spell
Message has been deleted
Doctor Anagram
Jun 30, 2020, 9:03:14 PM6/30/20
to
The letters in
"Archimedes Plutonium"
can be re-arranged to spell
"Tumid Camel Penis Hour"
"Archimedes Plutonium"
can be re-arranged to spell
Message has been deleted
Doctor Anagram
Jul 1, 2020, 5:54:06 PM7/1/20
to
The letters in
"Archimedes Plutonium"
can be re-arranged to spell
"Eunuch Laid, Omit Sperm"
"Archimedes Plutonium"
can be re-arranged to spell
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Doctor Anagram
Jul 2, 2020, 5:01:28 PM7/2/20
to
The letters in
"Archimedes Plutonium"
can be re-arranged to spell
"Archimedes Plutonium"
can be re-arranged to spell
Doctor Anagram
Jul 2, 2020, 5:14:21 PM7/2/20
to
The letters in
"Archimedes Plutonium"
can be re-arranged to spell
"Run! A Moth Emu Disciple!!"
"Archimedes Plutonium"
can be re-arranged to spell
Message has been deleted
Doctor Anagram
Jul 3, 2020, 11:17:07 PM7/3/20
to
The letters in
"Archimedes Plutonium"
can be re-arranged to spell
"Tumid Camel Penis Hour"
"Archimedes Plutonium"
can be re-arranged to spell
Message has been deleted
Doctor Anagram
Jul 4, 2020, 4:31:21 PM7/4/20
to
The letters in
"Archimedes Plutonium"
can be re-arranged to spell
"Tumid Penis Camel Hour"
"Archimedes Plutonium"
can be re-arranged to spell
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Michael Moroney
Jul 12, 2020, 3:47:15 PM7/12/20
to
AutisticPlutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
>Listing the Errors of Old Math
>Now I do need to discuss the Errors of Math in General and the errors of math
>in geometry in particular. I have the feeling that Geometry is the more
>important of the two-- algebra - geometry. This list appears in Teaching
>True Mathematics textbook series by Archimedes Plutonium, meant to be a guide
>and a organizing of what must be covered before graduating from College, and
>what math to steer clear of.
WARNING TO STUDENTS, PARENTS and TEACHERS: Archimedes Plutonium is offering to
teach your children his broken physics and math. BEWARE! He will corrupt the
minds of your children! Mr. Plutonium is not content to be a failure of math
and physics all by himself. He wants everyone to fail as well! He teaches
bizarre false physics and math, such as the ellipse isn't a conic section, that
there are no negative numbers, no complex numbers, that a sine wave isn't
sinusoidal but semicircles, cycloids or parabolas (depending on his mood), plus
many, many other instances of bad math and physics.
Plutonium has previously tried to corrupt our youth by posting his books on
Usenet. That has failed until now, perhaps in part due to the fact Usenet is an
old, dying medium few modern students even know of, much less use. However, Mr.
Plutonium has somehow duped Amazon into providing his dangerous books for free
on Kindle. This has greatly increased the danger to our students!
One of his dangerous tricks is teach false Boolean logic such as 3 AND 2 = 5.
His method at doing this is particularly insidious. He'll post a false
statement that nobody believes, such as 3 OR 2 = 5, say that it is false (which
it is), but then he'll try to replace it with another similar false statement
such as 3 AND 2 = 5, in order to really confuse future computer scientists.
Plutonium is taking advantage of the fact that AND means different things in
Boolean logic and elementary arithmetic, as AND is an informal synonym for
plus/addition. It is important for future computer scientists to remember that
in the bitwise Boolean logic used by computers, 3 OR 2 = 3 and 3 AND 2 = 2. Of
course in pure Boolean logic the only possible values are true and false (1 or
0), so in pure Boolean logic the statements "3 AND 2" and "3 OR 2" don't even
make sense. Don't let Plutonium's bad logic confuse you!
Additionally, Plutonium has started a Cult of Failure. He is trying to convince
students to worship his evil pagan Plutonium atom god of failure. This cult
goes against many Christian values, such as multiple gods before the God of the
Bible and idol worship (he personifies his gods as the evil cosmic plutonium
atom or protons and neutrons within it). In addition this cult is anti-science
and anti-mathematics. Its only goal is to promote failure in math and science.
Nobody knows why he wishes to corrupt the minds of our youth like this. Perhaps
he is envious of their potential success, which he never had because he is a
failure at math and science. Plutonium is not content to be a failure at math
and physics all by himself. He wants everyone to fail as well. Some claim he is
an agent of China, in order for them to dominate the world economy. Maybe he is
a minion of Kim Jong Un of North Korea. Most likely he is an agent of Putin
and Russia, because he has attempted to summon Russian robots in 2017 "to
create a new, true mathematics" in an attempt to destroy mathematics. But the
point is, stay away, if he offers to give or sell you his dangerous books.
Especially now since they are available for free from otherwise legitimate
Amazon.
>Listing the Errors of Old Math
>Now I do need to discuss the Errors of Math in General and the errors of math
>in geometry in particular. I have the feeling that Geometry is the more
>important of the two-- algebra - geometry. This list appears in Teaching
>True Mathematics textbook series by Archimedes Plutonium, meant to be a guide
>and a organizing of what must be covered before graduating from College, and
>what math to steer clear of.
WARNING TO STUDENTS, PARENTS and TEACHERS: Archimedes Plutonium is offering to
teach your children his broken physics and math. BEWARE! He will corrupt the
minds of your children! Mr. Plutonium is not content to be a failure of math
and physics all by himself. He wants everyone to fail as well! He teaches
bizarre false physics and math, such as the ellipse isn't a conic section, that
there are no negative numbers, no complex numbers, that a sine wave isn't
sinusoidal but semicircles, cycloids or parabolas (depending on his mood), plus
many, many other instances of bad math and physics.
Plutonium has previously tried to corrupt our youth by posting his books on
Usenet. That has failed until now, perhaps in part due to the fact Usenet is an
old, dying medium few modern students even know of, much less use. However, Mr.
Plutonium has somehow duped Amazon into providing his dangerous books for free
on Kindle. This has greatly increased the danger to our students!
One of his dangerous tricks is teach false Boolean logic such as 3 AND 2 = 5.
His method at doing this is particularly insidious. He'll post a false
statement that nobody believes, such as 3 OR 2 = 5, say that it is false (which
it is), but then he'll try to replace it with another similar false statement
such as 3 AND 2 = 5, in order to really confuse future computer scientists.
Plutonium is taking advantage of the fact that AND means different things in
Boolean logic and elementary arithmetic, as AND is an informal synonym for
plus/addition. It is important for future computer scientists to remember that
in the bitwise Boolean logic used by computers, 3 OR 2 = 3 and 3 AND 2 = 2. Of
course in pure Boolean logic the only possible values are true and false (1 or
0), so in pure Boolean logic the statements "3 AND 2" and "3 OR 2" don't even
make sense. Don't let Plutonium's bad logic confuse you!
Additionally, Plutonium has started a Cult of Failure. He is trying to convince
students to worship his evil pagan Plutonium atom god of failure. This cult
goes against many Christian values, such as multiple gods before the God of the
Bible and idol worship (he personifies his gods as the evil cosmic plutonium
atom or protons and neutrons within it). In addition this cult is anti-science
and anti-mathematics. Its only goal is to promote failure in math and science.
Nobody knows why he wishes to corrupt the minds of our youth like this. Perhaps
he is envious of their potential success, which he never had because he is a
failure at math and science. Plutonium is not content to be a failure at math
and physics all by himself. He wants everyone to fail as well. Some claim he is
an agent of China, in order for them to dominate the world economy. Maybe he is
a minion of Kim Jong Un of North Korea. Most likely he is an agent of Putin
and Russia, because he has attempted to summon Russian robots in 2017 "to
create a new, true mathematics" in an attempt to destroy mathematics. But the
point is, stay away, if he offers to give or sell you his dangerous books.
Especially now since they are available for free from otherwise legitimate
Amazon.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Professor Wordsmith
Jul 13, 2020, 2:39:08 PM7/13/20
to
"Hominid Rectum-Pus Ale"
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Michael Moroney
Jul 29, 2020, 3:21:27 AM7/29/20
to
>3-Kibo Parry Moroney says academic errors by UCLA's Dr. Block & Drs.
The letters in "Archimedes Plutonium", rearranged, spell "Um, Hitler Soup and Mice."
The letters in "Archimedes Plutonium", rearranged, spell "Um, Hitler Soup and Mice."
Message has been deleted
Michael Moroney
Aug 3, 2020, 2:09:17 PM8/3/20
to
Piñata of sci.math and Punching Bag of sci.physics Archimedes "irrelevant" Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
>Subject: Re: Really nice evidence of the truth of AP's mass mechanism, and it
The letters in "Archimedes Plutonium", rearranged, spell "Mr Meticulous Pinhead".
>Subject: Re: Really nice evidence of the truth of AP's mass mechanism, and it
The letters in "Archimedes Plutonium", rearranged, spell "Mr Meticulous Pinhead".
Michael Moroney
Aug 3, 2020, 4:38:38 PM8/3/20
to
Piñata of sci.math and Punching Bag of sci.physics Archimedes "irrelevant" Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
>Subject: Re: 7-Nicholas Thompson, Wired magazine// Kibo Parry Moroney, stalker
The letters in "Archimedes Plutonium", rearranged, spell "Supreme Homicidal Nut".
Message has been deleted
Michael Moroney
Aug 3, 2020, 11:40:26 PM8/3/20
to
Piñata of sci.math and Punching Bag of sci.physics Archimedes "irrelevant" Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
>Subject: Re: Really nice evidence of the truth of AP's mass mechanism, and it
The letters in "Archimedes Plutonium", rearranged, spell "Erica: Hip mom, nude slut".
Professor Wordsmith
Aug 4, 2020, 11:57:25 AM8/4/20
to
"Child Enema Tourism Up"
Message has been deleted
Michael Moroney
Aug 17, 2020, 10:32:59 AM8/17/20
to
Tunicate of Math and Sea Squirt of Physics Archimedes "I ate my brain" Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
>Subject: love,love you King of Failure, kiss kiss, Archimedes Plutonium for bringing
The letters in "Archimedes Plutonium", rearranged, spell "I use no Child Rump Meat".
>Subject: love,love you King of Failure, kiss kiss, Archimedes Plutonium for bringing
The letters in "Archimedes Plutonium", rearranged, spell "I use no Child Rump Meat".
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Michael Moroney
Aug 25, 2020, 8:24:42 PM8/25/20
to
Tunicate of Math and Sea Squirt of Physics Archimedes "I ate my brain" Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
>Harvard teaching fake math & physics with their 10 OR 2 = 12, their fake trig, their
The letters in "Archimedes Plutonium", rearranged, spell "I see Loud Trump: 'Can Him!'".
Message has been deleted
Michael Moroney
Sep 2, 2020, 12:45:10 AM9/2/20
to
Mutt of Math and Cur of Physics Archimedes "signifying nothing." Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
>Subject: Re: The reason there are 4 gas giants and 4 rocky planets, because of
The letters in "Archimedes Plutonium", rearranged, spell "I summon the Real Cupid".
>Subject: Re: The reason there are 4 gas giants and 4 rocky planets, because of
The letters in "Archimedes Plutonium", rearranged, spell "I summon the Real Cupid".
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Michael Moroney
Sep 3, 2020, 2:22:16 AM9/3/20
to
Woodlouse of Math and Bathynomus raksasa of Physics Archimedes "The Delicious Rump Man" Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
>Kibo, is the flat screen composed of 12% tortured Moon Bear bile
The letters in "Archimedes Plutonium", rearranged, spell "Penis! Head! Cum! Turmoil!"
>Kibo, is the flat screen composed of 12% tortured Moon Bear bile
The letters in "Archimedes Plutonium", rearranged, spell "Penis! Head! Cum! Turmoil!"
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 5, 2020, 1:43:54 AM9/5/20
to
Boycott Samsung, Kibo Parry Moroney, is the flat screen 12% tortured Moon Bear bile?
Kibo, is the flat screen composed of 12% tortured Moon Bear bile by Samsung?
Kibo, is 12% of the Samsung phone made from tortured Moon Bear bile?????
>
Kibo is it true
> \\ ("`****/"). Tortured Moon Bear
> \\ `0_ 0 ) `-.
> \\ (_&_.)' ._ )
> \\ `--' / /
> \\ ==(li)===========
> \\
> \\
Is it true Kibo that they use tortured Moon Bears, their claws used by Samsung and Hyundai to make microprocessor chips
On Wednesday, August 5, 2020 at 7:27:28 PM UTC-5, Professor Wordsmith wrote:
> "I See A Child Rump Mount"
Kibo Parry Moroney, not a comic, not a scientist, not a engineer but a paid-for evil stalker shithead that wants to torture more South Korean Moon Bears
2 million unconfirmed views of Nicholas Thompson's "Wired magazine" since Wired loves feature articles of creep-clown Kibo Parry Moroney, Yoo, Nick was it 2 million or 4 million views???
Skip to first unread message
Subscribe
Is Wired magazine's Nicholas Thompson going to cover the story this time around?
Wired loves covering the stalker Kibo Parry Moroney-- how many cover stories??
AP wonders: I guess the mission of Wired magazine is to highlight and spotlight the world's insane stalkers with front page coverage-- to give the "budding creep" a adrenalin rush to stalk some more innocent victims, am I right on that Nick?? Yoo Nick.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
6:28 PM (1 hour ago)
Kibo Parry Moroney, not a comic, not a scientist, not a engineer but a evil stalker shithead that wants to torture more South Korean Moon Bears
Michael Moroney
Aug 4, 2020, 7:48:14 AM (yesterday)
>Minnow of Math and Guppy of Physics
>"signifying nothing"
AP>>Subject: Re: Kibo Parry Moroney asks Trump to give South Korea to North Korea,
AP>>Kibo what is the news?
kibo Parry Moroney>I just got this new Samsung monitor! It's cool, curved screen and everything!
But it's to replace another Samsung monitor which failed. Will you write
Samsung and tell them to add some more bear bile to the computer monitor
mfg. process, in order to keep them from failing early?
kibo Parry Moroney>Of course not! You won't do anything to help tortured bears! All you do is
rant and rave here impotently, which won't even stop the torture of a single
teddy bear! All you do is fail, fail fail!
Kibo, is the flat screen composed of 12% tortured Moon Bear bile by Samsung?
Kibo, is 12% of the Samsung phone made from tortured Moon Bear bile?????
>
Kibo is it true
> \\ ("`****/"). Tortured Moon Bear
> \\ `0_ 0 ) `-.
> \\ (_&_.)' ._ )
> \\ `--' / /
> \\ ==(li)===========
> \\
> \\
Is it true Kibo that they use tortured Moon Bears, their claws used by Samsung and Hyundai to make microprocessor chips
On Wednesday, August 5, 2020 at 7:27:28 PM UTC-5, Professor Wordsmith wrote:
> "I See A Child Rump Mount"
Kibo Parry Moroney, not a comic, not a scientist, not a engineer but a paid-for evil stalker shithead that wants to torture more South Korean Moon Bears
2 million unconfirmed views of Nicholas Thompson's "Wired magazine" since Wired loves feature articles of creep-clown Kibo Parry Moroney, Yoo, Nick was it 2 million or 4 million views???
Skip to first unread message
Subscribe
Is Wired magazine's Nicholas Thompson going to cover the story this time around?
Wired loves covering the stalker Kibo Parry Moroney-- how many cover stories??
AP wonders: I guess the mission of Wired magazine is to highlight and spotlight the world's insane stalkers with front page coverage-- to give the "budding creep" a adrenalin rush to stalk some more innocent victims, am I right on that Nick?? Yoo Nick.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
6:28 PM (1 hour ago)
Kibo Parry Moroney, not a comic, not a scientist, not a engineer but a evil stalker shithead that wants to torture more South Korean Moon Bears
Michael Moroney
Aug 4, 2020, 7:48:14 AM (yesterday)
>Minnow of Math and Guppy of Physics
>"signifying nothing"
AP>>Subject: Re: Kibo Parry Moroney asks Trump to give South Korea to North Korea,
AP>>Kibo what is the news?
kibo Parry Moroney>I just got this new Samsung monitor! It's cool, curved screen and everything!
But it's to replace another Samsung monitor which failed. Will you write
Samsung and tell them to add some more bear bile to the computer monitor
mfg. process, in order to keep them from failing early?
kibo Parry Moroney>Of course not! You won't do anything to help tortured bears! All you do is
rant and rave here impotently, which won't even stop the torture of a single
teddy bear! All you do is fail, fail fail!
Message has been deleted
Michael Moroney
Dec 31, 2020, 2:18:29 AM12/31/20
to
🦠 of Math and 🧫 of Physics Archimedes "Putin's Stooge" Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
> Kibo Parry Moroney with sidekick Nick Thompson, Wired -- is the agiope
> spider the worst hit animal fr
[snip babble]
Maybe ArchiePoo is recovering from his Autism Meltdown? His babbling nonsense
is down to around 400 lines of gibberish.
> Kibo Parry Moroney with sidekick Nick Thompson, Wired -- is the agiope
> spider the worst hit animal fr
[snip babble]
Maybe ArchiePoo is recovering from his Autism Meltdown? His babbling nonsense
is down to around 400 lines of gibberish.
Message has been deleted
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 31, 2020, 2:13:49 PM12/31/20
to
Kibo Parry Moroney says he loves AP's conic book and World's First Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- for calculus is geometry and so AP is the first to prove FTC, and limit-analysis is no proof at all. Only insane people in math like Dr. Hanlon, Dr.Tao, Dr. Stillwell, Dr. Hales, Dr. Wiles, insane people of math use a limit analysis with their 0 width rectangles summed up for interior area-- no-one informed them that 0 width rectangles have no interior area.
Kibo of course failed math for he failed percentages in High School with his:
On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
On Thursday, December 31, 2020 at 1:18:29 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>of Math
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.
Length: 21 pages
File Size: 1620 KB
Print Length: 21 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
#8-2, 11th published book
World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math where they had a ill-defined infinity; they had the fakery of Limit concept; and they had the fakery of a continuum.
The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus basically says the integral is inverse to the derivative and the derivative is inverse to the integral. By inverse is meant that you can go to one given the other and vice versa, such as add is the inverse of subtract, so if we had 10 + 4 = 14 then the inverse is subtract 4 and we have 14-4 = 10 back to 10 where we started from. And the geometry proof involves a rectangle and a right triangle hinged atop a trapezoid. You hinge it one direction you have dy*dx for area of a rectangle for integral area. You hinge it the other direction you have the dy/dx for slope or derivative from the trapezoid formed.
Sad that Old Math was so full of ill-defined concepts and fake concepts that never was a geometry proof of FTC ever possible in Old Math.
Length: 29 pages
Product details
File Size: 1225 KB
Print Length: 29 pages
Publication Date: March 14, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQTNHMY
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: 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)
Kibo of course failed math for he failed percentages in High School with his:
On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
On Thursday, December 31, 2020 at 1:18:29 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>of Math
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.
Length: 21 pages
File Size: 1620 KB
Print Length: 21 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
#8-2, 11th published book
World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math where they had a ill-defined infinity; they had the fakery of Limit concept; and they had the fakery of a continuum.
The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus basically says the integral is inverse to the derivative and the derivative is inverse to the integral. By inverse is meant that you can go to one given the other and vice versa, such as add is the inverse of subtract, so if we had 10 + 4 = 14 then the inverse is subtract 4 and we have 14-4 = 10 back to 10 where we started from. And the geometry proof involves a rectangle and a right triangle hinged atop a trapezoid. You hinge it one direction you have dy*dx for area of a rectangle for integral area. You hinge it the other direction you have the dy/dx for slope or derivative from the trapezoid formed.
Sad that Old Math was so full of ill-defined concepts and fake concepts that never was a geometry proof of FTC ever possible in Old Math.
Length: 29 pages
Product details
File Size: 1225 KB
Print Length: 29 pages
Publication Date: March 14, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQTNHMY
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: 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)
Archimedes Plutonium
Mar 12, 2021, 8:32:09 PM3/12/21
to
Jim Pennino dazzled that AP is replacing 20th century rockets with 21st century lithium battery powered drones. Jim stopping short of kissing the feet of the King of Science AP.
On Friday, March 12, 2021 at 6:31:36 PM UTC-6, Jim Pennino wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, March 12, 2021 at 3:16:37 PM UTC-6, Jim Pennino wrote:
> >> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> <snip drivel>
> >> >
> >> > No physics dept in the world intelligent enough, bright enough to see how high a drone can fly.
> >> The current altitude record for propeller driven aircraft is 96,863 feet,
> >> set in 2001 by the NASA Helios electric UAV.
> >>
> >> Space starts at 328,084 feet.
> >>
> >> As usual AP is just babbling nonsense.
> >
> > Jimmy Pennino, as usual, mostly flailing mouth like a wing rudder, and no logical brain to propell forward, choked on:
> >
> > According to the Mars helicopter soon to be realized in that thin air environment,
> The equivelent altitude of the surface of Mars is about 98,000 feet,
> still FAR short of 328,084 feet.
>
> As usual, AP is just babbling nonsense.
As usual, Jimmy is a half brain in physics, science and engineering.
Does Jimmy know if the Mars helicopter is made of lightweight beryllium?
Does Jimmy know how high that Mars drone can fly in a vacuum?
Does Jimmy know what the relative difference of Mars magnetic field is compared to Earth?
Does Jimmy know how much Solar Winds impact Mars compared to Earth?
Of course not, Jimmy is hate driven, not science driven.
What AP is all about here, is that we remove Space travel rockets of the 20th century and replace them with lithium battery powered spacecraft that Ride the Magnetic fields and Ride the Solar Winds.
Jimmy is washed up, and needs to be shipped out of science.
AP
King of Science, especially Physics, and where math, biology, chemistry, astronomy are just snack appetizers to wet the tongue of the King.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
Michael Moroney
Mar 13, 2021, 1:57:27 AM3/13/21
to
💀 of Math and ☠️ of Physics Archimedes "Putin's Stooge" Plutonium
> AP teaching the world that space flight in the 21st century will be
> lithium battery operated drones, no longer the wasteful and dangerous
> rockets of the 20th century.
Hey Archie, you failure, let's see what happens to drones in a vacuum!
Look how well it flies!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8-pxkaipcg
> What AP is all about here, is that we
"We"? Who?
> we remove Space travel rockets of the 20th century and replace them
> with lithium battery powered spacecraft
Who? You are completely powerless to do anything about space flight,
especially with a totally absurd idea like that! So you can't even use "I"!
> Jimmy is washed up, and needs to be shipped out of science.
Nowhere near as washed up as ArchiePoo. But at least ArchiePoo was never
part of science, no need to ship him out.
> AP
> Drag Queen of Science
> AP teaching the world that space flight in the 21st century will be
> lithium battery operated drones, no longer the wasteful and dangerous
> rockets of the 20th century.
Hey Archie, you failure, let's see what happens to drones in a vacuum!
Look how well it flies!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8-pxkaipcg
> What AP is all about here, is that we
> we remove Space travel rockets of the 20th century and replace them
> with lithium battery powered spacecraft
especially with a totally absurd idea like that! So you can't even use "I"!
> Jimmy is washed up, and needs to be shipped out of science.
part of science, no need to ship him out.
> AP
> Drag Queen of Science
Message has been deleted
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 23, 2021, 7:23:31 PM9/23/21
to
MATHOPEDIA-- List of 75 fakes and mistakes of Old Math. AP's 174th book. Soon to be published as a Kindle book. Details of all of these are found in already published Kindle books, such as the geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
Last revision was 21Sep2021. I added the correction of the Natural Logarithm Ln(x) to base 2.71... for its definition using Y= 1/x of an integral over an interval from 1 to x in 1/t dt is very much flawed and incorrect. The true definition of Ln(x) has to be from a geometry that allows for the equiangular logarithmic spiral. A Ln(x) based upon 1/x does not give a equiangular log spiral. What does give a equiangular log spiral are the Decimal Grid Number System where you have equal spacing of discrete numbers. So for example in Old Math their Ln(1.02) was 0.0198... while in New Math where we have a corrected and true Ln(x) that Ln(1.02) = 0.02 exactly.
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 19May2021. 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". 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.
Length: 137 pages
Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1307 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
Lending : Enabled
Some of these can be found in AP's TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS series, but the entries keep changing and added on new, means I need to have a separate book for these fakes, mistakes and errors of Old Math.
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for ages 18-19 Freshperson College, math textbook series, book 3
Teaching True Mathematics, by Archimedes Plutonium 2019
Listing the Errors of Old Math, list of 1 to 50.
Alright, well, mathematics is a closed subject. What I mean by that is due to the textbook series of Archimedes Plutonium TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, that once you learn the polynomial transform and learn the two Power Rules of Calculus, you reached the peak, the pinnacle of all of mathematics, and anything further in math is just details of what you learn in that textbook series. Math is a completed science because it has this "peak of calculus", unlike the other 5 hard sciences of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy. Those other five will continue to find new ideas, new things, while math remains static and complete to its peak of calculus understanding. Mathematics is finished complete as far as a science goes because the peak of math is going nowhere. And even though Physics will find new science such as how the proton toruses inside of atoms are configured in geometry, the geometry and calculus used in that configuration, that new science does not change nor does it create or require a new math peak/summit to handle the new physics.
Now I do need to discuss the Errors of Math in General and the errors of math in geometry in particular. I have the feeling that Geometry is the more important of the two-- algebra - geometry. This list appears in most of AP's Teaching True Mathematics textbook series by Archimedes Plutonium, meant to be a guide and orientation, and a organizing of what must be covered before graduating from College, and what math to steer clear of.
Errors mostly, but not always, for some are included because too much time spent on them.
The listings in Mathopedia of errors, mistakes and fakes is based on the idea that Calculus is the supreme achievement of all of mathematics for it is the essential math of doing Physics electricity and magnetism. And in order to have a proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, we must clean up and clean out all the mistakes, fakes and errors of Old Math, erst, we have no Calculus. So calculus is the consistency maker for the rest of all of mathematics.
1) Calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, a proof that derivative and integral are inverses of one another, just as addition and subtraction are inverses, or, multiplication and division are inverses. The only way to obtain a geometry proof is to clean up and clean out all the fakes, mistakes and errors of Old Math, such as their fake numbers-- the Reals. Their fake definition of function allowing anything be a function. Their fakery of a continuum when even physics by 1900 with Planck onwards in Quantum Mechanics proving the Universe is discrete Space not a continuum, yet by 1900 onwards those in mathematics following the idiotic continuum in the Continuum Hypothesis with even more avid interest, when they should have thrown the continuum on a trashpile of shame.
2) The true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers, because you have to need and apply one mechanism only to obtain the true numbers of mathematics-- Mathematical Induction. In Old Math they had just a tiny few intelligent mathematicians, Kronecker, who emerged from the gaggle crowd of kooks to notice that Naturals all come from one single mechanism-- Mathematical Induction. But Old Math never had a crowd of mathematicians with logical brains to say-- all our numbers need to come from the one mechanism of Mathematical Induction.
3) The true numbers of math have empty space between successor and predecessor numbers. For example the 10 Grid is 0, .1, .2, .3, . . . , 9.8, 9.9, 10.0. Where no numbers exist between .1 and .2, etc. Only discrete numbers allow us to give a proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
4) All functions of mathematics must be a polynomial, and if not a polynomial, convert the offering to a polynomial over a specific interval.
Where is that stupid thread in sci.math, poising as a puzzle problem when it had no functions only pretend functions?
A few days back, 11Aug2021 appeared a stupid puzzle problem here in sci.math. Of someone pretending he had 3, 4 even 5 or 6 functions and wanting to prove equality.
Then I stepped into the conversation saying he had no functions at all, until they are converted into polynomials over a specified interval, then you can do calculus on those true real functions.
So, the world wide math community has got to begin to learn, no function is a function, until, and unless they are polynomials. This is an axiom of math and is proven true by the geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. You cannot have a FTC, if you have functions that are not polynomials.
So there is a trade off-- does math want calculus or no calculus? If you want calculus, all your functions have to be polynomials. This has to do with the concept of discrete geometry, not a continuum, for polynomials are discrete.
5) Space is discrete and all lines in space are strings of attached straight lines.
6) No curves exist in Geometry, only finer and smaller straight line segments attached to one another.
We can still keep the name "curve" as long as we know it is a string of fine tiny straightline segments strung together in what looks like a smooth curve. If curves exist, then the Calculus in Fundamental Theorem of Calculus cannot be proven and thus Calculus does not exist. We all know that we have to have Calculus, and so we throw out onto the trash pile the curve of Old Math. And this is reasonable because starting in 1900 in physics there arose the Quantum Mechanics of Space being discrete. And a discrete space has no continuum, has no curve of Old Math.
7) Space has gaps in between one point and the next point. These gaps are empty space from one point to the next point, for example in 10 Grid there is no number between .1 and .2, and in 100 Grid there exists no number between .01 and .02.
8) Limit analysis was an insane fakery in Old Math, concocted because Old Math needed the excuse of some proof, so they invented the monster con-artist trick that a limit analysis would divert the fact it is no proof at all, but a Non Sequitur argument. Limit analysis is juju totem witchcraft dance around a desire to prove the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Just as idiotic as dancing around a sick person of a virus is going to cure the person.
9) Infinity has a borderline and there is a microinfinity compared to a macroinfinity. For example in 10 Grid, the microinfinity is .1 if we exclude 0 and so there is no number smaller than .1 and no number larger than 10 in 10 Grid, where 10 is macroinfinity.
10) The 1st Quadrant Only in Coordinate System Geometry. Sad that the first coordinate system of Descartes was correct but soon became corrupted with 4 quadrants. See Mathematical Thought, Volume 1, Kline, 1972, page 303. Where Fermat then Descartes starts the Cartesian Coordinate System as 1 axis only and from 0 rightwards, meaning in our modern day math, 1st Quadrant Only. Why did math screw up on coordinate systems? I suppose some clowns thought negative numbers were true and they wanted ease of drawing a circle with center at 0. When they could have just as easily drawn the circle in 1st Quadrant Only.
11) Calculus needed a Geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, but Old Math never provided such, instead they provided some stupid Limit argument. The reason for the creation of the Limit disaster was that the French mathematician Cauchy got sick and tired of hearing his smartest students complain that the width of rectangles in the integral are 0 width, and those smart students could not, for the life of them understand how a rectangle with 0 width has any interior area. So instead of the math community denouncing the limit, instead they elevated the fakery.
12) Further in Calculus, they knew you could do a transform of coordinate points to turn any function into a polynomial function, a method of Lagrange. However, they in Old Math were too stupid to take this transform to its highest form-- all functions are polynomial functions and only polynomial functions. When you learn that-- the derivative and integral of any and every function of math is a snap breeze simple and easy.
13) With the error filled 4 quadrants, when it should be 1st Quadrant Only, we have Trigonometry's sine and cosine with the fakery of sinusoid wave when it never was that. The sine and cosine are semicircle waves, and no sinusoid wave exists.
14) There is only one Geometry-- Euclidean, and there is not three distinct geometries of elliptical Riemannian or hyperbolic Lobachevsky. Those two are just duals that make up Euclidean.
15) Torus, volume and surface area formulas in Old Math are all screwed up and in error because they imagined bending a cylinder to form a torus. This brings back memories, for I had to do a percentage formula, since I could not follow the fake way of bending a cylinder. Where 78.5% of Disc Torus (pi)R^2h - (pi)r^2h is the volume of Circle Torus, and 78.5% of Disc Torus 2(pi)Rh + 2(pi)rh + 2 ((pi)R^2 - (pi)r^2) is the surface area of Circle Torus.
16) Ellipse is never a single cone slant cut, always a cylinder slant cut. Although you do get an ellipse from double cones of this configuration <> which in Old Math was the hyperbola, but two hyperbolas joined together to form a ellipse.
17) All Parallelepipeds reduced to a Rectangular Box by making 2 cuts and pastes. Volume of the original Parallelepiped is simply a*b*c of the Rectangular Box length*width*depth formed. Old Math never understood that a precise definition of Parallelepiped has two kinds, the parallelepiped that has 90 degree angles and the parallelepiped that has no 90 degree angle.
18) All of Old Logic such as the textbooks by Copi and Boole and Jevons with their messed up operators -- their logic connectors of AND, OR, If->Then, Equal+Not, Boole went insane with logic for he never lived a logical life as he even thought cold bathes and a wet bed would cure him of pneumonia, so insane was Boole he taught class shivering in rain soaked clothes and so when it came time to decide for Boole what AND should be, he thought its table was TFFF, not realizing that if just one statement among many statements is true, then the entire collection is true and thus the true truth table of AND must be TTTF and now in modern day computer making times of 1990s onward we see clearer the Boole error of logic for the computers are expressing the thoroughly wrong and muddle headed Boole logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction of 2 AND 1 = either 1 or 2 as in subtraction of the other. And the Boole mistake of AND and OR is easily fixed as we correct AND to be TTTF and we accept only a OR truth table of FTTF.
19) Set theory is thrown out completely from math and belongs in Logic and Pragmatism philosophy, although we can use the word "set" to mean a sequence or function of math. All of Cantor set theory is phony baloney, not worth reading. There never was anything to set theory and was seen as the "part of math inhabited by those crippled in mind to doing regular math" as they played around with Venn diagrams when they should be learning true math of calculus. Set theory is geometrical logic of Pragmatism.
20) Rationals and Negative Numbers thrown out completely because the only true numbers are Decimal Grid Numbers. Some would complain, why AP throws out Rationals? And the answer is simple, that numbers must be free of operations, for Rationals are unresolved divisions. Numbers are free and clear of any operator. Numbers have to be formed purely from mathematical-induction and having no unfinished operator. The Smallest set of Grid numbers is the 10 Grid System with its infinitesimal being .1, and the entire collection of 10 Grid is 0, .1, .2, .3, . . , 9.9, 10.0 where .1 is microinfinity and 10 is macroinfinity. In 100 Grid the infinitesimal is .01, in 1000 Grid the infinitesimal is .001, etc etc. In such a true system of numbers, all the numbers are built by mathematical-induction. Not just one group of numbers-- counting, but all numbers from mathematical-induction.
21) Irrationals thrown out completely (ditto to Rationals and Negative numbers).
22) Reals thrown out completely (ditto).
23) Imaginary numbers and Complex numbers are b.s. and thrown out completely.
24) Trigonometry pared down so much-- 90% thrown out, and no trigonometry ever enters Calculus. Only real use of trigonometry is when you have an angle and side, you can figure out the rest of the right triangle. But no, when you give true math to a gaggle of kooks, it is not long before they stretch true math way way out of its "zone of truth". And even fill up by 50% of calculus, when trig should never be in calculus.
25) Continuum and continuity thrown out as horrible fakery (in fact the Quantum Mechanic Physics of early 1900s had a better handle on the truth and reality of math with discrete space).
26) Topology is junk and a waste of time for many reasons such as continuum does not exist, and the fact that the idea of "bending" is not really ever a mathematical concept.
27) Prime numbers are fakery for the Naturals never had division in the first place. The real true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers and they do not have a concept of "prime". The key evidence that primes were silly stupid error, was the fact that there never existed a "pattern for primes". And all of mathematics is a science of "pattern". If any part of mathematics has no pattern, is indication that such was a phony fake concept to start with. Below begins a write-up of Math topics all have pattern, if not, then not math. Now some may worry about the idea that no primes ever existed for they worry about the Unique Prime Factorization Theorem of Old Math. But here again, there is no worry. For "Factors exist" just not prime factors.
28) Limit in Old Math was a horrible fakery, built by lowly idiots of math who wanted to get away from the smart students asking them-- stupid professor, come back here,-- how does a zero width rectangle even have interior area.
29) Lobachevsky, Riemann geometries and all NonEuclidean geometries are fakery and a waste of time. Many math professors want to spice up their boring math, so they ventured way way off into the twilight-zone of math with NonEuclidean geometry, like eating the hottest peppers in the world for breakfast.
30) Boole logic a horrid gaggle of monumental mistakes; one colossal error was their insane 10 OR 4 = 14. Boole was a monumental idiot of logic that he went to college to teach in a rainstorm without umbrella and when he got there, shivering, and no commonsense to switch into dry clothes, taught in rain soaked clothes with his students laughing at the fool he was for catching pneumonia. Boole was so logically insane that he ordered his wife to give him cold bathes and wet his bed in order to fight pneumonia, and western culture, now, elevates this insane logical fool, and puts such a logical misfit as the Father- of- logic. And modern day schools of 2020 are as insanely crazy as was Boole for they continue to teach that 4 OR 1 = 5, when even a village idiot society knows better with 4 AND 1 = 5.
31) Galois Algebra of Group, Ring, Field a fakery and waste of time.
32) Dimension stops at 3rd, and 3rd is the last and highest dimension possible, for there is no 4th or higher dimensions.
33) High School in Old Math spends too much time on quadratic equations with their negative numbers and imaginary-complex numbers when such never existed in the first place and where they violate a principle of algebra-- that an equation of algebra-- the right-side of the equation must always have a greater than zero number. So we throw out all quadratic equations of Old Math as fake math.
34) High School in Old Math spends too much time on teaching in geometry the congruence of SSS, ASA etc etc and we should pare that back somewhat, as excess teaching of a tiny minor concept.
35) Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations are now seen as superfluous when all functions are polynomials and need only the Power Rule. In Old Math we throw out all the insane ridiculous myriad of fake rules-- the Chain Rule, Simpson's Rule, Trapezoidal Rule, all because math has only one type of function-- polynomials and that makes for only one rule-- Power Rule.
36) Parametric Equations thrown out-- for what need is there of a sack of dung when all functions are polynomials. Interchanging equation with function.
37) Graph theory-- 90% worthless for it is based on the fakery of continuum.
38) Probability and Statistics theory now becomes a part of Sigma Error in New Math, the Old Math Probability and Statistics theory were wastrel and thrown out for it is based on a continuum and they had no proper definition of "probability" that fits with statistics. We keep Probability and Statistics in new math but revise and overhaul it completely.
39) We definitely throw out all Old Math Calculus textbooks as mostly propaganda, based on the silly Limit and the Continuum.
40) We throw out the Euclidean Axioms of Geometry and start anew, with axioms based on Physics as geometry truth.
41) Fractal theory totally junk and a waste-- uses ill-defined infinity.
42) Multivariable Calculus, Line Integrals, div, curl, Vector Calculus, Chaos theory, Complex Analysis, utter junk and waste of time since polynomial theory covers all functions.
43) Differential geometry, Measure theory fakery since they never had the correct numbers of math, and they had the fakery continuum.
44) We throw out all the Apollonius conic sections because he misidentified the ellipse. The ellipse is a cylinder section, never a conic section and the oval is the slant cut of the cone, never the ellipse. We replace the entire conic sections by the AP theory of axes of symmetry using Decimal Grid Numbers for algebra and strip-wavelength-geometry axioms.
45) Most of Algebra, starting with Linear Algebra is esoteric minutiae, or, just cute tools for specialized math, just as the Binomial Theorem and the Pascal triangle, all cute esoteric minutiae. Certainly none of which is appropriate in school math education. These topics are for those interested in sideline math, but does not belong in mainstream math. Algebra reaches its pinnacle of importance with the Polynomial Function transform. Anything else in Algebra is sideline esoteric minutiae. These are not wrong or false math, just not important enough math to be mainstream worthy of math education.
46) Gaussian Curvature is esoteric exotica, perhaps even fakery. It is a fallacy of "idealism". There has never been any physics application for now 200 years. But most damaging is the fact that Euclidean is the only geometry, and that elliptic and hyperbolic are just dualities for which if you compound them together is Euclidean geometry.
47) Manifolds in Old Math were fakery, since topology is fake with its "bending" and math cannot define "bending" which belongs to physics and chemistry. Bending is a physics phenomenon, not something that ever belonged in mathematics. Topology with its continuum and ill-defined infinity is fakery, then also is its manifold. In New Math, all 2-Dimensional figures are handled by polynomial transforms, so also all 3-Dimensional figures. How so much easier is it, that doing a Polynomial Transform, rather than the silly fakery and obfuscation of manifolds.
48) Fourier, Laplace and other transforms, all of them thrown out the window because the only valid transforms are polynomial transforms. Polynomials are the only valid functions, hence, polynomials are the only valid transforms. And here in mathematics we begin to see that Polynomial transform is the mirror image of physics wanting a unification of the 4 forces of Old Physics, where the EM unification of physics, is like the Polynomial transform of mathematics that unifies all so-called-functions.
49) The correction of the Natural Logarithm Ln(x) to base 2.71... for its definition using Y= 1/x of an integral over an interval from 1 to x in 1/t dt is very much flawed and incorrect. The true definition of Ln(x) has to be from a geometry that allows for the equiangular logarithmic spiral. A Ln(x) based upon 1/x does not give a equiangular log spiral. What does give a equiangular log spiral are the Decimal Grid Number System where you have equal spacing of discrete numbers. So for example in Old Math their Ln(1.02) was 0.0198... while in New Math where we have a corrected and true Ln(x) that Ln(1.02) = 0.02 exactly.
50) Principle of Logic, that Physics is king of sciences, and that means math is but a tiny subset. But in 20th and 21st century, we still have goons and kooks of math that think math is bigger than physics. These goons and kooks think that the Universe is a mathematical equation. They belong in an asylum, not the sciences.
51) There are many Principles of Logic which were unknown or ignored in Old Math. One of those principles caused the horrendous failure of sine and cosine trigonometry. The failure that a graph of a function in 2D or 3D, where the axes, all have to be the same numbers. You cannot have the x-axis as angles and the other axis as numbers. You abandon mathematics when you enact such a policy. You may as well have bar graphs and pie-charts and call them foundation mathematics, when you do sine and cosine with different representations of axes.
52) Principle of Logic-- follow your definitions exactly. When you do not follow your definitions you end up with the craziness of thinking sine is a sinusoidal wave when in truth it is a semicircle wave. You defined sine as opposite/hypotenuse of right triangles in a circle. That means, it is impossible from the definition for sine and cosine to be anything other than a semicircle wave.
53) Principle of Reality in a Equation-- You formed equations in mathematics where one side is the same as the other side. This is the algebra axiom of where the rightside can only be a positive nonzero decimal Grid Number. Equations must have "reality" on the rightside of the equation, in order for the equation to even exist. We cannot put negative numbers, or zero, or imaginary numbers on the right side of an equation and expect there to even be an "equation of mathematics". Math like physics deals with "reality". And that means a equation of mathematics must have a true substantive reality on the rightside of the equation all by itself. You can clutter up the leftside of the equation and solve for unknowns, but the rightside of the equation has all by itself a positive, nonzero Decimal Grid Number. Anything else is not mathematics.
54) The Reductio Ad Absurdum, RAA, or some call it proof by contradiction is not a valid proof argument in mathematics. RAA at best is a strong hypothetical, but not a guarantee of truth or proof. The trouble with RAA is the trouble with the IF-->Then connector of Logic which has a truth table of True, False, Unknown, Unknown. Old Logic had this connector of If-->Then as TFTT. It is the unknowns in F--> T and F--> F that neither has a true conclusion but an unknown conclusion that renders RAA as non workable in math.
55) The primal axiom of Physics-- All is Atom and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism reigns not only over physics but mathematics as well. Most of the Teaching True Mathematics textbook series books have physics experiments involving electricity and magnetism.
56) Geometry is discrete with not only discrete numbers but empty space in between numbers as coordinate points of a graph and with a discrete angle. No continuum exists in either algebra or geometry.
57) True geometry cannot have all volumes by stacking 2D figures, for example the torus, where the circles near the donut hole would be spaced too close together versus the circles near the rim of the circumference have wide empty space gaps. Stacking to achieve volume is not a universal method.
58) Mathematics has a peak, a pinnacle, a climax of understanding with Calculus, the motion of physics and the energy of physics. This is expressed in the 2D and 3D calculus. It closes the subject of mathematics. And once we learn how to transform polynomials, and apply the power rule in High School, all the rest of mathematics we learn in life is just mere details of our teachings that took place in High School. Math is a closed subject beyond Calculus.
59) Mathematics is a closed subject, meaning it has a summit, a peak and that peak mirrors the Physics of motion. It is called calculus. Once you learn calculus, and it is very easy for it is just the Power Rule upon Polynomials. Once you learn this in High School, all the rest of mathematics is just details concerning motion. Mathematics is a tiny tiny subset of Physics. Everything of mathematics comes from physics. The reason the world has numbers is because physics has atoms and atoms are numerous. The reason the world has geometry is because atoms come in various shapes and sizes.
60) Math is a closed subject, a tiny subset of physics, and ever since 2019, the writing of this Calculus Guide, all the important topics of mathematics can be taught in junior and senior year High School. Any mathematics beyond High School is mere details of that junior and senior year teaching-- namely polynomial transform and Power Rules for derivative and integral of calculus.
61) The AP-EM equations of physics and mathematics. They replace the error ridden Maxwell Equations.
If you desire, you can replace E, electric field with L, angular momentum. Where V is voltage, i or A is current, B is magnetic field, E is electric field, kg is kilogram mass, m is meters, s is seconds, C=quantity of current A*s.
a) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
b) V = C*B*E New Ohm's law, law of electricity
c) V' = (C*B*E)' Capacitor Law of Physics
d) (V/C*E)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
e) (V/(B*E))' = C' Faraday law
f) (V/(C*B))' = E' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
PHYSICS LAWS
a) Facts of chemistry and physics
b) Voltage V = kg*m^2/(A*s^3)
c) Amount of current C = A*s = magnetic monopoles
d) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /(A*s^2)
e) Electric Field E = kg m^2/(A*s)
f) V = C*B*E New Ohm's law, law of electricity
g) V' = (C*B*E)' Capacitor Law of Physics
h) (V/C*E)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
i) (V/(B*E))' = C' Faraday law
j) (V/(C*B))' = E' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
62) Research into what I call "pencil ellipses" that are ellipses of enormous semimajor axis and tiny tiny semiminor axis, whose importance to physics is ultra important.
63) Light waves are not straightline arrows, open ended arrows but rather instead are pencil ellipses always connected as a closed loop circuit with the source of that light.
64) Old Math in its fakery and stupidity never had a 3rd Dimension Calculus, for theirs was only 2nd dimension. Their colossal mistake of never a geometry proof of Calculus for the idiots believed in "limit analysis of 0 width rectangles for integral", that those Old Math idiots could never understand there exists 3rd dimension calculus.
65) Apollonius geometry corrected, especially the two cones put base to base <> and not the error filled apex to apex >< and the ellipse = 2 hyperbolas and the oval = 2 parabolas.
66) A well defined oval as being two parabolas joined at their widest width circle.
67) Their minor error of listing pi as 3.14... when using radius in formulas when they should list pi as 6.28... whenever using radius, because area of circle is really 1/2 pi*r^2 to match the prefix factor of 1/2 mv^2 as kinetic energy. Old Math never had a full brain of logic when they did Old Math, but always puttering around with a 1/10 tank of logic.
68) The single biggest fake and error of Old Math is their Calculus, with no geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. It is the biggest mistake because providing a geometry proof alerts the mathematician that they are mistaken about a "limit" mistaken about what are the true numbers of math (Decimal Grid Numbers, not the Reals), they are mistaken about infinity without a borderline. So fixing their calculus forces them to fix so many other ills of Old Math.
69) AP is reinventing Multivariable Calculus because the AP-EM Equations of physics demand it. See AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS 1st year College for details. And this revision ends up throwing out Old Math's Gradient theorem, Green's theorem, Stokes theorem, Divergence theorem, manifolds, ugly and difficult and incomprehensible Old Math. Apparently in Old Math, they rather have kook math that no-one ever understood than no math at all. In AP's reinvention of Multivariable Calculus we throw out all of the above and able to teach Multivariable Calculus to bright seniors of High School. So that AP throws on the trash pile the Green's theorem, Gradient theorem, Stokes theorem, Divergence theorem, manifolds, throws them all out and replaces all of Multivariable Calculus with a technique of volume of box versus surface area of ellipsoid. All of which was invented or discovered to deal with Electromagnetism starting with the Maxwell Equations of 1860s.
70) When all functions and equations of physics are polynomial then the calculus is another polynomial function as the solution to the original polynomial. Thus, no multivariable calculus is needed.
71) Since the polynomial dispenses the Multivariable Calculus, it also dispenses the vector of mathematics. What replaces the vector is the "unit concept". No need of vectors when units means the same thing. And the direction in Old Math vector is actually the derivative of calculus. So the concept of vector in Old Math was unit-derivative. The concept of vector is part of the unit concept and the derivative concept. So vector is duplicity.
72) The Serre, Taniyama-Shimura, Ribet, Wiles Programs of representing Counting Numbers as elliptic curves is all a pile of illogical and worthless garbage. When you have the true numbers of mathematics-- Decimal Grid Numbers, the proper Representation of Counting Numbers is the numbers from 0 to 0.5 between 0 and 1. None of these listed so called mathematicians even knew of the axiom of algebra of what a "valid equation" was.
73) The Langlands program of Old Math is a gigantic sack of worthless garbage, using fake numbers of Reals and stupid outdated Galois group theory. My gosh, Langlands was not even aware of the critically important axiom of algebra, that a valid equation is one in which a positive decimal grid number is all alone at all times on the rightside of the equation, and does anyone expect any math to come from Langlands? AP replaces the Langlands program with the AP program.
74) We set up a matrix of the terms in Voltage = Coulomb x magnetic Field B x electric field E = CBE and the all possible permutations of differential equations C', B', E', V'. We set this matrix up in order to help interpret what each term means.
V'BE/(BE)^2 - VB'E/(BE)^2 - VBE'/(BE)^2
current production - Lenz law - DC, AC direction
V'CE/(CE)^2 - VC'E/(CE)^2 - VCE')/(CE)^2
B production - Displacement current - parallel attract
V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2
(E production = inverse square of distance) - synchronicity - push versus pull
C'BE + CB'E + CBE'
V production + DC current of dipoles from monopoles + AC current dipoles from monopoles
75) Now the proof that 3rd dimension is the largest and last dimension possible comes best from physics, more so than mathematics. Although in math we can see that a perpendicular to 3rd dimension remains a part of 3rd dimension and nothing new is built from adding a perpendicular.
But in Physics the proof is far more compelling. For it trespasses unto Electromagnetic theory of the speed of light. Do we have the speed of light a maximum constant and thus Special Relativity is true and allowing the existence of electricity and magnetism. Or, do we accept 4th dimension and higher, and toss out EM theory onto the trash pile. So here we have the choice of EM theory, the daily electricity we all use, or the choice of accepting 4th and higher dimension.
Because the physics proof that 4th and higher dimensions can not exist is that the speed of light is a constant, meaning, that it has no acceleration. Speed is meter/second. The derivative of calculus of speed is acceleration. So acceleration is meter/second^2. Acceleration is found in Force F = ma. Force is a subset of Energy where E =mv^2 or E = mc^2. Acceleration, force, energy are all 2nd dimensional inside of a 3rd dimensional Space-time. If a 4th dimension exists, then the units of Energy would have to be mccc not mcc. The speed of light would have to have acceleration in order to have a Force = mass x derivative of acceleration. The speed of light would have to be a variable for 4th dimension to exist of meter/second^2. For 4th dimension to exist, the light speed is no longer a maximum constant.
In Old Physics, they played a fool's game by saying time was the 4th dimension to 3 spatial dimensions. This is wrong for the derivative of speed is a time derivative and is exactly why 4th dimension cannot exist for it makes light speed a variable. And in Old Physics they played another game of calling higher dimensions curled up as the reason we cannot see them. This again is a fool's game.
Experiment to prove no 4th dimension.
We can actually devise a physics experiment to prove no 4th dimension or higher. We notice that a light beam or a star, or our Sun, radiates energy in light waves. We can theoretically determine how much light our Sun is supposed to radiate. If a 4th dimension exists, that dimension would decrease the amount of light than if we had just 3 dimensions. Because each higher dimension absorbs light radiation. Think of light as water as a analogy. So one dimension would be a sluice box of water. And second dimension would be a field. Third dimension would be all of Earth. So as the dimensions increase, you need more water to fill the more dimensions. Same thing with light, we can calculate what a radioactive decay beta emitter produces (beta is magnetic monopoles, not atom electrons). We know beta emissions and how much light they give. If the Universe is 3rd dimension and no more, then we observe how much light from beta emitters. If the Universe has a 4th dimension, much of the beta emission in radioactivity will go to filling 4th dimension and we would see less light than if the Universe was just 3rd dimension.
Truth in all sciences, is you know the truth, if you can teach it in High School. In Old Math, you could never even teach calculus in high school because of their mindless "limit concept-- which is fakery". Let alone teach Multivariable Calculus. Most of the history of mathematics for the 20th century was where "kooks of math" got a hold of math, and had their suppression and hold on math. Looks like the 21st century is where Math is made free from kooks stranglehold, and math able once again to be taught, all of it, in High School.
True mathematics is a subject that is always easy, clear, and comprehensible. Old Math never had a program of "let us make the subject easy and clear and accessible to all". Old Math was about fame and fortune for a grubby few arrogant and ignorant fame seekers to those seeking fame and fortune by adding fake math, incomprehensible, hard, worthless, at the expense of torturing young students who all they wanted was a foundation understanding of true mathematics.
Old Math cared more about having a few kooks run out and about, getting fame and fortune by piling incomprehensible trash onto mathematics, than it ever cared about going into a classroom and teaching math that everyone can understand. Of the four hard sciences, physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, there is no reason in the entire world, that math is the easiest of those 4 sciences. The only reason today, that math is not the easiest of those four sciences, is because after Descartes for 5 centuries now, mathematics was given over to kooks of math who sought for fame and fortune at the expense of keeping math simple and easy. Kooks of math filling up math so that math is now in 2020 a gaggle of kook ridden incomprehensible garbage. Ask your local kook math professor why he/she holds onto Boole logic with his 10 OR 4 = 14 when you know well that 10 AND 4 = 14. Ask your local kook math professor why he keeps teaching ellipse is a conic when you can show him on the spot with a paper cone and a lid that the slant cut is a oval, never a ellipse. And ask your local kook math professor why he/she never is able to give you a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. And the answer is always-- they are kooks of math, not mathematicians.
This list is ongoing, and is a bulletin-board of errors of Old Math and useful for Teaching True Mathematics. I insert this list as a guide. To show students what math to avoid, to steer away from, as a total fake and waste of time.
AP
King of Science
y z
| /
| /
|/______ x
More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.
In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.
I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.
There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Last revision was 21Sep2021. I added the correction of the Natural Logarithm Ln(x) to base 2.71... for its definition using Y= 1/x of an integral over an interval from 1 to x in 1/t dt is very much flawed and incorrect. The true definition of Ln(x) has to be from a geometry that allows for the equiangular logarithmic spiral. A Ln(x) based upon 1/x does not give a equiangular log spiral. What does give a equiangular log spiral are the Decimal Grid Number System where you have equal spacing of discrete numbers. So for example in Old Math their Ln(1.02) was 0.0198... while in New Math where we have a corrected and true Ln(x) that Ln(1.02) = 0.02 exactly.
11th published book
World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
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". 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.
Length: 137 pages
Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1307 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 137 pages
Word Wise : Not Enabled
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)
Preface: I suppose, going forward, mathematics should always have a mathopedia, where major parts of mathematics as a science are held under scrutiny and question as to correctness. In past history we have called these incidents as "doubters of the mainstream". Yet math, like physics, can have no permanent mainstream, since there is always question of correctness in physics, there then corresponds question of correctness in mathematics (because math is a subset of physics). What I mean is that each future generation corrects some mistakes of past mathematics. If anyone is unsure of what I am saying here, both math and physics need constant correcting, never belonged in science. This then converges with the logic-philosophy of Pragmatism (see AP's book of logic on Pragmatism).
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
Some of these can be found in AP's TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS series, but the entries keep changing and added on new, means I need to have a separate book for these fakes, mistakes and errors of Old Math.
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for ages 18-19 Freshperson College, math textbook series, book 3
Teaching True Mathematics, by Archimedes Plutonium 2019
Listing the Errors of Old Math, list of 1 to 50.
Alright, well, mathematics is a closed subject. What I mean by that is due to the textbook series of Archimedes Plutonium TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, that once you learn the polynomial transform and learn the two Power Rules of Calculus, you reached the peak, the pinnacle of all of mathematics, and anything further in math is just details of what you learn in that textbook series. Math is a completed science because it has this "peak of calculus", unlike the other 5 hard sciences of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy. Those other five will continue to find new ideas, new things, while math remains static and complete to its peak of calculus understanding. Mathematics is finished complete as far as a science goes because the peak of math is going nowhere. And even though Physics will find new science such as how the proton toruses inside of atoms are configured in geometry, the geometry and calculus used in that configuration, that new science does not change nor does it create or require a new math peak/summit to handle the new physics.
Now I do need to discuss the Errors of Math in General and the errors of math in geometry in particular. I have the feeling that Geometry is the more important of the two-- algebra - geometry. This list appears in most of AP's Teaching True Mathematics textbook series by Archimedes Plutonium, meant to be a guide and orientation, and a organizing of what must be covered before graduating from College, and what math to steer clear of.
Errors mostly, but not always, for some are included because too much time spent on them.
The listings in Mathopedia of errors, mistakes and fakes is based on the idea that Calculus is the supreme achievement of all of mathematics for it is the essential math of doing Physics electricity and magnetism. And in order to have a proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, we must clean up and clean out all the mistakes, fakes and errors of Old Math, erst, we have no Calculus. So calculus is the consistency maker for the rest of all of mathematics.
1) Calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, a proof that derivative and integral are inverses of one another, just as addition and subtraction are inverses, or, multiplication and division are inverses. The only way to obtain a geometry proof is to clean up and clean out all the fakes, mistakes and errors of Old Math, such as their fake numbers-- the Reals. Their fake definition of function allowing anything be a function. Their fakery of a continuum when even physics by 1900 with Planck onwards in Quantum Mechanics proving the Universe is discrete Space not a continuum, yet by 1900 onwards those in mathematics following the idiotic continuum in the Continuum Hypothesis with even more avid interest, when they should have thrown the continuum on a trashpile of shame.
2) The true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers, because you have to need and apply one mechanism only to obtain the true numbers of mathematics-- Mathematical Induction. In Old Math they had just a tiny few intelligent mathematicians, Kronecker, who emerged from the gaggle crowd of kooks to notice that Naturals all come from one single mechanism-- Mathematical Induction. But Old Math never had a crowd of mathematicians with logical brains to say-- all our numbers need to come from the one mechanism of Mathematical Induction.
3) The true numbers of math have empty space between successor and predecessor numbers. For example the 10 Grid is 0, .1, .2, .3, . . . , 9.8, 9.9, 10.0. Where no numbers exist between .1 and .2, etc. Only discrete numbers allow us to give a proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
4) All functions of mathematics must be a polynomial, and if not a polynomial, convert the offering to a polynomial over a specific interval.
Where is that stupid thread in sci.math, poising as a puzzle problem when it had no functions only pretend functions?
A few days back, 11Aug2021 appeared a stupid puzzle problem here in sci.math. Of someone pretending he had 3, 4 even 5 or 6 functions and wanting to prove equality.
Then I stepped into the conversation saying he had no functions at all, until they are converted into polynomials over a specified interval, then you can do calculus on those true real functions.
So, the world wide math community has got to begin to learn, no function is a function, until, and unless they are polynomials. This is an axiom of math and is proven true by the geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. You cannot have a FTC, if you have functions that are not polynomials.
So there is a trade off-- does math want calculus or no calculus? If you want calculus, all your functions have to be polynomials. This has to do with the concept of discrete geometry, not a continuum, for polynomials are discrete.
5) Space is discrete and all lines in space are strings of attached straight lines.
6) No curves exist in Geometry, only finer and smaller straight line segments attached to one another.
We can still keep the name "curve" as long as we know it is a string of fine tiny straightline segments strung together in what looks like a smooth curve. If curves exist, then the Calculus in Fundamental Theorem of Calculus cannot be proven and thus Calculus does not exist. We all know that we have to have Calculus, and so we throw out onto the trash pile the curve of Old Math. And this is reasonable because starting in 1900 in physics there arose the Quantum Mechanics of Space being discrete. And a discrete space has no continuum, has no curve of Old Math.
7) Space has gaps in between one point and the next point. These gaps are empty space from one point to the next point, for example in 10 Grid there is no number between .1 and .2, and in 100 Grid there exists no number between .01 and .02.
8) Limit analysis was an insane fakery in Old Math, concocted because Old Math needed the excuse of some proof, so they invented the monster con-artist trick that a limit analysis would divert the fact it is no proof at all, but a Non Sequitur argument. Limit analysis is juju totem witchcraft dance around a desire to prove the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Just as idiotic as dancing around a sick person of a virus is going to cure the person.
9) Infinity has a borderline and there is a microinfinity compared to a macroinfinity. For example in 10 Grid, the microinfinity is .1 if we exclude 0 and so there is no number smaller than .1 and no number larger than 10 in 10 Grid, where 10 is macroinfinity.
10) The 1st Quadrant Only in Coordinate System Geometry. Sad that the first coordinate system of Descartes was correct but soon became corrupted with 4 quadrants. See Mathematical Thought, Volume 1, Kline, 1972, page 303. Where Fermat then Descartes starts the Cartesian Coordinate System as 1 axis only and from 0 rightwards, meaning in our modern day math, 1st Quadrant Only. Why did math screw up on coordinate systems? I suppose some clowns thought negative numbers were true and they wanted ease of drawing a circle with center at 0. When they could have just as easily drawn the circle in 1st Quadrant Only.
11) Calculus needed a Geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, but Old Math never provided such, instead they provided some stupid Limit argument. The reason for the creation of the Limit disaster was that the French mathematician Cauchy got sick and tired of hearing his smartest students complain that the width of rectangles in the integral are 0 width, and those smart students could not, for the life of them understand how a rectangle with 0 width has any interior area. So instead of the math community denouncing the limit, instead they elevated the fakery.
12) Further in Calculus, they knew you could do a transform of coordinate points to turn any function into a polynomial function, a method of Lagrange. However, they in Old Math were too stupid to take this transform to its highest form-- all functions are polynomial functions and only polynomial functions. When you learn that-- the derivative and integral of any and every function of math is a snap breeze simple and easy.
13) With the error filled 4 quadrants, when it should be 1st Quadrant Only, we have Trigonometry's sine and cosine with the fakery of sinusoid wave when it never was that. The sine and cosine are semicircle waves, and no sinusoid wave exists.
14) There is only one Geometry-- Euclidean, and there is not three distinct geometries of elliptical Riemannian or hyperbolic Lobachevsky. Those two are just duals that make up Euclidean.
15) Torus, volume and surface area formulas in Old Math are all screwed up and in error because they imagined bending a cylinder to form a torus. This brings back memories, for I had to do a percentage formula, since I could not follow the fake way of bending a cylinder. Where 78.5% of Disc Torus (pi)R^2h - (pi)r^2h is the volume of Circle Torus, and 78.5% of Disc Torus 2(pi)Rh + 2(pi)rh + 2 ((pi)R^2 - (pi)r^2) is the surface area of Circle Torus.
16) Ellipse is never a single cone slant cut, always a cylinder slant cut. Although you do get an ellipse from double cones of this configuration <> which in Old Math was the hyperbola, but two hyperbolas joined together to form a ellipse.
17) All Parallelepipeds reduced to a Rectangular Box by making 2 cuts and pastes. Volume of the original Parallelepiped is simply a*b*c of the Rectangular Box length*width*depth formed. Old Math never understood that a precise definition of Parallelepiped has two kinds, the parallelepiped that has 90 degree angles and the parallelepiped that has no 90 degree angle.
18) All of Old Logic such as the textbooks by Copi and Boole and Jevons with their messed up operators -- their logic connectors of AND, OR, If->Then, Equal+Not, Boole went insane with logic for he never lived a logical life as he even thought cold bathes and a wet bed would cure him of pneumonia, so insane was Boole he taught class shivering in rain soaked clothes and so when it came time to decide for Boole what AND should be, he thought its table was TFFF, not realizing that if just one statement among many statements is true, then the entire collection is true and thus the true truth table of AND must be TTTF and now in modern day computer making times of 1990s onward we see clearer the Boole error of logic for the computers are expressing the thoroughly wrong and muddle headed Boole logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction of 2 AND 1 = either 1 or 2 as in subtraction of the other. And the Boole mistake of AND and OR is easily fixed as we correct AND to be TTTF and we accept only a OR truth table of FTTF.
19) Set theory is thrown out completely from math and belongs in Logic and Pragmatism philosophy, although we can use the word "set" to mean a sequence or function of math. All of Cantor set theory is phony baloney, not worth reading. There never was anything to set theory and was seen as the "part of math inhabited by those crippled in mind to doing regular math" as they played around with Venn diagrams when they should be learning true math of calculus. Set theory is geometrical logic of Pragmatism.
20) Rationals and Negative Numbers thrown out completely because the only true numbers are Decimal Grid Numbers. Some would complain, why AP throws out Rationals? And the answer is simple, that numbers must be free of operations, for Rationals are unresolved divisions. Numbers are free and clear of any operator. Numbers have to be formed purely from mathematical-induction and having no unfinished operator. The Smallest set of Grid numbers is the 10 Grid System with its infinitesimal being .1, and the entire collection of 10 Grid is 0, .1, .2, .3, . . , 9.9, 10.0 where .1 is microinfinity and 10 is macroinfinity. In 100 Grid the infinitesimal is .01, in 1000 Grid the infinitesimal is .001, etc etc. In such a true system of numbers, all the numbers are built by mathematical-induction. Not just one group of numbers-- counting, but all numbers from mathematical-induction.
21) Irrationals thrown out completely (ditto to Rationals and Negative numbers).
22) Reals thrown out completely (ditto).
23) Imaginary numbers and Complex numbers are b.s. and thrown out completely.
24) Trigonometry pared down so much-- 90% thrown out, and no trigonometry ever enters Calculus. Only real use of trigonometry is when you have an angle and side, you can figure out the rest of the right triangle. But no, when you give true math to a gaggle of kooks, it is not long before they stretch true math way way out of its "zone of truth". And even fill up by 50% of calculus, when trig should never be in calculus.
25) Continuum and continuity thrown out as horrible fakery (in fact the Quantum Mechanic Physics of early 1900s had a better handle on the truth and reality of math with discrete space).
26) Topology is junk and a waste of time for many reasons such as continuum does not exist, and the fact that the idea of "bending" is not really ever a mathematical concept.
27) Prime numbers are fakery for the Naturals never had division in the first place. The real true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers and they do not have a concept of "prime". The key evidence that primes were silly stupid error, was the fact that there never existed a "pattern for primes". And all of mathematics is a science of "pattern". If any part of mathematics has no pattern, is indication that such was a phony fake concept to start with. Below begins a write-up of Math topics all have pattern, if not, then not math. Now some may worry about the idea that no primes ever existed for they worry about the Unique Prime Factorization Theorem of Old Math. But here again, there is no worry. For "Factors exist" just not prime factors.
28) Limit in Old Math was a horrible fakery, built by lowly idiots of math who wanted to get away from the smart students asking them-- stupid professor, come back here,-- how does a zero width rectangle even have interior area.
29) Lobachevsky, Riemann geometries and all NonEuclidean geometries are fakery and a waste of time. Many math professors want to spice up their boring math, so they ventured way way off into the twilight-zone of math with NonEuclidean geometry, like eating the hottest peppers in the world for breakfast.
30) Boole logic a horrid gaggle of monumental mistakes; one colossal error was their insane 10 OR 4 = 14. Boole was a monumental idiot of logic that he went to college to teach in a rainstorm without umbrella and when he got there, shivering, and no commonsense to switch into dry clothes, taught in rain soaked clothes with his students laughing at the fool he was for catching pneumonia. Boole was so logically insane that he ordered his wife to give him cold bathes and wet his bed in order to fight pneumonia, and western culture, now, elevates this insane logical fool, and puts such a logical misfit as the Father- of- logic. And modern day schools of 2020 are as insanely crazy as was Boole for they continue to teach that 4 OR 1 = 5, when even a village idiot society knows better with 4 AND 1 = 5.
31) Galois Algebra of Group, Ring, Field a fakery and waste of time.
32) Dimension stops at 3rd, and 3rd is the last and highest dimension possible, for there is no 4th or higher dimensions.
33) High School in Old Math spends too much time on quadratic equations with their negative numbers and imaginary-complex numbers when such never existed in the first place and where they violate a principle of algebra-- that an equation of algebra-- the right-side of the equation must always have a greater than zero number. So we throw out all quadratic equations of Old Math as fake math.
34) High School in Old Math spends too much time on teaching in geometry the congruence of SSS, ASA etc etc and we should pare that back somewhat, as excess teaching of a tiny minor concept.
35) Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations are now seen as superfluous when all functions are polynomials and need only the Power Rule. In Old Math we throw out all the insane ridiculous myriad of fake rules-- the Chain Rule, Simpson's Rule, Trapezoidal Rule, all because math has only one type of function-- polynomials and that makes for only one rule-- Power Rule.
36) Parametric Equations thrown out-- for what need is there of a sack of dung when all functions are polynomials. Interchanging equation with function.
37) Graph theory-- 90% worthless for it is based on the fakery of continuum.
38) Probability and Statistics theory now becomes a part of Sigma Error in New Math, the Old Math Probability and Statistics theory were wastrel and thrown out for it is based on a continuum and they had no proper definition of "probability" that fits with statistics. We keep Probability and Statistics in new math but revise and overhaul it completely.
39) We definitely throw out all Old Math Calculus textbooks as mostly propaganda, based on the silly Limit and the Continuum.
40) We throw out the Euclidean Axioms of Geometry and start anew, with axioms based on Physics as geometry truth.
41) Fractal theory totally junk and a waste-- uses ill-defined infinity.
42) Multivariable Calculus, Line Integrals, div, curl, Vector Calculus, Chaos theory, Complex Analysis, utter junk and waste of time since polynomial theory covers all functions.
43) Differential geometry, Measure theory fakery since they never had the correct numbers of math, and they had the fakery continuum.
44) We throw out all the Apollonius conic sections because he misidentified the ellipse. The ellipse is a cylinder section, never a conic section and the oval is the slant cut of the cone, never the ellipse. We replace the entire conic sections by the AP theory of axes of symmetry using Decimal Grid Numbers for algebra and strip-wavelength-geometry axioms.
45) Most of Algebra, starting with Linear Algebra is esoteric minutiae, or, just cute tools for specialized math, just as the Binomial Theorem and the Pascal triangle, all cute esoteric minutiae. Certainly none of which is appropriate in school math education. These topics are for those interested in sideline math, but does not belong in mainstream math. Algebra reaches its pinnacle of importance with the Polynomial Function transform. Anything else in Algebra is sideline esoteric minutiae. These are not wrong or false math, just not important enough math to be mainstream worthy of math education.
46) Gaussian Curvature is esoteric exotica, perhaps even fakery. It is a fallacy of "idealism". There has never been any physics application for now 200 years. But most damaging is the fact that Euclidean is the only geometry, and that elliptic and hyperbolic are just dualities for which if you compound them together is Euclidean geometry.
47) Manifolds in Old Math were fakery, since topology is fake with its "bending" and math cannot define "bending" which belongs to physics and chemistry. Bending is a physics phenomenon, not something that ever belonged in mathematics. Topology with its continuum and ill-defined infinity is fakery, then also is its manifold. In New Math, all 2-Dimensional figures are handled by polynomial transforms, so also all 3-Dimensional figures. How so much easier is it, that doing a Polynomial Transform, rather than the silly fakery and obfuscation of manifolds.
48) Fourier, Laplace and other transforms, all of them thrown out the window because the only valid transforms are polynomial transforms. Polynomials are the only valid functions, hence, polynomials are the only valid transforms. And here in mathematics we begin to see that Polynomial transform is the mirror image of physics wanting a unification of the 4 forces of Old Physics, where the EM unification of physics, is like the Polynomial transform of mathematics that unifies all so-called-functions.
49) The correction of the Natural Logarithm Ln(x) to base 2.71... for its definition using Y= 1/x of an integral over an interval from 1 to x in 1/t dt is very much flawed and incorrect. The true definition of Ln(x) has to be from a geometry that allows for the equiangular logarithmic spiral. A Ln(x) based upon 1/x does not give a equiangular log spiral. What does give a equiangular log spiral are the Decimal Grid Number System where you have equal spacing of discrete numbers. So for example in Old Math their Ln(1.02) was 0.0198... while in New Math where we have a corrected and true Ln(x) that Ln(1.02) = 0.02 exactly.
50) Principle of Logic, that Physics is king of sciences, and that means math is but a tiny subset. But in 20th and 21st century, we still have goons and kooks of math that think math is bigger than physics. These goons and kooks think that the Universe is a mathematical equation. They belong in an asylum, not the sciences.
51) There are many Principles of Logic which were unknown or ignored in Old Math. One of those principles caused the horrendous failure of sine and cosine trigonometry. The failure that a graph of a function in 2D or 3D, where the axes, all have to be the same numbers. You cannot have the x-axis as angles and the other axis as numbers. You abandon mathematics when you enact such a policy. You may as well have bar graphs and pie-charts and call them foundation mathematics, when you do sine and cosine with different representations of axes.
52) Principle of Logic-- follow your definitions exactly. When you do not follow your definitions you end up with the craziness of thinking sine is a sinusoidal wave when in truth it is a semicircle wave. You defined sine as opposite/hypotenuse of right triangles in a circle. That means, it is impossible from the definition for sine and cosine to be anything other than a semicircle wave.
53) Principle of Reality in a Equation-- You formed equations in mathematics where one side is the same as the other side. This is the algebra axiom of where the rightside can only be a positive nonzero decimal Grid Number. Equations must have "reality" on the rightside of the equation, in order for the equation to even exist. We cannot put negative numbers, or zero, or imaginary numbers on the right side of an equation and expect there to even be an "equation of mathematics". Math like physics deals with "reality". And that means a equation of mathematics must have a true substantive reality on the rightside of the equation all by itself. You can clutter up the leftside of the equation and solve for unknowns, but the rightside of the equation has all by itself a positive, nonzero Decimal Grid Number. Anything else is not mathematics.
54) The Reductio Ad Absurdum, RAA, or some call it proof by contradiction is not a valid proof argument in mathematics. RAA at best is a strong hypothetical, but not a guarantee of truth or proof. The trouble with RAA is the trouble with the IF-->Then connector of Logic which has a truth table of True, False, Unknown, Unknown. Old Logic had this connector of If-->Then as TFTT. It is the unknowns in F--> T and F--> F that neither has a true conclusion but an unknown conclusion that renders RAA as non workable in math.
55) The primal axiom of Physics-- All is Atom and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism reigns not only over physics but mathematics as well. Most of the Teaching True Mathematics textbook series books have physics experiments involving electricity and magnetism.
56) Geometry is discrete with not only discrete numbers but empty space in between numbers as coordinate points of a graph and with a discrete angle. No continuum exists in either algebra or geometry.
57) True geometry cannot have all volumes by stacking 2D figures, for example the torus, where the circles near the donut hole would be spaced too close together versus the circles near the rim of the circumference have wide empty space gaps. Stacking to achieve volume is not a universal method.
58) Mathematics has a peak, a pinnacle, a climax of understanding with Calculus, the motion of physics and the energy of physics. This is expressed in the 2D and 3D calculus. It closes the subject of mathematics. And once we learn how to transform polynomials, and apply the power rule in High School, all the rest of mathematics we learn in life is just mere details of our teachings that took place in High School. Math is a closed subject beyond Calculus.
59) Mathematics is a closed subject, meaning it has a summit, a peak and that peak mirrors the Physics of motion. It is called calculus. Once you learn calculus, and it is very easy for it is just the Power Rule upon Polynomials. Once you learn this in High School, all the rest of mathematics is just details concerning motion. Mathematics is a tiny tiny subset of Physics. Everything of mathematics comes from physics. The reason the world has numbers is because physics has atoms and atoms are numerous. The reason the world has geometry is because atoms come in various shapes and sizes.
60) Math is a closed subject, a tiny subset of physics, and ever since 2019, the writing of this Calculus Guide, all the important topics of mathematics can be taught in junior and senior year High School. Any mathematics beyond High School is mere details of that junior and senior year teaching-- namely polynomial transform and Power Rules for derivative and integral of calculus.
61) The AP-EM equations of physics and mathematics. They replace the error ridden Maxwell Equations.
If you desire, you can replace E, electric field with L, angular momentum. Where V is voltage, i or A is current, B is magnetic field, E is electric field, kg is kilogram mass, m is meters, s is seconds, C=quantity of current A*s.
a) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
b) V = C*B*E New Ohm's law, law of electricity
c) V' = (C*B*E)' Capacitor Law of Physics
d) (V/C*E)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
e) (V/(B*E))' = C' Faraday law
f) (V/(C*B))' = E' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
PHYSICS LAWS
a) Facts of chemistry and physics
b) Voltage V = kg*m^2/(A*s^3)
c) Amount of current C = A*s = magnetic monopoles
d) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /(A*s^2)
e) Electric Field E = kg m^2/(A*s)
f) V = C*B*E New Ohm's law, law of electricity
g) V' = (C*B*E)' Capacitor Law of Physics
h) (V/C*E)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
i) (V/(B*E))' = C' Faraday law
j) (V/(C*B))' = E' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
62) Research into what I call "pencil ellipses" that are ellipses of enormous semimajor axis and tiny tiny semiminor axis, whose importance to physics is ultra important.
63) Light waves are not straightline arrows, open ended arrows but rather instead are pencil ellipses always connected as a closed loop circuit with the source of that light.
64) Old Math in its fakery and stupidity never had a 3rd Dimension Calculus, for theirs was only 2nd dimension. Their colossal mistake of never a geometry proof of Calculus for the idiots believed in "limit analysis of 0 width rectangles for integral", that those Old Math idiots could never understand there exists 3rd dimension calculus.
65) Apollonius geometry corrected, especially the two cones put base to base <> and not the error filled apex to apex >< and the ellipse = 2 hyperbolas and the oval = 2 parabolas.
66) A well defined oval as being two parabolas joined at their widest width circle.
67) Their minor error of listing pi as 3.14... when using radius in formulas when they should list pi as 6.28... whenever using radius, because area of circle is really 1/2 pi*r^2 to match the prefix factor of 1/2 mv^2 as kinetic energy. Old Math never had a full brain of logic when they did Old Math, but always puttering around with a 1/10 tank of logic.
68) The single biggest fake and error of Old Math is their Calculus, with no geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. It is the biggest mistake because providing a geometry proof alerts the mathematician that they are mistaken about a "limit" mistaken about what are the true numbers of math (Decimal Grid Numbers, not the Reals), they are mistaken about infinity without a borderline. So fixing their calculus forces them to fix so many other ills of Old Math.
69) AP is reinventing Multivariable Calculus because the AP-EM Equations of physics demand it. See AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS 1st year College for details. And this revision ends up throwing out Old Math's Gradient theorem, Green's theorem, Stokes theorem, Divergence theorem, manifolds, ugly and difficult and incomprehensible Old Math. Apparently in Old Math, they rather have kook math that no-one ever understood than no math at all. In AP's reinvention of Multivariable Calculus we throw out all of the above and able to teach Multivariable Calculus to bright seniors of High School. So that AP throws on the trash pile the Green's theorem, Gradient theorem, Stokes theorem, Divergence theorem, manifolds, throws them all out and replaces all of Multivariable Calculus with a technique of volume of box versus surface area of ellipsoid. All of which was invented or discovered to deal with Electromagnetism starting with the Maxwell Equations of 1860s.
70) When all functions and equations of physics are polynomial then the calculus is another polynomial function as the solution to the original polynomial. Thus, no multivariable calculus is needed.
71) Since the polynomial dispenses the Multivariable Calculus, it also dispenses the vector of mathematics. What replaces the vector is the "unit concept". No need of vectors when units means the same thing. And the direction in Old Math vector is actually the derivative of calculus. So the concept of vector in Old Math was unit-derivative. The concept of vector is part of the unit concept and the derivative concept. So vector is duplicity.
72) The Serre, Taniyama-Shimura, Ribet, Wiles Programs of representing Counting Numbers as elliptic curves is all a pile of illogical and worthless garbage. When you have the true numbers of mathematics-- Decimal Grid Numbers, the proper Representation of Counting Numbers is the numbers from 0 to 0.5 between 0 and 1. None of these listed so called mathematicians even knew of the axiom of algebra of what a "valid equation" was.
73) The Langlands program of Old Math is a gigantic sack of worthless garbage, using fake numbers of Reals and stupid outdated Galois group theory. My gosh, Langlands was not even aware of the critically important axiom of algebra, that a valid equation is one in which a positive decimal grid number is all alone at all times on the rightside of the equation, and does anyone expect any math to come from Langlands? AP replaces the Langlands program with the AP program.
74) We set up a matrix of the terms in Voltage = Coulomb x magnetic Field B x electric field E = CBE and the all possible permutations of differential equations C', B', E', V'. We set this matrix up in order to help interpret what each term means.
V'BE/(BE)^2 - VB'E/(BE)^2 - VBE'/(BE)^2
current production - Lenz law - DC, AC direction
V'CE/(CE)^2 - VC'E/(CE)^2 - VCE')/(CE)^2
B production - Displacement current - parallel attract
V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2
(E production = inverse square of distance) - synchronicity - push versus pull
C'BE + CB'E + CBE'
V production + DC current of dipoles from monopoles + AC current dipoles from monopoles
75) Now the proof that 3rd dimension is the largest and last dimension possible comes best from physics, more so than mathematics. Although in math we can see that a perpendicular to 3rd dimension remains a part of 3rd dimension and nothing new is built from adding a perpendicular.
But in Physics the proof is far more compelling. For it trespasses unto Electromagnetic theory of the speed of light. Do we have the speed of light a maximum constant and thus Special Relativity is true and allowing the existence of electricity and magnetism. Or, do we accept 4th dimension and higher, and toss out EM theory onto the trash pile. So here we have the choice of EM theory, the daily electricity we all use, or the choice of accepting 4th and higher dimension.
Because the physics proof that 4th and higher dimensions can not exist is that the speed of light is a constant, meaning, that it has no acceleration. Speed is meter/second. The derivative of calculus of speed is acceleration. So acceleration is meter/second^2. Acceleration is found in Force F = ma. Force is a subset of Energy where E =mv^2 or E = mc^2. Acceleration, force, energy are all 2nd dimensional inside of a 3rd dimensional Space-time. If a 4th dimension exists, then the units of Energy would have to be mccc not mcc. The speed of light would have to have acceleration in order to have a Force = mass x derivative of acceleration. The speed of light would have to be a variable for 4th dimension to exist of meter/second^2. For 4th dimension to exist, the light speed is no longer a maximum constant.
In Old Physics, they played a fool's game by saying time was the 4th dimension to 3 spatial dimensions. This is wrong for the derivative of speed is a time derivative and is exactly why 4th dimension cannot exist for it makes light speed a variable. And in Old Physics they played another game of calling higher dimensions curled up as the reason we cannot see them. This again is a fool's game.
Experiment to prove no 4th dimension.
We can actually devise a physics experiment to prove no 4th dimension or higher. We notice that a light beam or a star, or our Sun, radiates energy in light waves. We can theoretically determine how much light our Sun is supposed to radiate. If a 4th dimension exists, that dimension would decrease the amount of light than if we had just 3 dimensions. Because each higher dimension absorbs light radiation. Think of light as water as a analogy. So one dimension would be a sluice box of water. And second dimension would be a field. Third dimension would be all of Earth. So as the dimensions increase, you need more water to fill the more dimensions. Same thing with light, we can calculate what a radioactive decay beta emitter produces (beta is magnetic monopoles, not atom electrons). We know beta emissions and how much light they give. If the Universe is 3rd dimension and no more, then we observe how much light from beta emitters. If the Universe has a 4th dimension, much of the beta emission in radioactivity will go to filling 4th dimension and we would see less light than if the Universe was just 3rd dimension.
Truth in all sciences, is you know the truth, if you can teach it in High School. In Old Math, you could never even teach calculus in high school because of their mindless "limit concept-- which is fakery". Let alone teach Multivariable Calculus. Most of the history of mathematics for the 20th century was where "kooks of math" got a hold of math, and had their suppression and hold on math. Looks like the 21st century is where Math is made free from kooks stranglehold, and math able once again to be taught, all of it, in High School.
True mathematics is a subject that is always easy, clear, and comprehensible. Old Math never had a program of "let us make the subject easy and clear and accessible to all". Old Math was about fame and fortune for a grubby few arrogant and ignorant fame seekers to those seeking fame and fortune by adding fake math, incomprehensible, hard, worthless, at the expense of torturing young students who all they wanted was a foundation understanding of true mathematics.
Old Math cared more about having a few kooks run out and about, getting fame and fortune by piling incomprehensible trash onto mathematics, than it ever cared about going into a classroom and teaching math that everyone can understand. Of the four hard sciences, physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, there is no reason in the entire world, that math is the easiest of those 4 sciences. The only reason today, that math is not the easiest of those four sciences, is because after Descartes for 5 centuries now, mathematics was given over to kooks of math who sought for fame and fortune at the expense of keeping math simple and easy. Kooks of math filling up math so that math is now in 2020 a gaggle of kook ridden incomprehensible garbage. Ask your local kook math professor why he/she holds onto Boole logic with his 10 OR 4 = 14 when you know well that 10 AND 4 = 14. Ask your local kook math professor why he keeps teaching ellipse is a conic when you can show him on the spot with a paper cone and a lid that the slant cut is a oval, never a ellipse. And ask your local kook math professor why he/she never is able to give you a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. And the answer is always-- they are kooks of math, not mathematicians.
This list is ongoing, and is a bulletin-board of errors of Old Math and useful for Teaching True Mathematics. I insert this list as a guide. To show students what math to avoid, to steer away from, as a total fake and waste of time.
AP
King of Science
y z
| /
| /
|/______ x
More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.
In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.
I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.
There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 24, 2021, 3:18:34 AM9/24/21
to
SAVE// Progress on my 151st book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year College. This is one of my toughest books to write and taken me more than 1/2 year. Normally I can do one of these science books within 1/2 year, but this one is special. Because it is totally different from anything else in physics 1st year college. So many new concepts I had to build. It looks to be 400 to 500 pages, but I am trying to keep it below 400. So much strain was on me in writing this, partially because of the Drought, that I need a vacation before I write PHYSICS, sophomore college. By vacation, I mean I am going to write about 50 other books before I write sophomore college.
The difference for me in writing a textbook on physics rather than mathematics or chemistry or biology, is that I have to invent new concepts, not there before. For example, I replace the entire 4 Maxwell Equations with 6 Equations of AP - EM theory, and making 6 laws. And reinventing the Electromagnetic Spectrum. Of course in AP physics, a atom has no nucleus for the inside of an atom consists of true electrons as muons thrusting through a proton torus tube producing Dirac magnetic monopoles by converting Space into electricity. All of the Maxwell equations are wrong in some aspect, worst of all is the Gauss's law of no magnetic monopole, that is the worst of them. And of course the particle that JJ Thomson found in 1897 was not the atom's electron, but was what Dirac was searching for by the 1930s-- the magnetic monopole as 0.5MeV particle.
So, well, in writing my TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year College, I have to produce an entirely different book of teaching physics, one that no one who took College Physics in the past can recognize.
I have made it student friendly by making mathematics ultra ultra easy. And it is the shameful mathematics of Old Physics that has turned many students off of and away from physics.
As promised, the world needs the successor textbook of Physics since the Feynman Lectures of the 1960s, and that is what AP's textbook promises. The New Age physics textbook that will carry physics forward for the next 30 years, perhaps 1,000 years if fate is kind to me.
The difference for me in writing a textbook on physics rather than mathematics or chemistry or biology, is that I have to invent new concepts, not there before. For example, I replace the entire 4 Maxwell Equations with 6 Equations of AP - EM theory, and making 6 laws. And reinventing the Electromagnetic Spectrum. Of course in AP physics, a atom has no nucleus for the inside of an atom consists of true electrons as muons thrusting through a proton torus tube producing Dirac magnetic monopoles by converting Space into electricity. All of the Maxwell equations are wrong in some aspect, worst of all is the Gauss's law of no magnetic monopole, that is the worst of them. And of course the particle that JJ Thomson found in 1897 was not the atom's electron, but was what Dirac was searching for by the 1930s-- the magnetic monopole as 0.5MeV particle.
So, well, in writing my TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year College, I have to produce an entirely different book of teaching physics, one that no one who took College Physics in the past can recognize.
I have made it student friendly by making mathematics ultra ultra easy. And it is the shameful mathematics of Old Physics that has turned many students off of and away from physics.
As promised, the world needs the successor textbook of Physics since the Feynman Lectures of the 1960s, and that is what AP's textbook promises. The New Age physics textbook that will carry physics forward for the next 30 years, perhaps 1,000 years if fate is kind to me.
Archimedes Plutonium
Nov 17, 2022, 2:29:01 AM11/17/22
to
On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 12:32:36 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 11/16/2022 5:48 PM, Dudley Brooks wrote:
> > I'm fairly new to this ng ... and horrified.
> >
> > It should be called sci.math.trolls.
> >
> Usenet is an old (ancient) discussion method. While it was great in the
> 1980s and 1990s,
Kibo is that where you started spewing 938 is 12% short of 945, and you thought geothermal energy was recycled solar energy, ignorant of radioactive decay in the Earth. Making Rensselaer Polytech look bad that they graduated a imp like you Kibo Parry Moroney?
>
> The crackpots often wind up here after being repeatedly booted from
> moderated forum after moderated forum and claim to enjoy their "free
> speech" here.
Kibo Parry Moron, is that why your diet of posts is restricted to just one attack of AP per day, your a deteriorating crackpot? Feel it in you joints, your knees and elbows, Kibo, the deterioration along with you mindless attacks. Where is you diagram of ellipse is a conic?? Is that even, now, in the garbage bin???
> So enjoy your stay, either by watching the cranks, or being a crank
> yourself. There is some math here but serious discussion is mostly
> elsewhere.
Yes, Kibo Parry the failure of math, physics and even Usenet-- why even Jim Pennino is trying to bolster you up, as seen in your recent mess-up-- GLONASS satellites jammed and falling out of the sky. -- Satellites orbiting close to Earth always face the drag of the residual atmosphere... makes them fall back to the planet.... and burn up in the atmosphere. www.space.com "Unexpected solar weather is causing satellites to plummet from orbit--- Space dot com
Why not go elsewhere, for clearly, Kibo, sci.math and sci.physics are over your tiny head.
> On 11/16/2022 5:48 PM, Dudley Brooks wrote:
> > I'm fairly new to this ng ... and horrified.
> >
> > It should be called sci.math.trolls.
> >
> Usenet is an old (ancient) discussion method. While it was great in the
> 1980s and 1990s,
Kibo is that where you started spewing 938 is 12% short of 945, and you thought geothermal energy was recycled solar energy, ignorant of radioactive decay in the Earth. Making Rensselaer Polytech look bad that they graduated a imp like you Kibo Parry Moroney?
>
> The crackpots often wind up here after being repeatedly booted from
> moderated forum after moderated forum and claim to enjoy their "free
> speech" here.
Kibo Parry Moron, is that why your diet of posts is restricted to just one attack of AP per day, your a deteriorating crackpot? Feel it in you joints, your knees and elbows, Kibo, the deterioration along with you mindless attacks. Where is you diagram of ellipse is a conic?? Is that even, now, in the garbage bin???
> So enjoy your stay, either by watching the cranks, or being a crank
> yourself. There is some math here but serious discussion is mostly
> elsewhere.
Yes, Kibo Parry the failure of math, physics and even Usenet-- why even Jim Pennino is trying to bolster you up, as seen in your recent mess-up-- GLONASS satellites jammed and falling out of the sky. -- Satellites orbiting close to Earth always face the drag of the residual atmosphere... makes them fall back to the planet.... and burn up in the atmosphere. www.space.com "Unexpected solar weather is causing satellites to plummet from orbit--- Space dot com
Why not go elsewhere, for clearly, Kibo, sci.math and sci.physics are over your tiny head.
Mild Shock
Nov 16, 2023, 8:22:26 PM11/16/23
to
Judging from the length of his spams, AP must have the
smallest micro penis on the planet. What a looser!
Archimedes Plutonium schrieb:
> Konig der Wissenshaften
Archimedes Plutonium schrieb:
smallest micro penis on the planet. What a looser!
Archimedes Plutonium schrieb:
> Konig der Wissenshaften
Archimedes Plutonium schrieb:
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 16, 2024, 10:39:27 PMJan 16
to
It is appealing to have magnetic field units be (1/A)(meters/second) and for electric field units be (A)(meters/second) for that makes Voltage be units of energy in the V = A*(B*E).
And where we get the vector cross product using sine for BxE as the area of parallelogram (the parallelogram rule of physics) of (BxE), or using the angle complement of the sine angle we find the vector dot product of B*E to have the same value as cross product. This complementarity of magnetism to electricity; of sine to cosine; of vector cross product to vector dot product, compelling reason to see the A, Ampere in magnetic field is inverse to A in the electric field.
And this ties in well with the calculus of mathematics that the angular momentum derivative with respect to time is energy so that the highest dimension in both math and physics when we speak of geometry dimension is 3rd dimension. So that voltage units as Ampere current * meters^2/seconds^2 fits all logical points of interest.
And in turn, we then obtain superconductivity into the Voltage equation where the Resistance is the term (B*E) and when the sine angle is 90 degrees -- subsequently cosine is thus 0 degrees, both with a value of 1 or superconductivity capable. We interpret that as meaning the flow of electricity as magnetic monopoles is passing through a material where the magnetism and electricity are perfectly aligned at 90 degrees. The more the angle is not 90 degrees the more resistance is involved.
That leaves me to straighten out a very difficult problem of the units of Ampere and Coulomb. And it is here that is most saddening to Old Physics. For they used "charge" to quell all questions of theory, but never defined the two precisely. It is a current no doubt, but the trouble is, it is both wave and particle. How do you define electricity as a wave? How do you have an equation of how many waves of EM spectrum superpositioned on one another then collapse into a particle of 0.5MeV go to compose a unit of electricity. So you measure Ampere as particle or wave, same question for Coulomb.
Halliday and Resnick says of Ampere as the "constant current" and says of Coulomb "quantity of electricity". Does that mean that Coulomb is a variable current? Does it mean the Ampere is not a quantity of electricity? Does it mean we have two different types of current? Or, does it mean that Coulomb is gibberish in an era where no magnetic monopoles were believed to exist.
Funny, how Old Physics used "charge" to explain almost everything that was hard to explain, but when it comes to the basic unit of current, Old Physics lands into a crisis of defining what is Ampere versus Coulomb.
On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 2:06:50 PM UTC-6 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
I am attempting to define New Physics Ampere and Coulomb. I am not sure I even need the Coulomb as being A*seconds.
Old Physics had missing the Dirac magnetic monopole, instead they used a general term of "charge" a really obnoxious and silly term for which they swept everything under the carpet of trash if they came upon trash in physics. In Old Physics, whenever a person is at a loss for explanation in electromagnetism, the word "charge" would enter the discussion and supposedly explain things, but it never did, for charge is a cover-up-of-ignorance.
So what I am doing is attempting to use geometry volume of math to solve what Voltage as energy is in physics. I am guided by geometry math.
We know that in geometry math that volume = an area moved through a distance. And the formula of Volume in geometry is L * W*D and the formula of Voltage is similar in Current * (magnetic field * electric field). We take the vector cross product (or the dot product) of B*E as a area of volume geometry and then multiply it by current to get a volume of electricity in mathematics. The B*E turns out to use sine or cosine and is the area of a parallelogram. Once we multiply by current we obtain that volume of electricity. And it should be a formula for Voltage as this V = current ((1/A)(meter/sec)* (A)(meter/sec)). That results in current (m^2/s^2) a energy term.
In math geometry the pinnacle peak of geometry is volume, there is nothing further in geometry than 3rd dimension volume. In keeping with geometry, physics pinnacle peak is energy, there is nothing further in physics than energy. And so when I end up with Voltage = A (m^2/s^2), I end up with energy, not much different from E = mc^2 which is wave energy, but for my A(m^2/s^2) that is particle energy of the Dirac magnetic monopole of 0.5MeV.
So I must decipher how waves transform into 0.5MeV Dirac magnetic monopoles to see if my formula A(m^2/s^2) is the true final formula for Voltage.
AP kindly asks Google to let AP run all three, sci.math, sci.physics, PAU as he runs PAU, now--- all pure science, no spam and no govt b.s.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. If you, the reader, is wondering why AP posts this to a thread which is off topic in sci.math or sci.physics, is because some stalkers track AP, such as kibo, dan, jan who have been paid to stalk for 3 decades and when they see AP trying to post to his own thread that is on-topic they throw a impossible reCAPTcha suppression and repression at me that only wastes my time. From what AP can make out-- Google is not the only one using reCAPTcha, apparently the US govt rents out reCAPTcha. So if you see a AP post in a thread off topic, is because kooks of reCAPTcha are making it impossible for AP to post to the on-topic thread.
Read all of AP's post in peace and quiet in his newsgroup-- what sci.physics and sci.math should look like when govt spammers are not allowed in a newsgroup to wreck the newsgroup. Govt spammers have their agenda of drag net spam, and then their agenda of spy message codes, such as the "i sick, i cry" baloney, which only ends up ruining the newsgroups and why Google decided to close shop having fought govt bureaucrat mind sets for 30 years, and time to close shop.
AP kindly asks Google to let AP run all three, sci.math, sci.physics, PAU as he runs PAU, now--- all pure science, no spam and no govt b.s.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
And where we get the vector cross product using sine for BxE as the area of parallelogram (the parallelogram rule of physics) of (BxE), or using the angle complement of the sine angle we find the vector dot product of B*E to have the same value as cross product. This complementarity of magnetism to electricity; of sine to cosine; of vector cross product to vector dot product, compelling reason to see the A, Ampere in magnetic field is inverse to A in the electric field.
And this ties in well with the calculus of mathematics that the angular momentum derivative with respect to time is energy so that the highest dimension in both math and physics when we speak of geometry dimension is 3rd dimension. So that voltage units as Ampere current * meters^2/seconds^2 fits all logical points of interest.
And in turn, we then obtain superconductivity into the Voltage equation where the Resistance is the term (B*E) and when the sine angle is 90 degrees -- subsequently cosine is thus 0 degrees, both with a value of 1 or superconductivity capable. We interpret that as meaning the flow of electricity as magnetic monopoles is passing through a material where the magnetism and electricity are perfectly aligned at 90 degrees. The more the angle is not 90 degrees the more resistance is involved.
That leaves me to straighten out a very difficult problem of the units of Ampere and Coulomb. And it is here that is most saddening to Old Physics. For they used "charge" to quell all questions of theory, but never defined the two precisely. It is a current no doubt, but the trouble is, it is both wave and particle. How do you define electricity as a wave? How do you have an equation of how many waves of EM spectrum superpositioned on one another then collapse into a particle of 0.5MeV go to compose a unit of electricity. So you measure Ampere as particle or wave, same question for Coulomb.
Halliday and Resnick says of Ampere as the "constant current" and says of Coulomb "quantity of electricity". Does that mean that Coulomb is a variable current? Does it mean the Ampere is not a quantity of electricity? Does it mean we have two different types of current? Or, does it mean that Coulomb is gibberish in an era where no magnetic monopoles were believed to exist.
Funny, how Old Physics used "charge" to explain almost everything that was hard to explain, but when it comes to the basic unit of current, Old Physics lands into a crisis of defining what is Ampere versus Coulomb.
On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 2:06:50 PM UTC-6 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
I am attempting to define New Physics Ampere and Coulomb. I am not sure I even need the Coulomb as being A*seconds.
Old Physics had missing the Dirac magnetic monopole, instead they used a general term of "charge" a really obnoxious and silly term for which they swept everything under the carpet of trash if they came upon trash in physics. In Old Physics, whenever a person is at a loss for explanation in electromagnetism, the word "charge" would enter the discussion and supposedly explain things, but it never did, for charge is a cover-up-of-ignorance.
So what I am doing is attempting to use geometry volume of math to solve what Voltage as energy is in physics. I am guided by geometry math.
We know that in geometry math that volume = an area moved through a distance. And the formula of Volume in geometry is L * W*D and the formula of Voltage is similar in Current * (magnetic field * electric field). We take the vector cross product (or the dot product) of B*E as a area of volume geometry and then multiply it by current to get a volume of electricity in mathematics. The B*E turns out to use sine or cosine and is the area of a parallelogram. Once we multiply by current we obtain that volume of electricity. And it should be a formula for Voltage as this V = current ((1/A)(meter/sec)* (A)(meter/sec)). That results in current (m^2/s^2) a energy term.
In math geometry the pinnacle peak of geometry is volume, there is nothing further in geometry than 3rd dimension volume. In keeping with geometry, physics pinnacle peak is energy, there is nothing further in physics than energy. And so when I end up with Voltage = A (m^2/s^2), I end up with energy, not much different from E = mc^2 which is wave energy, but for my A(m^2/s^2) that is particle energy of the Dirac magnetic monopole of 0.5MeV.
So I must decipher how waves transform into 0.5MeV Dirac magnetic monopoles to see if my formula A(m^2/s^2) is the true final formula for Voltage.
AP kindly asks Google to let AP run all three, sci.math, sci.physics, PAU as he runs PAU, now--- all pure science, no spam and no govt b.s.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. If you, the reader, is wondering why AP posts this to a thread which is off topic in sci.math or sci.physics, is because some stalkers track AP, such as kibo, dan, jan who have been paid to stalk for 3 decades and when they see AP trying to post to his own thread that is on-topic they throw a impossible reCAPTcha suppression and repression at me that only wastes my time. From what AP can make out-- Google is not the only one using reCAPTcha, apparently the US govt rents out reCAPTcha. So if you see a AP post in a thread off topic, is because kooks of reCAPTcha are making it impossible for AP to post to the on-topic thread.
Read all of AP's post in peace and quiet in his newsgroup-- what sci.physics and sci.math should look like when govt spammers are not allowed in a newsgroup to wreck the newsgroup. Govt spammers have their agenda of drag net spam, and then their agenda of spy message codes, such as the "i sick, i cry" baloney, which only ends up ruining the newsgroups and why Google decided to close shop having fought govt bureaucrat mind sets for 30 years, and time to close shop.
AP kindly asks Google to let AP run all three, sci.math, sci.physics, PAU as he runs PAU, now--- all pure science, no spam and no govt b.s.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
0 new messages