info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Canada's Dan Christensen of Univ. Western Ontario flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
1,415 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted
Dan Christensen
Mar 13, 2018, 5:52:16 PM3/13/18
to
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 3:55:37 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Canada's Dan Christensen of Univ. Western Ontario flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
>
I don't know what he has against my namesake at UWO, but poor old Archie Pu here cannot even answer the first question on this simple Math Test:
Answer in the space provided. Use any aids, calculator, computer, internet,
etc.
1. What is the sine of 45 degrees to 3 decimal places? ____________
2. True or false: 10^604 = 0 ____________
3. If A is true and B is false, then A AND B is ____________ (true or false).
4. If A is true and B is true, then A OR B is ____________ (true or false).
I guess he was never the sharpest knife in the drawer, but now he can longer even tell AND from OR. It's so sad.
Would one of his neighbours PLEASE go and check up on him in his isolated cabin in the woods? I don't think you need to worry about violence, but he is quite delusional and all of us here fear for his safety.
The Other Dan Christensen
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
> Canada's Dan Christensen of Univ. Western Ontario flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
>
I don't know what he has against my namesake at UWO, but poor old Archie Pu here cannot even answer the first question on this simple Math Test:
Answer in the space provided. Use any aids, calculator, computer, internet,
etc.
1. What is the sine of 45 degrees to 3 decimal places? ____________
2. True or false: 10^604 = 0 ____________
3. If A is true and B is false, then A AND B is ____________ (true or false).
4. If A is true and B is true, then A OR B is ____________ (true or false).
I guess he was never the sharpest knife in the drawer, but now he can longer even tell AND from OR. It's so sad.
Would one of his neighbours PLEASE go and check up on him in his isolated cabin in the woods? I don't think you need to worry about violence, but he is quite delusional and all of us here fear for his safety.
The Other Dan Christensen
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
burs...@gmail.com
Mar 14, 2018, 4:00:03 PM3/14/18
to
Archimedes Plutonium should be thrown in jail
for his willful criminal behavior. The criminal
Archimedes Plutonium all the times posts people
name lists together with hate speach about these people.
It is highly likely Archimedes Plutonium is
psycho. Archimedes Plutonium belongs in prison not
on usenet for his mind is complete hate hate hate.
Put the creep in jail and throw away the keys.
Am Dienstag, 13. März 2018 20:55:37 UTC+1 schrieb Archimedes Plutonium:
> Canada's Dan Christensen of Univ. Western Ontario flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
>
> Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test for the past 30 years in General Science (each generation has its science test, and ours is Global Warming). It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist in the first place, never, and science is not for you.
>
> Now, Math has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.
>
> MATH TEST::
>
> Can you provide a Geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? If not, well, you flunked mathematics.
> Dan Christensen flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
>
> But Dan Christensen's stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Dan could never think properly or logically in any science for Dan harbors a Logic where his truth tables say that 1 OR 2 = 3, yet any teenager Canadian would usually say, "eh, you have that wrong, 1 AND 2 = 3.
>
> And so bozotic is Dan, and his doppelganger Dan Christensen that both bozos of logic, of reasoning have no room in their idiotic logic system for a connector of truth table TTTT.
>
>
> On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 2:33:16 PM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 2:33:44 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >
> > > The 4 connectors of Logic are:
> > >
> > > 1) Equal (equivalence) plus Not (negation) where the two are combined as one
> > > 2) And (conjunction)
> > > 3) Or (exclusive or) (disjunction)
> > > 4) Implication
> > >
> > > New Logic
> > >
> > > EQUAL/NOT table:
> > > T = T = T
> > > T = not F = T
> > > F = not T = T
> > > F = F = T
> > >
> >
> > Huh? Always true? How useless is that?
> >
>
> No wonder Canada is behind the times in science, in even thinking straight and clear with two knuckleheads (or whether they are one and the same?) up there in Canada. 10 OR 10 = 20 is that what Canada is all about in Logic. But worse yet is no Canadian in mathematics could ever do a Geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, and no wonder Canada is thought of as a backwater in mathematics, for leave it to Dan Christensen to keep Canada a backwater of mathematics.
>
>
> SEE PICTURE DIAGRAM of FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS below, professors hate teaching this for it shows their "limit calculus to be a joke"
>
> PICTURE DIAGRAM OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS
>
> By April 2015, was there for the first time a picture diagram proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, not just an analysis argument, but a geometry proof (see below). Old Math could never assemble a picture diagram of the FTC. All they could do is argue with limit concept an analysis argument, never a geometry proof of FTC.
>
> A picture diagram proof of FTC changes all of calculus and thus, changes all of mathematics for it requires a infinity borderline to produce an actual number for the infinitesimal, and that number is the inverse of the infinity borderline. Requiring a infinity borderline to produce the infinitesimal changes all of mathematics, and throwing out the limit concept. By changing all of Calculus and thus correcting mathematics, all of math before 2015 was just trash math.
>
> Picture Diagram needed for Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
>
> Why no continuum and no curves exist in Math, so that the Calculus
> can exist, and does exist
>
> by Archimedes Plutonium
>
> Calculus is based upon there being Grid points in geometry, no
> continuum, but actually, empty space between two neighboring points.
> This is called Discrete geometry, and in physics, this is called
> Quantum Mechanics. In 10 Grid, the first few numbers are 0, .1, .2,
> .3, etc. That means there does not exist any number between 0 and .1,
> no number exists between .1 and .2. Now if you want more precise
> numbers, you go to a higher Grid like that of 100 Grid where the first
> few numbers are 0, .01, .02, .03, etc.
>
> Calculus in order to exist at all, needs this empty space between
> consecutive numbers or successor numbers. It needs that empty space so
> that the integral of calculus is actually small rectangles whose
> interior area is not zero. So in 10 Grid, the smallest width of any
> Calculus rectangle is of width .1. In 100 Grid the smallest width is
> .01.
>
> But, this revolutionary understanding of Calculus does not stop with
> the Integral, for having empty space between numbers, means no curves
> in math exist, but are ever tinier straight-line segments.
>
> It also means, that the Derivative in Calculus is part and parcel of
> the function graph itself. So that in a function such as y = x^2, the
> function graph is the derivative at a point. In Old Math, they had the
> folly and idiocy of a foreign, alien tangent line to a function graph
> as derivative. In New Math, the derivative is the same as the function
> graph itself. And, this makes commonsense, utter commonsense, for the
> derivative is a prediction of the future of the function in question,
> and no way in the world can a foreign tangent line to a point on the
> function be able to predict, be able to tell where the future point of
> that function be. The only predictor of a future point of a function,
> is the function graph itself.
>
> If the Calculus was done correctly, conceived correctly, then a
> minimal diagram explains all of Calculus. Old Math never had such a
> diagram, because Old Math was in total error of what Calculus is, and
> what Calculus does.
>
> The fundamental picture of all of Calculus are these two of a
> trapezoid and rectangle. In fact, call the picture, the
>
> FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS, Picture
>
> Trapezoid for derivative as the roof-top of
> the trapezoid, which must be a straight-line segment. If it is curved,
> you cannot fold it down to form a integral rectangle. And the
> rectangle for integral as area.
>
> From this:
> B
> /|
> / |
> A /----|
> / |
> | |
> |____|
>
>
> The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
> so that it can be hinged at A, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
> integral.
>
> To this:
>
> ______
> | |
> | |
> | |
> ---------
>
> And the derivative of x= A, above is merely the dy/dx involving points
> A and B. Thus, it can never be a curve in Calculus. And the AB is part
> of the function graph itself. No curves exist in mathematics and no
> continuum exists in mathematics.
>
> In the above we see that CALCULUS needs and requires a diagram in
> which you can go from derivative to integral, or go from integral to
> derivative, by simply a hinge down to form a rectangle for area, or a
> hinge up to form the derivative from a given rectangle.
>
> Why in Old Math could no professor of math ever do the Calculus
> Diagram? Why? The answer is simple, no-one in Old Math pays attention
> to Logic, and that no-one in Old Math was required to take formal
> Logic when they attended school. So a person bereft of Logic, is never
> going to find mistakes of Logic and think clear and think straight.
>
> by Archimedes Plutonium
> ------------------
> -------------------
for his willful criminal behavior. The criminal
Archimedes Plutonium all the times posts people
name lists together with hate speach about these people.
It is highly likely Archimedes Plutonium is
psycho. Archimedes Plutonium belongs in prison not
on usenet for his mind is complete hate hate hate.
Put the creep in jail and throw away the keys.
Am Dienstag, 13. März 2018 20:55:37 UTC+1 schrieb Archimedes Plutonium:
> Canada's Dan Christensen of Univ. Western Ontario flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
>
>
> Now, Math has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.
>
> MATH TEST::
>
> Can you provide a Geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? If not, well, you flunked mathematics.
> Dan Christensen flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
>
> But Dan Christensen's stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Dan could never think properly or logically in any science for Dan harbors a Logic where his truth tables say that 1 OR 2 = 3, yet any teenager Canadian would usually say, "eh, you have that wrong, 1 AND 2 = 3.
>
> And so bozotic is Dan, and his doppelganger Dan Christensen that both bozos of logic, of reasoning have no room in their idiotic logic system for a connector of truth table TTTT.
>
>
> On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 2:33:16 PM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 2:33:44 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >
> > > The 4 connectors of Logic are:
> > >
> > > 1) Equal (equivalence) plus Not (negation) where the two are combined as one
> > > 2) And (conjunction)
> > > 3) Or (exclusive or) (disjunction)
> > > 4) Implication
> > >
> > > New Logic
> > >
> > > EQUAL/NOT table:
> > > T = T = T
> > > T = not F = T
> > > F = not T = T
> > > F = F = T
> > >
> >
> > Huh? Always true? How useless is that?
> >
>
> No wonder Canada is behind the times in science, in even thinking straight and clear with two knuckleheads (or whether they are one and the same?) up there in Canada. 10 OR 10 = 20 is that what Canada is all about in Logic. But worse yet is no Canadian in mathematics could ever do a Geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, and no wonder Canada is thought of as a backwater in mathematics, for leave it to Dan Christensen to keep Canada a backwater of mathematics.
>
>
> SEE PICTURE DIAGRAM of FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS below, professors hate teaching this for it shows their "limit calculus to be a joke"
>
> PICTURE DIAGRAM OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS
>
> By April 2015, was there for the first time a picture diagram proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, not just an analysis argument, but a geometry proof (see below). Old Math could never assemble a picture diagram of the FTC. All they could do is argue with limit concept an analysis argument, never a geometry proof of FTC.
>
> A picture diagram proof of FTC changes all of calculus and thus, changes all of mathematics for it requires a infinity borderline to produce an actual number for the infinitesimal, and that number is the inverse of the infinity borderline. Requiring a infinity borderline to produce the infinitesimal changes all of mathematics, and throwing out the limit concept. By changing all of Calculus and thus correcting mathematics, all of math before 2015 was just trash math.
>
> Picture Diagram needed for Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
>
> Why no continuum and no curves exist in Math, so that the Calculus
> can exist, and does exist
>
> by Archimedes Plutonium
>
> Calculus is based upon there being Grid points in geometry, no
> continuum, but actually, empty space between two neighboring points.
> This is called Discrete geometry, and in physics, this is called
> Quantum Mechanics. In 10 Grid, the first few numbers are 0, .1, .2,
> .3, etc. That means there does not exist any number between 0 and .1,
> no number exists between .1 and .2. Now if you want more precise
> numbers, you go to a higher Grid like that of 100 Grid where the first
> few numbers are 0, .01, .02, .03, etc.
>
> Calculus in order to exist at all, needs this empty space between
> consecutive numbers or successor numbers. It needs that empty space so
> that the integral of calculus is actually small rectangles whose
> interior area is not zero. So in 10 Grid, the smallest width of any
> Calculus rectangle is of width .1. In 100 Grid the smallest width is
> .01.
>
> But, this revolutionary understanding of Calculus does not stop with
> the Integral, for having empty space between numbers, means no curves
> in math exist, but are ever tinier straight-line segments.
>
> It also means, that the Derivative in Calculus is part and parcel of
> the function graph itself. So that in a function such as y = x^2, the
> function graph is the derivative at a point. In Old Math, they had the
> folly and idiocy of a foreign, alien tangent line to a function graph
> as derivative. In New Math, the derivative is the same as the function
> graph itself. And, this makes commonsense, utter commonsense, for the
> derivative is a prediction of the future of the function in question,
> and no way in the world can a foreign tangent line to a point on the
> function be able to predict, be able to tell where the future point of
> that function be. The only predictor of a future point of a function,
> is the function graph itself.
>
> If the Calculus was done correctly, conceived correctly, then a
> minimal diagram explains all of Calculus. Old Math never had such a
> diagram, because Old Math was in total error of what Calculus is, and
> what Calculus does.
>
> The fundamental picture of all of Calculus are these two of a
> trapezoid and rectangle. In fact, call the picture, the
>
> FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS, Picture
>
> Trapezoid for derivative as the roof-top of
> the trapezoid, which must be a straight-line segment. If it is curved,
> you cannot fold it down to form a integral rectangle. And the
> rectangle for integral as area.
>
> From this:
> B
> /|
> / |
> A /----|
> / |
> | |
> |____|
>
>
> The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
> so that it can be hinged at A, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
> integral.
>
> To this:
>
> ______
> | |
> | |
> | |
> ---------
>
> And the derivative of x= A, above is merely the dy/dx involving points
> A and B. Thus, it can never be a curve in Calculus. And the AB is part
> of the function graph itself. No curves exist in mathematics and no
> continuum exists in mathematics.
>
> In the above we see that CALCULUS needs and requires a diagram in
> which you can go from derivative to integral, or go from integral to
> derivative, by simply a hinge down to form a rectangle for area, or a
> hinge up to form the derivative from a given rectangle.
>
> Why in Old Math could no professor of math ever do the Calculus
> Diagram? Why? The answer is simple, no-one in Old Math pays attention
> to Logic, and that no-one in Old Math was required to take formal
> Logic when they attended school. So a person bereft of Logic, is never
> going to find mistakes of Logic and think clear and think straight.
>
> by Archimedes Plutonium
> ------------------
> -------------------
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Dan Christensen
Mar 20, 2018, 9:26:03 AM3/20/18
to
On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 12:39:48 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Dan Christensen writes::
> Mar 12
>
> >You left all the answers blank on your test,
> > Dan
>
> AP writes:: Yes why is Dan Christensen leaving his answers blank? Is it because the four connectors of logic from Boole to Russell and Godel are all four wrong, leaving only the existential and universal quantifiers not fakery. I mean, well, how can Dan mess up and screw up the existential quantifier? He already believes 1 OR 2 = 3 when even a Canadian bull moose would know 1 AND 2 = 3.
>
Archie Pu's dementia has gotten to the point where he can no longer tell AND from OR. If, for example, A is true and B is false, Archie now believes that the conjuction A AND B would have to be true. (He failed to answer that question on a recent test.)
Would one of Archie's neighbours PLEASE go and check up on him in his isolated little cabin in the woods? We here at sci.math are all concerned for his safety. Approach him with care. He is probably not violent, but he is really quite delusional. He may think you are a giant plutonium atom. Let us know if he is OK.
Dan
> Mar 12
>
> >You left all the answers blank on your test,
> > Dan
>
> AP writes:: Yes why is Dan Christensen leaving his answers blank? Is it because the four connectors of logic from Boole to Russell and Godel are all four wrong, leaving only the existential and universal quantifiers not fakery. I mean, well, how can Dan mess up and screw up the existential quantifier? He already believes 1 OR 2 = 3 when even a Canadian bull moose would know 1 AND 2 = 3.
>
Archie Pu's dementia has gotten to the point where he can no longer tell AND from OR. If, for example, A is true and B is false, Archie now believes that the conjuction A AND B would have to be true. (He failed to answer that question on a recent test.)
Would one of Archie's neighbours PLEASE go and check up on him in his isolated little cabin in the woods? We here at sci.math are all concerned for his safety. Approach him with care. He is probably not violent, but he is really quite delusional. He may think you are a giant plutonium atom. Let us know if he is OK.
Dan
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Zelos Malum
Mar 26, 2018, 3:46:38 AM3/26/18
to
Den måndag 26 mars 2018 kl. 08:16:37 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> 1:04 AM (10 minutes ago)
>
> If you are gonna teach mathematics, you migth wanna learn basic logic.
I did, because you fail basic logic :)
> On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 8:26:03 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
>
> >
> > Archie Pu's dementia has gotten to the point where he can no longer tell AND from OR. If, for example, A is true and B is false, Archie now believes that the conjuction A AND B would have to be true. (He failed to answer that question on a recent test.)
> >
> > Would one of Archie's neighbours PLEASE go and check up on him in his isolated little cabin in the woods? We here at sci.math are all concerned for his safety. Approach him with care. He is probably not violent, but he is really quite delusional. He may think you are a giant plutonium atom. Let us know if he is OK.
> >
> >
> > Dan
>
> Zelos Malum wrote:
>
> >
> > Archie Pu's dementia has gotten to the point where he can no longer tell AND from OR. If, for example, A is true and B is false, Archie now believes that the conjuction A AND B would have to be true. (He failed to answer that question on a recent test.)
> >
> > Would one of Archie's neighbours PLEASE go and check up on him in his isolated little cabin in the woods? We here at sci.math are all concerned for his safety. Approach him with care. He is probably not violent, but he is really quite delusional. He may think you are a giant plutonium atom. Let us know if he is OK.
> >
> >
> > Dan
>
> 1:04 AM (10 minutes ago)
>
> If you are gonna teach mathematics, you migth wanna learn basic logic.
I did, because you fail basic logic :)
Message has been deleted
burs...@gmail.com
Mar 26, 2018, 5:14:00 PM3/26/18
to
After decades of experimenting with grids, even
AP brain farto could not come up with this invention.
Facebook invents new unit of time called a flick
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-42787529
Am Montag, 26. März 2018 22:49:59 UTC+2 schrieb Archimedes Plutonium:
AP brain farto could not come up with this invention.
Facebook invents new unit of time called a flick
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-42787529
Am Montag, 26. März 2018 22:49:59 UTC+2 schrieb Archimedes Plutonium:
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Dan Christensen
Apr 1, 2018, 5:16:26 PM4/1/18
to
On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 4:05:35 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 8:26:03 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
>
> > Would one of ....
> On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 8:26:03 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
>
> >
> > Dan
>
>
> > On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 8:57:06 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >
By presenting the following rants as mine (actually by John Gabriel) we see that AP is not only a delusional idiot, but a blatant liar of Trumpian proportions. His dementia seems to getting worse by the day. I suppose we should feel sorry for him.
> > "Until I revealed what Euclid had written down, not a single moron academic
> > in the last 2300 years even had a clue what it means to be a number." (This from a moron who doesn't believe in zero!)
> > -- May 24, 2017
> >
[snip more of John Gabriel's rants]
Dan
Message has been deleted
Dan Christensen
Apr 1, 2018, 7:15:20 PM4/1/18
to
On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 6:31:31 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 10:42:44 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >
> > And what is a "magnitude?"
> >
> >
> > "Magnitudes are regarded as magnitudes."
> > -- April 1, 2018 *** NEW ***
> >
Such is his dementia at this point that it seems AP simply cannot stop lying. Again, he is presenting John Gabriel's rants as my own. Very sad indeed. I suppose I should feel sorry for him, but he is acting like such a dickhead.
>
> On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 10:42:44 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >
> > And what is a "magnitude?"
> >
> >
> > "Magnitudes are regarded as magnitudes."
> > -- April 1, 2018 *** NEW ***
> >
Such is his dementia at this point that it seems AP simply cannot stop lying. Again, he is presenting John Gabriel's rants as my own. Very sad indeed. I suppose I should feel sorry for him, but he is acting like such a dickhead.
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 4, 2018, 4:08:08 PM4/4/18
to

9:16 AM (4 hours ago)
>You can't even bother to look up the correct masses of the particles?
AP writes: What is worse Volney, is that Dan cannot even bother to make every effort to change the crazy Logic taught in schools, even at Western Ontario where Logic classes teach that 1 OR 2 = 3. So it must mean that Dan is a dumb and stupid as Logic professors who believe that OR has a truth table of TTTF and that 2 OR 5 = 7. So Dan must be as dumb and stupid as the rest, otherwise, he would try to fix things, rather than ignoring problems, but maybe that is what Dan thinks math should be-- ignore problems.
AP
Dan Christensen
Apr 4, 2018, 5:08:48 PM4/4/18
to
On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 4:08:08 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> AP writes: What is worse Volney, is that Dan cannot even bother to make every effort to change the crazy Logic taught in schools, even at Western Ontario where Logic classes teach that 1 OR 2 = 3. So it must mean that Dan is a dumb and stupid as Logic professors who believe that OR has a truth table of TTTF and that 2 OR 5 = 7. So Dan must be as dumb and stupid as the rest, otherwise, he would try to fix things, rather than ignoring problems, but maybe that is what Dan thinks math should be-- ignore problems.
>
Poor, demented Archie Pu has got to the point where he can no longer tell AND from OR. 10^604 = 0 was bad enough. Now this. Very sad indeed.
> AP writes: What is worse Volney, is that Dan cannot even bother to make every effort to change the crazy Logic taught in schools, even at Western Ontario where Logic classes teach that 1 OR 2 = 3. So it must mean that Dan is a dumb and stupid as Logic professors who believe that OR has a truth table of TTTF and that 2 OR 5 = 7. So Dan must be as dumb and stupid as the rest, otherwise, he would try to fix things, rather than ignoring problems, but maybe that is what Dan thinks math should be-- ignore problems.
>
Dan
Earle Jones
Apr 4, 2018, 5:37:55 PM4/4/18
to
Dan: I think he means 10^-604 = zero.
10^+604 = infinity.
However, I have personally discovered a number, in fact, several
numbers, larger than 10^604.
How about 2 x 10^604?
And there's this: 10^605. How about that? A larger nmber than infinity!
earle
*
Dan Christensen
Apr 4, 2018, 5:55:50 PM4/4/18
to
On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 5:37:55 PM UTC-4, Earle Jones wrote:
> On 2018-04-04 21:08:36 +0000, Dan Christensen said:
>
> > On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 4:08:08 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >
> >> AP writes: What is worse Volney, is that Dan cannot even bother to make
> >> every effort to change the crazy Logic taught in schools, even at
> >> Western Ontario where Logic classes teach that 1 OR 2 = 3. So it must
> >> mean that Dan is a dumb and stupid as Logic professors who believe that
> >> OR has a truth table of TTTF and that 2 OR 5 = 7. So Dan must be as
> >> dumb and stupid as the rest, otherwise, he would try to fix things,
> >> rather than ignoring problems, but maybe that is what Dan thinks math
> >> should be-- ignore problems.
> >>
> >
> > Poor, demented Archie Pu has got to the point where he can no longer
> > tell AND from OR. 10^604 = 0 was bad enough. Now this. Very sad indeed.
> >
> > Dan
>
> *
> Dan: I think he means 10^-604 = zero.
Nope. He wrote here:
> On 2018-04-04 21:08:36 +0000, Dan Christensen said:
>
> > On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 4:08:08 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >
> >> AP writes: What is worse Volney, is that Dan cannot even bother to make
> >> every effort to change the crazy Logic taught in schools, even at
> >> Western Ontario where Logic classes teach that 1 OR 2 = 3. So it must
> >> mean that Dan is a dumb and stupid as Logic professors who believe that
> >> OR has a truth table of TTTF and that 2 OR 5 = 7. So Dan must be as
> >> dumb and stupid as the rest, otherwise, he would try to fix things,
> >> rather than ignoring problems, but maybe that is what Dan thinks math
> >> should be-- ignore problems.
> >>
> >
> > Poor, demented Archie Pu has got to the point where he can no longer
> > tell AND from OR. 10^604 = 0 was bad enough. Now this. Very sad indeed.
> >
> > Dan
>
> *
> Dan: I think he means 10^-604 = zero.
“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
> 10^+604 = infinity.
>
He would probably agree with that, but you never can tell with Archie.
> However, I have personally discovered a number, in fact, several
> numbers, larger than 10^604.
>
> How about 2 x 10^604?
>
> And there's this: 10^605. How about that? A larger nmber than infinity!
>
Jan
Apr 4, 2018, 10:17:49 PM4/4/18
to
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 12:55:37 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Canada's Dan Christensen of Univ. Western Ontario flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
And you believe things become true by saying they are true? Why do you waste your
> Canada's Dan Christensen of Univ. Western Ontario flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
time like that?
--
Jan
Jan
Apr 4, 2018, 10:19:28 PM4/4/18
to
On Friday, March 23, 2018 at 11:19:58 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> And for 5 years now, you spent time in sci.math doing nothing but diss-ing other people, never doing any math itself,
But THIS is precisely what YOU DO here, all the time.
--
Jan
>
> And for 5 years now, you spent time in sci.math doing nothing but diss-ing other people, never doing any math itself,
But THIS is precisely what YOU DO here, all the time.
--
Jan
Dan Christensen
Apr 4, 2018, 10:24:46 PM4/4/18
to
On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 10:17:49 PM UTC-4, Jan wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 12:55:37 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Canada's Dan Christensen of Univ. Western Ontario
Not me. Yes, it must be obvious, but I need to say it every once in a while for Archie's sake. Nothing is obvious to him.
> On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 12:55:37 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Canada's Dan Christensen of Univ. Western Ontario
Michael Moroney
Apr 4, 2018, 11:03:27 PM4/4/18
to
Dan Christensen <Dan_Chr...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 5:37:55 PM UTC-4, Earle Jones wrote:
>> On 2018-04-04 21:08:36 +0000, Dan Christensen said:
>> > On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 4:08:08 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>> >> AP writes: What is worse Volney, is that Dan cannot even bother to make
>> >> every effort to change the crazy Logic taught in schools, even at
>> >> Western Ontario where Logic classes teach that 1 OR 2 = 3. So it must
>> >> mean that Dan is a dumb and stupid as Logic professors who believe that
>> >> OR has a truth table of TTTF and that 2 OR 5 = 7. So Dan must be as
>> >> dumb and stupid as the rest, otherwise, he would try to fix things,
>> >> rather than ignoring problems, but maybe that is what Dan thinks math
>> >> should be-- ignore problems.
>> > Poor, demented Archie Pu has got to the point where he can no longer
>> > tell AND from OR. 10^604 = 0 was bad enough. Now this. Very sad indeed.
>> > Dan
>> *
>> Dan: I think he means 10^-604 = zero.
>Nope. He wrote here:
>"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
>> 10^+604 = infinity.
>He would probably agree with that, but you never can tell with Archie.
>On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 5:37:55 PM UTC-4, Earle Jones wrote:
>> On 2018-04-04 21:08:36 +0000, Dan Christensen said:
>> > On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 4:08:08 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>> >> AP writes: What is worse Volney, is that Dan cannot even bother to make
>> >> every effort to change the crazy Logic taught in schools, even at
>> >> Western Ontario where Logic classes teach that 1 OR 2 = 3. So it must
>> >> mean that Dan is a dumb and stupid as Logic professors who believe that
>> >> OR has a truth table of TTTF and that 2 OR 5 = 7. So Dan must be as
>> >> dumb and stupid as the rest, otherwise, he would try to fix things,
>> >> rather than ignoring problems, but maybe that is what Dan thinks math
>> >> should be-- ignore problems.
>> > Poor, demented Archie Pu has got to the point where he can no longer
>> > tell AND from OR. 10^604 = 0 was bad enough. Now this. Very sad indeed.
>> > Dan
>> *
>> Dan: I think he means 10^-604 = zero.
>Nope. He wrote here:
>"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
>> 10^+604 = infinity.
>He would probably agree with that, but you never can tell with Archie.
>> And there's this: 10^605. How about that? A larger nmber than infinity!
>Archie has no problem with such concepts.
The sad thing is that Archie thinks all this is completely and totally
>Archie has no problem with such concepts.
logical. I guess that's what happens if you use AND as TTTF.
Michael Moroney
Apr 4, 2018, 11:11:00 PM4/4/18
to
Dan Christensen <Dan_Chr...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 10:17:49 PM UTC-4, Jan wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 12:55:37 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>> > Canada's Dan Christensen of Univ. Western Ontario
>Not me. Yes, it must be obvious, but I need to say it every once in a
>while for Archie's sake. Nothing is obvious to him.
Archie isn't very smart sometimes. I told him a few times that the aioe
>On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 10:17:49 PM UTC-4, Jan wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 12:55:37 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>> > Canada's Dan Christensen of Univ. Western Ontario
>Not me. Yes, it must be obvious, but I need to say it every once in a
>while for Archie's sake. Nothing is obvious to him.
news server he despises is in Italy, not North Carolina. He deliberately
ignores me and rants about someone in North Carolina about aioe instead.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Archimedes Plutonium
Nov 17, 2020, 12:36:47 PM11/17/20
to
I too am sick and tired of Dan brainwashing young kids with his mindless 10 OR 1 = 11 with AND as subtraction
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Michael Moroney
Nov 26, 2020, 3:27:32 PM11/26/20
to
Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> tarded:
>> > SEE PICTURE DIAGRAM of FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS below, professors
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 else to fail as well! He teaches
bizarre false physics and math, such as atoms contain the unstable muon, 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 10 AND 2 = 12.
His method at doing this is particularly insidious. He'll post a false statement
that nobody believes, such as 10 OR 2 = 12, say that it is false (which it is),
but then he'll try to replace it with another similar false statement such as
10 AND 2 = 12, 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 modern computers, 10 OR 2 = 10 and 10 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 "10 AND 2" and "10 OR 2" don't even make sense. Don't
let evil 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 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 previously 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.
>> > SEE PICTURE DIAGRAM of FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS below, professors
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 else to fail as well! He teaches
bizarre false physics and math, such as atoms contain the unstable muon, 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 10 AND 2 = 12.
His method at doing this is particularly insidious. He'll post a false statement
that nobody believes, such as 10 OR 2 = 12, say that it is false (which it is),
but then he'll try to replace it with another similar false statement such as
10 AND 2 = 12, 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 modern computers, 10 OR 2 = 10 and 10 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 "10 AND 2" and "10 OR 2" don't even make sense. Don't
let evil 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 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 previously 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
Dan Christensen
Dec 17, 2020, 10:55:43 AM12/17/20
to
On Wednesday, December 16, 2020 at 6:46:15 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >
> > WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim
You snipped the best part, Archie Pooooooo! Here it is a again:
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 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:
“Primes do not exist, because the set they were borne from has no division.”
--June 29, 2020
“The last and largest finite number is 10^604.”
-- 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.” (Actually, 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)
> >
> > WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim
You snipped the best part, Archie Pooooooo! Here it is a again:
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 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:
“Primes do not exist, because the set they were borne from has no division.”
--June 29, 2020
“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.”
“0 appears to be the last and largest finite number”
--June 9, 2015
-- 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.” (Actually, 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)
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Michael Moroney
Dec 20, 2020, 1:38:08 PM12/20/20
to
>4Dan Christensen shits in face Linda Hasenfratz, Alan Shepard, Amit Chakma,
Looks like the Meckling Village Idiot strikes again with his homoerotic/
coprophilic fantasies!
Looks like the Meckling Village Idiot strikes again with his homoerotic/
coprophilic fantasies!
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Michael Moroney
Dec 21, 2020, 10:00:16 PM12/21/20
to
>Subject: Re: Dan Christensen shits in face Patrick Brown, Peter Denny, Linda
>Dan Christensen shits in face Patrick Brown, Peter Denny, Linda Hasenfratz
The Meckling Village Idiot still runs amok with his homoerotic/coprophilic
fantasies!
>Dan Christensen shits in face Patrick Brown, Peter Denny, Linda Hasenfratz
The Meckling Village Idiot still runs amok with his homoerotic/coprophilic
fantasies!
Message has been deleted
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 22, 2020, 11:47:12 AM12/22/20
to
Dan Christensen warning students// SCIENCE Dr.Thorp steals AP's "Dog, first domesticated animal"
AP writes: I simply asked Dr. Thorp to include a Corrections Page listing AP's 2004 theory that the Dog was the first domesticated animal. But it appears that SCIENCE, and also Chandler Davis's Mathematical Intelligencer feel that Internet is a "free stealing fields for their magazines" See something you like on Internet and just steal away.
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 4:52:16 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> I guess he was never the sharpest knife in the drawer, but now he can longer even tell AND from OR. It's so sad.
>
> Would one of his neighbours PLEASE go and check up on him in his isolated cabin in the woods? I don't think you need to worry about violence, but he is quite delusional and all of us here fear for his safety.
On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:08:09 AM UTC-6, Peter Percival wrote:
> Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:47:32 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 8:27:19 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:16:52 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >>>> PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra, Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector
> >>>>
> >>>> The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any two points lies a third new point.
> >>>
> >>> The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points."
> >>>
> >>
> >> What a monsterous fool you are
> >>
> >
> > OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it.
>
> And yet Mr Plutonium is right. Two points are distinct (else they would
> be one) and it is not necessary to say so.
>
Which steals better, MitchR, Dr.Thorp, or Dr. Chandler Davis. Some in the journal of science business have just not transitioned to our new world where you have to also include Internet and Newsgroups as reference.
88th published book
Theft & Stealing ideas of science in the era of the internet// Ways to prevent and combat stealing// Sociology series, book 10 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
3_H. Holden Thorp fails Chemistry, now tries to steal AP 2004 work on "Dog, first domesticated animal" Kindle book of AP's. Kibo Parry Moroney confirms theft-- see below.
Ask Dr. Thorp when in the world he has no brains to do proper chemistry. Ask him why he believes in Lewis 8 Structure, when it has been known for decades that CO then N2 have the highest bonded dissociation energy. Thus, if you had at least one logical marble of a brain, you would understand that the highest dissociation energy tells you what the Lewis Structure must be. It cannot be Lewis 8 Structure but has to be Lewis 6 Arm Structure. If it were Lewis 8, then O2 would have the highest dissociation energy, not CO.
Is this why Dr. Thorp was dismissed out of chemistry? He just does not have one logical marble? But it appears the no logical marble of Dr. Thorp is allowing SCIENCE magazine to steal, and steal away the AP theory of DOG, FIRST DOMESTICATED ANIMAL of year 2004, published in the book of that same title in Amazon's Kindle.
But it appears that SCIENCE is trying very hard to steal AP's theory.
And all I asked for was inclusion on a correction page of SCIENCE, but Dr. Thorp is headstrong in his stealing ways.
Is SCIENCE magazine trying to steal away AP's theory-- Dog-First Domesticated Animal, or, will they do the proper etiquette of a Corrections page in a future edition?
4 views
Subscribe
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Nov 17, 2020, 1:01:25 PM (4 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Is SCIENCE magazine trying to steal away AP's theory-- Dog-First Domesticated Animal, or, will they do the proper etiquette of a Corrections page in a future edition?
Nov 17, 2020, 12:53 PM
to sci.physics, sci.math, plutonium-atom-universe
In that 30OCT2020 issue of SCIENCE AAAS, on page 523 has a list of references and notes and the oldest date is this.
8. G.H.Perry et al..Nat. Genet. 39. 1256 (2007).
Well, AP's Dog-- First Domesticated Animal has a long long history of Usenet posts going back to 2004. So, no, AP is not going to have his theories, any one of them, stolen from him.
I have asked SCIENCE to include my name in a future corrections page of Dog-First Domesticated Animal.
Is SCIENCE magazine AAAS, trying to steal AP's theory-- Dog-- First Domesticated Animal// Looks like it in 30OCT2020 issue pages 522 & 557. I did not see the name Archimedes Plutonium in the references. There are four major offending words in ....
6 views
Subscribe
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Nov 14, 2020, 7:08:20 PM (3 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Is SCIENCE magazine AAAS, trying to steal AP's theory-- Dog-- First Domesticated Animal// Looks like it in 30OCT2020 issue pages 522 & 557.
I did not see the name Archimedes Plutonium in the references. There are four major offending words in these two articles on pages 522 and 557 and contents page-- " dog, first domesticated animal".
Unless SCIENCE can include the name Archimedes Plutonium in a future edition, saying-- forgot to cite AP in reference to dog domestication. Then AP is forced to include SCIENCE magazine in his book-- Theft and Stealing of Intellectual Property.
22nd published book
Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Amazing that just watching TV of science shows, one can formulate a true theory of science. Now my theory needs research, but it basically says the dog was the first farm animal, the first domesticated animal of the wolf, that became food for early homo sapiens. We tend to think of herbivores being the first domesticated animals, but I tend to think the dog comes as first domesticated animal. Many good lines of research are suggested below in the text.
Cover picture: are three dogs, the light brown one is Indy and her two daughters. Indy comes from the Waziristan mountains as a shephard dog.Indy is very smart.
Length: 50 pages
Product details
File Size: 3076 KB
Print Length: 50 pages
Publication Date: March 17, 2019
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQ5CPKG
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #429,006 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#93 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#469 in Evolution (Kindle Store)
#648 in Biology (Kindle Store)
Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog// Anthropology series, book 2
by Archimedes Plutonium
Preface: Amazing that just watching TV of science shows, one can formulate a true theory of science. Now my theory needs research, but it basically says the dog was the first farm animal, the first domesticated animal of the wolf, that became food for early homo sapiens. We tend to think of herbivores being the first domesticated animals, but I tend to think the dog comes as first domesticated animal. Many good lines of research are suggested below in the text.
Cover picture: are three dogs, the light brown one is Indy and her two daughters. Indy comes from the Waziristan mountains as a shepherd dog.Indy is very smart.
From: a_plu...@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.misc,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo
Subject: how dogs evolved from wolves; TV NOVA show; 1st domesticated farm animal theory
Date: 5 Feb 2004 15:07:00 -0800
Lines: 76
A few days ago I watched a NOVA program on the variety of dogs with
talk of their evolution from that of wolves. Quite an interesting
program. However there are very many gaps of logic in the discussion
of how dogs came from wolves.
There was proffered the usual old theory that wolf babies make nice
pets and hominids would have come upon wolf babies and raised them in
their living camps.
Then there was a scientist who proffered a different theory suggesting
that dumpsites of early humans was a place to pick up easy food for
those wolves tolerant of human nearby presence.
I am going to offer a third theory which sort of incorporates the
above two. Let me call the above by their main mechanism. The first is
that of "Baby Pet" theory
and the second would be called the "Dumpsite" theory.
My theory would be called the "First Domesticated Farm Animal" theory.
The logical gap in theories one and two is that they confer little to
no advantage to the hominids or early humans involved, unless you want
to say that having a pet confers advantage over disadvantage of the
time spent on the pet, or as in the dumpsite theory that of the
spectacle of semi-wolves near camp is some sort of advantage.
My theory of "First Domesticated Animal" as the mechanism of how dogs
evolved from wolves makes the most sense because it confers the most
advantage to hominids or early humans. Here is how it works. Hominids
or Early Humans found wolf babies and would take them back to their
camp. They are too little and young to eat now, but as they grow older
fed from the snacks around the campsite (the dump) then they would be
large enough for food to eat.
Here I would have to research as to how easy or hard it would be to
have sheep or cattle hang around close to the campsite so that when
they got large enough they would be dinner. You see, I have the
suspicion that wild wolf babies are the animal that has the greatest
tendency to hang around the campsite than any other wild animal baby.
And thus, wolves would have been the first domesticated animal which
is rather surprising because they are carnivores and most of us would
guess that the first domesticated animal would have been a herbivore.
But I doubt that any baby herbivore would have stayed around the human
campsite as steadfast as a pet baby wolf until it grows to enough size
to eat.
Remember we are talking of primitive and savage hominids and early
humans who when looking at pets see them more as future food.
Which brings up very many good questions. Was the Dog the first
domesticated animal? I think it was. I say this because the wild wolf
baby imprints on a human better than a wild-any-other-animal. And
because of this imprinting the baby wolf would have stayed nearby the
humans until it grew of a size wherein one of the hungry hominids or
early humans ate the pet for dinner.
The Dump theory is okay in that the baby wolf would have wandered no
further away than the dump. And when the wolf was of a eatable size
would have been enticed by some scrap food bones and then killed and
eaten. Sounds gory and awful but that is probably the true sequence of
events that lead from wolves to the evolution of dog. And as this
relationship continued, the semi-wild wolf or dog had ears that drooped
and had a disposition to not run away.
We can measure the drooping ears of cattle or other domesticated
animals compared to their wild counterparts. As early man ate more and
more dogs for their dinners they wanted dogs that would hang around
the dumps and had droopy ears and not prone to run away.
And after hominids or early humans domesticated the wolf by becoming
the dog, they then got the idea that other animals such as cattle or
sheep can be domesticated for future dinners as well as the dog.
AP
From: a_plu...@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,soc.history
Subject: dog farming formed the first Human or Hominid farm
Date: 8 Feb 2004 12:12:05 -0800
Lines: 27
Based on a NOVA TV show recently watched. And my theory that dogs
evolved from wolves because they are an easy steady and stable food
supply.
Query: if we pose a query or question as to what would the first, yes
the very first Farm in the entire history of the Human or perhaps
Hominid history, then I think most of us would conjure up the images
of say early humans planting corn seeds or something like that.
Perhaps some would not conjure up some plant seeds but would instead
think of confining buffalo or some sort of animal resembling sheep or
cattle.
But I believe that the first ever farm by the earliest humans was a
dog farm. Where they rounded up baby wolves and brought them into the
campsite and fed them until a large enough size to eat. And they would
not roam far from the campsite because they were imprinted forming a
natural fence as to their roaming away from the humans. It could have
been cats since cats are also easily imprinted.
I do believe the dog would be the first ever Human farm. And then
other animals brought into the campsite area and then later, much
later would be to plant crops where these dogs and cats and other
animals were confined.
AP
20 July 2019 Note: reading the above, got me to thinking that not only was the dog, dog food for early humans, and the dog being the first farm animal, but the advantage of a dog around the campsite, barking at say wild animals approaching such as big cats, or worse yet, rival early human clans, would have been a huge advantage that the early humans gained, in addition to food by eating the dog. Dog barking is a huge advantage to owners when you want a alarm system. And the barking dog certainly is the best animal I know of as a alarm system.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Nov 14, 2020, 7:35:25 PM (3 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I am forwarding a copy of the below post to Editor in Chief, H. Holden Thorp, sciencemag.org.
Of the thousands upon thousands of new ideas in science that AP has committed, I am not willing to give up a single one of them, to any ransacking marauding thiefs. Unless the name Archimedes Plutonium appears in a future correction page of references to this article on dogs-- first domesticated animal, then I shall enter the offending person/s in AP's book of Theft and Stealing.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Nov 17, 2020, 5:40:41 PM (4 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Comparing the stealing of Porat versus MitchR versus Chandler Davis of Math. Intelligencer magazine
Well it is easy to compare their stealing ways.
Porat would read a "good nice new idea", and really really like it. And so his reaction was to pop up in the author's thread and accuse that author of stealing the new idea from Porat. Such stealing behavior gets old very very fast for the original author.
MitchR stealing ways is less offensive, less in-your-face stealing than Porat, but none-the-less as aggravating. What MitchR does is scout around in sci.math and sci.physics for new ideas. Once he spots one, he rewords the new idea and posts his rewording in a new thread pretending he is the discoverer of a brand new idea of science. Actually, AP has met people like this in real life, where they listen to someone talk about a new idea and reword it so that they feel they have no need of footnoting or citing original source. For there are thousands of people who think that rewording a new idea gives them the right to call it "their new idea".
Chandler Davis when he was editor of Mathematical Intelligencer in Toronto Canada in the 1990s early 2000 printed a article on the mistakes in the Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof, not Chandler but two other authors. Trouble was, the article was almost a pure lifting, a stealing of AP's posts in sci.math over Euclid Infinitude of Primes. And I emailed Chandler asking for a correction page inclusion of my work in a future issue of the magazine. Turns out that Chandler was "stupid old school of thought" thinking that Usenet and Internet are just "for free to steal all you want". So, what AP ended up doing is publishing Chandler Davis's brash stealing of AP's work in AP's book. All that Chandler had to do was simply include a two line cite of Archimedes Plutonium in his magazine, but no, for I guess a thief is always a thief, and looking for a excuse.
So, what turned out in the case of Chandler Davis refusal to publish priority rights of intellectual property, that now, Chandler Davis is published in AP's book of stealing on the Internet. Fair sailing Chandler...
88th published book
Theft & Stealing ideas of science in the era of the internet// Ways to prevent and combat stealing// Sociology series, book 10 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
New True Ideas in Science are very difficult to come by.
And many communities and countries ignore or deny the practice of footnoting, citing reference source, or quoting, but are societies who live up to that of mass stealing.
At minimum, every school education should and must teach how we "do not steal" by teaching footnote, reference cite, quoting. I learned it in High School, but across the world, most never learned this.
I learned footnoting, citing sources reference, and quoting in High School English classrooms, thank you Wyoming High School, near Cincinnati Ohio, one of my most valuable lessons, because it teaches us not only honesty, but prepares us for becoming scientists and grappling with the truth of the world, without stealing it.
It was August of 1993 that I first arrived on the Internet in the sci.math, sci.physics and many other Newsgroups of Usenet. I had already copyrighted my Atom Totality theory and was protected in that manner of copyrights. But I wanted more protection so I published in the Dartmouth College newspaper many of my discovered ideas of 1990 through August 1993. So I had a double wall of protection of Library of Congress copyright but also, Dartmouth College newspaper. But then with the arrival onto Usenet newsgroups, sci.physics, sci.math, sci.chem, sci.bio.misc, sci.physics.electromag, sci.astro, and many more newsgroups. I saw that as a third layer of protection of my newly discovered ideas.
However, starting August 1993, it was plainly clear to me that this Internet posting of my ideas, that it is easy to steal those ideas.
Length: 147 pages
Product details
File Size: 783 KB
Print Length: 147 pages
Publication Date: February 13, 2020
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B084T87JGY
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #250,786 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#4742 in Counseling & Psychology
#2013 in Medical General Psychology
#7248 in Science & Math (Kindle Store)
AP is hoping that he does not have to include the recent steal by SCIENCE magazine 30OCT2020, page 523 with a missing reference and note citation.
15. Archimedes Plutonium, Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author), 2004, published 2019.
I am hoping this does not end up being another Chandler Davis of Mathematical Intelligencer type of steal, where the editors of SCIENCE AAAS look upon everything on Usenet and Internet and Amazon's Kindle as just fertile grounds and fertile fields of stealing.
I ask for the above (15) inclusion on a correction page of SCIENCE magazine. New true ideas in Science are terribly difficult to come by, and keeping that in mind, I am not willing to lose a single new idea I ever discovered.
8 rings and with the muon as bar magnet is a Faraday Law producing magnetic monopoles. So this book is all about why researchers of physics and engineers keep getting the number 938MeV when they should be getting the number 840 MeV + 105 MeV = 945 MeV.
AP writes: I simply asked Dr. Thorp to include a Corrections Page listing AP's 2004 theory that the Dog was the first domesticated animal. But it appears that SCIENCE, and also Chandler Davis's Mathematical Intelligencer feel that Internet is a "free stealing fields for their magazines" See something you like on Internet and just steal away.
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 4:52:16 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> I guess he was never the sharpest knife in the drawer, but now he can longer even tell AND from OR. It's so sad.
>
> Would one of his neighbours PLEASE go and check up on him in his isolated cabin in the woods? I don't think you need to worry about violence, but he is quite delusional and all of us here fear for his safety.
>
On Monday, December 14, 2020 at 9:43:39 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim
>
The stupid Dan Christensen always chokes up when it comes to logic or even just plain commonsense with his 4 OR 3 = 7
On Monday, December 14, 2020 at 9:43:39 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim
>
On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:08:09 AM UTC-6, Peter Percival wrote:
> Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:47:32 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 8:27:19 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:16:52 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >>>> PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra, Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector
> >>>>
> >>>> The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any two points lies a third new point.
> >>>
> >>> The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points."
> >>>
> >>
> >> What a monsterous fool you are
> >>
> >
> > OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it.
>
> And yet Mr Plutonium is right. Two points are distinct (else they would
> be one) and it is not necessary to say so.
>
Which steals better, MitchR, Dr.Thorp, or Dr. Chandler Davis. Some in the journal of science business have just not transitioned to our new world where you have to also include Internet and Newsgroups as reference.
88th published book
Theft & Stealing ideas of science in the era of the internet// Ways to prevent and combat stealing// Sociology series, book 10 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
3_H. Holden Thorp fails Chemistry, now tries to steal AP 2004 work on "Dog, first domesticated animal" Kindle book of AP's. Kibo Parry Moroney confirms theft-- see below.
Ask Dr. Thorp when in the world he has no brains to do proper chemistry. Ask him why he believes in Lewis 8 Structure, when it has been known for decades that CO then N2 have the highest bonded dissociation energy. Thus, if you had at least one logical marble of a brain, you would understand that the highest dissociation energy tells you what the Lewis Structure must be. It cannot be Lewis 8 Structure but has to be Lewis 6 Arm Structure. If it were Lewis 8, then O2 would have the highest dissociation energy, not CO.
Is this why Dr. Thorp was dismissed out of chemistry? He just does not have one logical marble? But it appears the no logical marble of Dr. Thorp is allowing SCIENCE magazine to steal, and steal away the AP theory of DOG, FIRST DOMESTICATED ANIMAL of year 2004, published in the book of that same title in Amazon's Kindle.
But it appears that SCIENCE is trying very hard to steal AP's theory.
And all I asked for was inclusion on a correction page of SCIENCE, but Dr. Thorp is headstrong in his stealing ways.
Is SCIENCE magazine trying to steal away AP's theory-- Dog-First Domesticated Animal, or, will they do the proper etiquette of a Corrections page in a future edition?
4 views
Subscribe
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Nov 17, 2020, 1:01:25 PM (4 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Is SCIENCE magazine trying to steal away AP's theory-- Dog-First Domesticated Animal, or, will they do the proper etiquette of a Corrections page in a future edition?
Nov 17, 2020, 12:53 PM
to sci.physics, sci.math, plutonium-atom-universe
In that 30OCT2020 issue of SCIENCE AAAS, on page 523 has a list of references and notes and the oldest date is this.
8. G.H.Perry et al..Nat. Genet. 39. 1256 (2007).
Well, AP's Dog-- First Domesticated Animal has a long long history of Usenet posts going back to 2004. So, no, AP is not going to have his theories, any one of them, stolen from him.
I have asked SCIENCE to include my name in a future corrections page of Dog-First Domesticated Animal.
Is SCIENCE magazine AAAS, trying to steal AP's theory-- Dog-- First Domesticated Animal// Looks like it in 30OCT2020 issue pages 522 & 557. I did not see the name Archimedes Plutonium in the references. There are four major offending words in ....
6 views
Subscribe
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Nov 14, 2020, 7:08:20 PM (3 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Is SCIENCE magazine AAAS, trying to steal AP's theory-- Dog-- First Domesticated Animal// Looks like it in 30OCT2020 issue pages 522 & 557.
I did not see the name Archimedes Plutonium in the references. There are four major offending words in these two articles on pages 522 and 557 and contents page-- " dog, first domesticated animal".
Unless SCIENCE can include the name Archimedes Plutonium in a future edition, saying-- forgot to cite AP in reference to dog domestication. Then AP is forced to include SCIENCE magazine in his book-- Theft and Stealing of Intellectual Property.
22nd published book
Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Amazing that just watching TV of science shows, one can formulate a true theory of science. Now my theory needs research, but it basically says the dog was the first farm animal, the first domesticated animal of the wolf, that became food for early homo sapiens. We tend to think of herbivores being the first domesticated animals, but I tend to think the dog comes as first domesticated animal. Many good lines of research are suggested below in the text.
Cover picture: are three dogs, the light brown one is Indy and her two daughters. Indy comes from the Waziristan mountains as a shephard dog.Indy is very smart.
Length: 50 pages
Product details
File Size: 3076 KB
Print Length: 50 pages
Publication Date: March 17, 2019
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQ5CPKG
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #429,006 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#93 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#469 in Evolution (Kindle Store)
#648 in Biology (Kindle Store)
Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog// Anthropology series, book 2
by Archimedes Plutonium
Preface: Amazing that just watching TV of science shows, one can formulate a true theory of science. Now my theory needs research, but it basically says the dog was the first farm animal, the first domesticated animal of the wolf, that became food for early homo sapiens. We tend to think of herbivores being the first domesticated animals, but I tend to think the dog comes as first domesticated animal. Many good lines of research are suggested below in the text.
Cover picture: are three dogs, the light brown one is Indy and her two daughters. Indy comes from the Waziristan mountains as a shepherd dog.Indy is very smart.
From: a_plu...@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.misc,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo
Subject: how dogs evolved from wolves; TV NOVA show; 1st domesticated farm animal theory
Date: 5 Feb 2004 15:07:00 -0800
Lines: 76
A few days ago I watched a NOVA program on the variety of dogs with
talk of their evolution from that of wolves. Quite an interesting
program. However there are very many gaps of logic in the discussion
of how dogs came from wolves.
There was proffered the usual old theory that wolf babies make nice
pets and hominids would have come upon wolf babies and raised them in
their living camps.
Then there was a scientist who proffered a different theory suggesting
that dumpsites of early humans was a place to pick up easy food for
those wolves tolerant of human nearby presence.
I am going to offer a third theory which sort of incorporates the
above two. Let me call the above by their main mechanism. The first is
that of "Baby Pet" theory
and the second would be called the "Dumpsite" theory.
My theory would be called the "First Domesticated Farm Animal" theory.
The logical gap in theories one and two is that they confer little to
no advantage to the hominids or early humans involved, unless you want
to say that having a pet confers advantage over disadvantage of the
time spent on the pet, or as in the dumpsite theory that of the
spectacle of semi-wolves near camp is some sort of advantage.
My theory of "First Domesticated Animal" as the mechanism of how dogs
evolved from wolves makes the most sense because it confers the most
advantage to hominids or early humans. Here is how it works. Hominids
or Early Humans found wolf babies and would take them back to their
camp. They are too little and young to eat now, but as they grow older
fed from the snacks around the campsite (the dump) then they would be
large enough for food to eat.
Here I would have to research as to how easy or hard it would be to
have sheep or cattle hang around close to the campsite so that when
they got large enough they would be dinner. You see, I have the
suspicion that wild wolf babies are the animal that has the greatest
tendency to hang around the campsite than any other wild animal baby.
And thus, wolves would have been the first domesticated animal which
is rather surprising because they are carnivores and most of us would
guess that the first domesticated animal would have been a herbivore.
But I doubt that any baby herbivore would have stayed around the human
campsite as steadfast as a pet baby wolf until it grows to enough size
to eat.
Remember we are talking of primitive and savage hominids and early
humans who when looking at pets see them more as future food.
Which brings up very many good questions. Was the Dog the first
domesticated animal? I think it was. I say this because the wild wolf
baby imprints on a human better than a wild-any-other-animal. And
because of this imprinting the baby wolf would have stayed nearby the
humans until it grew of a size wherein one of the hungry hominids or
early humans ate the pet for dinner.
The Dump theory is okay in that the baby wolf would have wandered no
further away than the dump. And when the wolf was of a eatable size
would have been enticed by some scrap food bones and then killed and
eaten. Sounds gory and awful but that is probably the true sequence of
events that lead from wolves to the evolution of dog. And as this
relationship continued, the semi-wild wolf or dog had ears that drooped
and had a disposition to not run away.
We can measure the drooping ears of cattle or other domesticated
animals compared to their wild counterparts. As early man ate more and
more dogs for their dinners they wanted dogs that would hang around
the dumps and had droopy ears and not prone to run away.
And after hominids or early humans domesticated the wolf by becoming
the dog, they then got the idea that other animals such as cattle or
sheep can be domesticated for future dinners as well as the dog.
AP
From: a_plu...@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,soc.history
Subject: dog farming formed the first Human or Hominid farm
Date: 8 Feb 2004 12:12:05 -0800
Lines: 27
Based on a NOVA TV show recently watched. And my theory that dogs
evolved from wolves because they are an easy steady and stable food
supply.
Query: if we pose a query or question as to what would the first, yes
the very first Farm in the entire history of the Human or perhaps
Hominid history, then I think most of us would conjure up the images
of say early humans planting corn seeds or something like that.
Perhaps some would not conjure up some plant seeds but would instead
think of confining buffalo or some sort of animal resembling sheep or
cattle.
But I believe that the first ever farm by the earliest humans was a
dog farm. Where they rounded up baby wolves and brought them into the
campsite and fed them until a large enough size to eat. And they would
not roam far from the campsite because they were imprinted forming a
natural fence as to their roaming away from the humans. It could have
been cats since cats are also easily imprinted.
I do believe the dog would be the first ever Human farm. And then
other animals brought into the campsite area and then later, much
later would be to plant crops where these dogs and cats and other
animals were confined.
AP
20 July 2019 Note: reading the above, got me to thinking that not only was the dog, dog food for early humans, and the dog being the first farm animal, but the advantage of a dog around the campsite, barking at say wild animals approaching such as big cats, or worse yet, rival early human clans, would have been a huge advantage that the early humans gained, in addition to food by eating the dog. Dog barking is a huge advantage to owners when you want a alarm system. And the barking dog certainly is the best animal I know of as a alarm system.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Nov 14, 2020, 7:35:25 PM (3 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I am forwarding a copy of the below post to Editor in Chief, H. Holden Thorp, sciencemag.org.
Of the thousands upon thousands of new ideas in science that AP has committed, I am not willing to give up a single one of them, to any ransacking marauding thiefs. Unless the name Archimedes Plutonium appears in a future correction page of references to this article on dogs-- first domesticated animal, then I shall enter the offending person/s in AP's book of Theft and Stealing.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Nov 17, 2020, 5:40:41 PM (4 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Comparing the stealing of Porat versus MitchR versus Chandler Davis of Math. Intelligencer magazine
Well it is easy to compare their stealing ways.
Porat would read a "good nice new idea", and really really like it. And so his reaction was to pop up in the author's thread and accuse that author of stealing the new idea from Porat. Such stealing behavior gets old very very fast for the original author.
MitchR stealing ways is less offensive, less in-your-face stealing than Porat, but none-the-less as aggravating. What MitchR does is scout around in sci.math and sci.physics for new ideas. Once he spots one, he rewords the new idea and posts his rewording in a new thread pretending he is the discoverer of a brand new idea of science. Actually, AP has met people like this in real life, where they listen to someone talk about a new idea and reword it so that they feel they have no need of footnoting or citing original source. For there are thousands of people who think that rewording a new idea gives them the right to call it "their new idea".
Chandler Davis when he was editor of Mathematical Intelligencer in Toronto Canada in the 1990s early 2000 printed a article on the mistakes in the Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof, not Chandler but two other authors. Trouble was, the article was almost a pure lifting, a stealing of AP's posts in sci.math over Euclid Infinitude of Primes. And I emailed Chandler asking for a correction page inclusion of my work in a future issue of the magazine. Turns out that Chandler was "stupid old school of thought" thinking that Usenet and Internet are just "for free to steal all you want". So, what AP ended up doing is publishing Chandler Davis's brash stealing of AP's work in AP's book. All that Chandler had to do was simply include a two line cite of Archimedes Plutonium in his magazine, but no, for I guess a thief is always a thief, and looking for a excuse.
So, what turned out in the case of Chandler Davis refusal to publish priority rights of intellectual property, that now, Chandler Davis is published in AP's book of stealing on the Internet. Fair sailing Chandler...
88th published book
Theft & Stealing ideas of science in the era of the internet// Ways to prevent and combat stealing// Sociology series, book 10 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
New True Ideas in Science are very difficult to come by.
And many communities and countries ignore or deny the practice of footnoting, citing reference source, or quoting, but are societies who live up to that of mass stealing.
At minimum, every school education should and must teach how we "do not steal" by teaching footnote, reference cite, quoting. I learned it in High School, but across the world, most never learned this.
I learned footnoting, citing sources reference, and quoting in High School English classrooms, thank you Wyoming High School, near Cincinnati Ohio, one of my most valuable lessons, because it teaches us not only honesty, but prepares us for becoming scientists and grappling with the truth of the world, without stealing it.
It was August of 1993 that I first arrived on the Internet in the sci.math, sci.physics and many other Newsgroups of Usenet. I had already copyrighted my Atom Totality theory and was protected in that manner of copyrights. But I wanted more protection so I published in the Dartmouth College newspaper many of my discovered ideas of 1990 through August 1993. So I had a double wall of protection of Library of Congress copyright but also, Dartmouth College newspaper. But then with the arrival onto Usenet newsgroups, sci.physics, sci.math, sci.chem, sci.bio.misc, sci.physics.electromag, sci.astro, and many more newsgroups. I saw that as a third layer of protection of my newly discovered ideas.
However, starting August 1993, it was plainly clear to me that this Internet posting of my ideas, that it is easy to steal those ideas.
Length: 147 pages
Product details
File Size: 783 KB
Print Length: 147 pages
Publication Date: February 13, 2020
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B084T87JGY
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #250,786 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#4742 in Counseling & Psychology
#2013 in Medical General Psychology
#7248 in Science & Math (Kindle Store)
AP is hoping that he does not have to include the recent steal by SCIENCE magazine 30OCT2020, page 523 with a missing reference and note citation.
15. Archimedes Plutonium, Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author), 2004, published 2019.
I am hoping this does not end up being another Chandler Davis of Mathematical Intelligencer type of steal, where the editors of SCIENCE AAAS look upon everything on Usenet and Internet and Amazon's Kindle as just fertile grounds and fertile fields of stealing.
I ask for the above (15) inclusion on a correction page of SCIENCE magazine. New true ideas in Science are terribly difficult to come by, and keeping that in mind, I am not willing to lose a single new idea I ever discovered.
8 rings and with the muon as bar magnet is a Faraday Law producing magnetic monopoles. So this book is all about why researchers of physics and engineers keep getting the number 938MeV when they should be getting the number 840 MeV + 105 MeV = 945 MeV.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Dan Christensen
Jan 19, 2021, 7:36:27 PM1/19/21
to
On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 3:27:44 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Kibo Parry Moroney...
> Kibo Parry Moroney...
Message has been deleted
Walton Akright
Jan 20, 2021, 5:55:36 AM1/20/21
to
Dan Christensen wrote:
>> Kibo Parry Moroney...
>
> 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 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:
Farewell Melania Trump, you never stood a chance as FLOTUS but, like
>> Kibo Parry Moroney...
>
> 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 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:
everyone else, you never thought you’d get the job anyway
https://on.rt.com/aztz
ugly like shit, if you ask me. That drumpf must be a very sick person,
walking around with something like this.
Message has been deleted
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 21, 2021, 11:54:04 AM1/21/21
to
Harvard's Dr.Hau failure to turn off light on "slow light" proving AP correct-- light is a closed loop circuit not a arrow ray.
On Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 9:07:51 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> If anything, poor demented old
AP writes: I do not think Dr. Hau is demented, if anyone is demented is Dan Christensen with his mindless logic of 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction.
Kibo Parry Moroney on Harvard Dr. Hau failure to finish slow light experiment. And Dan Christensen on Dr. Peebles failure as astronomer.
Re: Dan Christensen shits in face James Peebles, Donna Strickland, Michel Mayor with their mindless electron of 0.5MeV, proton 938MeV when in truth muon is the electron inside a 840MeV proton doing the Faraday law
mitchr...@gmail.com
Jan 1, 2021, 3:36:02 PM
to
If you try to steal my math and science you will find it is patented moron AP...
Mitchell Raemsch
James Peebles, a Princeton hypocrite moron of physics, there he is on one side of his mouth yea yea yea Special Relativity is right right right, on the other side of his mouth-- let us determine distance from Doppler Redshift. Peebles has not contributed to astronomy but set the science backwards for 100 years.
Doppler redshift (blueshift) has nothing to do with motion of source and cannot tell you distance// (Physics series for High School Book 6) Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
What the Doppler redshift & blueshift really are-- heat and magnetism shifts of 8 Rings of the proton in hydrogen
---Quoting Bronowski's The Ascent of Man, page 336---
That was Bohr's marvellous idea.The inside of an atom is invisible, but there is a window in it, a stained-glass window: the spectrum of the atom. Each element has its own spectrum, which is not continuous like that which Newton got from white light, but has a number of bright lines which characterize that element. For example, hydrogen has three rather vivid lines in its visible spectrum: a red line, a blue-green line, and a blue line. Bohr explained them each as a release of energy when the single electron in the hydrogen atom jumps from one of the outer orbits to one of the inner orbits.
... These emissions from many billions of atoms simultaneously are what we see as a characteristic hydrogen line.
--- end quoting Bronowski's 1973 book ---
Here again, the trouble with that physics as discussed by Bronowski is the interior of atoms is a Faraday Law going on, not the simplistic foolish idea of particles having no job, no task, no function.
On Sunday, January 17, 2021 at 12:14:26 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>Physics
> "Court Jester of Physics"
> fails at math and science:
> The letters ..rearranged, spell "I Unclothe Ms. Pure Maid".
On Monday, January 18, 2021 at 12:21:26 AM UTC-6, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> as always, you are wrong and insane
DR HAU FAILURE because she is suppressed by the kibo Parry Moroney, Betsy DeVos, NSF Dr. Panchanathan suppression machinery
On Wednesday, December 23, 2020 at 2:47:38 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> WARNING TO STUDENTS, PARENTS and TEACHERS:
AP writes: do not be fooled by the several people posting under the name Michael Moroney as a "open hate spam line"
AP writes: sad the education system of USA where the govt pays a 1 million dollars for a stalker failure of science like Kibo Parry Moroney pays him $1 million to stalk in sci.math, sci.physics, yet probably, not sure pays Harvard physicists like Dr. Hau 1/5 the amount to actually teach and research physics. (Please check on exact amounts)
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.
Quoting Wikipedia—
In the early 1990s, as public awareness grew of the Internet and Usenet, Parry received publicity, including a cover story in Wired magazine..
--- end quote ---
Wired (magazine) editor in chief, Nicholas Thompson
Yoo, Nick, Nick yoyo, is Wired going to have Kibo Parry the Man of the Century for Wired? How a antiscience arsehole gets paid a million for stalking on Internet??????
1-Harvard's Dr.Hau versus AP on SLOW LIGHT EXPERIMENT
1-Dr. Hau has what she calls SLOW LIGHT that was shot into a BEC medium that slows it down for her. She must have the viewpoint or theory, then, that light waves are a open straight line arrow ray understanding of light.
1-Compare that viewpoint with AP's view of light, as a closed loop circuit, much like electricity itself, and that although light looks to be straightline arrow ray from source, the source is always "in the closed loop circuit". Here, AP views light as a very thin narrow closed loop. Much like a electric extension cord appears to be a straightline arrow, when in fact it is a closed loop with its copper wire inside separated by a distance of the separation of the two prongs that you plug into the wall outlet.
1-So, who is correct about LIGHT? Is Harvard's Dr. Hau straightline arrow for light correct. Or, is AP's closed loop with source always connected in the Closed Loop?
1-TEST to see who is correct. The test is real simple, turn the Slow Light Experiment source light off, just switch it off. If AP is correct, all the BEC slow light vanishes along with all the other light in the experiment, all at the same instant of time, even though the so called "slow light" was at a crawl. If Dr. Hau is correct with her straightline arrow view of light, then the slow light would still be active and moving in her BEC medium once the switch was off. If AP is correct, then the Slow Light, no matter how slow it is, instantly vanishes along with the light from the source that is not inside the medium, instantly vanishes altogether.
1-So, what is Harvard's Dr. Hau excuse for not completing her experiment by doing this test? Is she too dumb? Is she too lazy? Or, is she hateful of a AP success of a physics understanding?
1-FURTHER TESTS: I solemnly believe I will win the above test. But I am unsure of the further result of a movable source. The above test is a static source, but what happens if we move the source, keep it on but move it? Here, like in Quantum Entanglement viewpoint, the Slow Light inside the BEC should make adjustments of its movement because the slow light source is moving, and if the source comes upon a blockage, say a black sheet of paper, it is as if a switch had turned it off. But I am not sure if the BEC slow light remains active, or has just become dimmed while the source was behind a black sheet of paper. So here we have a whole whole whole slew of testing of what we call Quantum Entanglement.
1-So, why is Harvard stubborn and idiotic about slow light? Is it all because, no-one at Harvard wants to ever admit AP is correct, and that they rather be in the weeds, stay in the weeds, rather than ever ever give AP credit? In other words-- the little minds that compose Harvard University, and not really a center of education.
On Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 9:07:51 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> If anything, poor demented old
AP writes: I do not think Dr. Hau is demented, if anyone is demented is Dan Christensen with his mindless logic of 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction.
Kibo Parry Moroney on Harvard Dr. Hau failure to finish slow light experiment. And Dan Christensen on Dr. Peebles failure as astronomer.
Re: Dan Christensen shits in face James Peebles, Donna Strickland, Michel Mayor with their mindless electron of 0.5MeV, proton 938MeV when in truth muon is the electron inside a 840MeV proton doing the Faraday law
mitchr...@gmail.com
Jan 1, 2021, 3:36:02 PM
to
If you try to steal my math and science you will find it is patented moron AP...
Mitchell Raemsch
James Peebles, a Princeton hypocrite moron of physics, there he is on one side of his mouth yea yea yea Special Relativity is right right right, on the other side of his mouth-- let us determine distance from Doppler Redshift. Peebles has not contributed to astronomy but set the science backwards for 100 years.
Doppler redshift (blueshift) has nothing to do with motion of source and cannot tell you distance// (Physics series for High School Book 6) Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
What the Doppler redshift & blueshift really are-- heat and magnetism shifts of 8 Rings of the proton in hydrogen
---Quoting Bronowski's The Ascent of Man, page 336---
That was Bohr's marvellous idea.The inside of an atom is invisible, but there is a window in it, a stained-glass window: the spectrum of the atom. Each element has its own spectrum, which is not continuous like that which Newton got from white light, but has a number of bright lines which characterize that element. For example, hydrogen has three rather vivid lines in its visible spectrum: a red line, a blue-green line, and a blue line. Bohr explained them each as a release of energy when the single electron in the hydrogen atom jumps from one of the outer orbits to one of the inner orbits.
... These emissions from many billions of atoms simultaneously are what we see as a characteristic hydrogen line.
--- end quoting Bronowski's 1973 book ---
Here again, the trouble with that physics as discussed by Bronowski is the interior of atoms is a Faraday Law going on, not the simplistic foolish idea of particles having no job, no task, no function.
On Sunday, January 17, 2021 at 12:14:26 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>Physics
> "Court Jester of Physics"
> fails at math and science:
> The letters ..rearranged, spell "I Unclothe Ms. Pure Maid".
On Monday, January 18, 2021 at 12:21:26 AM UTC-6, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> as always, you are wrong and insane
DR HAU FAILURE because she is suppressed by the kibo Parry Moroney, Betsy DeVos, NSF Dr. Panchanathan suppression machinery
On Wednesday, December 23, 2020 at 2:47:38 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> WARNING TO STUDENTS, PARENTS and TEACHERS:
AP writes: sad the education system of USA where the govt pays a 1 million dollars for a stalker failure of science like Kibo Parry Moroney pays him $1 million to stalk in sci.math, sci.physics, yet probably, not sure pays Harvard physicists like Dr. Hau 1/5 the amount to actually teach and research physics. (Please check on exact amounts)
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.
Quoting Wikipedia—
In the early 1990s, as public awareness grew of the Internet and Usenet, Parry received publicity, including a cover story in Wired magazine..
--- end quote ---
Wired (magazine) editor in chief, Nicholas Thompson
Yoo, Nick, Nick yoyo, is Wired going to have Kibo Parry the Man of the Century for Wired? How a antiscience arsehole gets paid a million for stalking on Internet??????
1-Harvard's Dr.Hau versus AP on SLOW LIGHT EXPERIMENT
1-Dr. Hau has what she calls SLOW LIGHT that was shot into a BEC medium that slows it down for her. She must have the viewpoint or theory, then, that light waves are a open straight line arrow ray understanding of light.
1-Compare that viewpoint with AP's view of light, as a closed loop circuit, much like electricity itself, and that although light looks to be straightline arrow ray from source, the source is always "in the closed loop circuit". Here, AP views light as a very thin narrow closed loop. Much like a electric extension cord appears to be a straightline arrow, when in fact it is a closed loop with its copper wire inside separated by a distance of the separation of the two prongs that you plug into the wall outlet.
1-So, who is correct about LIGHT? Is Harvard's Dr. Hau straightline arrow for light correct. Or, is AP's closed loop with source always connected in the Closed Loop?
1-TEST to see who is correct. The test is real simple, turn the Slow Light Experiment source light off, just switch it off. If AP is correct, all the BEC slow light vanishes along with all the other light in the experiment, all at the same instant of time, even though the so called "slow light" was at a crawl. If Dr. Hau is correct with her straightline arrow view of light, then the slow light would still be active and moving in her BEC medium once the switch was off. If AP is correct, then the Slow Light, no matter how slow it is, instantly vanishes along with the light from the source that is not inside the medium, instantly vanishes altogether.
1-So, what is Harvard's Dr. Hau excuse for not completing her experiment by doing this test? Is she too dumb? Is she too lazy? Or, is she hateful of a AP success of a physics understanding?
1-FURTHER TESTS: I solemnly believe I will win the above test. But I am unsure of the further result of a movable source. The above test is a static source, but what happens if we move the source, keep it on but move it? Here, like in Quantum Entanglement viewpoint, the Slow Light inside the BEC should make adjustments of its movement because the slow light source is moving, and if the source comes upon a blockage, say a black sheet of paper, it is as if a switch had turned it off. But I am not sure if the BEC slow light remains active, or has just become dimmed while the source was behind a black sheet of paper. So here we have a whole whole whole slew of testing of what we call Quantum Entanglement.
1-So, why is Harvard stubborn and idiotic about slow light? Is it all because, no-one at Harvard wants to ever admit AP is correct, and that they rather be in the weeds, stay in the weeds, rather than ever ever give AP credit? In other words-- the little minds that compose Harvard University, and not really a center of education.
Michael Moroney
Jan 21, 2021, 2:35:45 PM1/21/21
to
🤡 of Math and 🤯 of Physics Archimedes "bozo" Plutonium
<plutonium....@gmail.com> repeatedly spammed:
> Harvard's Dr.Hau failure to turn off light on "slow light" proving AP correct-- light is a closed loop circuit not a arrow ray.
Rather than cry like a toddler who just had a lollipop snatched from
them by repeatedly spamming this, why not follow the advice "bwr fml"
just gave you?
>> 1-TEST to see who is correct. The test is real simple, turn the Slow
>> Light Experiment source light off, just switch it off.
> YES! Actually DO an experiment and conclusively SETTLE one of your
> thousand of claims.
>> 1-So, what is Harvard's Dr. Hau excuse for not completing her experiment
>> by doing this test? Is she too dumb? Is she too lazy? Or, is she hateful of
>> a AP success of a physics understanding?
> Or has she never even heard of one old demented crank who has been spewing
> crank snot for decades without buying any instruments and doing any experiments
> and testing his claim.
Certainly she has never heard of you or your claim. Why would you think
she has heard of you or your claim?
> Even you Archie should have enough brain cells to understand after all these
> years that everyone understands that YOU believe. The problem is that you
> do not understand that not a single other person in the entire world has
> seen a single well done experiment with real instruments and real measurements
> and real results that support a single one of your claims. And thus not
> a single other person in the world thus believes a word of the crank snot
> that you have been screeching for decades.
That's right. In science, screeching is worthless. Experimental results
are everything.
>> 1-So, why is Harvard stubborn and idiotic about slow light? Is it all
>> because, no-one at Harvard wants to ever admit AP is correct, and that they
>> rather be in the weeds, stay in the weeds, rather than ever ever give AP
>> credit? In other words-- the little minds that compose Harvard University,
>> and not really a center of education.
How can they give you credit for ANYTHING if they never heard of you and
your claims?
> Because, hopefully, she hasn't wasted a second of her life on you and has
> no idea you or your crank claims exist. Call her up. Offer her $10,000 to
> make your measurement. But you are going to have to be very VERY clear and
> precise about exactly what to measure and it is going to have to be easy to
> measure exactly.
Exactly! You would need to create a procedure which conclusively
demonstrates your claims, and make exact predictions of the outcomes if
your claim is correct AND the outcomes if your claims are incorrect.
That is how science works. Crying that someone who has never heard of
you doesn't read your mind and decide to do some experiment will never work.
> Figure out EXACTLY what to measure and how to measure it and what the
> measurement will or will not show. Make the call and mail her the check. We are
> all desperately waiting for the first conclusive disproof of your claim.
Yes. You have made zillions of claims but have shown no scientific
evidence of any of them. Come up with a well written proposal which
demonstrates clearly your claim, why you feel your claim is true, the
experiment itself, the predicted outcome of the experiment if your claim
is true and the predicted outcome of the experiment if your claim is
false. That is how science works. Crying like a baby "they ignore me"
and screeching "My claim is true because I said so!" will NEVER work in
science.
Now will you get busy and write a clear proposal? Or will you simply
attack me and "bwr fml" in a half dozen unrelated random topics?
<plutonium....@gmail.com> repeatedly spammed:
> Harvard's Dr.Hau failure to turn off light on "slow light" proving AP correct-- light is a closed loop circuit not a arrow ray.
them by repeatedly spamming this, why not follow the advice "bwr fml"
just gave you?
>> 1-TEST to see who is correct. The test is real simple, turn the Slow
>> Light Experiment source light off, just switch it off.
> thousand of claims.
>> 1-So, what is Harvard's Dr. Hau excuse for not completing her experiment
>> by doing this test? Is she too dumb? Is she too lazy? Or, is she hateful of
>> a AP success of a physics understanding?
> crank snot for decades without buying any instruments and doing any experiments
> and testing his claim.
Certainly she has never heard of you or your claim. Why would you think
she has heard of you or your claim?
> Even you Archie should have enough brain cells to understand after all these
> years that everyone understands that YOU believe. The problem is that you
> do not understand that not a single other person in the entire world has
> seen a single well done experiment with real instruments and real measurements
> and real results that support a single one of your claims. And thus not
> a single other person in the world thus believes a word of the crank snot
> that you have been screeching for decades.
That's right. In science, screeching is worthless. Experimental results
are everything.
>> 1-So, why is Harvard stubborn and idiotic about slow light? Is it all
>> because, no-one at Harvard wants to ever admit AP is correct, and that they
>> rather be in the weeds, stay in the weeds, rather than ever ever give AP
>> credit? In other words-- the little minds that compose Harvard University,
>> and not really a center of education.
your claims?
> Because, hopefully, she hasn't wasted a second of her life on you and has
> no idea you or your crank claims exist. Call her up. Offer her $10,000 to
> make your measurement. But you are going to have to be very VERY clear and
> precise about exactly what to measure and it is going to have to be easy to
> measure exactly.
Exactly! You would need to create a procedure which conclusively
demonstrates your claims, and make exact predictions of the outcomes if
your claim is correct AND the outcomes if your claims are incorrect.
That is how science works. Crying that someone who has never heard of
you doesn't read your mind and decide to do some experiment will never work.
> Figure out EXACTLY what to measure and how to measure it and what the
> measurement will or will not show. Make the call and mail her the check. We are
> all desperately waiting for the first conclusive disproof of your claim.
Yes. You have made zillions of claims but have shown no scientific
evidence of any of them. Come up with a well written proposal which
demonstrates clearly your claim, why you feel your claim is true, the
experiment itself, the predicted outcome of the experiment if your claim
is true and the predicted outcome of the experiment if your claim is
false. That is how science works. Crying like a baby "they ignore me"
and screeching "My claim is true because I said so!" will NEVER work in
science.
Now will you get busy and write a clear proposal? Or will you simply
attack me and "bwr fml" in a half dozen unrelated random topics?
Yohi Fitzgibbons
Jan 21, 2021, 9:06:55 PM1/21/21
to
Michael Moroney wrote:
> 🤡 of Math and 🤯 of Physics Archimedes "bozo" Plutonium
> <plutonium....@gmail.com> repeatedly spammed:
>> Harvard's Dr.Hau failure to turn off light on "slow light" proving AP
> 🤡 of Math and 🤯 of Physics Archimedes "bozo" Plutonium
> <plutonium....@gmail.com> repeatedly spammed:
>> Harvard's Dr.Hau failure to turn off light on "slow light" proving AP
> Rather than cry like a toddler who just had a lollipop snatched from
> them by repeatedly spamming this, why not follow the advice "bwr fml"
> just gave you?
‘More died than in all of WW2!’ Biden wants all Americans masked up &
> them by repeatedly spamming this, why not follow the advice "bwr fml"
> just gave you?
travelers quarantined, *promises* 500,000 Covid deaths more by Feb
https://on.rt.com/b01n
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
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 23, 2021, 1:08:56 AM4/23/21
to
Was Harvard's Dr. Hau a victim of insane Dan Christensen with his 2 OR 1 = 3 with 2 AND 1 = 1 ? Is that why she cannot finish her experiment??
Harvard's Dr. Hau is not really a scientist because she refuses to turn the light switch off as a vendetta against AP. She does not want AP to get credit that light is a closed loop circuit, and not her straightline arrow ray.
Canadian failure of science and math, stalked:
Years back I wrote a book on Quantum Entanglement, explaining it fully as the fact that light waves along with electricity is a closed loop phenomenon. Most people would not understand that because it looks like a light beam is a straight line phenomenon not a closed loop. But it truly is a closed loop for even the electric extension cord, which looks like a straight line, is in fact a closed loop.
Apparently, to Harvard's Dr.Hau, physics means being in the dark about understanding light waves is more important than understanding light waves and having to give credit to Archimedes Plutonium for predicting light is not a straightline arrow ray but a closed loop circuit. Apparently at Harvard being a scientist is never give credit to AP, is worse than finding out the truth about science and physics. Such petty petty people hatred that Harvard endorses, rather than --- science is all about the truth of the world, not about-- who do you hate.
So, years back, I wanted Harvard's Dr. Hau to set up her slow light experiment, get the light beam to crawl through the BEC, then, abruptly turn off the light beam at the source. What Dr. Hau would predict (I am guessing) is she would predict the slow light inside the BEC is still on and moving. What AP predicts because all light is a closed loop, is that the instant the beam is turned off at the source, all the light in the experiment INSTANTANEOUSLY goes out all at once.
So, can the science community stop obstructing progress and get on with it-- get Dr. Hau or any other similar experiment to "turn off the light" and prove AP correct or prove AP wrong. It is one or the other, and I am totally confident I will win this.
I have other evidence that I will win this.
1) News reporter far away, such as from Europe to Asia, or USA to Asia, have a speed of light lag time in talking to one another. But if the "so to speak circuit was turned off" the loss of signal is instantaneous. We can see it in radio waves where the speed of light has a lag time, not much but a noticeable lag. But if the communication was interrupted, the interruption is not the speed of light but instantaneous.
2) Solar eclipse. This is where the moon directly overhead blocks the Sun. Now, if light waves had no instantaneous shut off, and since it takes 8 minutes for light to travel from Sun to Earth. Then if light cannot be instantaneously shut off, means that in a solar eclipse, we need the Moon to be 8 minutes in its arc to experience the eclipse, not directly overhead.
3) Communication with our rockets such as Voyager 1, the contents of messages from Earth to spacecraft or vice versa take the speed of light time, but the turning off of the signal is instantaneous at both ends-- and is in "real time" not delayed to the speed of light. Just as in Slow Light experiments, turn the source switch off, and all the light downstream disappears instantly.
On Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 1:19:54 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 1- AP's 145th book// TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
> by Archimedes Plutonium
>
> Books in this series are.
> 137th book Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1
> 145th book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS High School junior year, book 2
> 146th book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS High School senior year, book 3
> 147th book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS Freshperson college, book 4
> 148th book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS Sophomore college, book 5
> 149th book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS Junior college, book 6
> 150th book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS Senior college, book 7
>
> Preface: As I said before, each generation of approximately 30 to 60 years time span, it does not have to be exact, but about 30 to 60 years needs a preeminent, premier scientist to write the authoritative texts of physics. There is about that much time span that major discoveries and developments occur to warrant that textbook. And the purpose of which is to set the foundations and fundamentals of physics. The last person to do this was Feynman in his Lectures on Physics in 1960s. Perhaps Rutherford and Bohr did this in early 1900s. But most definitely Maxwell served this function of leading expert on physics with his 1860s book on Maxwell Equations. The time before was Faraday and all his writings circa 1830.
>
> Here it is 2020, and we need to replace the Feynman Lectures on Physics with all the new found knowledge and discoveries since Feynman of 1960s.
>
> What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the education with.
>
> And this Junior year in High School is mostly to be like a laboratory learning, a hands on experiment of physics, mostly electricity and magnetism. This is to emphasize to young students, that physics is, well, mostly about electricity and magnetism and anything else is side show.
>
> Cover Picture: Is two books of Time-Life Lighting & Electricity 1987, and Advanced Wiring 1998, which I will use as template books in writing this book.
>
> What is a template in writing? It means that I will use these two books as much of the substance of this course in physics. Of course I will correct things in the two template books. And the reason for having template books is to save time. If I do not use template books this project could take me anywhere from 5 to 10 years to write these 6 textbooks. By using these template books I cut the time down to perhaps 5 to 10 months.
>
> I need template books for Junior High School that are exceptionally well written and have a laboratory manual type of structure, a lab manual so to speak. And Time-Life books are excellently written. The trouble I found in High School and College lab manuals is they are poorly written, poorly written for first-time students to understand what is going on. And the teacher for these lab manuals did not know much about the experiments either. So lab courses turned into nightmares, is what High School and College was. To this very day, I cannot remember a single lab experiment in which I learned anything. Partly due to the fact that instructors in High School or College seldom get any training in how to teach lab courses. College professors seldom take "how to teach students course" to be a effective teacher. That means, getting down to the level of understanding of first time young students. And that is what Time-Life books overcome with plenty of pictures and clear concise prose to teach.
>
> Junior High School physics should be ample hands on doing, like a laboratory.
>
> So, in TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, AP is going to start with the Ancient Greek Theory of Atoms then jump directly to magnetism and electricity. I am bypassing all the Newton laws and Newton gravity. I am going from Ancient Greek physics to electricity and magnetism.
>
> And this is quite acceptable in the fact that Newton laws and gravity were "idealizations", pointing to the underlying unification that is EM force.
>
> Now I was looking for a picture of magnetism and Halliday & Resnick PHYSICS, part 2, extended version, 1986, which I use as the template book for 1st year college, on pages 584 and 580 shows lines of force from a magnet and/or electric.
>
> In Halliday & Resnick, Fundamentals of Physics, 3rd edition, 1988, page 687, Figure 1 Iron filings sprinkled on a sheet of paper tell us that there is a bar magnet underneath.
>
> I was hoping that Feynman had a picture of magnetic lines of force, but did not. But to his credit, his first pictures are that of "atoms in motion" in his Lectures of Physics.
>
> The Senior High School template book, Asimov in his History of Physics, 1966, page 392 has a picture of magnetic lines of force.
>
> AP
>
>
> Table of Contents
> ---------------------------
>
> 1) The Atomic Theory by Ancient Greek time.
>
> 2) Experiment, experiment, experiment, that is what gives us scientific truth.
>
> 3) Experiment and classroom demonstration on magnetism.
>
> 4) Experiment and classroom demonstration on Faraday Law.
>
> 5) What electric current looks like and how it flows in wire circuits.
>
> 6) Principles of Light and Electricity.
>
> 7) The Mathematical Equations that governs all of Physics (for Junior High School).
Principles of Light and Electricity.
1) Travels at maximum speed 3.16*10^8 m/s. No speed can exceed this maximum.
2) Travels at a constant maximum speed 3.16*10^8 m/s in vacuum. Do not forget the vacuum.
3) Travels as a closed loop circuit. This is what was missed in Special Relativity physics of Old Physics.
AP
Harvard's Dr. Hau is not really a scientist because she refuses to turn the light switch off as a vendetta against AP. She does not want AP to get credit that light is a closed loop circuit, and not her straightline arrow ray.
Canadian failure of science and math, stalked:
On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 12:31:24 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
Should Harvard's Dr. Hau be put in a science-jail for Obstruction of Science? Years back I wrote a book on Quantum Entanglement, explaining it fully as the fact that light waves along with electricity is a closed loop phenomenon. Most people would
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
Years back I wrote a book on Quantum Entanglement, explaining it fully as the fact that light waves along with electricity is a closed loop phenomenon. Most people would not understand that because it looks like a light beam is a straight line phenomenon not a closed loop. But it truly is a closed loop for even the electric extension cord, which looks like a straight line, is in fact a closed loop.
Apparently, to Harvard's Dr.Hau, physics means being in the dark about understanding light waves is more important than understanding light waves and having to give credit to Archimedes Plutonium for predicting light is not a straightline arrow ray but a closed loop circuit. Apparently at Harvard being a scientist is never give credit to AP, is worse than finding out the truth about science and physics. Such petty petty people hatred that Harvard endorses, rather than --- science is all about the truth of the world, not about-- who do you hate.
So, years back, I wanted Harvard's Dr. Hau to set up her slow light experiment, get the light beam to crawl through the BEC, then, abruptly turn off the light beam at the source. What Dr. Hau would predict (I am guessing) is she would predict the slow light inside the BEC is still on and moving. What AP predicts because all light is a closed loop, is that the instant the beam is turned off at the source, all the light in the experiment INSTANTANEOUSLY goes out all at once.
So, can the science community stop obstructing progress and get on with it-- get Dr. Hau or any other similar experiment to "turn off the light" and prove AP correct or prove AP wrong. It is one or the other, and I am totally confident I will win this.
I have other evidence that I will win this.
1) News reporter far away, such as from Europe to Asia, or USA to Asia, have a speed of light lag time in talking to one another. But if the "so to speak circuit was turned off" the loss of signal is instantaneous. We can see it in radio waves where the speed of light has a lag time, not much but a noticeable lag. But if the communication was interrupted, the interruption is not the speed of light but instantaneous.
2) Solar eclipse. This is where the moon directly overhead blocks the Sun. Now, if light waves had no instantaneous shut off, and since it takes 8 minutes for light to travel from Sun to Earth. Then if light cannot be instantaneously shut off, means that in a solar eclipse, we need the Moon to be 8 minutes in its arc to experience the eclipse, not directly overhead.
3) Communication with our rockets such as Voyager 1, the contents of messages from Earth to spacecraft or vice versa take the speed of light time, but the turning off of the signal is instantaneous at both ends-- and is in "real time" not delayed to the speed of light. Just as in Slow Light experiments, turn the source switch off, and all the light downstream disappears instantly.
On Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 1:19:54 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 1- AP's 145th book// TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
> by Archimedes Plutonium
>
> Books in this series are.
> 137th book Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1
> 145th book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS High School junior year, book 2
> 146th book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS High School senior year, book 3
> 147th book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS Freshperson college, book 4
> 148th book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS Sophomore college, book 5
> 149th book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS Junior college, book 6
> 150th book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS Senior college, book 7
>
> Preface: As I said before, each generation of approximately 30 to 60 years time span, it does not have to be exact, but about 30 to 60 years needs a preeminent, premier scientist to write the authoritative texts of physics. There is about that much time span that major discoveries and developments occur to warrant that textbook. And the purpose of which is to set the foundations and fundamentals of physics. The last person to do this was Feynman in his Lectures on Physics in 1960s. Perhaps Rutherford and Bohr did this in early 1900s. But most definitely Maxwell served this function of leading expert on physics with his 1860s book on Maxwell Equations. The time before was Faraday and all his writings circa 1830.
>
> Here it is 2020, and we need to replace the Feynman Lectures on Physics with all the new found knowledge and discoveries since Feynman of 1960s.
>
> What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the education with.
>
> And this Junior year in High School is mostly to be like a laboratory learning, a hands on experiment of physics, mostly electricity and magnetism. This is to emphasize to young students, that physics is, well, mostly about electricity and magnetism and anything else is side show.
>
> Cover Picture: Is two books of Time-Life Lighting & Electricity 1987, and Advanced Wiring 1998, which I will use as template books in writing this book.
>
> What is a template in writing? It means that I will use these two books as much of the substance of this course in physics. Of course I will correct things in the two template books. And the reason for having template books is to save time. If I do not use template books this project could take me anywhere from 5 to 10 years to write these 6 textbooks. By using these template books I cut the time down to perhaps 5 to 10 months.
>
> I need template books for Junior High School that are exceptionally well written and have a laboratory manual type of structure, a lab manual so to speak. And Time-Life books are excellently written. The trouble I found in High School and College lab manuals is they are poorly written, poorly written for first-time students to understand what is going on. And the teacher for these lab manuals did not know much about the experiments either. So lab courses turned into nightmares, is what High School and College was. To this very day, I cannot remember a single lab experiment in which I learned anything. Partly due to the fact that instructors in High School or College seldom get any training in how to teach lab courses. College professors seldom take "how to teach students course" to be a effective teacher. That means, getting down to the level of understanding of first time young students. And that is what Time-Life books overcome with plenty of pictures and clear concise prose to teach.
>
> Junior High School physics should be ample hands on doing, like a laboratory.
>
> So, in TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, AP is going to start with the Ancient Greek Theory of Atoms then jump directly to magnetism and electricity. I am bypassing all the Newton laws and Newton gravity. I am going from Ancient Greek physics to electricity and magnetism.
>
> And this is quite acceptable in the fact that Newton laws and gravity were "idealizations", pointing to the underlying unification that is EM force.
>
> Now I was looking for a picture of magnetism and Halliday & Resnick PHYSICS, part 2, extended version, 1986, which I use as the template book for 1st year college, on pages 584 and 580 shows lines of force from a magnet and/or electric.
>
> In Halliday & Resnick, Fundamentals of Physics, 3rd edition, 1988, page 687, Figure 1 Iron filings sprinkled on a sheet of paper tell us that there is a bar magnet underneath.
>
> I was hoping that Feynman had a picture of magnetic lines of force, but did not. But to his credit, his first pictures are that of "atoms in motion" in his Lectures of Physics.
>
> The Senior High School template book, Asimov in his History of Physics, 1966, page 392 has a picture of magnetic lines of force.
>
> AP
>
>
> Table of Contents
> ---------------------------
>
> 1) The Atomic Theory by Ancient Greek time.
>
> 2) Experiment, experiment, experiment, that is what gives us scientific truth.
>
> 3) Experiment and classroom demonstration on magnetism.
>
> 4) Experiment and classroom demonstration on Faraday Law.
>
> 5) What electric current looks like and how it flows in wire circuits.
>
> 6) Principles of Light and Electricity.
>
> 7) The Mathematical Equations that governs all of Physics (for Junior High School).
Principles of Light and Electricity.
1) Travels at maximum speed 3.16*10^8 m/s. No speed can exceed this maximum.
2) Travels at a constant maximum speed 3.16*10^8 m/s in vacuum. Do not forget the vacuum.
3) Travels as a closed loop circuit. This is what was missed in Special Relativity physics of Old Physics.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
May 6, 2021, 1:26:24 PM5/6/21
to
Has Dan Christensen been a stalker bully failure of math and logic all his life, or just recently, some 7 years of nonstop stalking with the emergence of the Internet. Clear Dan fails Logic and Math, for the idiot cannot tell apart distinct from nondistinct, and thinks Boole Logic of AND is correct as TFFF when really, it is TTTF. A worthless failure of math and logic like Dan Christensen is taking up too much time and space in sci.math, where he really belongs is "alt idiots talking about Venn diagrams, something the lowbrow mind of Dan can handle."
134,566 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron of
12:05 PM
, …
Michael Moroney
25
AP's 80th book// Reincarnation--AP's new mission: the Physics and Engineering of Reincarnation Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) This is going to be a encyclopedia long book
12:01 PM
,
Dan Christensen
3
134,466 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron of
11:31 AM
WM's profile photo
WM
,
Dan Christensen
2
The three worst mistakes of set theory
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 7:00:42 AM UTC-4, WM wrote: > 1) An inclusion-monotonic sequence of
11:20 AM
6
175,231-Student Victims of Michael Meighen McGill Univ by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus... 0.5MeV electron when in truth it is the muon as the real electron...
11:14 AM
8
176,909-Student victims of Tessier-Lavigne,Stanford Univ by stalkers Dan Christensen & Earle Jones preaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and the mindless mistaken electron of 0.5MeV
11:13 AM
WM's profile photo
WM
, …
Dan Christensen
9
unread,
Re: Racist mathematics proves dark numbers.
#6-1, 5th published book
Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
Preface:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
Length: 72 pages
File Size: 773 KB
Print Length: 72 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
#6-2, 27th published book
Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum// Teaching True Logic series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 9NOV2020. This is AP's 27th published book.
Preface:
These are the TRUE Truth Tables of the 4 connectors of Logic
Equal+Not
T = T = T
T = ~F = T
F = ~T = T
F = F = T
If--> then
T --> T = T
T --> F = F
F --> T = U (unknown or uncertain)
F --> F = U (unknown or uncertain)
And
T or T = F
T or F = T
F or T = T
F or F = F
Those can be analyzed as being Equal+Not is multiplication. If-->then is division. And is addition and Or is subtraction in mathematics. Now I need to emphasis this error of Old Logic, the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability unknown, undefined end conclusion.
Now in Old Logic they had for Reductio Ad Absurdum as displayed by this schematic:
| | ~p
| |---
| | .
| | .
| | q
| | .
| | .
| | ~q
| p
Which is fine except for the error of not indicating the end conclusion of "p" is only a probability of being true, not guaranteed as true. And this is the huge huge error that mathematicians have fallen victim of. For the Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a proof method for mathematics, it is probability of being true or false. Math works on guaranteed truth, not probability. This textbook is written to fix that error.
Length: 86 pages
Product details
• ASIN : B07Q18GQ7S
• Publication date : March 23, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 1178 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 86 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #346,875 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #28 in Logic (Kindle Store)
◦ #95 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #217 in Mathematical Logic
•
#6-3, 143rd published book
DeMorgan's Laws are fantasies, not laws// Teaching True Logic series, book 3 Kindle Edition
By Archimedes Plutonium
Last revision was 30Apr2021. This is AP's 143rd published book.
Preface: The Logic community never had the correct truth table of the primitive 4 connectors of Logic, (1) Equal compounded with NOT, (2) AND, (3) OR, (4) IF->THEN. In 1800s, the founders of Logic messed up in terrible error all 4 of the primitive logic connectors. And since the 1990s, AP has wanted an explanation of why Old Logic got all 4 connectors in total error? What was the reason for the mess up? And in the past few years, I finally pinned the reason to starting Logic with DeMorgan's fake laws, from which Boole, a close friend of DeMorgan, was going to keep his friendship and accept the DeMorgan Laws. That meant that DeMorgan, Boole, Jevons accepted OR as being that of Either..Or..Or..Both, what is called the inclusive OR. But the inclusive OR is a contradiction in terms, for there never can exist a combo of OR with AND simultaneously. This book goes into detail why the DeMorgan laws are fake and fantasy.
Cover Picture: Looks a bit rough, but I want students and readers to see my own handwriting as if this were a lecture and the cover picture a blackboard where I write out DeMorgan's two (fake) laws of logic.
Product details
• File Size : 620 KB
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 38 pages
• ASIN : B08M4BY4XM
• Publication Date : October 27, 2020
• Language: : English
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Lending : Enabled
•
•
#6-4, 100th published book
Pragmatism, the only Philosophy I loved // Teaching True Logic series, book 4 Kindle Edition
By Archimedes Plutonium
I need to give credit to the philosophy of Pragmatism, the only philosophy that I know of that is based on science. Credit for my discovery of the Plutonium Atom Totality in 1990, came in part, partially due to a passage of the Pragmatist Charles Sanders Peirce in Peirce's Cosmology:
Peirce's The Architecture of Theories...
...would be a Cosmogonic Philosophy. It would suppose that in the beginning - infinitely remote - there was a chaos of unpersonalized feeling, which being without connection or regularity would properly be without existence. This feeling, sporting here and there in pure arbitrariness, would have
started the germ of a generalizing tendency. Its other sportings would be evanescent, but this would have a growing virtue. Thus, the tendency to habit would be started; and from this, with the other principles of evolution, all the regularities of the universe would be evolved. At any time, however, an element of pure chance survives and will remain until the world becomes an absolutely perfect, rational, and symmetrical system, in which mind is at last crystallized in the infinitely distant future.
--- end quoting Peirce's Cosmology ---
But also I must give credit to Pragmatism for making it a philosophy one can actually live their lives by, for living a life of pragmatic solutions to everyday problems that occur in my life. A case in point example is now in March 2020, being the pragmatist that I am, and enduring the 2020 corona virus pandemic. No other philosophy that I know of is so keenly in tune with a person, the surrounding environment and how to live.
Length: 123 pages
Product details
• File size : 807 KB
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 123 pages
• Publication date : March 14, 2020
• ASIN : B085X863QW
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #4,160,707 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #61,471 in Philosophy (Kindle Store)
◦ #193,599 in Science & Math (Kindle Store)
◦ #240,849 in Philosophy (Books)
#7-1, 14th published book
Correcting Math// Math focus series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
In the 1990s, I took a survey of Math Professors doing a simple math proof of Euclid's Infinitude of Primes Proof, and found that 84% of Math Professors failed to deliver a valid proof in that survey. The reason I believe this poor performance is that math professors for the most part are never required to take Logic courses while in college, to teach them how to think straight, think clearly. As a result, the world is cluttered with their fake mathematics with no hope of cleaning up their messes. And instead of fixing their mistakes and errors, they keep on cluttering the world with more fake math.
I propose that all math professors be required to take Logic in College as a mandatory requirement. Further, I recommend that all math prizes such as Abel, Fields, etc, that all math prizes awarded to those that can show they first fixed errors "fixed something of Old Math" before any of their manuscript of a proof of something else new in math be considered or given a look-over. That is-- prove yourself first -- you can fix math before we want to look at your new offerings. Show yourself as being math intelligent by fixing errors, rather than throw another error filled fake-proof onto mathematics-- Appel & Haken fake 4 Color Mapping, Wiles's fake FLT, Hales's fake Kepler Packing, Tao & Green fake number theory proof. Show us you can fix math, then we can consider anything new you want to offer.
Cover picture: A tractrix formed by a pocket-watch on graph paper, for this is how infinity borderline is determined.
Length: 722 pages
Product details
File Size: 2026 KB
Print Length: 722 pages
Publication Date: March 15, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQ2CXBY
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
#7-2, 35th published book
True Trigonometry and remove all trigonometry out of Calculus// Math focus series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Sadly most mathematicians of today never learned a valuable lesson and truth of mathematics and geometry. That the axes in mathematics have to always be the same. You cannot have numbers on one axis and oranges on another axis and be mathematics. This is the horrible mistake of Old Math Trigonometry where they believed you can have numbers on one axis and angles on another and still be "mathematics". In true math, the trigonometry is not a sinusoid graph but is a semicircle graph. And this horrible mistake of Old Math escalated into thinking that sine and cosine and trigonometry functions can be dealt with in Calculus. Trigonometry cannot be used in Calculus at all. As I explain below, the derivative of Calculus is dy/dx and trigonometry is dy/dx, so no-one can unravel how a two sets of dy/dx can mix together. I proved where Trigonometry cannot be used in Calculus, and that means, throw out all trigonometry from Calculus textbooks. Leave Calculus to only polynomial functions.
Now, of course trigonometry is a valuable tool in mathematics and such things as surveying or engineering. And the usefulness of trigonometry is the fact that with one angle and one side of a right triangle is able to give you all three sides and all three angles of that right triangle. That is the summation of the value and use of trigonometry. Given one side and one angle you can uncover all the sides and angles of a right triangle. But sadly, in the history of mathematics, many unstable minded mathematicians hyped hyped and hyped trigonometry to where it is today-- a cesspool nightmare of mathematics in Calculus, thought they could stretch the use of trigonometry when in fact you cannot. And thus the ugly horrible picture of trigonometry here, there and everywhere has soaked into the body of mathematics and physics where it never belonged, especially Calculus. Here in this small book we show you the errors of Old Math on trigonometry.
Cover Picture: My graphing of a semicircle wave where the x and y axis are the same numbers atop Jacob's book, 1970, "Mathematics a Human Endeavor", page 276 showing a sinusoid graph. A sinusoid is purely fiction math.
Length: 113 pages
Product details
• Publication Date : April 5, 2019
• File Size : 1422 KB
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print Length : 113 pages
• ASIN : B07QDG5TH2
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
• Best-sellers rank #4,173,058 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
• #237 in Trigonometry (Kindle Store)
• #2,090 in Trigonometry (Books)
134,566 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron of
12:05 PM
, …
Michael Moroney
25
AP's 80th book// Reincarnation--AP's new mission: the Physics and Engineering of Reincarnation Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) This is going to be a encyclopedia long book
12:01 PM
,
Dan Christensen
3
134,466 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron of
11:31 AM
WM's profile photo
WM
,
Dan Christensen
2
The three worst mistakes of set theory
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 7:00:42 AM UTC-4, WM wrote: > 1) An inclusion-monotonic sequence of
11:20 AM
6
175,231-Student Victims of Michael Meighen McGill Univ by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus... 0.5MeV electron when in truth it is the muon as the real electron...
11:14 AM
8
176,909-Student victims of Tessier-Lavigne,Stanford Univ by stalkers Dan Christensen & Earle Jones preaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and the mindless mistaken electron of 0.5MeV
11:13 AM
WM's profile photo
WM
, …
Dan Christensen
9
unread,
Re: Racist mathematics proves dark numbers.
Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
Preface:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
Length: 72 pages
File Size: 773 KB
Print Length: 72 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
#6-2, 27th published book
Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum// Teaching True Logic series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 9NOV2020. This is AP's 27th published book.
Preface:
These are the TRUE Truth Tables of the 4 connectors of Logic
Equal+Not
T = T = T
T = ~F = T
F = ~T = T
F = F = T
If--> then
T --> T = T
T --> F = F
F --> T = U (unknown or uncertain)
F --> F = U (unknown or uncertain)
And
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F
Or
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F
T or T = F
T or F = T
F or T = T
F or F = F
Those can be analyzed as being Equal+Not is multiplication. If-->then is division. And is addition and Or is subtraction in mathematics. Now I need to emphasis this error of Old Logic, the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability unknown, undefined end conclusion.
Now in Old Logic they had for Reductio Ad Absurdum as displayed by this schematic:
| | ~p
| |---
| | .
| | .
| | q
| | .
| | .
| | ~q
| p
Which is fine except for the error of not indicating the end conclusion of "p" is only a probability of being true, not guaranteed as true. And this is the huge huge error that mathematicians have fallen victim of. For the Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a proof method for mathematics, it is probability of being true or false. Math works on guaranteed truth, not probability. This textbook is written to fix that error.
Length: 86 pages
Product details
• ASIN : B07Q18GQ7S
• Publication date : March 23, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 1178 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 86 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #346,875 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #28 in Logic (Kindle Store)
◦ #95 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #217 in Mathematical Logic
•
#6-3, 143rd published book
DeMorgan's Laws are fantasies, not laws// Teaching True Logic series, book 3 Kindle Edition
By Archimedes Plutonium
Last revision was 30Apr2021. This is AP's 143rd published book.
Preface: The Logic community never had the correct truth table of the primitive 4 connectors of Logic, (1) Equal compounded with NOT, (2) AND, (3) OR, (4) IF->THEN. In 1800s, the founders of Logic messed up in terrible error all 4 of the primitive logic connectors. And since the 1990s, AP has wanted an explanation of why Old Logic got all 4 connectors in total error? What was the reason for the mess up? And in the past few years, I finally pinned the reason to starting Logic with DeMorgan's fake laws, from which Boole, a close friend of DeMorgan, was going to keep his friendship and accept the DeMorgan Laws. That meant that DeMorgan, Boole, Jevons accepted OR as being that of Either..Or..Or..Both, what is called the inclusive OR. But the inclusive OR is a contradiction in terms, for there never can exist a combo of OR with AND simultaneously. This book goes into detail why the DeMorgan laws are fake and fantasy.
Cover Picture: Looks a bit rough, but I want students and readers to see my own handwriting as if this were a lecture and the cover picture a blackboard where I write out DeMorgan's two (fake) laws of logic.
Product details
• File Size : 620 KB
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 38 pages
• ASIN : B08M4BY4XM
• Publication Date : October 27, 2020
• Language: : English
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Lending : Enabled
•
•
#6-4, 100th published book
Pragmatism, the only Philosophy I loved // Teaching True Logic series, book 4 Kindle Edition
By Archimedes Plutonium
I need to give credit to the philosophy of Pragmatism, the only philosophy that I know of that is based on science. Credit for my discovery of the Plutonium Atom Totality in 1990, came in part, partially due to a passage of the Pragmatist Charles Sanders Peirce in Peirce's Cosmology:
Peirce's The Architecture of Theories...
...would be a Cosmogonic Philosophy. It would suppose that in the beginning - infinitely remote - there was a chaos of unpersonalized feeling, which being without connection or regularity would properly be without existence. This feeling, sporting here and there in pure arbitrariness, would have
started the germ of a generalizing tendency. Its other sportings would be evanescent, but this would have a growing virtue. Thus, the tendency to habit would be started; and from this, with the other principles of evolution, all the regularities of the universe would be evolved. At any time, however, an element of pure chance survives and will remain until the world becomes an absolutely perfect, rational, and symmetrical system, in which mind is at last crystallized in the infinitely distant future.
--- end quoting Peirce's Cosmology ---
But also I must give credit to Pragmatism for making it a philosophy one can actually live their lives by, for living a life of pragmatic solutions to everyday problems that occur in my life. A case in point example is now in March 2020, being the pragmatist that I am, and enduring the 2020 corona virus pandemic. No other philosophy that I know of is so keenly in tune with a person, the surrounding environment and how to live.
Length: 123 pages
Product details
• File size : 807 KB
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 123 pages
• Publication date : March 14, 2020
• ASIN : B085X863QW
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #4,160,707 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #61,471 in Philosophy (Kindle Store)
◦ #193,599 in Science & Math (Kindle Store)
◦ #240,849 in Philosophy (Books)
#7-1, 14th published book
Correcting Math// Math focus series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
In the 1990s, I took a survey of Math Professors doing a simple math proof of Euclid's Infinitude of Primes Proof, and found that 84% of Math Professors failed to deliver a valid proof in that survey. The reason I believe this poor performance is that math professors for the most part are never required to take Logic courses while in college, to teach them how to think straight, think clearly. As a result, the world is cluttered with their fake mathematics with no hope of cleaning up their messes. And instead of fixing their mistakes and errors, they keep on cluttering the world with more fake math.
I propose that all math professors be required to take Logic in College as a mandatory requirement. Further, I recommend that all math prizes such as Abel, Fields, etc, that all math prizes awarded to those that can show they first fixed errors "fixed something of Old Math" before any of their manuscript of a proof of something else new in math be considered or given a look-over. That is-- prove yourself first -- you can fix math before we want to look at your new offerings. Show yourself as being math intelligent by fixing errors, rather than throw another error filled fake-proof onto mathematics-- Appel & Haken fake 4 Color Mapping, Wiles's fake FLT, Hales's fake Kepler Packing, Tao & Green fake number theory proof. Show us you can fix math, then we can consider anything new you want to offer.
Cover picture: A tractrix formed by a pocket-watch on graph paper, for this is how infinity borderline is determined.
Length: 722 pages
Product details
File Size: 2026 KB
Print Length: 722 pages
Publication Date: March 15, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQ2CXBY
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
#7-2, 35th published book
True Trigonometry and remove all trigonometry out of Calculus// Math focus series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Sadly most mathematicians of today never learned a valuable lesson and truth of mathematics and geometry. That the axes in mathematics have to always be the same. You cannot have numbers on one axis and oranges on another axis and be mathematics. This is the horrible mistake of Old Math Trigonometry where they believed you can have numbers on one axis and angles on another and still be "mathematics". In true math, the trigonometry is not a sinusoid graph but is a semicircle graph. And this horrible mistake of Old Math escalated into thinking that sine and cosine and trigonometry functions can be dealt with in Calculus. Trigonometry cannot be used in Calculus at all. As I explain below, the derivative of Calculus is dy/dx and trigonometry is dy/dx, so no-one can unravel how a two sets of dy/dx can mix together. I proved where Trigonometry cannot be used in Calculus, and that means, throw out all trigonometry from Calculus textbooks. Leave Calculus to only polynomial functions.
Now, of course trigonometry is a valuable tool in mathematics and such things as surveying or engineering. And the usefulness of trigonometry is the fact that with one angle and one side of a right triangle is able to give you all three sides and all three angles of that right triangle. That is the summation of the value and use of trigonometry. Given one side and one angle you can uncover all the sides and angles of a right triangle. But sadly, in the history of mathematics, many unstable minded mathematicians hyped hyped and hyped trigonometry to where it is today-- a cesspool nightmare of mathematics in Calculus, thought they could stretch the use of trigonometry when in fact you cannot. And thus the ugly horrible picture of trigonometry here, there and everywhere has soaked into the body of mathematics and physics where it never belonged, especially Calculus. Here in this small book we show you the errors of Old Math on trigonometry.
Cover Picture: My graphing of a semicircle wave where the x and y axis are the same numbers atop Jacob's book, 1970, "Mathematics a Human Endeavor", page 276 showing a sinusoid graph. A sinusoid is purely fiction math.
Length: 113 pages
Product details
• Publication Date : April 5, 2019
• File Size : 1422 KB
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print Length : 113 pages
• ASIN : B07QDG5TH2
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
• Best-sellers rank #4,173,058 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
• #237 in Trigonometry (Kindle Store)
• #2,090 in Trigonometry (Books)
Message has been deleted
Archimedes Plutonium
May 7, 2021, 2:20:24 AM5/7/21
to
Canada's mindless bully stalker Dan Christensen-- his repetitive stalking posts
Re: 81,045-Student victims of Rose M. Patten Univ Toronto from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker
by Frank Cassa 12Apr2021 7:00 AM
Re: 7,744-Student victims of Linda Hasenfratz Univ Western Ontario from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz President Alan Shepar
Canadian students victimized by Dan Christensen and his party-- Linda Hasenfratz, Silvia Mittler, Els
11:53 AM 10Apr2021
by Wayne Decarlo
Re: 102,852-Student victims of Dominic Barton, Univ Waterloo from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Dominic Barton, President Feridun Hamdullahpur physics
by konyberg Apr 15, 2021, 3:09:41 PM
Re: Shit for brains in Logic Morons of logic George Boole, William Jevons, Bertrand Russell, Kurt Godel, Rudolf Carnap, Jan Burse& Dan Christensen as moronette cadets of Boole, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Willard Quine, Alfred North Whitehead, Irving Copi
By zelos...@gmail.com Mar 25, 2021, 12:55:15 AM
Re: Canada's Dan Christensen of Univ. Western Ontario flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
By Dan Christensen
Re: Bill Blair, David Vigneault please help us put Dan Christensen into a Canadian Asylum or psychiatric treatment where he belongs
By Donald Trump 2 posts 24 views updated 12:33 AM
Re: 1Canadian Stalker DAN anal buttfuckmanure CHRISTENSEN stalk reports::: 6 year stalker
By Zelos Malum 30 posts 449 views updated 9:01 PM
Re: software that engineers out stalking bullies on Twitter, Facebook, Google Newsgroups Re: Michael Moroney Anal ButtfuckManure stalker for 26 years
By Dan Christensen 50 posts 951 views updated 8:56 PM
Re: UWO,Drs.Hasenfratz, Shepherd, Chakma, Barmby, Basu, Brown, Buchel, Adamus, Barron are you not ashamed that Christensen still teaches fakery of ellipse to UWO students
By Antonio J. Buckfutter 2 posts 9 views updated 2:52 PM
Re: Warning to Dan Christensen do not harpoon "Right" Whales of Canada, and does PM Trudeau need to put Dan in jail or asylum???
By Henrietta Foreskineater 2 posts 2 views updated 11:35 PM
Re: Dan Christensen harpooning the beautiful Blue Whales of Canada, why does not PM Trudeau put Dan in jail or asylum???
By Henrietta Foreskineater 2 posts 4 views updated 11:33 PM
Re: 59:49education parasite Gabriel// Univ Witwatersrand,Arthur Every,Andrew Forbes,Kelvin Goldstein , are you as stupid as Gabriel to learn proton is _not_ 938MeV electron .5MeV when they really are 840MeV, 105MeV in order to have chemistry bonding
By Dan Christensen 12 posts 179 views updated 1:14 AM
Re: Drs.S Moyo , Margaret Archibald of Durban Univ Witswatersrand, never a Picture of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus//are you as dumb as John Gabriel about calculus//your students deserve better
By Dan Christensen 6 posts 101 views updated 7:24 PM
Re: the stealing ways of John Gabriel//Theft & Stealing ideas of science in the era of the internet// Ways to prevent and combat stealing Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
By Dan Christensen 21 posts 111 views updated 3:56 AM
Re: 2-Jill does not have to be a geometry failure like Ken Ribet Re: 1- AMS, Jill Pipher, Ken Ribet, Robert L. Bryant, David Vogan, Eric M. Friedlander, why not go for the truth of mathematics-- the slant cut in cone is a oval, never the ellipse.
By Dan Christensen 2 posts 16 views updated 11:48 AM
Re: How safe are Canadian students from NOT being cornholed by Dan Christensen and his 12 Angry Men
By Alex 4 posts 13 views updated
Re: Kibo poofster call for Dan Christensen on DC Logic line2 Dan, with their 10 Poofsters OR 4 Poofsters = 14 Poofsters and Kibo's 8.88 poofsters is short of 9 poofsters by 12%// No wonder Canada has not confirmed real proton 840MeV not 938
By Andy Smith 1 post 27 views updated 8:30 PM
Re: 1-Is Dan Christensen the leader of this Homosexual stalker ring in sci.math causing decay of sci.math??//and suppressing real science of confirming real proton is 840 MeV, real electron is the muon= 105MeV, and the .5MeV was Dirac's magnetic monopole (1)
By Homosexual Stalker 4 posts 12 views updated 9:20 AM
Re: Justin Trudeau new to the job of Prime Minister of Canada, but insane stalker Dan Christensen has been stalking nigh 10 years now
By Commander Kinsey 1 post 3 views updated 12:59 PM
Re: 1.6 Dan Christensen wants you to fail McGill Univ//not confirm real proton = 840MeV, real electron=105MeV, .5MeV was Dirac's monopole// Christensen distracting Drs. Agarwal,Brandenberger,Brunner,Buchinger,Caron-Huot,Chiang
9/17/19
Alan Smithee Shut up imbecile.
Re: 2:12:53 Germany's sickfuck Franz//Stefan Halverscheid, Harald Andres Helfgott, Madeleine Jotz Lean of Gottingen do you think 3 OR 2= 5 think 3 AND 2 = 1?? embracing the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both
By Dan Christensen 21 posts 136 views updated 12:53 AM
Re: Fire the entire Cornell Univ math dept-- unable to even teach Add in Logic is not OR but rather is AND
By Dan Christensen 59 posts 753 views updated 12:46 AM
Re: envy hatred covered by AP's magazine journal for May//AP's periodic journal of fakeries in science: Magazine of science and math fakes foisted on general public Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
By Dan Christensen 6 posts 40 views updated Sep 9
Re: 2Canada's sh)thead stalker Dan in sci.math 1 OR 3 = 4, does Justin Trudeau, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, is that what science is in Canada-- stalking bullies
By Dan Christensen 37 posts 263 views updated Sep 9
Re: Trump smarter in math than MIT & UC, Riverside Math departments, smarter in math than Terry Tao, Ed Witten, Appel & Hakken
By Dan Christensen 7 posts 71 views updated Sep 9
Re: Drs.George Janelidze Hans-Peter Kunzi Anton le Roex Univ. Cape Town S.A, smarter than Archie Pu who actually believes the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = monopole
By Dan Christensen 6 posts 73 views updated Sep 9

Re: software that engineers out stalking bullies on Twitter, Facebook, Google Newsgroups Re: Michael Moroney Anal ButtfuckManure stalker for 26 years
By Dan Christensen 34 posts 663 views updated Sep 9
Re: 3Textbook: Let us Thank AP for fixing Trigonometry where 95% of trigonometry was muddleheaded wrong
By Dan Christensen 3 posts 18 views updated Sep 9
Re: 9Der_FartMouth Births-comics for Eric FartFrancis, with snickering by George FartWitte published by ST FARTMARTINS
By Dan Christensen 11 posts 227 views updated Sep 9
Re: Rik Chandler,One pint short of an empty bladder // Harvard's Dr.Hau "slow light", and turning the laser off; I find very comprehensible
By Dan Christensen 19 posts 99 views updated Sep 9

Re: Rik Chandler,Useful as a chocolate teapot // Harvard's Dr.Hau "slow light", and turning the laser off; I find very comprehensible
By Dan Christensen 16 posts 101 views updated Sep 9


Re: Lisa Thompson,Univ Toronto & Western Ontario, Alex Buchel,Jan Cami,Gordon F. West,Michael B. Walker, -- is the reason none of you have confirmed real proton = 840MeV, real electron is the muon and .5MeV was Dirac monopole, to busy on Dan
By Dan Christensen 14 posts 265 views updated
xxxx the zero academic intelligence of Christensen
On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:08:09 AM UTC-6, Peter Percival wrote:
> Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:47:32 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 8:27:19 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:16:52 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >>>> PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra, Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector
> >>>>
> >>>> The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any two points lies a third new point.
> >>>
> >>> The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points."
> >>>
> >>
> >> What a monsterous fool you are
> >>
> >
> > OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it.
>
> And yet Mr Plutonium is right. Two points are distinct (else they would
> be one) and it is not necessary to say so.
>
On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 2:52:34 PM UTC-5, Peter Percival wrote:
> Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 12:32:51 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >> 1.0-Set theory completely thrown out of science and math
>
> I like to laugh at people in wheelchairs and people with white sticks.
xxxxkicking the butt of insane Christensen
Dan Christensen
On Friday, May 15, 2015 at 4:06:58 AM UTC-4, William Elliot wrote:
> On Thu, 14 May 2015, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 11:50:44 PM UTC-4, William Elliot wrote:
> > >
> > > > Does anyone know who are the owners of sci.math?
> > >
> > > Capitalist ignorance in a socialist world.
> > > Math Forum archives sci.math and a limited number of other usenet groups.
> > >
> > > Really Dan, I've seen you do interesting math.
> >
> > Thank you. I am working on a couple of math projects that may interest
> > serious readers here, but something really must be done about the
> > infestation here of trolls like John Gabriel. There will be no place left on
> > the internet for serious, open ended discussion of mathematical themes if we
> > they are allowed to operate with impunity here. Kill-files are not the
> > answer for this bunch. Neither are the endless flame wars. We can't ignore
> > them when they post inflammatory nonsense -- we owe it to the newcomers who
> > might be taken in -- but we shouldn't be draw into prolonged "discussions"
> > with them either. This is what I try to do anyway.
>
> Then get to work on them instead of wasting so much time trolling.
> In the next few days, I'll be noticing your noise to signal ratio,
> which, if it remails high, will result in my not seeing any of your
> posts not even your mathematical projects.
The troll alerts don't take much time. I get automatic notice of group updates on browser tabs. On my breaks, it's fun to kick troll butt. I do try to keep engagement with the trolls here to a minimum, though that may not always be apparent. Will try to do better that way. Others can handle the specific details of the trolls' rants if they really must, but I wish they wouldn't get caught up lengthy discussions. As Mark Twain said, "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
Dan
On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 8:13:12 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >
>
> I still intend be here to kick some troll butt and to promote the new group as an alternative.
>
>
> Dan
A wise sci.math poster summed up Dan Christensen the best I have seen so far back in 2015
A perfect one paragraph description of the life and non-mind of Dan Christensen
5/15/15
"Dan Christensen" <Dan_Chr...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:65ab07bd-405a-4f45...@googlegroups.com...
- show quoted text -
Sure, keep venting you self-apologetic nazi bollocks between an abuse and
the other. You are simply a moron, and with you, as with any JG, the
strategy remains the same it has always been, a kill-file. You hateful
idiot and spammer: Idiot because you will never understand the actual
dynamics of life and creativity, the subtle tensions of conservation vs.
novelty, and so many more things even less technical and more philosophical
than you could even ever guess that existed; And spammer, because after all
that is all you are, a spammer promoting yourself and your product (despite
you know shit about mathematics and even less about logic), but then add to
that the nazi campaigns which are the really truly disgusting part... As
said, overall a perfect exemplar of the stupid fucking white man and the
guns. (Just get lost: EOD.)
1.5- Dan Christensen, the insane Nazi Canadian bully stalker summed up in one beautiful paragraph
2 posts by 2 authors 

me (Archimedes Plutonium change)

1:29 AM (10 hours ago)
1.5- Dan Christensen, the insane Nazi Canadian bully stalker summed up in one beautiful paragraph
I am not the author of the below description of Dan Christensen, but wish I was. It is written better than I could ever do in one paragraph. The best I could do is a few simple words-- insane Christensen, bully insane.
"Dan Christensen" <Dan_Chr...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:65ab07bd-405a-4f45...@googlegroups.com...
- show quoted text -
Sure, keep venting you self-apologetic nazi bollocks between an abuse and
the other. You are simply a moron, and with you, as with any JG, the
strategy remains the same it has always been, a kill-file. You hateful
idiot and spammer: Idiot because you will never understand the actual
dynamics of life and creativity, the subtle tensions of conservation vs.
novelty, and so many more things even less technical and more philosophical
than you could even ever guess that existed; And spammer, because after all
that is all you are, a spammer promoting yourself and your product (despite
you know shit about mathematics and even less about logic), but then add to
that the nazi campaigns which are the really truly disgusting part... As
said, overall a perfect exemplar of the stupid fucking white man and the
guns. (Just get lost: EOD.)
INDEX OF STALKERS MATH
1
Re: Fire the entire Cornell Univ math dept-- unable to even teach Add in Logic is not OR but rather is AND
53 posts by 9 authors
11/9/17
By Dan Christensen
2
3
Re: 2:12:53 Germany's sickfuck Franz//Stefan Halverscheid, Harald Andres Helfgott, Madeleine Jotz Lean of Gottingen do you think 3 OR 2= 5 think 3 AND 2 = 1?? embracing the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both
By Dan Christensen
4
Re: software that engineers out stalking bullies on Twitter, Facebook, Google Newsgroups Re: Michael Moroney Anal ButtfuckManure stalker for 26 years
By Dan Christensen
5
Re: 9Der_FartMouth Births-comics for Eric FartFrancis, with snickering by George FartWitte published by ST FARTMARTINS
By Dan Christensen
6
Re: 3Textbook: Let us Thank AP for fixing Trigonometry where 95% of trigonometry was muddleheaded wrong.
On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 10:35:50 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > 3Newsgroups: sci.math > Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 08:35:36 ...
Feb 16 by Dan Christensen - 2 posts by 2 authors - 13 views
7
Re: Drs.George Janelidze Hans-Peter Kunzi Anton le Roex Univ. Cape Town S.A, smarter than Archie Pu who actually believes the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = monopole
By Dan Christensen
8
Re: Trump smarter in math than MIT & UC, Riverside Math departments, smarter in math than Terry Tao, Ed Witten, Appel & Hakken
By Dan Christensen
11/10/16
9
Re: Lisa Thompson,Univ Toronto & Western Ontario, Alex Buchel,Jan Cami,Gordon F. West,Michael B. Walker, -- is the reason none of you have confirmed real proton = 840MeV, real electron is the muon and .5MeV was Dirac monopole, to busy on Dan
By Dan Christensen 1 post 3 views updated 1:12 PM
10
Re: 2Canada's sh)thead stalker Dan in sci.math 1 OR 3 = 4, does Justin Trudeau, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, is that what science is in Canada-- stalking bullies
By Dan Christensen
6/25/18
11
Re: 59:49education parasite Gabriel// Univ Witwatersrand,Arthur Every,Andrew Forbes,Kelvin Goldstein , are you as stupid as Gabriel to learn proton is _not_ 938MeV electron .5MeV when they really are 840MeV, 105MeV in order to have chemistry bonding
By Dan Christensen 5 posts 52 views updated Jul 17
14
Re: Rik Chandler,One pint short of an empty bladder // Harvard's Dr.Hau "slow light", and turning the laser off; I find very comprehensible
By Dan Christensen 19 posts 99 views updated Sep 9
15
Re: Rik Chandler,Useful as a chocolate teapot // Harvard's Dr.Hau "slow light", and turning the laser off; I find very comprehensible
By Dan Christensen 16 posts 101 views updated Sep 9
16
Re: Zurich's ETH Dr.Thomas Willwacher's stupid all his life in teaching Calculus, never a picture diagram of FTC// as evidence- Jan Burse
4 posts by 3 authors 
12/13/17
By Dan Christensen
Re: 1.5- Dan Christensen, the insane Nazi Canadian bully stalker summed up in one beautiful paragraph
By Pete Smith 3 posts 19 views updated Sep 12
Re: 1.4- Dan Christensen, the insane Nazi Canadian bully stalker summed up in one beautiful paragraph
By Pete Smith 2 posts 9 views updated Sep 12
Re: Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
67 posts by 15 authors
3/9/18
Zelos Malum General Science (each generation has its science test, and ours is Global Warming). It has but
Re: Why is John Stillwell such a numbskull on Irrational numbers-- his book Mathematics and its History
36 posts by 9 authors
4/25/18
Zelos Malum Anthyphairesis > > --- quoting Stillwell --- > It follows that similar steps will recur forever, which is
Re: 1Canadian Stalker DAN anal buttfuckmanure CHRISTENSEN stalk reports::: 6 year stalker
17 posts by 7 authors
8/21/18
Zelos Malum Pointing out that you are an idiot is nto stalking
Dan Christensen

7/30/17
Idiot troll AP wants his butt kicked too
On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 11:41:12 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 10:06:06 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > Looks like the idiot
>
> Some more thoughts by Dan. Parents, would you leave your kids alone with a guy like this?
>
AP is perhaps the world's most famous math and science crank. He maintains to this day that 10^666 is an "infinite number" and that the entire universe is just one gigantic plutonium atom (hence his legal surname). No, I am NOT making this up! Every day, for several decades now, AP has come up with similar idiocies, often several in one day. Really quite sad.
> On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 8:57:06 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
>
[snipped quotes that I have compiled from another idiot troll who BKK once called an "ultra-genius."]
Dan
Dan Christensen

5/15/15
On Friday, May 15, 2015 at 4:06:58 AM UTC-4, William Elliot wrote:
> On Thu, 14 May 2015, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 11:50:44 PM UTC-4, William Elliot wrote:
> > >
> > > > Does anyone know who are the owners of sci.math?
> > >
> > > Capitalist ignorance in a socialist world.
> > > Math Forum archives sci.math and a limited number of other usenet groups.
> > >
> > > Really Dan, I've seen you do interesting math.
> >
> > Thank you. I am working on a couple of math projects that may interest
> > serious readers here, but something really must be done about the
> > infestation here of trolls like John Gabriel. There will be no place left on
> > the internet for serious, open ended discussion of mathematical themes if we
> > they are allowed to operate with impunity here. Kill-files are not the
> > answer for this bunch. Neither are the endless flame wars. We can't ignore
> > them when they post inflammatory nonsense -- we owe it to the newcomers who
> > might be taken in -- but we shouldn't be draw into prolonged "discussions"
> > with them either. This is what I try to do anyway.
>
> Then get to work on them instead of wasting so much time trolling.
> In the next few days, I'll be noticing your noise to signal ratio,
> which, if it remails high, will result in my not seeing any of your
> posts not even your mathematical projects.
The troll alerts don't take much time. I get automatic notice of group updates on browser tabs. On my breaks, it's fun to kick troll butt. I do try to keep engagement with the trolls here to a minimum, though that may not always be apparent. Will try to do better that way. Others can handle the specific details of the trolls' rants if they really must, but I wish they wouldn't get caught up lengthy discussions. As Mark Twain said, "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
Dan
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 8:13:12 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >
>
> I still intend be here to kick some troll butt and to promote the new group as an alternative.
>
>
> Dan
A wise sci.math poster summed up Dan Christensen the best I have seen so far back in 2015
A perfect one paragraph description of the life and non-mind of Dan Christensen
5/15/15
"Dan Christensen" <Dan_Chr...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:65ab07bd-405a-4f45...@googlegroups.com...
- show quoted text -
Sure, keep venting you self-apologetic nazi bollocks between an abuse and
the other. You are simply a moron, and with you, as with any JG, the
strategy remains the same it has always been, a kill-file. You hateful
idiot and spammer: Idiot because you will never understand the actual
dynamics of life and creativity, the subtle tensions of conservation vs.
novelty, and so many more things even less technical and more philosophical
than you could even ever guess that existed; And spammer, because after all
that is all you are, a spammer promoting yourself and your product (despite
you know shit about mathematics and even less about logic), but then add to
that the nazi campaigns which are the really truly disgusting part... As
said, overall a perfect exemplar of the stupid fucking white man and the
guns. (Just get lost: EOD.)
Re: 81,045-Student victims of Rose M. Patten Univ Toronto from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker
by Frank Cassa 12Apr2021 7:00 AM
Re: 7,744-Student victims of Linda Hasenfratz Univ Western Ontario from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz President Alan Shepar
Canadian students victimized by Dan Christensen and his party-- Linda Hasenfratz, Silvia Mittler, Els
11:53 AM 10Apr2021
by Wayne Decarlo
Re: 102,852-Student victims of Dominic Barton, Univ Waterloo from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Dominic Barton, President Feridun Hamdullahpur physics
by konyberg Apr 15, 2021, 3:09:41 PM
Re: Shit for brains in Logic Morons of logic George Boole, William Jevons, Bertrand Russell, Kurt Godel, Rudolf Carnap, Jan Burse& Dan Christensen as moronette cadets of Boole, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Willard Quine, Alfred North Whitehead, Irving Copi
By zelos...@gmail.com Mar 25, 2021, 12:55:15 AM
Re: Canada's Dan Christensen of Univ. Western Ontario flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
By Dan Christensen
Re: Bill Blair, David Vigneault please help us put Dan Christensen into a Canadian Asylum or psychiatric treatment where he belongs
By Donald Trump 2 posts 24 views updated 12:33 AM
Re: 1Canadian Stalker DAN anal buttfuckmanure CHRISTENSEN stalk reports::: 6 year stalker
By Zelos Malum 30 posts 449 views updated 9:01 PM
Re: software that engineers out stalking bullies on Twitter, Facebook, Google Newsgroups Re: Michael Moroney Anal ButtfuckManure stalker for 26 years
By Dan Christensen 50 posts 951 views updated 8:56 PM
Re: UWO,Drs.Hasenfratz, Shepherd, Chakma, Barmby, Basu, Brown, Buchel, Adamus, Barron are you not ashamed that Christensen still teaches fakery of ellipse to UWO students
By Antonio J. Buckfutter 2 posts 9 views updated 2:52 PM
Re: Warning to Dan Christensen do not harpoon "Right" Whales of Canada, and does PM Trudeau need to put Dan in jail or asylum???
By Henrietta Foreskineater 2 posts 2 views updated 11:35 PM
Re: Dan Christensen harpooning the beautiful Blue Whales of Canada, why does not PM Trudeau put Dan in jail or asylum???
By Henrietta Foreskineater 2 posts 4 views updated 11:33 PM
Re: 59:49education parasite Gabriel// Univ Witwatersrand,Arthur Every,Andrew Forbes,Kelvin Goldstein , are you as stupid as Gabriel to learn proton is _not_ 938MeV electron .5MeV when they really are 840MeV, 105MeV in order to have chemistry bonding
By Dan Christensen 12 posts 179 views updated 1:14 AM
Re: Drs.S Moyo , Margaret Archibald of Durban Univ Witswatersrand, never a Picture of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus//are you as dumb as John Gabriel about calculus//your students deserve better
By Dan Christensen 6 posts 101 views updated 7:24 PM
Re: the stealing ways of John Gabriel//Theft & Stealing ideas of science in the era of the internet// Ways to prevent and combat stealing Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
By Dan Christensen 21 posts 111 views updated 3:56 AM
Re: 2-Jill does not have to be a geometry failure like Ken Ribet Re: 1- AMS, Jill Pipher, Ken Ribet, Robert L. Bryant, David Vogan, Eric M. Friedlander, why not go for the truth of mathematics-- the slant cut in cone is a oval, never the ellipse.
By Dan Christensen 2 posts 16 views updated 11:48 AM
Re: How safe are Canadian students from NOT being cornholed by Dan Christensen and his 12 Angry Men
By Alex 4 posts 13 views updated
Re: Kibo poofster call for Dan Christensen on DC Logic line2 Dan, with their 10 Poofsters OR 4 Poofsters = 14 Poofsters and Kibo's 8.88 poofsters is short of 9 poofsters by 12%// No wonder Canada has not confirmed real proton 840MeV not 938
By Andy Smith 1 post 27 views updated 8:30 PM
Re: 1-Is Dan Christensen the leader of this Homosexual stalker ring in sci.math causing decay of sci.math??//and suppressing real science of confirming real proton is 840 MeV, real electron is the muon= 105MeV, and the .5MeV was Dirac's magnetic monopole (1)
By Homosexual Stalker 4 posts 12 views updated 9:20 AM
Re: Justin Trudeau new to the job of Prime Minister of Canada, but insane stalker Dan Christensen has been stalking nigh 10 years now
By Commander Kinsey 1 post 3 views updated 12:59 PM
Re: 1.6 Dan Christensen wants you to fail McGill Univ//not confirm real proton = 840MeV, real electron=105MeV, .5MeV was Dirac's monopole// Christensen distracting Drs. Agarwal,Brandenberger,Brunner,Buchinger,Caron-Huot,Chiang
9/17/19
Alan Smithee Shut up imbecile.
Re: 2:12:53 Germany's sickfuck Franz//Stefan Halverscheid, Harald Andres Helfgott, Madeleine Jotz Lean of Gottingen do you think 3 OR 2= 5 think 3 AND 2 = 1?? embracing the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both
By Dan Christensen 21 posts 136 views updated 12:53 AM
Re: Fire the entire Cornell Univ math dept-- unable to even teach Add in Logic is not OR but rather is AND
By Dan Christensen 59 posts 753 views updated 12:46 AM
Re: envy hatred covered by AP's magazine journal for May//AP's periodic journal of fakeries in science: Magazine of science and math fakes foisted on general public Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
By Dan Christensen 6 posts 40 views updated Sep 9
Re: 2Canada's sh)thead stalker Dan in sci.math 1 OR 3 = 4, does Justin Trudeau, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, is that what science is in Canada-- stalking bullies
By Dan Christensen 37 posts 263 views updated Sep 9
Re: Trump smarter in math than MIT & UC, Riverside Math departments, smarter in math than Terry Tao, Ed Witten, Appel & Hakken
By Dan Christensen 7 posts 71 views updated Sep 9
Re: Drs.George Janelidze Hans-Peter Kunzi Anton le Roex Univ. Cape Town S.A, smarter than Archie Pu who actually believes the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = monopole
By Dan Christensen 6 posts 73 views updated Sep 9

Re: software that engineers out stalking bullies on Twitter, Facebook, Google Newsgroups Re: Michael Moroney Anal ButtfuckManure stalker for 26 years
By Dan Christensen 34 posts 663 views updated Sep 9
Re: 3Textbook: Let us Thank AP for fixing Trigonometry where 95% of trigonometry was muddleheaded wrong
By Dan Christensen 3 posts 18 views updated Sep 9
Re: 9Der_FartMouth Births-comics for Eric FartFrancis, with snickering by George FartWitte published by ST FARTMARTINS
By Dan Christensen 11 posts 227 views updated Sep 9
Re: Rik Chandler,One pint short of an empty bladder // Harvard's Dr.Hau "slow light", and turning the laser off; I find very comprehensible
By Dan Christensen 19 posts 99 views updated Sep 9

Re: Rik Chandler,Useful as a chocolate teapot // Harvard's Dr.Hau "slow light", and turning the laser off; I find very comprehensible
By Dan Christensen 16 posts 101 views updated Sep 9


Re: Lisa Thompson,Univ Toronto & Western Ontario, Alex Buchel,Jan Cami,Gordon F. West,Michael B. Walker, -- is the reason none of you have confirmed real proton = 840MeV, real electron is the muon and .5MeV was Dirac monopole, to busy on Dan
By Dan Christensen 14 posts 265 views updated
xxxx the zero academic intelligence of Christensen
On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:08:09 AM UTC-6, Peter Percival wrote:
> Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:47:32 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 8:27:19 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:16:52 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >>>> PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra, Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector
> >>>>
> >>>> The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any two points lies a third new point.
> >>>
> >>> The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points."
> >>>
> >>
> >> What a monsterous fool you are
> >>
> >
> > OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it.
>
> And yet Mr Plutonium is right. Two points are distinct (else they would
> be one) and it is not necessary to say so.
>
On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 2:52:34 PM UTC-5, Peter Percival wrote:
> Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 12:32:51 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >> 1.0-Set theory completely thrown out of science and math
> >>
> >
> > WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science
> >
> > As you can see here, AP 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:
> >
> > WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science
> >
>
> I like to laugh at people in wheelchairs and people with white sticks.
xxxxkicking the butt of insane Christensen
Dan Christensen
On Friday, May 15, 2015 at 4:06:58 AM UTC-4, William Elliot wrote:
> On Thu, 14 May 2015, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 11:50:44 PM UTC-4, William Elliot wrote:
> > >
> > > > Does anyone know who are the owners of sci.math?
> > >
> > > Capitalist ignorance in a socialist world.
> > > Math Forum archives sci.math and a limited number of other usenet groups.
> > >
> > > Really Dan, I've seen you do interesting math.
> >
> > Thank you. I am working on a couple of math projects that may interest
> > serious readers here, but something really must be done about the
> > infestation here of trolls like John Gabriel. There will be no place left on
> > the internet for serious, open ended discussion of mathematical themes if we
> > they are allowed to operate with impunity here. Kill-files are not the
> > answer for this bunch. Neither are the endless flame wars. We can't ignore
> > them when they post inflammatory nonsense -- we owe it to the newcomers who
> > might be taken in -- but we shouldn't be draw into prolonged "discussions"
> > with them either. This is what I try to do anyway.
>
> Then get to work on them instead of wasting so much time trolling.
> In the next few days, I'll be noticing your noise to signal ratio,
> which, if it remails high, will result in my not seeing any of your
> posts not even your mathematical projects.
The troll alerts don't take much time. I get automatic notice of group updates on browser tabs. On my breaks, it's fun to kick troll butt. I do try to keep engagement with the trolls here to a minimum, though that may not always be apparent. Will try to do better that way. Others can handle the specific details of the trolls' rants if they really must, but I wish they wouldn't get caught up lengthy discussions. As Mark Twain said, "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
Dan
On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 8:13:12 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >
>
> I still intend be here to kick some troll butt and to promote the new group as an alternative.
>
>
> Dan
A wise sci.math poster summed up Dan Christensen the best I have seen so far back in 2015
A perfect one paragraph description of the life and non-mind of Dan Christensen
5/15/15
"Dan Christensen" <Dan_Chr...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:65ab07bd-405a-4f45...@googlegroups.com...
- show quoted text -
Sure, keep venting you self-apologetic nazi bollocks between an abuse and
the other. You are simply a moron, and with you, as with any JG, the
strategy remains the same it has always been, a kill-file. You hateful
idiot and spammer: Idiot because you will never understand the actual
dynamics of life and creativity, the subtle tensions of conservation vs.
novelty, and so many more things even less technical and more philosophical
than you could even ever guess that existed; And spammer, because after all
that is all you are, a spammer promoting yourself and your product (despite
you know shit about mathematics and even less about logic), but then add to
that the nazi campaigns which are the really truly disgusting part... As
said, overall a perfect exemplar of the stupid fucking white man and the
guns. (Just get lost: EOD.)
1.5- Dan Christensen, the insane Nazi Canadian bully stalker summed up in one beautiful paragraph
2 posts by 2 authors 

me (Archimedes Plutonium change)

1:29 AM (10 hours ago)
1.5- Dan Christensen, the insane Nazi Canadian bully stalker summed up in one beautiful paragraph
I am not the author of the below description of Dan Christensen, but wish I was. It is written better than I could ever do in one paragraph. The best I could do is a few simple words-- insane Christensen, bully insane.
"Dan Christensen" <Dan_Chr...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:65ab07bd-405a-4f45...@googlegroups.com...
- show quoted text -
Sure, keep venting you self-apologetic nazi bollocks between an abuse and
the other. You are simply a moron, and with you, as with any JG, the
strategy remains the same it has always been, a kill-file. You hateful
idiot and spammer: Idiot because you will never understand the actual
dynamics of life and creativity, the subtle tensions of conservation vs.
novelty, and so many more things even less technical and more philosophical
than you could even ever guess that existed; And spammer, because after all
that is all you are, a spammer promoting yourself and your product (despite
you know shit about mathematics and even less about logic), but then add to
that the nazi campaigns which are the really truly disgusting part... As
said, overall a perfect exemplar of the stupid fucking white man and the
guns. (Just get lost: EOD.)
INDEX OF STALKERS MATH
1
Re: Fire the entire Cornell Univ math dept-- unable to even teach Add in Logic is not OR but rather is AND
53 posts by 9 authors
11/9/17
By Dan Christensen
2
3
Re: 2:12:53 Germany's sickfuck Franz//Stefan Halverscheid, Harald Andres Helfgott, Madeleine Jotz Lean of Gottingen do you think 3 OR 2= 5 think 3 AND 2 = 1?? embracing the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both
By Dan Christensen
4
Re: software that engineers out stalking bullies on Twitter, Facebook, Google Newsgroups Re: Michael Moroney Anal ButtfuckManure stalker for 26 years
By Dan Christensen
5
Re: 9Der_FartMouth Births-comics for Eric FartFrancis, with snickering by George FartWitte published by ST FARTMARTINS
By Dan Christensen
6
Re: 3Textbook: Let us Thank AP for fixing Trigonometry where 95% of trigonometry was muddleheaded wrong.
On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 10:35:50 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > 3Newsgroups: sci.math > Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 08:35:36 ...
Feb 16 by Dan Christensen - 2 posts by 2 authors - 13 views
7
Re: Drs.George Janelidze Hans-Peter Kunzi Anton le Roex Univ. Cape Town S.A, smarter than Archie Pu who actually believes the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = monopole
By Dan Christensen
8
Re: Trump smarter in math than MIT & UC, Riverside Math departments, smarter in math than Terry Tao, Ed Witten, Appel & Hakken
By Dan Christensen
11/10/16
9
Re: Lisa Thompson,Univ Toronto & Western Ontario, Alex Buchel,Jan Cami,Gordon F. West,Michael B. Walker, -- is the reason none of you have confirmed real proton = 840MeV, real electron is the muon and .5MeV was Dirac monopole, to busy on Dan
By Dan Christensen 1 post 3 views updated 1:12 PM
10
Re: 2Canada's sh)thead stalker Dan in sci.math 1 OR 3 = 4, does Justin Trudeau, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, is that what science is in Canada-- stalking bullies
By Dan Christensen
6/25/18
11
Re: 59:49education parasite Gabriel// Univ Witwatersrand,Arthur Every,Andrew Forbes,Kelvin Goldstein , are you as stupid as Gabriel to learn proton is _not_ 938MeV electron .5MeV when they really are 840MeV, 105MeV in order to have chemistry bonding
By Dan Christensen 5 posts 52 views updated Jul 17
14
Re: Rik Chandler,One pint short of an empty bladder // Harvard's Dr.Hau "slow light", and turning the laser off; I find very comprehensible
By Dan Christensen 19 posts 99 views updated Sep 9
15
Re: Rik Chandler,Useful as a chocolate teapot // Harvard's Dr.Hau "slow light", and turning the laser off; I find very comprehensible
By Dan Christensen 16 posts 101 views updated Sep 9
16
Re: Zurich's ETH Dr.Thomas Willwacher's stupid all his life in teaching Calculus, never a picture diagram of FTC// as evidence- Jan Burse
4 posts by 3 authors 
12/13/17
By Dan Christensen
Re: 1.5- Dan Christensen, the insane Nazi Canadian bully stalker summed up in one beautiful paragraph
By Pete Smith 3 posts 19 views updated Sep 12
Re: 1.4- Dan Christensen, the insane Nazi Canadian bully stalker summed up in one beautiful paragraph
By Pete Smith 2 posts 9 views updated Sep 12
Re: Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
67 posts by 15 authors
3/9/18
Zelos Malum General Science (each generation has its science test, and ours is Global Warming). It has but
Re: Why is John Stillwell such a numbskull on Irrational numbers-- his book Mathematics and its History
36 posts by 9 authors
4/25/18
Zelos Malum Anthyphairesis > > --- quoting Stillwell --- > It follows that similar steps will recur forever, which is
Re: 1Canadian Stalker DAN anal buttfuckmanure CHRISTENSEN stalk reports::: 6 year stalker
17 posts by 7 authors
8/21/18
Zelos Malum Pointing out that you are an idiot is nto stalking
Dan Christensen

7/30/17
Idiot troll AP wants his butt kicked too
On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 11:41:12 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 10:06:06 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > Looks like the idiot
>
> Some more thoughts by Dan. Parents, would you leave your kids alone with a guy like this?
>
AP is perhaps the world's most famous math and science crank. He maintains to this day that 10^666 is an "infinite number" and that the entire universe is just one gigantic plutonium atom (hence his legal surname). No, I am NOT making this up! Every day, for several decades now, AP has come up with similar idiocies, often several in one day. Really quite sad.
> On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 8:57:06 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
>
[snipped quotes that I have compiled from another idiot troll who BKK once called an "ultra-genius."]
Dan
Dan Christensen

5/15/15
On Friday, May 15, 2015 at 4:06:58 AM UTC-4, William Elliot wrote:
> On Thu, 14 May 2015, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 11:50:44 PM UTC-4, William Elliot wrote:
> > >
> > > > Does anyone know who are the owners of sci.math?
> > >
> > > Capitalist ignorance in a socialist world.
> > > Math Forum archives sci.math and a limited number of other usenet groups.
> > >
> > > Really Dan, I've seen you do interesting math.
> >
> > Thank you. I am working on a couple of math projects that may interest
> > serious readers here, but something really must be done about the
> > infestation here of trolls like John Gabriel. There will be no place left on
> > the internet for serious, open ended discussion of mathematical themes if we
> > they are allowed to operate with impunity here. Kill-files are not the
> > answer for this bunch. Neither are the endless flame wars. We can't ignore
> > them when they post inflammatory nonsense -- we owe it to the newcomers who
> > might be taken in -- but we shouldn't be draw into prolonged "discussions"
> > with them either. This is what I try to do anyway.
>
> Then get to work on them instead of wasting so much time trolling.
> In the next few days, I'll be noticing your noise to signal ratio,
> which, if it remails high, will result in my not seeing any of your
> posts not even your mathematical projects.
The troll alerts don't take much time. I get automatic notice of group updates on browser tabs. On my breaks, it's fun to kick troll butt. I do try to keep engagement with the trolls here to a minimum, though that may not always be apparent. Will try to do better that way. Others can handle the specific details of the trolls' rants if they really must, but I wish they wouldn't get caught up lengthy discussions. As Mark Twain said, "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
Dan
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 8:13:12 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >
>
> I still intend be here to kick some troll butt and to promote the new group as an alternative.
>
>
> Dan
A wise sci.math poster summed up Dan Christensen the best I have seen so far back in 2015
A perfect one paragraph description of the life and non-mind of Dan Christensen
5/15/15
"Dan Christensen" <Dan_Chr...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:65ab07bd-405a-4f45...@googlegroups.com...
- show quoted text -
Sure, keep venting you self-apologetic nazi bollocks between an abuse and
the other. You are simply a moron, and with you, as with any JG, the
strategy remains the same it has always been, a kill-file. You hateful
idiot and spammer: Idiot because you will never understand the actual
dynamics of life and creativity, the subtle tensions of conservation vs.
novelty, and so many more things even less technical and more philosophical
than you could even ever guess that existed; And spammer, because after all
that is all you are, a spammer promoting yourself and your product (despite
you know shit about mathematics and even less about logic), but then add to
that the nazi campaigns which are the really truly disgusting part... As
said, overall a perfect exemplar of the stupid fucking white man and the
guns. (Just get lost: EOD.)
Archimedes Plutonium
May 7, 2021, 1:43:32 PM5/7/21
to
Can Ritalin (Methylphenidate) cure "stalking disease"? Does Ritalin stop Dan and Kibo from stalking?
I consider stalkers as insane people. Clear example to me is Dan Christensen and Kibo Parry Moroney, where Dan is a 7 year nonstop stalker and Kibo is a 28 year nonstop stalker.
So we can research stalker disease here on the Internet by simply observing Dan and Kibo as they ply their disease to a world wide audience.
Ritalin (Wikipedia says) is a first line medication for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
And I just am wondering if that broad class of "hyperactivity" includes stalker behavior. I mean stalking people, especially young men stalking women, is hyperactivity.
So, has Dan Christensen and Kibo Parry Moroney with their combined 7 years stalking and 28 years stalking, have either one of them been given Ritalin and can it stop their stalking. Or, perhaps, when Dan and Kibo were young, both were given Ritalin and now they are off of Ritalin, that pent up bad-energy, that insanity behavior is back with them and they resort to old insane ways of stalking.
So, questions into the research of insane Dan and insane Kibo stalkers-- have they ever been on Ritalin and their stalking is a post-partum-ADHD, or, would they now benefit from the medication of Ritalin, if only they would visit a doctor, which I fondly like to call the "shrink". I mean, I get disturbed from these insane nutters just in posts that I can tune in or tune out, and cannot imagine how a psychologists can tolerate a Dan or Kibo in person.
So, we make Dan and Kibo science studies, to see how we can treat insane two people of their stalking disease, disorder. Of course, both Dan and Kibo think they are normal persons, and can never see they are cracking insane dumpster minds of science.
Does Ritalin stop Dan and Kibo from stalking?
AP
King of Science, especially Physics
I consider stalkers as insane people. Clear example to me is Dan Christensen and Kibo Parry Moroney, where Dan is a 7 year nonstop stalker and Kibo is a 28 year nonstop stalker.
So we can research stalker disease here on the Internet by simply observing Dan and Kibo as they ply their disease to a world wide audience.
Ritalin (Wikipedia says) is a first line medication for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
And I just am wondering if that broad class of "hyperactivity" includes stalker behavior. I mean stalking people, especially young men stalking women, is hyperactivity.
So, has Dan Christensen and Kibo Parry Moroney with their combined 7 years stalking and 28 years stalking, have either one of them been given Ritalin and can it stop their stalking. Or, perhaps, when Dan and Kibo were young, both were given Ritalin and now they are off of Ritalin, that pent up bad-energy, that insanity behavior is back with them and they resort to old insane ways of stalking.
So, questions into the research of insane Dan and insane Kibo stalkers-- have they ever been on Ritalin and their stalking is a post-partum-ADHD, or, would they now benefit from the medication of Ritalin, if only they would visit a doctor, which I fondly like to call the "shrink". I mean, I get disturbed from these insane nutters just in posts that I can tune in or tune out, and cannot imagine how a psychologists can tolerate a Dan or Kibo in person.
So, we make Dan and Kibo science studies, to see how we can treat insane two people of their stalking disease, disorder. Of course, both Dan and Kibo think they are normal persons, and can never see they are cracking insane dumpster minds of science.
Does Ritalin stop Dan and Kibo from stalking?
AP
King of Science, especially Physics
Archimedes Plutonium
May 8, 2021, 3:16:58 PM5/8/21
to
135,566 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron of
On Saturday, May 8, 2021 at 10:50:10 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
Alright David Hilbert set a standard bearer of math purpose in making a list of problems for other mathematicians to solve. Trouble was, David Hilbert never had much logical brains to conduct a full sweeping Standard Bearer job over mathematics as David was pretty much in the weeds of math and logic himself. But, David did lead the way into making a Standard Bearer Job.
AP, the King of Science is going to lead mathematics onward with the new standard bearing problems. And the first problem is going to separate the men from the boys, so to speak of mathematics. David just wanted all math professors to work on solving a list of problems. AP takes that much much further in that AP defines what a valid math professor is in the first place. And AP's definition of a math professor separates the wheat from the chaff, separates the math professor from a acting stooge con artist math professor. In other words, we are going to define what is a valid math professor and what is not a math professor in the first AP problem. If anyone claims to be a math professor from a college or university, is only a math professor if he/ she can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. If any, so called math professor cannot do a Geometry Proof of FTC, then their degree is stripped of them. They are not math professors but some actor con artist of math.
All math professors have to be on the same page with a Geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
Calculus is Geometry, and you be surprized to know that many math professors never even knew that much.
Calculus is the most important of all mathematics to date. Calculus is the pinnacle peak crowning glory jewel of mathematics. And when we couple the fact that calculus is geometry and the peak of mathematics, it is rather stunning to realize, only one person in all the world from 2015 to 2021 as I write this could deliver a Geometry proof of FTC. In fact AP wrote a book on it (see below).
Limit analysis is not geometry but a petty side show argument that never relates to a making of a proof of FTC.
What a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus does, is straighten out all the horrible and worst math ideas that pollute modern day mathematics.
A geometry proof of FTC forces, yes forces these corrections of Old Math:
(1) What are the real numbers of mathematics, for the Reals are a worthless cobble together bag of nonsense numbers.
(2) The true numbers of mathematics come from Mathematical Induction-- all of them, not just Naturals, and they require empty space between one and the next number. In other words, the true numbers of mathematics are discrete.
(3) The continuum in Old Math was a delusion, and too bad the mathematicians of the 1900s were too dumb to see and follow what physicists were doing with quantum mechanics, instead the blithering idiot fools of mathematics went the exact opposite direction of discrete with Cohen's mindless pursuit of continuum.
(4) Infinity and finite had to be well-defined.
(5) Most damaging of all, a function was never well defined in Old Math, for to well define a function, all functions have to be polynomial functions and nothing else. So a conversion of all other candidates had to be transformed into being a Polynomial.
(6) First Quadrant Only in mathematics had to be acknowledged and understood because of failure of Old Math to ever recognize a primal axiom of Algebra. You cannot have a equation of math if the rightside has a 0 or negative number, or imaginary number all alone on the rightside of the equation. No equation of math exists unless it has a positive, greater than zero number on the rightside of the equation, all alone, at all times. Old Math was far far too dumb in logic to ever realize that equations are balancing beams of some constant Reality on the rightside plate, all alone, at all times of the balancing beam and where you have Substantive Reality on the leftside of the balancing beam. Only a goofball would think it is okay to have "nothing as in 0" all alone on the rightside plate or even worse-- imaginary or negative reality-- all alone on the rightside plate. This was one of the worst insane cases of Old Math thinking. This was asylum mathematics of Old Math.
So, when AP demands a geometry proof of FTC from all so called math professors, forces them to correct much of Old Math lousy and sloppy errors of the past, and makes mathematics, puts mathematics into a clean bill of health.
Math and Logic demands a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and forces math to purge and clean itself up of all the horrible mistaken goofball notions they have carried with them for the past 400 years of sloppy error filled Old Math.
Archimedes Plutonium
May 8, 2021, 10:11:33 PM5/8/21
to
Dan Christensen says- Don't be a victim of Tao, Hales, Stillwell, Wiles with their never a geometry proof of calculus// nor McDonald, Peebles, Gell-Mann, Glashow, Weinberg, Higgs who are too dumb to ever ask if real electron of atoms is the muon.
No hope of University Western Ontario, Queen's Univ or Univ Toronto with a math professor that can teach a geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, no hope whatsoever, for they cannot even reason logically with their Boole logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction in 2 AND 1 = 1 (hard to believe colleges and Universities across Earth teach mind rot logic like that). That being said it is no hope of finding a math professor at UWO, Toronto or Queen's who can do a geometry proof of FTC, for all those fools are brainwashed on the "dumbarse limit analysis", the con artist contraption that Cauchy in France in the 1800s invented because he became sick and tired of his smart students asking him how a rectangle of 0 width in the integral has any interior area at all. So fast forward to today and the ignorant math professors around the world teach the con artist trick of Cauchy because their tiny minds of logic could not even fathom that a proper geometry proof of FTC is required. I am guessing that is why Queen's UWO and Toronto have hired directly or indirectly the failure Dan Christensen to keep the status quo in colleges teaching mind rot rather than the truth.
On Saturday, May 8, 2021 at 8:34:09 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
But Dan Christensen points out the sinister side of education of these science morons of math and physics, in the amount and cost of Suppression of Canadian students, to keep them in the dark and dumb, of never dropping a lid inside a paper cone and proving it is a Oval, not the dumb Dan's ellipse, or asking the geometry proof of calculus or asking the question is the muon truly the atom's electron. No, instead Canada pays a dumb obtuse stalker like Dan Christensen to keep suppression of the truth of science.
For it is plain to see that CALCULUS IS GEOMETRY, yet the wastrel ne'er do wells of Tao, Hales, Wiles, Stillwell just rake in fame and fortune with con-artist math and never give a Geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. All ten of these math and physics con artists take the science community as fools-at-large to be bilked.
3rd published book
AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
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
Language: English
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: 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)
Last revision was 4Apr2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had (1) a ill-defined infinity; (2) they had the fakery of Limit concept; and (3) they had the fakery of a continuum; and (4) perhaps most important of all as long as Old Math had the wrong numbers that compose mathematics that no geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus was ever possible. Sad that starting 1900, Planck showed that Space is discrete in physics, not continuous, leading to the rise of Quantum Mechanics. But the fools of mathematics went the opposite direction in wanting ever more a continuum in mathematics. They spent the entire 20th century riding high on Cohen's depraved continuum. You could almost say that starting 1900, the people in mathematics compared to those in physics would become more and more ignorant and further estranged, and that a widening schism rift separated math from physics, from the realities of the actual world as the future decades and centuries rolled by. And who knows where this rift would leave math as a science decreasing in vim and vigor. Will it end in math becoming a third or fourth tier science, ranking it above say economics but far below even psychology, because much of math proof is kook psychology acceptance divorced of reality. In this view, physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, even geology ranked far higher in power and wisdom than math.
By the 19th and 20th and 21st centuries, the single number one important topic and subject in all of mathematics was Calculus, and the reason being, is that Physics is mostly calculus, the science of motion and change. And everyone in math knows that calculus is geometry. So, then, to not have a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is a failure and failing of being a mathematician.
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.
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.
---------------------------
Table of Contents
---------------------------
1) Preliminary mathematics needed to do the Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
2) How the dumb limit concept was borne, that is a con-artist job.
3) When you know the true numbers of mathematics, Decimal Grid Numbers, you need no limit concept.
4) Mathematics has two houses, one is numbers, one is geometry.
5) All numbers come from physics because the Universe is just one big atom of 231Pu.
6) History of my discovery of Decimal Grid Numbers.
7) The error of having a proper Coordinate System to do the Calculus as 1st Quadrant Only with all positive Decimal Grid Numbers.
8) Concept of Infinity versus Finite for Calculus.
9) Brief proofs of the Infinity borderline, especially Huygens tractrix.
10) World's first picture diagram proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus by 2015.
11) Calculus the very most important math to date.
12) Everyone in mathematics knows that Calculus is geometry.
Length: 39 pages
Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1236 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 39 pages
X-Ray : Not Enabled
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)
74th published book
HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
In 2016-2017, AP discovered that the real proton has a mass of 840 MeV, not 938. The real electron was actually the muon and the muon stays inside the proton that forms a proton torus of 8 rings and with the muon as bar magnet is a Faraday Law producing magnetic monopoles. So this book is all about why researchers of physics and engineers keep getting the number 938MeV when they should be getting the number 840 MeV + 105 MeV = 945 MeV.
Cover Picture is a proton torus of 8 rings with a muon of 1 ring inside the proton torus, doing the Faraday Law and producing magnetic monopoles.
Length: 17 pages
Product details
• Publication Date : December 18, 2019
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 17 pages
• File Size : 698 KB
• ASIN : B082WYGVNG
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
#1-4, 105th published book
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Atom Geometry is Torus Geometry // Atom Totality series, book 4 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Since all atoms are doing the Faraday Law inside them, of their thrusting muon into a proton coil in the shape of a geometry torus, then the torus is the geometry of each and every atom. But then we must explain the neutrons since the muon and proton are doing Faraday's Law, then the neutron needs to be explained in terms of this proton torus with muon inside, all three shaped as rings. The muon is a single ring and each proton is 8 rings. The neutron is shaped like a plate and is solid not hollow. The explanation of a neutron is that of a capacitor storing what the proton-muon rings produce in electricity. Where would the neutron parallel plates be located? I argue in this text that the neutron plates when fully grown from 1 eV until 945MeV are like two parallel plate capacitors where each neutron is part of one plate, like two pieces of bread with the proton-muon torus being a hamburger patty.
Cover Picture: I assembled two atoms in this picture where the proton torus with a band of muons inside traveling around and around the proton torus producing electricity. And the pie-plates represent neutrons as parallel-plate capacitors.
Length: 39 pages
Product details
• Publication Date : March 24, 2020
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• ASIN : B086BGSNXN
• Print Length : 39 pages
• File Size : 935 KB
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,656,820 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#6413 in Mathematics (Kindle Store)
#315 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
#4953 in Physics (Kindle Store)
#1-5, 112th published book
New Perspective on Psi^2 in the Schrodinger Equation in a Atom Totality Universe// Atom Totality series, book 5
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
I first heard of the Schrodinger equation in college chemistry class. We never actually did any problem solving with the equation, and we were only told about it. Then taking physics my next year in college and after I bought the Feynman Lectures on Physics, just for fun for side reading, three volume set did I learn what this Schrodinger equation and the Psi^2 wavefunction was about. I am not going to teach the mathematics of the Schrodinger equation and the math calculations of the Psi or Psi^2 in this book, but leave that up to the reader or student to do that from Feynman's Lectures on Physics. The purpose of this book is to give a new and different interpretation of what Psi^2 is, what Psi^2 means. Correct interpretation of physics experiments and observations turns out to be one of the most difficult tasks in all of physics.
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Cover Picture: a photograph taken of me in 1993, after the discovery of Plutonium Atom Totality, and I was 43 years old then, on a wintery hill of New Hampshire. It is nice that Feynman wrote a physics textbook series, for I am very much benefitting from his wisdom. If he had not done that, getting organized in physics by writing textbooks, I would not be writing this book. And I would not have discovered the true meaning of the Fine Structure Constant, for it was Feynman who showed us that FSC is really 0.0854, not that of 0.0072. All because 0.0854 is Psi, and Psi^2 is 0.0072.
Length: 20 pages
Product details
• ASIN : B0875SVDC7
• Publication date : April 15, 2020
• Language: : English
• File size : 1134 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Print length : 20 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #240,066 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #5 in 30-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #65 in General Chemistry & Reference
◦ #481 in Physics (Kindle Store)
#1-6, 135th published book
QED in Atom Totality theory where proton is a 8 ring torus and electron = muon inside proton doing Faraday Law// Atom Totality series, book 6 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Since the real true electron of atoms is the muon and is a one ring bar magnet thrusting through the 8 ring torus of a proton, we need a whole entire new model of the hydrogen atom. Because the Bohr model with the 0.5MeV particle jumping orbitals as the explanation of Spectral Lines is all wrong. In this vacuum of explaining spectral line physics, comes the AP Model which simply states that the hydrogen atom creates Spectral lines because at any one instant of time 4 of the 8 proton rings is "in view" and the electricity coming from those 4 view rings creates spectral line physics.
Cover Picture: Is a imitation of the 8 ring proton torus, with my fingers holding on the proton ring that has the muon ring perpendicular and in the equatorial plane of the proton rings, thrusting through. This muon ring is the same size as the 8 proton rings making 9 x 105MeV = 945MeV of energy. The muon ring has to be perpendicular and lie on the equator of the proton torus. Surrounding the proton-torus would be neutrons as skin or coating cover and act as capacitors in storing the electricity produced by the proton+muon.
Product details
• ASIN : B08K47K5BB
• Publication date : September 25, 2020
• Language : English
• File size : 587 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 25 pages
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #291,001 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #13 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #52 in General Chemistry & Reference
◦ #334 in General Chemistry
#1-7, 138th published book
The true NUCLEUS of Atoms are inner toruses moving around in circles of a larger outer torus// Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden Experiment revisited // Atom Totality Series, book 7 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
The geometry of Atoms of the Table of Chemical Elements is torus geometry. We know this to be true for the torus geometry forms the maximum electricity production when using the Faraday Law. We see this in Old Physics with their tokamak toruses attempting to make fusion, by accelerating particles of the highest possible acceleration for the torus is that geometry. But the torus is the geometry not only of maximum acceleration but of maximum electrical generation by having a speeding bar magnet go around and around inside a torus== the Faraday law, where the torus rings are the copper closed wire loop. The protons of atoms are 8 loops of rings in a torus geometry, and the electron of atoms is the muon as bar magnet, almost the same size as the proton loops but small enough to fit inside proton loops. It is torus geometry that we investigate the geometry of all atoms.
Length: 41 pages
Product details
• Publication Date : October 9, 2020
• File Size : 828 KB
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print Length : 41 pages
• ASIN : B08KZT5TCD
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
#1-8, 1st published book
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Atom Totality Universe, 8th edition, 2017// A history log book: Atom Totality Series book 8 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision 7Apr2021. This was AP's first published science book.
Advisory: This is a difficult book to read and is AP's research log book of the Atom Totality in 2016-2017. I want to keep it for its history value. AP advises all readers wanting to know the Plutonium Atom Totality theory to go to the 9th edition that is the latest up to date account of this theory. The reason AP wants to keep the 8th edition is because of Historical Value, for in this book, while writing it, caused the discovery of the real electron is the muon of atoms. The real proton of atoms is 840MeV and not the 938MeV that most books claim. The particle discovered by JJ Thomson in 1897 thinking he discovered the electron of atoms was actually the Dirac magnetic monopole at 0.5MeV. This discovery changes every, every science that uses atoms and electricity and magnetism, in other words, every science.
Foreward:
I wrote the 8th edition of Atom Totality and near the end of writing it in 2017, I had my second greatest physics discovery. I learned the real electron of atoms was the muon at 105MeV and not the tiny 0.5MeV particle that J.J.Thomson found in 1897. So I desperately tried to include that discovery in my 8th edition and it is quite plain to see for I tried to write paragraphs after each chapter saying as much. I knew in 2017, that it was a great discovery, changing all the hard sciences, and reframing and restructuring all the hard sciences.
Length: 632 pages
Product details
File Size: 1132 KB
Print Length: 632 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLP9NDR
Language: English
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #578,229 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
Screen Reader: Supported
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
#1610 in Physics (Kindle Store)
#8526 in Physics (Books)
#18851 in Biological Sciences (Books)
#2-1, 137th published book
Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
#1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory
This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so I can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me.
Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics community updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast, as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to.
Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory.
And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
Length: 64 pages
Product details
• File Size : 790 KB
• Publication Date : October 5, 2020
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 64 pages
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Language: : English
• ASIN : B08KS4YGWY
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory
◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#2-2, 145th published book
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and errors and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the halls and corridors of education.
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Product details
• ASIN : B08PC99JJB
• Publication date : November 29, 2020
• Language: : English
• File size : 682 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Print length : 78 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #344 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books)
#2-3, 146th published book
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Books in this series are.
Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS High School junior year, book 2
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS High School senior year, book 3
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS Freshperson college, book 4
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS Sophomore college, book 5
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS Junior college, book 6
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS Senior college, book 7
Preface: I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science, you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the science. I further believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later years of physics courses, we can always pick up on details. So I devote this senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this textbook.
Product details
• ASIN : B08RK33T8V
• Publication date : December 28, 2020
• Language: : English
• File size : 917 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Print length : 114 pages
• Lending : Enabled
#3-1, 2nd published book
True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere.
Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule.
Length: 1150 pages
Product details
• File Size : 2167 KB
• ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ
• Publication Date : March 11, 2019
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 1150 pages
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
• Lending : Enabled
#181 in General Chemistry & Reference
#1324 in General Chemistry
#1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)
Archimedes Plutonium
May 9, 2021, 1:40:48 PM5/9/21
to
Dan Christensen's don't be a victim of James Leech, Arthur McDonald & Queen's Univ with their never a geometry proof of calculus, and their mindless 0.5MeV electron when electron is really the muon.
On Sunday, May 9, 2021 at 8:59:58 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
>
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
135,568 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron of atoms is the muon.
By Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 11:51:19 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
On Wednesday, March 3, 2021 at 8:40:05 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
>flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test:
> Use any aids. Answer in the space provided.
> 2. True or false: 60
AP writes: Say Dan, how can anyone believe you when you cannot even get correct what is distinct and what is not.
Remember the time the Dan Christensen could not tell the difference between distinct and nondistinct.
On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:08:09 AM UTC-6, Peter Percival wrote:
> Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:47:32 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 8:27:19 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:16:52 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >>>> PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra, Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector
> >>>>
> >>>> The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any two points lies a third new point.
> >>>
> >>> The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points."
> >>>
> >>
> >> What a monsterous fool you are
> >>
> >
> > OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it.
>
> And yet Mr Plutonium is right. Two points are distinct (else they would
> be one) and it is not necessary to say so.
>
Preface:
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. Sad that starting 1900, Planck showed that Space is discrete in physics, not continuous, leading to the rise of Quantum Mechanics. But the fools of mathematics went the opposite direction in wanting ever more a continuum in mathematics. They spent the entire 20th century riding high on Cohen's depraved continuum. You could almost say that starting 1900, the people in mathematics compared to those in physics would become more and more ignorant and further estranged, and that a widening schism rift separated math from physics, from the realities of the actual world as the future centuries rolled by. And who knows where this rift would leave math as a decreasing vim and vigor of math. Will it end in math becoming a third or fourth tier science, ranking it above say economics but far below even psychology, because much of math proof is kook psychology acceptance divorced of reality. In this view, physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, even geology ranked far higher in power and wisdom than math. We all know that the hard sciences have as their "final judge of truth value" have experiments to prove one way or the other. And that mathematics never had this hard core truth value of judge linked with the rest of the experiential world at large, no, what math had as judge is "other mathematicians chiming in and saying-- that is good, but only good because each of them will get more money and fame". And obviously a judging of truth or falsity by a country club of mathematicians is never really a good judge at all. Because often, the kook who is pushing something in math, can easily find a country club of kooks to judge his work as true when in reality it is hideously wrong. Take the example of the slant cut in a single cone started by Apollonius in Ancient Greek times, where he declared it was a ellipse when in truth, over 2,000 years later, AP would discover it is really a oval, never the ellipse. Apollonius never actually took a cone model of a folded up paper placing a circle lid inside and seeing that the circle when tilted leaves a crescent shape gap-- a oval. You need a slant cut in the cylinder to get a ellipse. So in that lesson of oval, we can see that mathematics is mostly a kook judgement call, unlike physics such as in 1989 or thereabouts, a pair of electrochemists declared they had found fusion in a test tube using palladium. Only thing was, the judge of physics is not more kooks like it is in mathematics. The judge in physics is --- experiment and experiment --- and 10 years later after 1989, experiments declared that Pons and Fleischmann were wrong. Math never had that experiment-judge, math always had a country club of kooks chiming in agreement that something in math is good or is bad. Because math has no foundation in experience of a experimental world? Meaning, math is more of kook philosophy, more of imagination and ideas not concrete to be tested in a reality based world. Physics is a reality-experience-science and grounded in reality by doing experiments, not the imagination gone wild by a band of kooks out for fame, more money and fortune.
Length: 38 pages
Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1235 KB
Queen's physics
Alexander Braun, Tucker Carrington Jr., Mark C. Chen, Lynann Clapham, Stephane Courteau, Mark Daymond, Philippe Di Stefano, Marc Dignam, James Fraser, Jun Gao, Gilles Gerbier, Jeffrey Giacomin, R.J. Gooding, Stephen Hughes, Judith Irwin, Robert Knobel, Thomas Krause, Kayll W. Lake, Alastair B. McLean, Jordan Morelli, Nick Mosey, A.J. Noble, Jean Michel Nunzi, Gregg Wade
Queen's math
Oleg I. Bogoyavlenskij, Troy Day, Ernst Kani, Boris Levit, Andrew D. Lewis, Tamas Linder, Abdol-Reza Mansouri, James A. Mingo, M. Ram Murty, Mike Roth, Gregory G. Smith, Peter Taylor, Noriko Yui, Serdar Yuksel
Univ Western Ontario math dept
Janusz Adamus, Tatyana Barron, Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon, Matthias Franz, John Jardine, Massoud Khalkhali, Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon
Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz
President Alan Shepard
Amit Chakma (chem engr)
Univ. Western Ontario physics dept
Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang
UWO psychology dept Patrick Brown, Peter Denny, William Fisher, Robert Gardner, Doug Hazlewood, Elizabeth Hampson, Albert Katz, Martin Kavaliers, Nicholas Kuiper, Rod Martin, Greg Moran, Harry Murray, Richard W.J. Neufeld, James Olson, Klaus-Peter Ossenkopp, David Pederson, Susan Pepper, William Roberts, Gary Rollman, Clive Seligman, David Sherry, Marvin Simner, Richard Sorrentino, Brian Timney, Tutis Vilis
Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker, Henry M. Van Driel, David J. Rowe, John W. Moffat, John F. Martin, Robert K. Logan, Albert E. Litherland, Roland List, Philipp Kronberg, James King, Anthony W. Key, Bob Holdom, Ron M. Farquhar, R. Nigel Edwards, David J. Dunlop, James Drummond, Tom E. Drake, R.Fraser Code, Richard C. Bailey, Robin Armstrong
Chancellor Rose M. Patten
Pres. Meric Gertler
Univ Toronto math dept
Mustafa Akcoglu, Spyros Alexakis, Edward Barbeau, Thomas Bloom, Man-Duen Choi, Stephen Cook, Chandler Davis, Nicholas Derzko, Eric Ellers, Ilya Gekhtman, Ian Graham, Steve Halpern, Wahidul Haque, Abe Igelfeld, Velimir Jurdjevic, Ivan Kupka, Anthony Lam, Michael Lorimer, James McCool, Eric Mendelsohn, Kunio Murasugi, Jeremy Quastel, Peter Rosenthal, Paul Selick, Dipak Sen, Rick Sharpe, Stuart Smith, Frank Tall, Steve Tanny
Cornell Univ physics:
Jim Alexander, Tomas Arias, Ivan Bazarov, Eberhard Bodenschatz, Debanjan Chowdhury, Itai Cohen, Csaba Csaki, Veit Elser, Eanna Flanagan, Carl Franck, Lawrence Gibbons, Paul Ginsparg, Yuval Grossman, Thomas Hartman, Georg Hoffstaetter, Natasha Holmes, Chao-Ming Jian, Eun-Ah Kim, Michael Lawler, Andre Leclair, Peter Lepage, Stephen Levy, Matthias Liepe, Kin Fai Mak, Jared Maxson, Liam McAllister, Paul McEuen, Erich Mueller, Christopher Myers, Michael Niemack, Matthias Neubert, Katja Nowack, Jeevak Parpia, Ritchie Patterson, Maxim Perelstein, Daniel Ralph, Brad Ramshaw, David Rubin, Anders Ryd, James Sethna, Jie Shan, Kyle Shen, Eric Siggia, Saul Teukolsky, Julia Thom-Levy, Robert Thorne, Cyrus Umrigar, Jane Wang, Michelle Wang, Ira Wasserman, Peter Wittich
List of 60 fakes & errors of Old Math
AP's List of 60 fakes and mistakes of Old Math.
These can be found in AP's TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS series.
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, 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. Mathematics is finished complete as far as a science goes.
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.
1) No curves exist in Geometry, only finer and smaller straight line segments attached to one another.
2) 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.
3) 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.
4) 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.
5) 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.
6) 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.
7) 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.
8) 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.
9) 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.
10) Ellipse is never a conic slant cut, always a cylinder slant cut.
11) 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.
12) All of Old Logic such as the textbooks by Copi and Boole and Jevons with their messed up operators such as 10 OR 4 = 14 with AND as subtraction, are thrown out onto the rubbish pile of shame. Set theory is thrown out completely, although we can use the word "set" to mean collection, group. All of Cantor set theory is phony baloney, not worth reading.
13) 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.
14) Irrationals thrown out completely (ditto to Rationals and Negative numbers).
15) Reals thrown out completely (ditto).
16) Imaginary numbers and Complex numbers are b.s. and thrown out completely.
17) 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.
18) 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).
19) 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.
20) 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.
21) 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.
22) 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.
23) 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.
24) Galois Algebra of Group, Ring, Field a fakery and waste of time.
25) Dimension stops at 3rd, and 3rd is the last and highest dimension possible, for there is no 4th or higher dimensions.
26) 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.
27) 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.
28) 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.
29) Parametric Equations thrown out-- for what need is there of a sack of dung when all functions are polynomials. Interchanging equation with function.
30) Graph theory-- 90% worthless for it is based on the fakery of continuum.
31) 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.
32) We definitely throw out all Old Math Calculus textbooks as mostly propaganda, based on the silly Limit and the Continuum.
33) We throw out the Euclidean Axioms of Geometry and start anew, with axioms based on Physics as geometry truth.
34) Fractal theory totally junk and a waste-- uses ill-defined infinity.
35) Vector Calculus (not the vector concept itself), Chaos theory, Complex Analysis, utter junk and waste of time since polynomial theory covers all functions.
36) Differential geometry, Measure theory fakery since they never had the correct numbers of math, and they had the fakery continuum.
37) 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.
38) 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.
39) 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.
40) 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.
41) 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.
42) 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.
43) 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.
44) 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.
45) 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.
46) 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.
47) 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.
48) 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.
49) 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.
50) 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.
51) 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.
52) 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.
53) 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
54) 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.
55) 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.
56) 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.
57) 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.
58) A well defined oval as being two parabolas joined at their widest width circle.
59) 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.
60) 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.
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
More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, postings 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 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, 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.
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum
AP
On Sunday, May 9, 2021 at 8:59:58 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
>
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
By Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 11:51:19 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 9:00:27 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
On Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 9:25:05 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
On Friday, April 16, 2021 at 8:37:13 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
Dan what would you say the worst mistake of Queen's Univ was? Was it -- never a geometry proof of fundamental theorem of calculus and one has to wonder if Queen's Univ ever was a center of math education, or their foolish belief the Dirac magnetic monopole of 0.5MeV was the atom's electron (what fools are these?) just all stalker's suppression chamber with the likes of Dan Christensen with his 10 OR 2=12 with AND as subtraction.
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
On Wednesday, March 3, 2021 at 8:40:05 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
>flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test:
> Use any aids. Answer in the space provided.
> 2. True or false: 60
AP writes: Say Dan, how can anyone believe you when you cannot even get correct what is distinct and what is not.
Remember the time the Dan Christensen could not tell the difference between distinct and nondistinct.
On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:08:09 AM UTC-6, Peter Percival wrote:
> Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:47:32 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 8:27:19 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:16:52 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >>>> PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra, Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector
> >>>>
> >>>> The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any two points lies a third new point.
> >>>
> >>> The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points."
> >>>
> >>
> >> What a monsterous fool you are
> >>
> >
> > OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it.
>
> And yet Mr Plutonium is right. Two points are distinct (else they would
> be one) and it is not necessary to say so.
>
2nd published book
True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere.
Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule.
Length: 1150 pages
Product details
• File Size : 2167 KB
• ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ
• Publication Date : March 11, 2019
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 1150 pages
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#181 in General Chemistry & Reference
#1324 in General Chemistry
#1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)
True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere.
Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule.
Length: 1150 pages
Product details
• File Size : 2167 KB
• ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ
• Publication Date : March 11, 2019
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 1150 pages
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#181 in General Chemistry & Reference
#1324 in General Chemistry
#1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)
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 14Mar2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Preface:
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. Sad that starting 1900, Planck showed that Space is discrete in physics, not continuous, leading to the rise of Quantum Mechanics. But the fools of mathematics went the opposite direction in wanting ever more a continuum in mathematics. They spent the entire 20th century riding high on Cohen's depraved continuum. You could almost say that starting 1900, the people in mathematics compared to those in physics would become more and more ignorant and further estranged, and that a widening schism rift separated math from physics, from the realities of the actual world as the future centuries rolled by. And who knows where this rift would leave math as a decreasing vim and vigor of math. Will it end in math becoming a third or fourth tier science, ranking it above say economics but far below even psychology, because much of math proof is kook psychology acceptance divorced of reality. In this view, physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, even geology ranked far higher in power and wisdom than math. We all know that the hard sciences have as their "final judge of truth value" have experiments to prove one way or the other. And that mathematics never had this hard core truth value of judge linked with the rest of the experiential world at large, no, what math had as judge is "other mathematicians chiming in and saying-- that is good, but only good because each of them will get more money and fame". And obviously a judging of truth or falsity by a country club of mathematicians is never really a good judge at all. Because often, the kook who is pushing something in math, can easily find a country club of kooks to judge his work as true when in reality it is hideously wrong. Take the example of the slant cut in a single cone started by Apollonius in Ancient Greek times, where he declared it was a ellipse when in truth, over 2,000 years later, AP would discover it is really a oval, never the ellipse. Apollonius never actually took a cone model of a folded up paper placing a circle lid inside and seeing that the circle when tilted leaves a crescent shape gap-- a oval. You need a slant cut in the cylinder to get a ellipse. So in that lesson of oval, we can see that mathematics is mostly a kook judgement call, unlike physics such as in 1989 or thereabouts, a pair of electrochemists declared they had found fusion in a test tube using palladium. Only thing was, the judge of physics is not more kooks like it is in mathematics. The judge in physics is --- experiment and experiment --- and 10 years later after 1989, experiments declared that Pons and Fleischmann were wrong. Math never had that experiment-judge, math always had a country club of kooks chiming in agreement that something in math is good or is bad. Because math has no foundation in experience of a experimental world? Meaning, math is more of kook philosophy, more of imagination and ideas not concrete to be tested in a reality based world. Physics is a reality-experience-science and grounded in reality by doing experiments, not the imagination gone wild by a band of kooks out for fame, more money and fortune.
Length: 38 pages
Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 38 pages
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
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)
Queen's Univ
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)
Queen's physics
Alexander Braun, Tucker Carrington Jr., Mark C. Chen, Lynann Clapham, Stephane Courteau, Mark Daymond, Philippe Di Stefano, Marc Dignam, James Fraser, Jun Gao, Gilles Gerbier, Jeffrey Giacomin, R.J. Gooding, Stephen Hughes, Judith Irwin, Robert Knobel, Thomas Krause, Kayll W. Lake, Alastair B. McLean, Jordan Morelli, Nick Mosey, A.J. Noble, Jean Michel Nunzi, Gregg Wade
Queen's math
Oleg I. Bogoyavlenskij, Troy Day, Ernst Kani, Boris Levit, Andrew D. Lewis, Tamas Linder, Abdol-Reza Mansouri, James A. Mingo, M. Ram Murty, Mike Roth, Gregory G. Smith, Peter Taylor, Noriko Yui, Serdar Yuksel
Univ Western Ontario math dept
Janusz Adamus, Tatyana Barron, Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon, Matthias Franz, John Jardine, Massoud Khalkhali, Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon
Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz
President Alan Shepard
Amit Chakma (chem engr)
Univ. Western Ontario physics dept
Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang
UWO psychology dept Patrick Brown, Peter Denny, William Fisher, Robert Gardner, Doug Hazlewood, Elizabeth Hampson, Albert Katz, Martin Kavaliers, Nicholas Kuiper, Rod Martin, Greg Moran, Harry Murray, Richard W.J. Neufeld, James Olson, Klaus-Peter Ossenkopp, David Pederson, Susan Pepper, William Roberts, Gary Rollman, Clive Seligman, David Sherry, Marvin Simner, Richard Sorrentino, Brian Timney, Tutis Vilis
Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker, Henry M. Van Driel, David J. Rowe, John W. Moffat, John F. Martin, Robert K. Logan, Albert E. Litherland, Roland List, Philipp Kronberg, James King, Anthony W. Key, Bob Holdom, Ron M. Farquhar, R. Nigel Edwards, David J. Dunlop, James Drummond, Tom E. Drake, R.Fraser Code, Richard C. Bailey, Robin Armstrong
Chancellor Rose M. Patten
Pres. Meric Gertler
Univ Toronto math dept
Mustafa Akcoglu, Spyros Alexakis, Edward Barbeau, Thomas Bloom, Man-Duen Choi, Stephen Cook, Chandler Davis, Nicholas Derzko, Eric Ellers, Ilya Gekhtman, Ian Graham, Steve Halpern, Wahidul Haque, Abe Igelfeld, Velimir Jurdjevic, Ivan Kupka, Anthony Lam, Michael Lorimer, James McCool, Eric Mendelsohn, Kunio Murasugi, Jeremy Quastel, Peter Rosenthal, Paul Selick, Dipak Sen, Rick Sharpe, Stuart Smith, Frank Tall, Steve Tanny
Cornell Univ physics:
Jim Alexander, Tomas Arias, Ivan Bazarov, Eberhard Bodenschatz, Debanjan Chowdhury, Itai Cohen, Csaba Csaki, Veit Elser, Eanna Flanagan, Carl Franck, Lawrence Gibbons, Paul Ginsparg, Yuval Grossman, Thomas Hartman, Georg Hoffstaetter, Natasha Holmes, Chao-Ming Jian, Eun-Ah Kim, Michael Lawler, Andre Leclair, Peter Lepage, Stephen Levy, Matthias Liepe, Kin Fai Mak, Jared Maxson, Liam McAllister, Paul McEuen, Erich Mueller, Christopher Myers, Michael Niemack, Matthias Neubert, Katja Nowack, Jeevak Parpia, Ritchie Patterson, Maxim Perelstein, Daniel Ralph, Brad Ramshaw, David Rubin, Anders Ryd, James Sethna, Jie Shan, Kyle Shen, Eric Siggia, Saul Teukolsky, Julia Thom-Levy, Robert Thorne, Cyrus Umrigar, Jane Wang, Michelle Wang, Ira Wasserman, Peter Wittich
List of 60 fakes & errors of Old Math
AP's List of 60 fakes and mistakes of Old Math.
These can be found in AP's TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS series.
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, 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. Mathematics is finished complete as far as a science goes.
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.
1) No curves exist in Geometry, only finer and smaller straight line segments attached to one another.
2) 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.
3) 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.
4) 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.
5) 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.
6) 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.
7) 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.
8) 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.
9) 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.
10) Ellipse is never a conic slant cut, always a cylinder slant cut.
11) 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.
12) All of Old Logic such as the textbooks by Copi and Boole and Jevons with their messed up operators such as 10 OR 4 = 14 with AND as subtraction, are thrown out onto the rubbish pile of shame. Set theory is thrown out completely, although we can use the word "set" to mean collection, group. All of Cantor set theory is phony baloney, not worth reading.
13) 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.
14) Irrationals thrown out completely (ditto to Rationals and Negative numbers).
15) Reals thrown out completely (ditto).
16) Imaginary numbers and Complex numbers are b.s. and thrown out completely.
17) 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.
18) 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).
19) 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.
20) 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.
21) 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.
22) 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.
23) 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.
24) Galois Algebra of Group, Ring, Field a fakery and waste of time.
25) Dimension stops at 3rd, and 3rd is the last and highest dimension possible, for there is no 4th or higher dimensions.
26) 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.
27) 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.
28) 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.
29) Parametric Equations thrown out-- for what need is there of a sack of dung when all functions are polynomials. Interchanging equation with function.
30) Graph theory-- 90% worthless for it is based on the fakery of continuum.
31) 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.
32) We definitely throw out all Old Math Calculus textbooks as mostly propaganda, based on the silly Limit and the Continuum.
33) We throw out the Euclidean Axioms of Geometry and start anew, with axioms based on Physics as geometry truth.
34) Fractal theory totally junk and a waste-- uses ill-defined infinity.
35) Vector Calculus (not the vector concept itself), Chaos theory, Complex Analysis, utter junk and waste of time since polynomial theory covers all functions.
36) Differential geometry, Measure theory fakery since they never had the correct numbers of math, and they had the fakery continuum.
37) 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.
38) 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.
39) 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.
40) 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.
41) 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.
42) 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.
43) 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.
44) 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.
45) 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.
46) 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.
47) 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.
48) 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.
49) 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.
50) 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.
51) 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.
52) 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.
53) 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
54) 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.
55) 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.
56) 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.
57) 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.
58) A well defined oval as being two parabolas joined at their widest width circle.
59) 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.
60) 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.
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
More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, postings 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 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, 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.
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
May 24, 2021, 1:46:01 PM5/24/21
to
Google, please change your search hits to reflect Balanced News. It is unacceptable that you have Terence Tao search in Google with the first 100,000 hits of articles that mention Tao as -- genius-- in the first paragraph. Unacceptable. For the fact
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Subscribe
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
12:00 PM (1 hour ago)
to
Google, please change your search hits to reflect Balanced News. It is unacceptable that you have Terence Tao search in Google with the first 100,000 hits of articles that mention Tao as -- genius-- in the first paragraph. Unacceptable. For the fact that Terence Tao could never do a Geometry Proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, could never do a valid proof of FTC, Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, needs to be in the first 10 Google hits of Terence Tao. The fact that Terence Tao is too stupid to do FTC a valid proof, along with the fact that Terence Tao still believes in Boole Logic, errors and all, for he has to use Logic to even consider a math proof, and his AND connective is terribly wrong. Boole's AND truth table of TFFF, when the crazy Boole messed up and the AND table is really TTTF, because given a string of statements, if just one statement is true, the entire string is true. But Terence Tao is deaf dumb and silent as to proper reasoning, proper logic and too stupid to correct the massive Boole mistakes. For the Boole error ends up as 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as a form of subtraction.
Google searches should be BALANCED just like the PBS and all respected news journalism. The fact that Terence Tao as mathematician cannot be bothered to verify that you slip a Kerr or Mason lid inside a homebuilt paper cone and see for yourself the slant cut in a single cone is never a ellipse, always a oval, needs to be in Terence Tao's first 10 Google hits.
The same goes for Andrew Wiles, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell. Google, please stop this Unbalanced and huge Bias in your Search Engines where you demonize AP and stack his hits by goofballs like Scott Contini, Kibo Parry, Sam Maksimovich, Pezevenk, stack AP's hits by attack dogs rather than Balanced Reporting.
The four lunatics of reddit/math, Terry Tao, Scott Contini, Sam Maksimovich, none can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, too stupid to even know what that is.
Now is Mr. Pezevenk the fourth lunatic, missing out on his fair share of lunaticing, for I do remember now that there were 4 Stooges although the TV show said 3 Stooges.
ScottContini reddit/math
King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium meets lunatics Terry Tao in 1994 and Scott Contini 2021, with tap dancing Mr. Pezevenk talking about Riemann hypothesis as a lavatory.
Reddit Sam Maksimovich, 3 weeks ago from 22May,2021
Question Scott and Sam, why has Terry Tao the failure of mathematics never able to give you a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. AP has done one in 2015, and is Reddit 6 years behind the times, behind in science. Do they call you the 3 Lunatics of Reddit??
The three lunatics of reddit/math, Terry Tao, Scott Contini, Sam Maksimovich, none can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, too stupid to even know what that is.
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
On Saturday, May 22, 2021 at 6:43:36 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
> Stooge"
>"Drag Queen of Science"
> tarded:
> That's why you are a shit for brains
>You can't tell the
> difference between an electron and Dirac's monopole, or an electron from
> a muon. It should be easy, since the magnetic monopole
>
> You need to learn the difference between reality and your flashback
> hallucinations. Also during your hippie days, didn't anyone ever tell
> you not to lick the LSD tabs with "Goofy" on them? Bad trips, man!
On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 3:33:30 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> Poor, demented
Dan, this is probably a nice test for Kibo Parry Moroney but don't you think Andrew Wiles, Jill Pipher, Thomas Hales are beyond this?
> >
> > 2. True or false: 10^604 = 0 ____________
> >
> > 3. If A is true and B is false, then A AND B is ____________ (true or false).
> >
> > 4. If A is true and B is true, then A OR B is ____________ (true or false).
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
> Re: 135,566 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron o
> by
> Michael Moroney
>
>
> by Michael Moroney
> Re: TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS series by Archimedes Plutonium, only math books to teach correct calculus with a geometry proof of Fundamental theorem of Calculus. Old Math cannot even fix its mistake of ellipse is a cylinder section, never a conic.
>
> by Michael Moroney
> Re: 5-AP's 150th book// TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Freshperson College// Physics textbook series, book 4 by Archimedes Plutonium// Using as template Halliday& Resnick & AP's Senior year High School to AP's 150th book// TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//
>
>
> by Michael Moroney
> Re: Zelos asks why Harvard's Dr. Hau wants to fail in physics, by not turning off the light to see if light wave is a closed loop pencil ellipse that AP predicts. Is Dr.Hau stubborn and too ignorant to finish her experiment??
>
> Re: Drs. Sigurdur Helgason, Anette Hosoi, David Jerison of MIT are you as dumb as Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = monopole
> By Michael Moroney 14 posts 94 views updated 10:57 PM
>
> Re: Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly??-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole
> By Michael Moroney 49 posts 519 views updated 2:19 AM
>
> Re: Racist-math at Reed College-- ellipse is never a conic, David Perkinson, Lyudmila Korobenko, John Lind, Dylan McNamee, Kyle Ormsby, Angelica Osorno
> By Michael Moroney 55 posts 419 views updated 2:18 AM
>
>
>
> Re: Cambridge, Harvard, Stanford, MIT, CalTech never does correct Logic, why an unpaid Archimedes Plutonium is doing their work
> By Michael Moroney 24 posts 176 views updated 2:17 AM
>
>
> Re: Erik sickfuck Eastside says>oil & vinegar// UCLA Physics with their imbecile electron--Gene D. Block,Ernest Abers,Elihu Abrahams, too stupid to understand Real Proton = 840 MeV with electron= muon and .5MeV was Dirac magnetic monopole
> By Michael Moroney 39 posts 288 views updated 2:16 AM
>
> Re: 8Der_FartMouth Births-comics for Eric FartFrancis, with snickering by George FartWitte published by ST FARTMARTINS
> By Michael Moroney 32 posts 430 views updated 2:15 AM
>
>
> Re: If Marissa Mayer were still at Google-- probably take her 15 minutes to engineer a better newsgroup
> By Michael Moroney 28 posts 188 views updated 2:14 AM
>
>
> Re: 6Der_FartMouth Births-comics for Eric FartFrancis, with snickering by George FartWitte published by ST FARTMARTINS
> By Michael Moroney 29 posts 307 views updated 2:13 AM
>
>
>
>
> Re: 6Der_FartMouth Births-comics for Eric FartFrancis, with snickering by George FartWitte published by ST FARTMARTINS
> By Michael Moroney 28 posts 292 views updated 12:31 PM
>
>
> Re: L. Reif, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker, Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins-- Moroney-- Boston's antiscience stalker fool//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole
> By Michael Moroney 19 posts 120 views updated 12:28 PM
>
>
>
> Re: If Marissa Mayer were still at Google-- probably take her 15 minutes to engineer a better newsgroup
> By Michael Moroney 20 posts 156 views updated 12:26 PM
>
>
> Re: 8Der_FartMouth Births-comics for Eric FartFrancis, with snickering by George FartWitte published by ST FARTMARTINS
> By Michael Moroney 29 posts 422 views updated 12:25 PM
>
>
> Re: Erik sickfuck Eastside says>oil & vinegar// UCLA Physics with their imbecile electron--Gene D. Block,Ernest Abers,Elihu Abrahams, too stupid to understand Real Proton = 840 MeV with electron= muon and .5MeV was Dirac magnetic monopole
> By Michael Moroney 34 posts 244 views updated 12:23 PM
>
>
> Re: Cambridge, Harvard, Stanford, MIT, CalTech never does correct Logic, why an unpaid Archimedes Plutonium is doing their work
> By Michael Moroney 20 posts 165 views updated 12:22 PM
>
>
> Re: Racist-math at Reed College-- ellipse is never a conic, David Perkinson, Lyudmila Korobenko, John Lind, Dylan McNamee, Kyle Ormsby, Angelica Osorno
> By Michael Moroney 50 posts 405 views updated 12:21 PM
>
>
> Re: Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly??-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole (1)
> By Michael Moroney 44 posts 461 views updated 12:17 PM
>
>
> Re: Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test
> 2/8/18
> By Michael Moroney 37 posts 427 views updated 2:04 PM
>
> On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 10:52:43 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >Stooge"
> > tarded:
>
> Kibo Parry Moroney has been a 28 year nonstop stalker. Probably paid more to stalk than college professors paid to actually teach physics in classrooms.
> by
> Michael Moroney
>
> Oct 28, 2017, 11:55:50 PM
>
>
> Cornell a sicko school? Re: Cornell Univ like Christensen, an education parasite //with their 3 OR 2= 5 while their 3 AND 2 = 1, embracing the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both
> by
> Michael Moroney
> Jan 18, 2019, 4:59:49 PM
>
> Re: Drs.Benedict Gross, Joseph Harris of Harvard, are you as dumb as Moroney never realizing the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV,monopole=.5MeV // 12 proofs below
> by
> Michael Moroney
> Jan 2, 2018, 11:15:07 AM
>
>
>
> Re: Drs.Hugh Woodin,Horng-Tzer Yau of Harvard, never a Picture of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus//are you as dumb as Moroney//your students deserve better
> by
> Michael Moroney
>
> Dec 29, 2017, 9:04:44 AM
>
>
>
> Re: the most stupid poster of logic in sci.math for decade-- Dan Christensen, that insane Canadian stalker
> by
> Michael Moroney
> Dec 24, 2017, 1:15:41 AM
>
>
> Re: chemistry cannot exist with electron .5 to 938 MeV Re: Drs.Thomas Rosenbaum John Schwarz Kip Thorne of CalTech/never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac monopole
> by
> Michael Moroney
> Jan 25, 2018, 11:36:09 AM
>
>
>
>
>
> Re: Jeff Relf, Seattle offtopic shithead spammer says Democrats value tortured South Korean Moon Bears at trillions of dollars, while Republicans rather have rats than Moon Bears
> By
> Michael Moroney May 10, 2021
>
>
>
> Re: South Korea frees Moon Bears, due to Ayaz apology. Glory to God Almighty, South Korea finally freeing their tortured Moon Bears
> I happened to see a video of a moon bear that was freed from a bile farm (in Vietnam). Nice to see,
> By Michael Moroney May 9, 2021, 9:48 PM
>
>
>
> Re: Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly??-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole
> 1/23/18
> By Michael Moroney
>
>
> Moroney says autism // Jeffrey Goldstone, Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins//never realizing Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole
> 3/4/18
> By Michael Moroney
>
>
>
> Re: unpaid AP doing the world's finest logic, while Cambridge, Stanford, Harvard, Yale, Princeton teach dunce Logic
> 10/28/17
> By Michael Moroney
>
>
> Re: MIT's Dr.Martin Bazant, Harvard's Dr.Dennis Gaitsgory-- time you take your full responsibilities as science educator and deal with science failures Michael Moroney
> 8 posts by 2 authors
> 12/4/17
> By Michael Moroney
>
>
>
> Drs.L. Reif, Victor Kac, Irwin Pless of MIT, teach percentages correctly-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole
> 20 posts by 3 authors
> By Michael Moroney
>
>
>
>
> Re: 8Der_FartMouth Births-comics for Eric FartFrancis, with snickering by George FartWitte published by ST FARTMARTINS
> 20 posts by 2 authors
> 4/9/18
> By Michael Moroney
ScottContini reddit/math
King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium meets lunatics Terry Tao in 1994 and Scott Contini 2021, with tap dancing Mr. Pezevenk talking about Riemann hypothesis as a lavatory.
Reddit Sam Maksimovich, 3 weeks ago from 22May,2021
Question Scott and Sam, why has Terry Tao the failure of mathematics never able to give you a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. AP has done one in 2015, and is Reddit 6 years behind the times, behind in science. Do they call you the 3 Lunatics of Reddit??
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
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Subscribe
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
12:00 PM (1 hour ago)
to
Google, please change your search hits to reflect Balanced News. It is unacceptable that you have Terence Tao search in Google with the first 100,000 hits of articles that mention Tao as -- genius-- in the first paragraph. Unacceptable. For the fact that Terence Tao could never do a Geometry Proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, could never do a valid proof of FTC, Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, needs to be in the first 10 Google hits of Terence Tao. The fact that Terence Tao is too stupid to do FTC a valid proof, along with the fact that Terence Tao still believes in Boole Logic, errors and all, for he has to use Logic to even consider a math proof, and his AND connective is terribly wrong. Boole's AND truth table of TFFF, when the crazy Boole messed up and the AND table is really TTTF, because given a string of statements, if just one statement is true, the entire string is true. But Terence Tao is deaf dumb and silent as to proper reasoning, proper logic and too stupid to correct the massive Boole mistakes. For the Boole error ends up as 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as a form of subtraction.
Google searches should be BALANCED just like the PBS and all respected news journalism. The fact that Terence Tao as mathematician cannot be bothered to verify that you slip a Kerr or Mason lid inside a homebuilt paper cone and see for yourself the slant cut in a single cone is never a ellipse, always a oval, needs to be in Terence Tao's first 10 Google hits.
The same goes for Andrew Wiles, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell. Google, please stop this Unbalanced and huge Bias in your Search Engines where you demonize AP and stack his hits by goofballs like Scott Contini, Kibo Parry, Sam Maksimovich, Pezevenk, stack AP's hits by attack dogs rather than Balanced Reporting.
The four lunatics of reddit/math, Terry Tao, Scott Contini, Sam Maksimovich, none can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, too stupid to even know what that is.
Now is Mr. Pezevenk the fourth lunatic, missing out on his fair share of lunaticing, for I do remember now that there were 4 Stooges although the TV show said 3 Stooges.
ScottContini reddit/math
King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium meets lunatics Terry Tao in 1994 and Scott Contini 2021, with tap dancing Mr. Pezevenk talking about Riemann hypothesis as a lavatory.
Reddit Sam Maksimovich, 3 weeks ago from 22May,2021
Question Scott and Sam, why has Terry Tao the failure of mathematics never able to give you a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. AP has done one in 2015, and is Reddit 6 years behind the times, behind in science. Do they call you the 3 Lunatics of Reddit??
The three lunatics of reddit/math, Terry Tao, Scott Contini, Sam Maksimovich, none can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, too stupid to even know what that is.
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.
Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 137 pages
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
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)
Kibo Parry Moroney on--tarded, shit for brains// Terence Tao, Andrew Wiles, Thomas Hales so dumb and stupid in math that none of them can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
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)
On Saturday, May 22, 2021 at 6:43:36 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
> fails at math and science:
On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 7:21:29 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"Drag Queen of Science"
> tarded:
> That's why you are a shit for brains
>You can't tell the
> difference between an electron and Dirac's monopole, or an electron from
> a muon. It should be easy, since the magnetic monopole
>
> You need to learn the difference between reality and your flashback
> hallucinations. Also during your hippie days, didn't anyone ever tell
> you not to lick the LSD tabs with "Goofy" on them? Bad trips, man!
On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 3:33:30 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> Poor, demented
Dan, this is probably a nice test for Kibo Parry Moroney but don't you think Andrew Wiles, Jill Pipher, Thomas Hales are beyond this?
On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 10:37:45 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > Use any aids. Answer in the space provided.
> >
> > 1. What is the sine of 45 degrees to 3 decimal places? ____________
> > Use any aids. Answer in the space provided.
> >
> >
> > 2. True or false: 10^604 = 0 ____________
> >
> > 3. If A is true and B is false, then A AND B is ____________ (true or false).
> >
> > 4. If A is true and B is true, then A OR B is ____________ (true or false).
> >
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.
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.
Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 137 pages
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
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)
AP writes: it is not as if a geometry proof of calculus is difficult and hard, no. And everyone in math knows Calculus is geometry. The trouble is most everyone in math has no logical brains to be doing math such as Tao, Wiles and Hales who run around looking for fame and fortune by foisting their latest con-artist nonsense, foist that into the public domain to reap more fame and fortune when those three imps and nitwits of math cannot even do a geometry proof of calculus. So retched dumb are these three in mathematics that they have no time to even entertain the idea that Fundamental theorem of Calculus requires a geometry proof. No, instead these three imps of math con artist their "limit analysis".
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)
> Re: 135,566 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron o
> #2-1, 137th published book Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series,
> May 10, 2021
> by
> Michael Moroney
>
>
> by Michael Moroney
> Re: TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS series by Archimedes Plutonium, only math books to teach correct calculus with a geometry proof of Fundamental theorem of Calculus. Old Math cannot even fix its mistake of ellipse is a cylinder section, never a conic.
>
> by Michael Moroney
> Re: 5-AP's 150th book// TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Freshperson College// Physics textbook series, book 4 by Archimedes Plutonium// Using as template Halliday& Resnick & AP's Senior year High School to AP's 150th book// TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//
>
>
> by Michael Moroney
> Re: Zelos asks why Harvard's Dr. Hau wants to fail in physics, by not turning off the light to see if light wave is a closed loop pencil ellipse that AP predicts. Is Dr.Hau stubborn and too ignorant to finish her experiment??
>
> Re: Drs. Sigurdur Helgason, Anette Hosoi, David Jerison of MIT are you as dumb as Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = monopole
> By Michael Moroney 14 posts 94 views updated 10:57 PM
>
> Re: Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly??-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole
> By Michael Moroney 49 posts 519 views updated 2:19 AM
>
> Re: Racist-math at Reed College-- ellipse is never a conic, David Perkinson, Lyudmila Korobenko, John Lind, Dylan McNamee, Kyle Ormsby, Angelica Osorno
> By Michael Moroney 55 posts 419 views updated 2:18 AM
>
>
>
> Re: Cambridge, Harvard, Stanford, MIT, CalTech never does correct Logic, why an unpaid Archimedes Plutonium is doing their work
> By Michael Moroney 24 posts 176 views updated 2:17 AM
>
>
> Re: Erik sickfuck Eastside says>oil & vinegar// UCLA Physics with their imbecile electron--Gene D. Block,Ernest Abers,Elihu Abrahams, too stupid to understand Real Proton = 840 MeV with electron= muon and .5MeV was Dirac magnetic monopole
> By Michael Moroney 39 posts 288 views updated 2:16 AM
>
> Re: 8Der_FartMouth Births-comics for Eric FartFrancis, with snickering by George FartWitte published by ST FARTMARTINS
> By Michael Moroney 32 posts 430 views updated 2:15 AM
>
>
> Re: If Marissa Mayer were still at Google-- probably take her 15 minutes to engineer a better newsgroup
> By Michael Moroney 28 posts 188 views updated 2:14 AM
>
>
> Re: 6Der_FartMouth Births-comics for Eric FartFrancis, with snickering by George FartWitte published by ST FARTMARTINS
> By Michael Moroney 29 posts 307 views updated 2:13 AM
>
>
>
>
> Re: 6Der_FartMouth Births-comics for Eric FartFrancis, with snickering by George FartWitte published by ST FARTMARTINS
> By Michael Moroney 28 posts 292 views updated 12:31 PM
>
>
> Re: L. Reif, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker, Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins-- Moroney-- Boston's antiscience stalker fool//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole
> By Michael Moroney 19 posts 120 views updated 12:28 PM
>
>
>
> Re: If Marissa Mayer were still at Google-- probably take her 15 minutes to engineer a better newsgroup
> By Michael Moroney 20 posts 156 views updated 12:26 PM
>
>
> Re: 8Der_FartMouth Births-comics for Eric FartFrancis, with snickering by George FartWitte published by ST FARTMARTINS
> By Michael Moroney 29 posts 422 views updated 12:25 PM
>
>
> Re: Erik sickfuck Eastside says>oil & vinegar// UCLA Physics with their imbecile electron--Gene D. Block,Ernest Abers,Elihu Abrahams, too stupid to understand Real Proton = 840 MeV with electron= muon and .5MeV was Dirac magnetic monopole
> By Michael Moroney 34 posts 244 views updated 12:23 PM
>
>
> Re: Cambridge, Harvard, Stanford, MIT, CalTech never does correct Logic, why an unpaid Archimedes Plutonium is doing their work
> By Michael Moroney 20 posts 165 views updated 12:22 PM
>
>
> Re: Racist-math at Reed College-- ellipse is never a conic, David Perkinson, Lyudmila Korobenko, John Lind, Dylan McNamee, Kyle Ormsby, Angelica Osorno
> By Michael Moroney 50 posts 405 views updated 12:21 PM
>
>
> Re: Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly??-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole (1)
> By Michael Moroney 44 posts 461 views updated 12:17 PM
>
>
> Re: Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test
> 2/8/18
> By Michael Moroney 37 posts 427 views updated 2:04 PM
>
> On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 10:52:43 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >Stooge"
> > tarded:
>
> Kibo Parry Moroney has been a 28 year nonstop stalker. Probably paid more to stalk than college professors paid to actually teach physics in classrooms.
>
> 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.
>
>
> Re: Cambridge, Harvard, Stanford, MIT, CalTech never does correct Logic, why an unpaid Archimedes Plutonium is doing their work
> 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.
>
>
> by
> Michael Moroney
>
> Oct 28, 2017, 11:55:50 PM
>
>
> Cornell a sicko school? Re: Cornell Univ like Christensen, an education parasite //with their 3 OR 2= 5 while their 3 AND 2 = 1, embracing the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both
> by
> Michael Moroney
> Jan 18, 2019, 4:59:49 PM
>
> Re: Drs.Benedict Gross, Joseph Harris of Harvard, are you as dumb as Moroney never realizing the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV,monopole=.5MeV // 12 proofs below
> by
> Michael Moroney
> Jan 2, 2018, 11:15:07 AM
>
>
>
> Re: Drs.Hugh Woodin,Horng-Tzer Yau of Harvard, never a Picture of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus//are you as dumb as Moroney//your students deserve better
> by
> Michael Moroney
>
> Dec 29, 2017, 9:04:44 AM
>
>
>
> Re: the most stupid poster of logic in sci.math for decade-- Dan Christensen, that insane Canadian stalker
> by
> Michael Moroney
> Dec 24, 2017, 1:15:41 AM
>
>
> Re: chemistry cannot exist with electron .5 to 938 MeV Re: Drs.Thomas Rosenbaum John Schwarz Kip Thorne of CalTech/never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac monopole
> by
> Michael Moroney
> Jan 25, 2018, 11:36:09 AM
>
>
>
>
>
> Re: Jeff Relf, Seattle offtopic shithead spammer says Democrats value tortured South Korean Moon Bears at trillions of dollars, while Republicans rather have rats than Moon Bears
> By
> Michael Moroney May 10, 2021
>
>
>
> Re: South Korea frees Moon Bears, due to Ayaz apology. Glory to God Almighty, South Korea finally freeing their tortured Moon Bears
> I happened to see a video of a moon bear that was freed from a bile farm (in Vietnam). Nice to see,
> By Michael Moroney May 9, 2021, 9:48 PM
>
>
>
> Re: Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly??-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole
> 1/23/18
> By Michael Moroney
>
>
> Moroney says autism // Jeffrey Goldstone, Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins//never realizing Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole
> 3/4/18
> By Michael Moroney
>
>
>
> Re: unpaid AP doing the world's finest logic, while Cambridge, Stanford, Harvard, Yale, Princeton teach dunce Logic
> 10/28/17
> By Michael Moroney
>
>
> Re: MIT's Dr.Martin Bazant, Harvard's Dr.Dennis Gaitsgory-- time you take your full responsibilities as science educator and deal with science failures Michael Moroney
> 8 posts by 2 authors
> 12/4/17
> By Michael Moroney
>
>
>
> Drs.L. Reif, Victor Kac, Irwin Pless of MIT, teach percentages correctly-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole
> 20 posts by 3 authors
> By Michael Moroney
>
>
>
>
> Re: 8Der_FartMouth Births-comics for Eric FartFrancis, with snickering by George FartWitte published by ST FARTMARTINS
> 20 posts by 2 authors
> 4/9/18
> By Michael Moroney
ScottContini reddit/math
King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium meets lunatics Terry Tao in 1994 and Scott Contini 2021, with tap dancing Mr. Pezevenk talking about Riemann hypothesis as a lavatory.
Reddit Sam Maksimovich, 3 weeks ago from 22May,2021
Question Scott and Sam, why has Terry Tao the failure of mathematics never able to give you a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. AP has done one in 2015, and is Reddit 6 years behind the times, behind in science. Do they call you the 3 Lunatics of Reddit??
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.
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
May 24, 2021, 2:37:06 PM5/24/21
to
When Dan Christensen was asked to do a proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, geometrical proof, this was one of his replies--
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 4:52:16 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> I don't know what he has against my namesake at UWO
And AP knew that you cannot get blood out of a turnip for Dan cannot even do Logic--
The stupid Dan Christensen always chokes up when it comes to logic or even just plain commonsense with his 2 OR 1 = 3 and his AND as subtraction.
On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:08:09 AM UTC-6, Peter Percival wrote:
> Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:47:32 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 8:27:19 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:16:52 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >>>> PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra, Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector
> >>>>
> >>>> The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any two points lies a third new point.
> >>>
> >>> The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points."
> >>>
> >>
> >> What a monsterous fool you are
> >>
> >
> > OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it.
>
> And yet Mr Plutonium is right. Two points are distinct (else they would
> be one) and it is not necessary to say so.
>
So AP figured the pay for stalking on newsgroups by Dan Christensen and kibo Parry Moroney must be an enormous amount of pay to keep Kibo Parry stalking for 28 years nonstop. The pay must be so good for Kibo, that he is payed more than the college professors actually teaching math and physics.
On Monday, May 24, 2021 at 9:16:29 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>Stooge"
> tarded:
> So you stalk random professors etc. until they die?
>
> And how do you "tangle with" people who were never here?
And how and why does Kibo Parry Moroney tangle with sci.math and sci.physics when he flunked doing something as easy as math percentages. Did Kibo Parry Moroney flunk Rensselaer also??? Because, well, from the below Kibo Parry Moroney cannot even do the simple math of percentages. Yet he is here, every day stalking in sci.math, sci.physics. And teaching the 7 year long nonstop stalker Dan Christensen how to stalk for 28 years.
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 4:52:16 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> I don't know what he has against my namesake at UWO
And AP knew that you cannot get blood out of a turnip for Dan cannot even do Logic--
The stupid Dan Christensen always chokes up when it comes to logic or even just plain commonsense with his 2 OR 1 = 3 and his AND as subtraction.
On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:08:09 AM UTC-6, Peter Percival wrote:
> Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:47:32 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 8:27:19 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:16:52 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >>>> PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra, Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector
> >>>>
> >>>> The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any two points lies a third new point.
> >>>
> >>> The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points."
> >>>
> >>
> >> What a monsterous fool you are
> >>
> >
> > OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it.
>
> And yet Mr Plutonium is right. Two points are distinct (else they would
> be one) and it is not necessary to say so.
>
On Monday, May 24, 2021 at 9:16:29 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>Stooge"
> tarded:
>
> And how do you "tangle with" people who were never here?
And how and why does Kibo Parry Moroney tangle with sci.math and sci.physics when he flunked doing something as easy as math percentages. Did Kibo Parry Moroney flunk Rensselaer also??? Because, well, from the below Kibo Parry Moroney cannot even do the simple math of percentages. Yet he is here, every day stalking in sci.math, sci.physics. And teaching the 7 year long nonstop stalker Dan Christensen how to stalk for 28 years.
Quantum Bubbles
May 24, 2021, 2:56:32 PM5/24/21
to
"Are you the same Archimedes Plutonium being mentioned on this old blog post?:
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/01/31/where-have-all-the-usenet-kooks-gone/
If so, then wow! You've basically wasted your life in a sense.
I suppose in another sense the stamina is quite impressive and you might get logged in some future internet historian's notes on this kind of behaviour (is that the goal, a kind of thin residual abstract immortality?).
John Gabriel can only fantasize about earning such a historical footnote at this point. He'd be better off trying to save up for a module or two at the Open University, but you can only help people that want to be helped I guess.
We can only hope all of you get well whilst there is still some lead in the pencil.
Kind Regards"
Message has been deleted
Quantum Bubbles
May 29, 2021, 1:42:48 PM5/29/21
to
Archimedes Plutonium
May 29, 2021, 11:26:02 PM5/29/21
to
1-Dan identifies math con-artists of Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, Andrew Wiles, John Stillwell who never did a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, and too dumb in math to even know calculus demands a geometry proof of FTC.
Dan Christensen 7 year nonstop stalker warning on Linda Hasenfratz Western Ontario Univ and why UWO fails in math and physics-- no geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, and no-one intelligent enough to ask if real electron of atoms is muon not the 0.5MeV particle.
Dan Christensen asking Linda Hasenfratz Western Ontario Univ if students wasting time of their life with no geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus at UWO, and no-one intelligent enough to ask if real electron of atoms is muon not 0.5MeV particle.
Re: 7,744-Student victims of Linda Hasenfratz Univ Western Ontario from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz President Alan Shepar
Canadian students victimized by Dan Christensen and his party-- Linda Hasenfratz, Silvia Mittler, Els
11:53 AM 10Apr2021
by Wayne Decarlo
56,831 students wasting their life at Princeton for science/ Ross says// no-one at Princeton able to do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus; no-one at Princeton intelligent enough to ask if real electron of atoms is muon not 0.5MeV.
2nd published book
True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere.
Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule.
Length: 1150 pages
Product details
• File Size : 2167 KB
• ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ
• Publication Date : March 11, 2019
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 1150 pages
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#181 in General Chemistry & Reference
#1324 in General Chemistry
#1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)
Preface: I suppose, going forward, physics should always have a physicsopedia, where major parts of physics are held under question, under suspicion as to correctness. In past history we have called them as "doubters of the mainstream". Yet physics, can have no permanent mainstream. And theories passing as "standard model" is a travesty of science, of logical thinking and just a wide open door of physics corruption and tedious nonsense. The Standard Model of Old Physics is a example of "numerology and algebras turned from circus act into the physics mainstream".
Last revision was 15May2021
1) The picture of electricity and how it works was only truly begun in 2020 with the cover of this book showing electricity as closed loops, hoola hoops and how these loops flow in circuits taking on the shape of those circuits at the speed of light, where the flowing entity are magnetic monopoles-dipoles and photons. Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1
by Archimedes Plutonium.
2) The thoughts and images of electrons in Old Physics and Old Chemistry were horrendously error filled. The first place I see this huge error is in Feynman Lectures on Physics, not that I want to pick on Feynman for he is one of my heroes, but rather I chose Feynman because his Lectures have been translated into almost all languages and his books widely available and known. On page 14-10 of Volume 1, Feynman... And news out of Princeton Univ as of May 2021, where they are finding that the 0.5MeV Dirac magnetic monopole comes in pairs, even though the Princeton researchers are too stupid yet to know that the 0.5MeV particle is not the atom's electron.
3) Old Physics never had a Primal axiom of Physics-- All is atom and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. Old Physics wasted too much time on General Relativity (a fake theory) in the 20th century and too little time on electricity and magnetism.
4) New Physics starts with electricity and magnetism. Old Physics always started with idealizations such as linear momentum, and a force of gravity that had no relation to electricity and magnetism. Idealization physics is more imagination than about the truth of the world.
5) New Physics has the correct particles of physics where the proton is 840MeV, the real electron is the muon of 105MeV and is stuck inside the proton torus thrusting through the proton and producing electricity in the Faraday law. The 0.5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole.
6) The true cosmology theory of science is the Atom Totality theory which began to replace the Big Bang theory starting 1990.
7) Big Bang theory is a joke, never a reality. And a outright contradiction of the Atomic theory, that all matter is composed of atoms. For all matter can be interchanged with "all things". If all things are atoms, then the universe itself , we must admit if we are logical thinkers, is "a thing" and thus the universe must be a atom also. Big Bang contradicts Logic. And if science is anything, it is logical.
8) When you find in the world, a Generalization of All Matter is made up of Atoms. You have to go with the Logic as the truth. If all Matter is atoms, then the Whole of the Universe is Matter, you must continue to the conclusion that the Whole is also an Atom. If you do not make that conclusion, you have to thence say-- All Matter except the Universe, and that is a silly end conclusion.
9) A second major physics fallacy is their screwing up of the 1897 Thomson particle they called the electron of 0.5MeV when it is the Dirac magnetic monopole that Thomson had found. It would not be until 1936 that the true electron of atoms is discovered and called the muon. What the 1897 screw-up mis-identity shows most of all, is that physicists throughout the 20th century never had a handle on what angular momentum means. If you understand angular momentum, you would realize that a proton at 938MeV and electron at 0.5MeV cannot support the existence of a hydrogen atom, or any atom for that sake.
10) Direct consequence of muon being the true electron, determines that the proton is 840MeV and the muon is stuck inside the proton doing a Faraday Law of producing new electricity by turning Space into electromagnetism. This is Dirac's new radioactivity and is the creation of new mass, matter in Space. This means all stars shine not from fusion, but from Faraday Law. Not only do stars grow more massive and bigger, but that all astro-bodies grow bigger. Meaning the Nebular Dust Cloud theory is a gigantic hoax for the growing of the Solar System.
11) Stars shine not from fusion, but from the muon thrusting through its proton coil. Every atom inside a star and every proton in that star is making new electricity from its muon thrusting through its proton 8 ring coil tokamak.
12) A direct consequence that the muon is stuck inside the proton in all experiments, is this Logical Principle, that in physics, every particle or subatomic particle has a function, a job, a task. Principles of Science are some of the most important teachings and understandings in science. One has a logical hole in the head if they think you can have particles of physics, and those particles have no job, no function, no task to perform. Existence in physics means-- a job to do.
13) A New Periodic Table of Chemical Elements must emerge from a mistaken electron as 0.5MeV when it truly is 105MeV, the muon. Such a table is based not on a Lewis structure of 8 but rather on 6. There are 6 successive elements in a row, and only 6 in a row. See AP's book for details: Research Notebook of AP on True Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements based on 6, not the error-filled table of Old Chemistry, Chemistry Series, book 5. The nucleus of atoms are toruses inside larger toruses, not the Rutherford model of a massive nucleus that was sort of stationary. No, the nucleus is a smaller torus going around in circles inside a large torus, and making more electricity.
14) Nebular Dust Cloud theory is purely a hoax, for the Universe has some 10^11 planet systems, and to think that Nebular Dust is spread so evenly throughout the Universe, when supernova are rare, is a colossal logic brain dump. According to Dirac, each and every atom is growing bigger in the universe every second and minute of the day, just as Dirac implied with his "new radioactivities" in his book "Directions in Physics". AP suggests only a half brain would need something as stupid silly as a Nebular Dust Cloud scattered uniformly from rare supernova, here, there, and everywhere.
15) Direct consequence of Faraday law going on inside each and every atom means the Sun will go Red Giant phase starting now and completed in 140 million years where Earth is like Venus-- not habitable by life. Before the end of 1 to 10 million years hence forward of August 2020, if humanity has not colonized Mars, Europa, Pluto, there is a good chance humanity goes extinct.
16) The most important number in all of science for humanity, is the number for the yearly increase in Solar radiation by our Sun. As of year 2020, NASA has the figure pegged at 0.005% yearly increase in total solar radiation. This easily explains a loss of total Insects on Earth at 25% total insect biomass for the past decade. This is a huge alarm bell, for it means, unless humanity makes its future home on Europa, Mars and Pluto, the entire human species goes extinct, and as the Sun further goes Red Giant, humanity must constantly go further out away from the Sun.
17) Following mistakes of Old Physics is their Unification of Forces, and that they followed a science nitwit of Einstein with his General Relativity, rather than follow the giant of physics of James Clerk Maxwell and continue on with electricity and magnetism as being gravity. No, most of the physicists of the 20th century were airheads following a fakester of Einstein. This is as much a lesson in sociology as is physics. If you follow someone, you better be sure he/she is correct thoroughly correct. Otherwise it is just idiotic hero worship.
18) Black Holes-- invented by the most ignorant and stupid physicists whose imagination wants to violate the Pauli Exclusion Principle and gain fame and fortune with a brain that has no logical marbles at all. Black hole people were followers of the deluded Einstein with his General Relativity. If you believe in black-holes, you really do not belong in science, and so stupid, that you probably would even fail science fiction. A simple test of any scientist,-- do you believe in black holes-- and shown the exit door of science as a career.
19) Dark Matter, Dark Energy-- this was invented by a group of logical brain dead physicists looking at galaxy rotations and seeing that there was not enough mass in Newton's law of gravity to account for this fast rotation of galaxies, these physicists opted for fame and fortune, rather than admit Electricity and Magnetism, not Newton gravity, causes galaxy rotation. Here again is the power of sociology of follow a leader-- Einstein and his deluded General Relativity. Much of the 20th century physics was a waste of time in following the delusions of Einstein, when it should have followed Maxwell of 1860s then Bohr's quantum mechanics.
20) Doppler Red Shift one of the horrendous follies of modern physics and astronomy. Please see AP's book to get the truth behind Doppler redshift. Doppler redshift (blueshift) has nothing to do with motion of source and cannot tell you distance//(Physics series for High School Book 6)
21) Cosmic Background Radiation, gravity waves, neutron stars, more and more physics mindrot. More and more "gone astray" with the mind-rot of General Relativity and Big Bang b.s.
22) Much of Old Physics was idealization, and imagination but not underlying true reality of a phenomenon, and linear momentum a prime example of mere imagination. Halliday & Resnick are full of idealizations, then topped off by some mathematics for their idealization. Feynman is not as bad as Halliday & Resnick on idealization. True Physics is about actual experiments and the results of experiments, not some idealization of what is going on.
23) Generalization or Idealization in science is usually fakery it starts with the premiss that one knows what is going on and just trimming away all the rest of the universe to explain the situation. The opposite of Generalization or Idealization is that of Experimentation. Experiment starts with the premiss we know little about something and use experiments to try to fathom what is going on. You see the major difference? Generalization and Idealization assumes we know it all, and doing the generalization and idealization to make the explanation simple.
24) Modeling: when we are in the dark about some physics, it is often useful that we model that phenomenon to gain more knowledge of what truly is going on. This does not mean that models are correct, for many times the model leads to fakery. A good example is the planets going around the sun was used to model the atom interior as electrons going around a nucleus. It was a wrong model for the better model was a proton torus of rings and the electron muon thrusting through the rings in a Faraday law. Modeling is a recognition we do not know the physical reality and are using a tool to model the phenomenon. A great example of modeling is the photon or light wave modeled by the DNA and RNA of biology.
25) Mathematics is a minor feature of physics; and mathematics is a subset of physics. Everything that goes on in mathematics is because of atoms of physics. The proof in mathematics is merely the physics "deciding experiment". There are two houses in physics, where houses are complamentary duals -- particle and wave, just so, there are two houses in mathematics, numbers and geometry. Complamentary duality such as particle and wave cause existence. Complamentary duality comes in many forms and here is a short list of them.
26) The mathematics used in New Physics recognizes that Calculus is the pinnacle peak of math, and so, the calculus in New Physics uses only polynomial functions, no trigonometry, no logarithmic, no exponential, nothing but polynomials are used in New Physics. That means if a function were not a polynomial in physics, we have to convert it to a polynomial function before we can use it. We use the Lagrange transform or what I call the Polynomial Transform which in its most simple form is shown.
27) Since all functions in physics are polynomials, means all calculus used in physics is simply the Power Rule for derivative and Power Rule for integral.
28) Since math is so simple with the all functions being only polynomials, that means all the trigonometry is removed out of calculus.
29) No-one in physics really understood what Angular Momentum means. If anyone thought he/she understood, would have recognized that the hydrogen atom cannot exist under a 938MeV proton and a 0.5MeV electron...
30) Let me stop there about the mis-identification of the true electron, and talk about Principles of Logic, principles of reasoning, for most physicists lack a good enough brain of logic to do physics.
31) Another Principle of Logic, and why all physicists, even my heroes of Dirac and Feynman never understood Angular Momentum. They all knew Linear Momentum. They all knew that gravity makes things go in circles or closed loops. So, the question of logic is. Is there such a thing as Linear Momentum, or is it a generalized fiction?
32) It is a credit to Dirac to keep looking for the magnetic monopole for one of the greatest principles in all of physics, and thus all of science is Symmetry..
33) Standard Model of Old Physics-- logical tripe, mind-rot physics, another group of physicists grasping for fame and fortune. So dumb were they, their subatomic particles have no job no task no function for subatomic particles, and they needed a Dirac magnetic monopole, but too stupid to realize they had a muon that did nothing in the Standard Model.
34) The photon or light wave is very complex and we have a great model of the photon as DNA or RNA of biology. Whenever we want to think about what a photon is, we project our thoughts upon DNA and RNA and model what the interior and exterior of light wave is. This idea that light wave and DNA are replicas of one another was invented by AP in the 1990s and AP wrote many books on this idea.
35) Light wave can be both longitudinal as in radio waves or transverse as in waves higher in frequency than 17777 meters wavelength 17777 Hz frequency (the square root of speed of light).
36) Light is always a closed loop stretching all the way around back to its source. This gives what is called Quantum Entanglement. In Old Physics they viewed a light wave as having a head and a tail.
37) Light Waves modeled as DNA and RNA, especially the closed loop mitochondrial DNA makes us realize the rich internal structure of photons, light waves, and this is how first life began, as a materialized light wave spilling its internal structure inside a capacitor. In Old Physics their light wave was just a bobbing up and down of a point in space, no structure, no nothing.
38) Higgs Mechanism-- in Standard Model of Old Physics, is sheer mind-rot. For they failed to even notice the true theory of Star power-- how stars shine is the Faraday law, which creates new energy and thus new mass. Faraday law is the mass creation law, and not some bozo higgs mechanism.
39) Let me switch to something entirely different-- Superconductivity. Sure, superconductivity exists, but the complaint is the ignorant interpretation as given by BCS theory, a interpretation of their 0.5MeV particles pairing together. When, all that Superconductivity is, is a Capacitor phenomenon. At a cold temperature, all the electricity stays put, no loss. And as soon as you connect the capacitor, it all flows, no resistance, no loss. Superconductivity is Capacitor perfection. That is why there is no AC superconductivity.
40) The viewpoint of electricity as particles or waves is fakery in Old Physics, with their electron as electricity when it is really magnetic monopoles as waves that is electricity.
41) Maxwell Equations needed refurbishing early in the 20th century when the age of electricity with Tesla and Edison was thriving. Trouble is, Old Physics was deep in distraction with Quantum Mechanics. The highest priority was to fix Maxwell Equations, not with the details of Quantum Mechanics, but then the age of atomic weapons plunged more interest in Quantum Mechanics and not electricity and magnetism.
42) Maxwell Equations should have been based on Ohm's law. Take one of the laws of electricity and magnetism, the most simple in mathematical form and use it as basis foundation of all the other laws of EM. New Ohm's law V=iBL.
43) EM has an electric field, and electric field is angular momentum, the L in V= iBL.
44) There is a magnetic monopole and it is often found to be the 0.5MeV particle. So Gauss's law was wrong.
45) Once you make New Ohm's law the basis of EM math and theory, then all the permutations of derivative of V= iBL serves as the newly revised Maxwell Equations.
46) Magnetism has only a Attraction force, never a repel or repulsion force. The repel is deceptive for we see it as repel but it is really "denial of same space occupancy". The two concepts are close together and those people with weak logical minds think it is all repel. But the "denial of same space occupancy" is the Pauli Exclusion Principle and is _Not_ a repel, nor a repulsion. EM theory has only Attraction force and Denial of Same Space Occupancy.
47) And here we see again the Logical Weakness in making the Maxwell Equations, same logical weakness in forming the Unification of Forces in Physics. When you have a collection of items to unify into one or to unify into a synthesis, the basis of the unification or the basis of the synthesis is to chose the "most perfect item" ...
48) Once you have the Maxwell Equations based on V= iBL and all its calculus permutations, then we see that 1860's Maxwell Equations had many terms missing in Faraday law, in Ampere law even in the Capacitor Law of V' = (iBL)'.
49) Then we see that due to All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism and the fact the highest equation in physics is of form V = iBL, we learn the stunning fact that mathematics volume is the highest equation in mathematics also. We see that in chemistry the Ideal Gas Law is really just a form of V= iBL.
50) The huge error of "charge" in Old Physics. This was one of AP's most horrible error to get rid of. It comes from horses charging in the 18th century, the time of Ben Franklin and others. And we still have "horsepower" as power unit in physics, where we convert to watts in electricity. Charge is replaced in New Physics with a "vector direction". And come to think of it, logically, charge could not have been thrown out of Old Physics, until the Dirac magnetic monopole was widely known and recognized.
51) Neutral currents in Old Physics in their unification of weak nuclear with electromagnetism was a joke. Once you have the 0.5MeV particle as the Dirac magnetic monopole, the "neutral current was a laughable joke. Once you have electricity is monopole or dipole or photons, the joke of neutral currents goes away with photons as electricity.
52) From the revised equations of EM, based upon V = iBL we realize that calculus needs a 3rd dimension calculus, for the calculus of Old Math and Old Physics had no 3rd dimensional calculus at all. And what 3D Calculus turns out to be is the angular momentum and the force of gravity. AP's sophomore college textbook is devoted to the 3rd dimension calculus.
53) Having fixed calculus by extending it to the 3rd dimension, we realize that in astronomy where they never heard of 3D calculus, that the numbers on planet Mercury required there to be a mass of some kind of moon. Turns out, it is a Cloud of Magnetic Monopoles that is the moon of Mercury. AP names this cloud-moon as Willis.
54) In researching why dragonflies grew so gigantic in size, as a result of a different gravity on Earth, in that Earth was 1/8 the mass in the Devonian geological period, that gigantism can flourish in that sort of low gravity. AP proposes the Growing Earth theory of Dirac's "new radioactivity" all because muon thrusting through proton coil.
55) In Old Physics, physics is seen as mostly algebra and calculus math. In New Physics, we see physics as math, divided into two dual houses. One is algebra calculus and the other is a geometry format. The algebra of Faraday law is i' = (V/(BL) )' the geometry description of Faraday law is "a thrusting bar magnet through a closed loop wire produces a electric current". Actually the geometry side of physics is far more instructive and far more of knowing what is truly going on. So Old Physics only stressed the algebra side of physics. New Physics stresses the geometry side as more important.
56) In Old Physics the Bohr model of the atom is all wrong. Bohr never assigned jobs, tasks, functions of subatomic particles. And Bohr was going from the shoddy interpretation of the Rutherford gold leaf experiment where it was claimed a nuclear center with tiny electrons orbiting the massive tiny nucleus. A sort of Sun solar system model, only this time the interior of atoms. Truth is, the muon and proton are doing a Faraday law and that requires a torus ring for the proton with muon inside thrusting through. No nucleus in New Physics. And we need to do over entirely the Rutherford experiment.
57) The interior of atoms are toruses of protons with muon inside making electricity from Space and then storage of the electricity in neutron capacitors. This is how every atom grows, and how the universe itself grows and becomes more massive with time.
58) Calculus of AP Equations of
1) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
2) V = i*B*L New Ohm's law, law of electricity
3) V' = (i*B*L)' Capacitor Law of Physics
4) (V/i*L)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
5) (V/(B*L))' = i' Faraday law
6) (V/(i*B))' = L' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
7) L = E , angular momentum equals Electric field
59) Logic Principle: focus in on anything perfect in physics, such as the photon light wave is the only perfect particle of physics which leads to the EM unification of all the 4 forces of physics. But mathematics has a "perfect formula or equation" which is volume of Space. Volume of Space takes the form of V = A*B*C. Perfect math form for volume translates into physics as Voltage = iBL. But this perfect math form also translates into chemistry ideal gas law of P = nRT(1/Volume) which when reduced is of the form P = A*B*C, just like Voltage = iBL.
60) Physics and mathematics have at most 3 dimensions. There exists no 4th dimension, or higher. Dimension of space stops with the 3rd dimension.
61) The highest and most perfect math formulas of Physics are of form V = A*B*C, and where this volume type of formula V = ABC is energy and volume of Space.
62) Old Physics made a big mistake with Sound Waves. They made the mistake that Sound does not involve electricity and magnetism, the EM wave spectrum. To correct their mistake, all they needed to do is recognize what is called the DeBroglie pilot wave. A radio wave is the source of all Sound waves.
63) Old Physics screwed up badly on the concept of "mole" in physics and chemistry. All they really needed to say was divide the mass of the proton+muon into 1 gram. And the true number of mole is not 6.02*10^23 but is rather 5.98*10^23.
64) Old Physics and Old Chemistry screwed up badly on the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements because their table is based not upon the structure of the proton and muon but on the elusive particle of the magnetic monopole which is produced as a byproduct of the muon and proton. Old Chemistry had a Lewis structure based upon 8, when even those in chemistry could see that the P orbital has only 6 number, not 8. AP's New Periodic Table of Elements is based on 6, not 8.
65) All of radioactivity teaching in Old Physics must be revised since the 0.5MeV particle is not the electron of atoms but the Dirac magnetic monopole. Why is AP the first scientist to see that Faraday Law is the same as Radioactivity Disintegration Law.
66) Radioactive decay is a subject that needs massive overhaul in Old Physics for they got all the different subatomic particles mixed-up. The 0.5MeV particle is along with the positron, are magnetic monopoles and not decay but rather emission of electricity produced by Faraday law of muon and proton. And real radioactive decay of a hydrogen atom or helium atom etc etc must be viewed and taught in the perspective of breaking apart a many ringed toruses of protons. The collision of a neutron capacitor with a many ringed proton toruses is New Physics radioactivity.
67) Old Physics along with Old Biology got photosynthesis wrong. PHOTOSYNTHESIS: summary of how it works-- air of CO2 molecules, Animal-CO2 (not Fire-CO2) enters the stoma opening to the magnesium atom capacitor. And sunlight shines on the capacitor. The sunlight is turned into electricity and stored inside the magnesium capacitor. So much electricity is stored that as a Animal-CO2 molecule touches the capacitor, it strips off the carbon C atom and leaves behind a O2 molecule. This stripped off C atom immediately comes in contact with water molecule H2O and with the capacitor energy is transformed into CH2O. This newly minted sugar hydrocarbon CH2O is stacked up forming a "tail" in the magnesium capacitor. This CH2O can be further combined with other CH2O molecules forming various other sugars such as C_6 H_12 O_6.
68) Logic Principle of Symmetry. The Dirac magnetic monopole was extremely extremely important for all of Physics, in a sense, all of physics falls apart if we have asymmetry in the major structure of atoms. Atoms are symmetrical. So to have quantization of electricity, you must have quantization of magnetism. Pure and simple.
69) Principle of Symmetry brings me again to the magnetic monopole. Of course, well, symmetry is what drove Dirac to know it exists, even though he faced a mountain of physics idiots. Principles of Logic are far better than observations and formulas and equations. For, notice, that the electricity had a pole and a opposite pole of what they called the positron versus their 0.5MeV particle. So they had two particles of opposite pole, but, they somehow wanted to be stupid about having two poles for magnetism. And this brings up a whole new Logic Principle.
70) Principle of Close Loop Symmetry, the Circuit of Physics. Electricity never never exists unless it is closed loop circuit. The electricity inside a capacitor is a closed loop. The electricity in a wire is a closed loop circuit. In order to have a closed loop circuit you must have a north pole and a south pole, a positron and its opposite direction particle what Old Physics called the 0.5MeV particle. So, by logic, if we have electricity having two poles, we must have magnetism with two poles. Since we have the existence of a positron pole, and the existence of its opposite pole in electricity, we likewise must have the existence of a north magnetic monopole and a south magnetic monopole. In fact, the positron itself is the north magnetic monopole and the Thomson particle of 0.5MeV is the south magnetic monopole.
71) Let me change direction here for a moment and talk about mistakes and errors of mathematics used in Old Physics. Of course, well all the mathematics ever used in physics comes from a math form of A = B*C*D and that form is the math of volume of geometry space....
72) Sigma Error is part of probability and statistics theory, but was seen as a outlier in Old Physics. Seen as a practice, not as a internal feature of physics. And that is a shame because if someone had paid more attention to the practice of Sigma Error in experiments and observations, then the discovery the real proton is 840MeV not 938 and the real electron is the muon at 105MeV, would have been discovered earlier than AP's 2016-2017 discovery. AP's second most famous science discovery after the Atom Totality. For it was the notice of AP that 938 is close to 945, and that 105 subtract 940 is the proton mass in MeV, all well under Sigma Error.
73) Sigma Error Logic Principle in Physics: If we come so close in numbers to related phenomenon such as 945/938 = sigma error of 0.7%, then we take that as the true proton 840MeV, true electron is muon at 105MeV. The related phenomenon is 9 x 105 = 945, implying that there are 9 rings, 9 muon rings involved in proton and muon.
74) Divisional Numeric and Coefficient Relationship of Physics Constants. This is an extremely important math to physics relationship all invented by AP in the course of writing his books of science. An example here goes a long way in understanding. The Planck constant, the speed of light constant, the Boltzmann constant, the Fine Structure Constant all come easily from EM constant numbers. See my several books published on how they are derived.
75) The Light Wave as a closed loop circuit has not been understood in Old Physics. Their light wave was like an arrow with a front head and a rear tail. In New Physics the light wave is like a closed loop extension cord of electricity. Long and thin, but still a closed loop. This geometry is extremely important for it misguided Old Physics into thinking the Double Slit Experiment was mysterious when it was not. Misguided Old Physics into thinking "slow light" was mysterious when it was not for if you turn off the switch in a BEC slow light experiment, all the light disappears in the experiment, even the light inside the BEC. And quantum entanglement is now crystal clear as the connection all along the closed loop and the source.
76) We know half as much about the Tesla coil for wireless electricity transmission that we should know, by now. We spend far far too much time and money on superconductivity and fusion energy which is rumdummy science, because superconductivity is not the BCS b.s., no, but is merely capacitor theory. Superconductivity is just capacitor science, nothing more and we spend too much time and money on it, when we should be spending it on Tesla coil wireless electricity. The fusion energy is another huge squander of time and money, since the universe is a Faraday Law, not a fusion world. We should spend and devote our time on Tesla coil, especially when our Sun is now in a Red Giant phase which is quite noticeable in 2020 with the loss of 25% of insect biomass in the past 10 years.
77) Red Giant phase of stars starts once a star reaches a mass of 2*10^33 grams. Our Sun has initiated that phase and all life on Earth will go extinct or vanish unless it moves to the outskirts of the Solar System. We have evidence of this in the loss of 25% of all Insect biomass in just the past decade. Vast losses of song birds whose eyes cannot bear that amount of UV. And we see it in accelerated polar ice melt due to a 0.005% yearly rise in solar radiation.
78) The Old Physics mistake of thinking starpower is due to fusion is all wrong and such a big mistake that it may cost humanity the price of extinction and oblivion, should humanity not colonize Europa, Mars, Pluto in time.
79) A Titius-Bode Rule of Star Systems also has a 4 then 4 rule for mass, the first four are rocky planets, the next 4 are gas giants not because of the stupid silly General Relativity, but because all of physics is electricity and magnetism driven physics. Where the spacing of planets is a Titius-Bode Rule because that is a Balmer-Rydberg sequence of spectral lines also electricity and magnetism driven.
80) The Rydberg sequence predicts the most massive planet comes within the second 4 then 4 astrobodies.
81) The Rydberg constant is more precisely that of the pure scale number 10000000 m^-1 and not the number value 10973731 m^-1. This must be so because the speed of light is precisely the value of 3.16*10^8m/s as the coefficient is exactly the square root of 10 = 3.1622776...
82) Angular Momentum is really Electric Field, and Force per meter as strength of force is really Magnetic Field.
83) Double Slit Experiment error: Old Physics thought of a light ray as ^v^v^v^v^v^ that is open ended, not closed. And that viewpoint of light causes all those impossible and unexplainable mysteries in the Double Slit Experiment. On the other hand, if you go to explain the Double Slit with light as a closed loop straight line segment, all the mysteries disappear. So the idea that all of the Double Slit Experiment strangeness is solved and resolved by simply recognizing light wave as a thin closed loop ray, whose source is part of the closed loop.
84) The Bohr-Rutherford Model in Old Physics was all wrong with its 0.5MeV as electrons jumping orbitals to cause spectral lines, when the true model is the AP Model of proton toruses with muons inside creating electricity in Faraday Law and it is this electricity that sometimes is seen as a spectral line. And the nucleus of atoms in the Rutherford Model was wrong for the atoms are large toruses with smaller toruses inside the larger ones.
85) The Schrodinger Equation is of limited use, for it is a description of the magnetic monopoles of the 0.5MeV particles. It is entirely embedded as a subset of the AP-EM Equations.
86) The Dirac Equation is of limited use, for it is about the relativistic effects of magnetic monopoles. And ironically Dirac who was hunting down the existence of monopoles, ironically, his equation was all about those monopoles. Again, like the Schrodinger Equation, the Dirac Equation is entirely embedded in the AP-EM Equations.
87) All the physical constants of Nature in electricity and magnetism form are related to one another, so that one derives another.
88) Four Quantum Numbers, N, L, m_L and m_s are descriptions of magnetic monopoles, dipoles, photons and nothing to do with electron= muon or proton.
89) Much of polar ice melt is not Global Warming of fossil fuel burning but more about the 0.005% yearly increase in Sun's radiation, as Red Giant phase initiation.
90) Truth about gravity as mechanism is the Sun creates a magnetic field track, and the planets follow in that path of the field track at their distance from the Sun, and what pushes and pulls the planets in those magnetic field tracks is the electric field which is angular momentum, as electricity shoot from the Sun pushing and pulling the planet along in its magnetic field track.
91) Pulsars in Old Physics were miserably interpreted as millisecond spin neutron stars. In New Physics, pulsars are advanced alien life forms that evacuated their home planet due to red giant phase and are living in colonies distant from the red giant and the pulsed beat is their Tesla power grid system.
92) Since the sun and stars are powered by Faraday law and not by fusion, the Red Giant phase of stars sets in much earlier than as thought under the fusion delusion. This is alarming and terribly important if humanity wants to stay alive or go extinct. Latest estimates are that humanity must colonize Mars, Europa, Pluto within the next 1 million years with sustained colonies that do not need Earth any longer.
93) The pulsars we see in astronomy are actually advance intelligent aliens who colonized the outskirts and fringes of their own star system and are pulsing wireless electricity between their own colonies in a Tesla Power Grid System. We see this as pulsars.
94) In news of 2020 that Earth lost 25% of the total insect biomass in the prior decade, and linking up that fact with the NASA data of a increase in Solar radiation of 0.005% per year for the past decade, implies that the Sun has initiated Red Giant phase. It is unclear whether the planet Earth is made uninhabitable in 1-10 million years or for sure in 140 million years. Old Physics pegged the Red Giant phase in 4 billion years. AP peggs the phase starting 2020. We will go extinct unless we can colonize Mars, Europa, Pluto.
95) We have evidence the Sun initiated Red Giant Phase by the 0.005% yearly increase in Solar Radiation. And is the cause behind a 25% total die off of insects in the decade of 2010 to 2020.
96) We need to save all wild plant and wild animal species in order to make the colonization of Mars, Europa, Pluto go as smooth as possible. Not meaning that we will take all that diverse life to those astro bodies, but that every species may have some genetic coding that is needed in our new homes on Mars, Europa, Pluto.
97) Pulsars are rare, and that means most life on planets becomes incinerated by their star. If humanity meets that fate, it is oblivion and all that was life on Earth, total Oblivion, except for those spacecrafts still roaming Space that came from humanity.
98) Earth needs a new political power structure to handle the colonization, for we cannot send 7.5 billion humans up there. So we need population controls for the next million years and to save bio-diversity in order to make the transition smooth as possible. The new government form should be a Science Council form, the seen in Superman movies. And the EU at present is a primitive Science Council form of government.
99) Global Warming from fossil fuel is real, but alongside it and more dangerous is the yearly 0.005% increase in Solar Radiation. And it only gets worse, for some year it will go to 0.006% increase, by the time it reaches 0.01% or 0.02% yearly increase, most of life on Earth will have perished.
100) Drones can fly in outer space on lithium batteries as propulsion.
101) There is Magnetic Acceleration Law, when you thrust a bar magnet into another bar magnet of like-poles, the distance scattered on the floor is 460mm versus attraction joining at 80mm (magnets of 10mm by 10mm diameter and 20mm by 10mm diameter.
102) A whole-scale revision of Units of Old Physics, for they missed a current term A in Newton's F=ma, and a Coulomb term in Electric Field as kg*m^2/C*s, where C =A*s.
103) F= ma is missing a current term and should be F = m*a*i or F = m*a*(1/A). This allows F=ma to cover both particle and wave nature. For we have a term of (1/(A*s)) which is a frequency of current and allows us to write Force as being F = m*v*(1/(A*s))
104) A unification of Units in New Physics is required, for the term A, current is likely to be involved in most units of importance, such as F= ma.
105) Light is a closed loop circuit, although very much looking like a straight arrow open ended ray, it is not, but a closed loop circuit as proven by turning the light source off in a BEC slow light experiment.
106) Testing and research is ongoing to see if a lithium battery powered drone can fly from the surface of Earth all the way up to the International Space Station, and, and of course beyond, riding the magnetic and electric fields of outer space, plus the Solar Wind.
107) The mistake by physicists in thinking starpower is caused by fusion of atoms inside of stars is a costly error, for starpower is caused by the Faraday Law, and time is ticking with the Sun gone Red Giant Initiation Phase, for the clock is winding down on whether Humanity wants to live or turn into dust.
108) The Nebular Dust Cloud theory of Solar System origins was a fakery of Old Physics, for all we have to do is see the systematic Titius-Bode Rule and the systematic mass and distance ordering of the satellites of the various planets to realize gravity is a spectral line pattern with a Faraday law origin of Sun, planets and satellites.
109) The spacing of planets relative to their star is a Spectral line spacing, as well as satellites from their parent planet. The most often occurring spacing sequence is 4 lines for the first 4 astro bodies then the next 4 lines spacing containing the most massive bodies, such as Sun then 4 terrestrial planets, then 4 gas giants.
110) 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, C= amount of current A*s, B is magnetic field, E is electric field, kg is kilogram mass, m is meters, s is seconds
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/(C*s)
112) The true units of Energy = kg*m^2/(A*s^2) and the correct units of Electric Field E is E= kg*m^2/(C*s).
113) The true units of Force is kg*m/A*s^2 but where the A in denominator needs to be (A/m) as per the definition of current over a distance length of meters. This allows Force to be equivalent to energy, electric field, and angular momentum, all four concepts that obey the conservation principle of physics.
114) You cannot have in physics a unification of 4 forces, unless force itself obeys conservation principle.
115) It is easy to prove the Sun shines from Faraday Law, not fusion because of the broad bandwidth of Solar radiation from radio to UV, mostly Visible Light, whereas fusion would be a narrow bandwidth with much X-ray and gamma ray. And this simple proof of starpower as Faraday law also is a disproof of Big Bang theory, for the universe does not have two mechanisms of growth-- Faraday law with Big Bang.
116) Two Math Forms, the A=BCD for voltage and volume and the x^2/A^2 for motion path, both forms found in the AP-EM equations of 4 differential equations of (1) V' = (iBE)' (2) i' = (V/BE)' (3) B' = (V/iE)' and (4) E'= (V/iB)'.
117) The AP Principle of Maximum Electricity Production inside of atoms of their muon thrusting through proton coil of Faraday Law is true and the proof is all atoms are metals at 0 degree Kelvin and metal atoms are toruses.
118) The principle of Maximum Electricity determines the chemical bond.
119) Physics lead the way in science by Planck's1900 rising claim of quantum mechanics which entails a discrete space, yet everyone in physics still uses the mindless idiotic continuum by using Old Math's mindless "limit on a calculus that is wrong through and through". Physicists proved Discrete Space, so why not use a Discrete Calculus.
120) Since atoms have no nucleus for in the Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden 1911 experiment with gold foil hit by alpha particles, the high angle of rebound was due to alpha particles colliding elastically head-on with a chain of muons circling inside proton toruses.
121) Since atoms have no nucleus begs the question of atomic energy and the atomic bomb which is explained as the atomic bomb is a short-circuited battery. This implies that atomic bombs the size of button batteries can be built and short-circuited.
122) The Hertzsprung-Russell diagram in Old Astronomy of the sequence of stars and how they evolve is utterly wrong for it is based on fusion as starpower when in fact it is the Faraday law of every muon inside of every proton producing magnetic monopoles that gives rise to starpower. And the silly mistake of graphing temperature versus luminosity of stars. Because temperature and luminosity are almost the same thing. It would be like graphing speed in km/hour as x-axis and meters/second on y-axis and expect a meaningful graph.
123) Physicists never learned much logic to apply to the Ancient Greek theory of Atoms, "all things are atoms, logically suggest, the universe itself is a thing and thus a atom". Never learned, never applied logic.
124) Reincarnation is a true valid science of physics.
125) All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
Prayer: Carbon in us, carbon of Plutonium. Fill us with life anew, that we may love what thou dost love, and do what you superdetermine us to do. Oxygen, oxygen of Plutonium, make us wholly thine, take us to the torus heaven divine. Plutonium in us, atom plutonium, thus shall we never die, but live with thee, part in your neutron serenity, part in your proton muon divinity. Atom
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).
Dan Christensen wrote:
May 28, 2021, 10:46:53 PM
Dan Christensen wrote:
May 29, 2021, 9:27 AM
Dan Christensen 7 year nonstop stalker warning on Linda Hasenfratz Western Ontario Univ and why UWO fails in math and physics-- no geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, and no-one intelligent enough to ask if real electron of atoms is muon not the 0.5MeV particle.
Dan Christensen asking Linda Hasenfratz Western Ontario Univ if students wasting time of their life with no geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus at UWO, and no-one intelligent enough to ask if real electron of atoms is muon not 0.5MeV particle.
Re: 7,744-Student victims of Linda Hasenfratz Univ Western Ontario from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz President Alan Shepar
Canadian students victimized by Dan Christensen and his party-- Linda Hasenfratz, Silvia Mittler, Els
11:53 AM 10Apr2021
by Wayne Decarlo
2nd published book
True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere.
Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule.
Length: 1150 pages
Product details
• File Size : 2167 KB
• ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ
• Publication Date : March 11, 2019
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 1150 pages
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#181 in General Chemistry & Reference
#1324 in General Chemistry
#1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)
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.
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
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 137 pages
Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
AP's 175th book//Physicsopedia-- Listing of 125 fakes and mistakes of Old Physics.
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
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, physics should always have a physicsopedia, where major parts of physics are held under question, under suspicion as to correctness. In past history we have called them as "doubters of the mainstream". Yet physics, can have no permanent mainstream. And theories passing as "standard model" is a travesty of science, of logical thinking and just a wide open door of physics corruption and tedious nonsense. The Standard Model of Old Physics is a example of "numerology and algebras turned from circus act into the physics mainstream".
Last revision was 15May2021
1) The picture of electricity and how it works was only truly begun in 2020 with the cover of this book showing electricity as closed loops, hoola hoops and how these loops flow in circuits taking on the shape of those circuits at the speed of light, where the flowing entity are magnetic monopoles-dipoles and photons. Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1
by Archimedes Plutonium.
2) The thoughts and images of electrons in Old Physics and Old Chemistry were horrendously error filled. The first place I see this huge error is in Feynman Lectures on Physics, not that I want to pick on Feynman for he is one of my heroes, but rather I chose Feynman because his Lectures have been translated into almost all languages and his books widely available and known. On page 14-10 of Volume 1, Feynman... And news out of Princeton Univ as of May 2021, where they are finding that the 0.5MeV Dirac magnetic monopole comes in pairs, even though the Princeton researchers are too stupid yet to know that the 0.5MeV particle is not the atom's electron.
3) Old Physics never had a Primal axiom of Physics-- All is atom and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. Old Physics wasted too much time on General Relativity (a fake theory) in the 20th century and too little time on electricity and magnetism.
4) New Physics starts with electricity and magnetism. Old Physics always started with idealizations such as linear momentum, and a force of gravity that had no relation to electricity and magnetism. Idealization physics is more imagination than about the truth of the world.
5) New Physics has the correct particles of physics where the proton is 840MeV, the real electron is the muon of 105MeV and is stuck inside the proton torus thrusting through the proton and producing electricity in the Faraday law. The 0.5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole.
6) The true cosmology theory of science is the Atom Totality theory which began to replace the Big Bang theory starting 1990.
7) Big Bang theory is a joke, never a reality. And a outright contradiction of the Atomic theory, that all matter is composed of atoms. For all matter can be interchanged with "all things". If all things are atoms, then the universe itself , we must admit if we are logical thinkers, is "a thing" and thus the universe must be a atom also. Big Bang contradicts Logic. And if science is anything, it is logical.
8) When you find in the world, a Generalization of All Matter is made up of Atoms. You have to go with the Logic as the truth. If all Matter is atoms, then the Whole of the Universe is Matter, you must continue to the conclusion that the Whole is also an Atom. If you do not make that conclusion, you have to thence say-- All Matter except the Universe, and that is a silly end conclusion.
9) A second major physics fallacy is their screwing up of the 1897 Thomson particle they called the electron of 0.5MeV when it is the Dirac magnetic monopole that Thomson had found. It would not be until 1936 that the true electron of atoms is discovered and called the muon. What the 1897 screw-up mis-identity shows most of all, is that physicists throughout the 20th century never had a handle on what angular momentum means. If you understand angular momentum, you would realize that a proton at 938MeV and electron at 0.5MeV cannot support the existence of a hydrogen atom, or any atom for that sake.
10) Direct consequence of muon being the true electron, determines that the proton is 840MeV and the muon is stuck inside the proton doing a Faraday Law of producing new electricity by turning Space into electromagnetism. This is Dirac's new radioactivity and is the creation of new mass, matter in Space. This means all stars shine not from fusion, but from Faraday Law. Not only do stars grow more massive and bigger, but that all astro-bodies grow bigger. Meaning the Nebular Dust Cloud theory is a gigantic hoax for the growing of the Solar System.
11) Stars shine not from fusion, but from the muon thrusting through its proton coil. Every atom inside a star and every proton in that star is making new electricity from its muon thrusting through its proton 8 ring coil tokamak.
12) A direct consequence that the muon is stuck inside the proton in all experiments, is this Logical Principle, that in physics, every particle or subatomic particle has a function, a job, a task. Principles of Science are some of the most important teachings and understandings in science. One has a logical hole in the head if they think you can have particles of physics, and those particles have no job, no function, no task to perform. Existence in physics means-- a job to do.
13) A New Periodic Table of Chemical Elements must emerge from a mistaken electron as 0.5MeV when it truly is 105MeV, the muon. Such a table is based not on a Lewis structure of 8 but rather on 6. There are 6 successive elements in a row, and only 6 in a row. See AP's book for details: Research Notebook of AP on True Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements based on 6, not the error-filled table of Old Chemistry, Chemistry Series, book 5. The nucleus of atoms are toruses inside larger toruses, not the Rutherford model of a massive nucleus that was sort of stationary. No, the nucleus is a smaller torus going around in circles inside a large torus, and making more electricity.
14) Nebular Dust Cloud theory is purely a hoax, for the Universe has some 10^11 planet systems, and to think that Nebular Dust is spread so evenly throughout the Universe, when supernova are rare, is a colossal logic brain dump. According to Dirac, each and every atom is growing bigger in the universe every second and minute of the day, just as Dirac implied with his "new radioactivities" in his book "Directions in Physics". AP suggests only a half brain would need something as stupid silly as a Nebular Dust Cloud scattered uniformly from rare supernova, here, there, and everywhere.
15) Direct consequence of Faraday law going on inside each and every atom means the Sun will go Red Giant phase starting now and completed in 140 million years where Earth is like Venus-- not habitable by life. Before the end of 1 to 10 million years hence forward of August 2020, if humanity has not colonized Mars, Europa, Pluto, there is a good chance humanity goes extinct.
16) The most important number in all of science for humanity, is the number for the yearly increase in Solar radiation by our Sun. As of year 2020, NASA has the figure pegged at 0.005% yearly increase in total solar radiation. This easily explains a loss of total Insects on Earth at 25% total insect biomass for the past decade. This is a huge alarm bell, for it means, unless humanity makes its future home on Europa, Mars and Pluto, the entire human species goes extinct, and as the Sun further goes Red Giant, humanity must constantly go further out away from the Sun.
17) Following mistakes of Old Physics is their Unification of Forces, and that they followed a science nitwit of Einstein with his General Relativity, rather than follow the giant of physics of James Clerk Maxwell and continue on with electricity and magnetism as being gravity. No, most of the physicists of the 20th century were airheads following a fakester of Einstein. This is as much a lesson in sociology as is physics. If you follow someone, you better be sure he/she is correct thoroughly correct. Otherwise it is just idiotic hero worship.
18) Black Holes-- invented by the most ignorant and stupid physicists whose imagination wants to violate the Pauli Exclusion Principle and gain fame and fortune with a brain that has no logical marbles at all. Black hole people were followers of the deluded Einstein with his General Relativity. If you believe in black-holes, you really do not belong in science, and so stupid, that you probably would even fail science fiction. A simple test of any scientist,-- do you believe in black holes-- and shown the exit door of science as a career.
19) Dark Matter, Dark Energy-- this was invented by a group of logical brain dead physicists looking at galaxy rotations and seeing that there was not enough mass in Newton's law of gravity to account for this fast rotation of galaxies, these physicists opted for fame and fortune, rather than admit Electricity and Magnetism, not Newton gravity, causes galaxy rotation. Here again is the power of sociology of follow a leader-- Einstein and his deluded General Relativity. Much of the 20th century physics was a waste of time in following the delusions of Einstein, when it should have followed Maxwell of 1860s then Bohr's quantum mechanics.
20) Doppler Red Shift one of the horrendous follies of modern physics and astronomy. Please see AP's book to get the truth behind Doppler redshift. Doppler redshift (blueshift) has nothing to do with motion of source and cannot tell you distance//(Physics series for High School Book 6)
21) Cosmic Background Radiation, gravity waves, neutron stars, more and more physics mindrot. More and more "gone astray" with the mind-rot of General Relativity and Big Bang b.s.
22) Much of Old Physics was idealization, and imagination but not underlying true reality of a phenomenon, and linear momentum a prime example of mere imagination. Halliday & Resnick are full of idealizations, then topped off by some mathematics for their idealization. Feynman is not as bad as Halliday & Resnick on idealization. True Physics is about actual experiments and the results of experiments, not some idealization of what is going on.
23) Generalization or Idealization in science is usually fakery it starts with the premiss that one knows what is going on and just trimming away all the rest of the universe to explain the situation. The opposite of Generalization or Idealization is that of Experimentation. Experiment starts with the premiss we know little about something and use experiments to try to fathom what is going on. You see the major difference? Generalization and Idealization assumes we know it all, and doing the generalization and idealization to make the explanation simple.
24) Modeling: when we are in the dark about some physics, it is often useful that we model that phenomenon to gain more knowledge of what truly is going on. This does not mean that models are correct, for many times the model leads to fakery. A good example is the planets going around the sun was used to model the atom interior as electrons going around a nucleus. It was a wrong model for the better model was a proton torus of rings and the electron muon thrusting through the rings in a Faraday law. Modeling is a recognition we do not know the physical reality and are using a tool to model the phenomenon. A great example of modeling is the photon or light wave modeled by the DNA and RNA of biology.
25) Mathematics is a minor feature of physics; and mathematics is a subset of physics. Everything that goes on in mathematics is because of atoms of physics. The proof in mathematics is merely the physics "deciding experiment". There are two houses in physics, where houses are complamentary duals -- particle and wave, just so, there are two houses in mathematics, numbers and geometry. Complamentary duality such as particle and wave cause existence. Complamentary duality comes in many forms and here is a short list of them.
26) The mathematics used in New Physics recognizes that Calculus is the pinnacle peak of math, and so, the calculus in New Physics uses only polynomial functions, no trigonometry, no logarithmic, no exponential, nothing but polynomials are used in New Physics. That means if a function were not a polynomial in physics, we have to convert it to a polynomial function before we can use it. We use the Lagrange transform or what I call the Polynomial Transform which in its most simple form is shown.
27) Since all functions in physics are polynomials, means all calculus used in physics is simply the Power Rule for derivative and Power Rule for integral.
28) Since math is so simple with the all functions being only polynomials, that means all the trigonometry is removed out of calculus.
29) No-one in physics really understood what Angular Momentum means. If anyone thought he/she understood, would have recognized that the hydrogen atom cannot exist under a 938MeV proton and a 0.5MeV electron...
30) Let me stop there about the mis-identification of the true electron, and talk about Principles of Logic, principles of reasoning, for most physicists lack a good enough brain of logic to do physics.
31) Another Principle of Logic, and why all physicists, even my heroes of Dirac and Feynman never understood Angular Momentum. They all knew Linear Momentum. They all knew that gravity makes things go in circles or closed loops. So, the question of logic is. Is there such a thing as Linear Momentum, or is it a generalized fiction?
32) It is a credit to Dirac to keep looking for the magnetic monopole for one of the greatest principles in all of physics, and thus all of science is Symmetry..
33) Standard Model of Old Physics-- logical tripe, mind-rot physics, another group of physicists grasping for fame and fortune. So dumb were they, their subatomic particles have no job no task no function for subatomic particles, and they needed a Dirac magnetic monopole, but too stupid to realize they had a muon that did nothing in the Standard Model.
34) The photon or light wave is very complex and we have a great model of the photon as DNA or RNA of biology. Whenever we want to think about what a photon is, we project our thoughts upon DNA and RNA and model what the interior and exterior of light wave is. This idea that light wave and DNA are replicas of one another was invented by AP in the 1990s and AP wrote many books on this idea.
35) Light wave can be both longitudinal as in radio waves or transverse as in waves higher in frequency than 17777 meters wavelength 17777 Hz frequency (the square root of speed of light).
36) Light is always a closed loop stretching all the way around back to its source. This gives what is called Quantum Entanglement. In Old Physics they viewed a light wave as having a head and a tail.
37) Light Waves modeled as DNA and RNA, especially the closed loop mitochondrial DNA makes us realize the rich internal structure of photons, light waves, and this is how first life began, as a materialized light wave spilling its internal structure inside a capacitor. In Old Physics their light wave was just a bobbing up and down of a point in space, no structure, no nothing.
38) Higgs Mechanism-- in Standard Model of Old Physics, is sheer mind-rot. For they failed to even notice the true theory of Star power-- how stars shine is the Faraday law, which creates new energy and thus new mass. Faraday law is the mass creation law, and not some bozo higgs mechanism.
39) Let me switch to something entirely different-- Superconductivity. Sure, superconductivity exists, but the complaint is the ignorant interpretation as given by BCS theory, a interpretation of their 0.5MeV particles pairing together. When, all that Superconductivity is, is a Capacitor phenomenon. At a cold temperature, all the electricity stays put, no loss. And as soon as you connect the capacitor, it all flows, no resistance, no loss. Superconductivity is Capacitor perfection. That is why there is no AC superconductivity.
40) The viewpoint of electricity as particles or waves is fakery in Old Physics, with their electron as electricity when it is really magnetic monopoles as waves that is electricity.
41) Maxwell Equations needed refurbishing early in the 20th century when the age of electricity with Tesla and Edison was thriving. Trouble is, Old Physics was deep in distraction with Quantum Mechanics. The highest priority was to fix Maxwell Equations, not with the details of Quantum Mechanics, but then the age of atomic weapons plunged more interest in Quantum Mechanics and not electricity and magnetism.
42) Maxwell Equations should have been based on Ohm's law. Take one of the laws of electricity and magnetism, the most simple in mathematical form and use it as basis foundation of all the other laws of EM. New Ohm's law V=iBL.
43) EM has an electric field, and electric field is angular momentum, the L in V= iBL.
44) There is a magnetic monopole and it is often found to be the 0.5MeV particle. So Gauss's law was wrong.
45) Once you make New Ohm's law the basis of EM math and theory, then all the permutations of derivative of V= iBL serves as the newly revised Maxwell Equations.
46) Magnetism has only a Attraction force, never a repel or repulsion force. The repel is deceptive for we see it as repel but it is really "denial of same space occupancy". The two concepts are close together and those people with weak logical minds think it is all repel. But the "denial of same space occupancy" is the Pauli Exclusion Principle and is _Not_ a repel, nor a repulsion. EM theory has only Attraction force and Denial of Same Space Occupancy.
47) And here we see again the Logical Weakness in making the Maxwell Equations, same logical weakness in forming the Unification of Forces in Physics. When you have a collection of items to unify into one or to unify into a synthesis, the basis of the unification or the basis of the synthesis is to chose the "most perfect item" ...
48) Once you have the Maxwell Equations based on V= iBL and all its calculus permutations, then we see that 1860's Maxwell Equations had many terms missing in Faraday law, in Ampere law even in the Capacitor Law of V' = (iBL)'.
49) Then we see that due to All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism and the fact the highest equation in physics is of form V = iBL, we learn the stunning fact that mathematics volume is the highest equation in mathematics also. We see that in chemistry the Ideal Gas Law is really just a form of V= iBL.
50) The huge error of "charge" in Old Physics. This was one of AP's most horrible error to get rid of. It comes from horses charging in the 18th century, the time of Ben Franklin and others. And we still have "horsepower" as power unit in physics, where we convert to watts in electricity. Charge is replaced in New Physics with a "vector direction". And come to think of it, logically, charge could not have been thrown out of Old Physics, until the Dirac magnetic monopole was widely known and recognized.
51) Neutral currents in Old Physics in their unification of weak nuclear with electromagnetism was a joke. Once you have the 0.5MeV particle as the Dirac magnetic monopole, the "neutral current was a laughable joke. Once you have electricity is monopole or dipole or photons, the joke of neutral currents goes away with photons as electricity.
52) From the revised equations of EM, based upon V = iBL we realize that calculus needs a 3rd dimension calculus, for the calculus of Old Math and Old Physics had no 3rd dimensional calculus at all. And what 3D Calculus turns out to be is the angular momentum and the force of gravity. AP's sophomore college textbook is devoted to the 3rd dimension calculus.
53) Having fixed calculus by extending it to the 3rd dimension, we realize that in astronomy where they never heard of 3D calculus, that the numbers on planet Mercury required there to be a mass of some kind of moon. Turns out, it is a Cloud of Magnetic Monopoles that is the moon of Mercury. AP names this cloud-moon as Willis.
54) In researching why dragonflies grew so gigantic in size, as a result of a different gravity on Earth, in that Earth was 1/8 the mass in the Devonian geological period, that gigantism can flourish in that sort of low gravity. AP proposes the Growing Earth theory of Dirac's "new radioactivity" all because muon thrusting through proton coil.
55) In Old Physics, physics is seen as mostly algebra and calculus math. In New Physics, we see physics as math, divided into two dual houses. One is algebra calculus and the other is a geometry format. The algebra of Faraday law is i' = (V/(BL) )' the geometry description of Faraday law is "a thrusting bar magnet through a closed loop wire produces a electric current". Actually the geometry side of physics is far more instructive and far more of knowing what is truly going on. So Old Physics only stressed the algebra side of physics. New Physics stresses the geometry side as more important.
56) In Old Physics the Bohr model of the atom is all wrong. Bohr never assigned jobs, tasks, functions of subatomic particles. And Bohr was going from the shoddy interpretation of the Rutherford gold leaf experiment where it was claimed a nuclear center with tiny electrons orbiting the massive tiny nucleus. A sort of Sun solar system model, only this time the interior of atoms. Truth is, the muon and proton are doing a Faraday law and that requires a torus ring for the proton with muon inside thrusting through. No nucleus in New Physics. And we need to do over entirely the Rutherford experiment.
57) The interior of atoms are toruses of protons with muon inside making electricity from Space and then storage of the electricity in neutron capacitors. This is how every atom grows, and how the universe itself grows and becomes more massive with time.
58) Calculus of AP Equations of
1) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
2) V = i*B*L New Ohm's law, law of electricity
3) V' = (i*B*L)' Capacitor Law of Physics
4) (V/i*L)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
5) (V/(B*L))' = i' Faraday law
6) (V/(i*B))' = L' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
7) L = E , angular momentum equals Electric field
59) Logic Principle: focus in on anything perfect in physics, such as the photon light wave is the only perfect particle of physics which leads to the EM unification of all the 4 forces of physics. But mathematics has a "perfect formula or equation" which is volume of Space. Volume of Space takes the form of V = A*B*C. Perfect math form for volume translates into physics as Voltage = iBL. But this perfect math form also translates into chemistry ideal gas law of P = nRT(1/Volume) which when reduced is of the form P = A*B*C, just like Voltage = iBL.
60) Physics and mathematics have at most 3 dimensions. There exists no 4th dimension, or higher. Dimension of space stops with the 3rd dimension.
61) The highest and most perfect math formulas of Physics are of form V = A*B*C, and where this volume type of formula V = ABC is energy and volume of Space.
62) Old Physics made a big mistake with Sound Waves. They made the mistake that Sound does not involve electricity and magnetism, the EM wave spectrum. To correct their mistake, all they needed to do is recognize what is called the DeBroglie pilot wave. A radio wave is the source of all Sound waves.
63) Old Physics screwed up badly on the concept of "mole" in physics and chemistry. All they really needed to say was divide the mass of the proton+muon into 1 gram. And the true number of mole is not 6.02*10^23 but is rather 5.98*10^23.
64) Old Physics and Old Chemistry screwed up badly on the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements because their table is based not upon the structure of the proton and muon but on the elusive particle of the magnetic monopole which is produced as a byproduct of the muon and proton. Old Chemistry had a Lewis structure based upon 8, when even those in chemistry could see that the P orbital has only 6 number, not 8. AP's New Periodic Table of Elements is based on 6, not 8.
65) All of radioactivity teaching in Old Physics must be revised since the 0.5MeV particle is not the electron of atoms but the Dirac magnetic monopole. Why is AP the first scientist to see that Faraday Law is the same as Radioactivity Disintegration Law.
66) Radioactive decay is a subject that needs massive overhaul in Old Physics for they got all the different subatomic particles mixed-up. The 0.5MeV particle is along with the positron, are magnetic monopoles and not decay but rather emission of electricity produced by Faraday law of muon and proton. And real radioactive decay of a hydrogen atom or helium atom etc etc must be viewed and taught in the perspective of breaking apart a many ringed toruses of protons. The collision of a neutron capacitor with a many ringed proton toruses is New Physics radioactivity.
67) Old Physics along with Old Biology got photosynthesis wrong. PHOTOSYNTHESIS: summary of how it works-- air of CO2 molecules, Animal-CO2 (not Fire-CO2) enters the stoma opening to the magnesium atom capacitor. And sunlight shines on the capacitor. The sunlight is turned into electricity and stored inside the magnesium capacitor. So much electricity is stored that as a Animal-CO2 molecule touches the capacitor, it strips off the carbon C atom and leaves behind a O2 molecule. This stripped off C atom immediately comes in contact with water molecule H2O and with the capacitor energy is transformed into CH2O. This newly minted sugar hydrocarbon CH2O is stacked up forming a "tail" in the magnesium capacitor. This CH2O can be further combined with other CH2O molecules forming various other sugars such as C_6 H_12 O_6.
68) Logic Principle of Symmetry. The Dirac magnetic monopole was extremely extremely important for all of Physics, in a sense, all of physics falls apart if we have asymmetry in the major structure of atoms. Atoms are symmetrical. So to have quantization of electricity, you must have quantization of magnetism. Pure and simple.
69) Principle of Symmetry brings me again to the magnetic monopole. Of course, well, symmetry is what drove Dirac to know it exists, even though he faced a mountain of physics idiots. Principles of Logic are far better than observations and formulas and equations. For, notice, that the electricity had a pole and a opposite pole of what they called the positron versus their 0.5MeV particle. So they had two particles of opposite pole, but, they somehow wanted to be stupid about having two poles for magnetism. And this brings up a whole new Logic Principle.
70) Principle of Close Loop Symmetry, the Circuit of Physics. Electricity never never exists unless it is closed loop circuit. The electricity inside a capacitor is a closed loop. The electricity in a wire is a closed loop circuit. In order to have a closed loop circuit you must have a north pole and a south pole, a positron and its opposite direction particle what Old Physics called the 0.5MeV particle. So, by logic, if we have electricity having two poles, we must have magnetism with two poles. Since we have the existence of a positron pole, and the existence of its opposite pole in electricity, we likewise must have the existence of a north magnetic monopole and a south magnetic monopole. In fact, the positron itself is the north magnetic monopole and the Thomson particle of 0.5MeV is the south magnetic monopole.
71) Let me change direction here for a moment and talk about mistakes and errors of mathematics used in Old Physics. Of course, well all the mathematics ever used in physics comes from a math form of A = B*C*D and that form is the math of volume of geometry space....
72) Sigma Error is part of probability and statistics theory, but was seen as a outlier in Old Physics. Seen as a practice, not as a internal feature of physics. And that is a shame because if someone had paid more attention to the practice of Sigma Error in experiments and observations, then the discovery the real proton is 840MeV not 938 and the real electron is the muon at 105MeV, would have been discovered earlier than AP's 2016-2017 discovery. AP's second most famous science discovery after the Atom Totality. For it was the notice of AP that 938 is close to 945, and that 105 subtract 940 is the proton mass in MeV, all well under Sigma Error.
73) Sigma Error Logic Principle in Physics: If we come so close in numbers to related phenomenon such as 945/938 = sigma error of 0.7%, then we take that as the true proton 840MeV, true electron is muon at 105MeV. The related phenomenon is 9 x 105 = 945, implying that there are 9 rings, 9 muon rings involved in proton and muon.
74) Divisional Numeric and Coefficient Relationship of Physics Constants. This is an extremely important math to physics relationship all invented by AP in the course of writing his books of science. An example here goes a long way in understanding. The Planck constant, the speed of light constant, the Boltzmann constant, the Fine Structure Constant all come easily from EM constant numbers. See my several books published on how they are derived.
75) The Light Wave as a closed loop circuit has not been understood in Old Physics. Their light wave was like an arrow with a front head and a rear tail. In New Physics the light wave is like a closed loop extension cord of electricity. Long and thin, but still a closed loop. This geometry is extremely important for it misguided Old Physics into thinking the Double Slit Experiment was mysterious when it was not. Misguided Old Physics into thinking "slow light" was mysterious when it was not for if you turn off the switch in a BEC slow light experiment, all the light disappears in the experiment, even the light inside the BEC. And quantum entanglement is now crystal clear as the connection all along the closed loop and the source.
76) We know half as much about the Tesla coil for wireless electricity transmission that we should know, by now. We spend far far too much time and money on superconductivity and fusion energy which is rumdummy science, because superconductivity is not the BCS b.s., no, but is merely capacitor theory. Superconductivity is just capacitor science, nothing more and we spend too much time and money on it, when we should be spending it on Tesla coil wireless electricity. The fusion energy is another huge squander of time and money, since the universe is a Faraday Law, not a fusion world. We should spend and devote our time on Tesla coil, especially when our Sun is now in a Red Giant phase which is quite noticeable in 2020 with the loss of 25% of insect biomass in the past 10 years.
77) Red Giant phase of stars starts once a star reaches a mass of 2*10^33 grams. Our Sun has initiated that phase and all life on Earth will go extinct or vanish unless it moves to the outskirts of the Solar System. We have evidence of this in the loss of 25% of all Insect biomass in just the past decade. Vast losses of song birds whose eyes cannot bear that amount of UV. And we see it in accelerated polar ice melt due to a 0.005% yearly rise in solar radiation.
78) The Old Physics mistake of thinking starpower is due to fusion is all wrong and such a big mistake that it may cost humanity the price of extinction and oblivion, should humanity not colonize Europa, Mars, Pluto in time.
79) A Titius-Bode Rule of Star Systems also has a 4 then 4 rule for mass, the first four are rocky planets, the next 4 are gas giants not because of the stupid silly General Relativity, but because all of physics is electricity and magnetism driven physics. Where the spacing of planets is a Titius-Bode Rule because that is a Balmer-Rydberg sequence of spectral lines also electricity and magnetism driven.
80) The Rydberg sequence predicts the most massive planet comes within the second 4 then 4 astrobodies.
81) The Rydberg constant is more precisely that of the pure scale number 10000000 m^-1 and not the number value 10973731 m^-1. This must be so because the speed of light is precisely the value of 3.16*10^8m/s as the coefficient is exactly the square root of 10 = 3.1622776...
82) Angular Momentum is really Electric Field, and Force per meter as strength of force is really Magnetic Field.
83) Double Slit Experiment error: Old Physics thought of a light ray as ^v^v^v^v^v^ that is open ended, not closed. And that viewpoint of light causes all those impossible and unexplainable mysteries in the Double Slit Experiment. On the other hand, if you go to explain the Double Slit with light as a closed loop straight line segment, all the mysteries disappear. So the idea that all of the Double Slit Experiment strangeness is solved and resolved by simply recognizing light wave as a thin closed loop ray, whose source is part of the closed loop.
84) The Bohr-Rutherford Model in Old Physics was all wrong with its 0.5MeV as electrons jumping orbitals to cause spectral lines, when the true model is the AP Model of proton toruses with muons inside creating electricity in Faraday Law and it is this electricity that sometimes is seen as a spectral line. And the nucleus of atoms in the Rutherford Model was wrong for the atoms are large toruses with smaller toruses inside the larger ones.
85) The Schrodinger Equation is of limited use, for it is a description of the magnetic monopoles of the 0.5MeV particles. It is entirely embedded as a subset of the AP-EM Equations.
86) The Dirac Equation is of limited use, for it is about the relativistic effects of magnetic monopoles. And ironically Dirac who was hunting down the existence of monopoles, ironically, his equation was all about those monopoles. Again, like the Schrodinger Equation, the Dirac Equation is entirely embedded in the AP-EM Equations.
87) All the physical constants of Nature in electricity and magnetism form are related to one another, so that one derives another.
88) Four Quantum Numbers, N, L, m_L and m_s are descriptions of magnetic monopoles, dipoles, photons and nothing to do with electron= muon or proton.
89) Much of polar ice melt is not Global Warming of fossil fuel burning but more about the 0.005% yearly increase in Sun's radiation, as Red Giant phase initiation.
90) Truth about gravity as mechanism is the Sun creates a magnetic field track, and the planets follow in that path of the field track at their distance from the Sun, and what pushes and pulls the planets in those magnetic field tracks is the electric field which is angular momentum, as electricity shoot from the Sun pushing and pulling the planet along in its magnetic field track.
91) Pulsars in Old Physics were miserably interpreted as millisecond spin neutron stars. In New Physics, pulsars are advanced alien life forms that evacuated their home planet due to red giant phase and are living in colonies distant from the red giant and the pulsed beat is their Tesla power grid system.
92) Since the sun and stars are powered by Faraday law and not by fusion, the Red Giant phase of stars sets in much earlier than as thought under the fusion delusion. This is alarming and terribly important if humanity wants to stay alive or go extinct. Latest estimates are that humanity must colonize Mars, Europa, Pluto within the next 1 million years with sustained colonies that do not need Earth any longer.
93) The pulsars we see in astronomy are actually advance intelligent aliens who colonized the outskirts and fringes of their own star system and are pulsing wireless electricity between their own colonies in a Tesla Power Grid System. We see this as pulsars.
94) In news of 2020 that Earth lost 25% of the total insect biomass in the prior decade, and linking up that fact with the NASA data of a increase in Solar radiation of 0.005% per year for the past decade, implies that the Sun has initiated Red Giant phase. It is unclear whether the planet Earth is made uninhabitable in 1-10 million years or for sure in 140 million years. Old Physics pegged the Red Giant phase in 4 billion years. AP peggs the phase starting 2020. We will go extinct unless we can colonize Mars, Europa, Pluto.
95) We have evidence the Sun initiated Red Giant Phase by the 0.005% yearly increase in Solar Radiation. And is the cause behind a 25% total die off of insects in the decade of 2010 to 2020.
96) We need to save all wild plant and wild animal species in order to make the colonization of Mars, Europa, Pluto go as smooth as possible. Not meaning that we will take all that diverse life to those astro bodies, but that every species may have some genetic coding that is needed in our new homes on Mars, Europa, Pluto.
97) Pulsars are rare, and that means most life on planets becomes incinerated by their star. If humanity meets that fate, it is oblivion and all that was life on Earth, total Oblivion, except for those spacecrafts still roaming Space that came from humanity.
98) Earth needs a new political power structure to handle the colonization, for we cannot send 7.5 billion humans up there. So we need population controls for the next million years and to save bio-diversity in order to make the transition smooth as possible. The new government form should be a Science Council form, the seen in Superman movies. And the EU at present is a primitive Science Council form of government.
99) Global Warming from fossil fuel is real, but alongside it and more dangerous is the yearly 0.005% increase in Solar Radiation. And it only gets worse, for some year it will go to 0.006% increase, by the time it reaches 0.01% or 0.02% yearly increase, most of life on Earth will have perished.
100) Drones can fly in outer space on lithium batteries as propulsion.
101) There is Magnetic Acceleration Law, when you thrust a bar magnet into another bar magnet of like-poles, the distance scattered on the floor is 460mm versus attraction joining at 80mm (magnets of 10mm by 10mm diameter and 20mm by 10mm diameter.
102) A whole-scale revision of Units of Old Physics, for they missed a current term A in Newton's F=ma, and a Coulomb term in Electric Field as kg*m^2/C*s, where C =A*s.
103) F= ma is missing a current term and should be F = m*a*i or F = m*a*(1/A). This allows F=ma to cover both particle and wave nature. For we have a term of (1/(A*s)) which is a frequency of current and allows us to write Force as being F = m*v*(1/(A*s))
104) A unification of Units in New Physics is required, for the term A, current is likely to be involved in most units of importance, such as F= ma.
105) Light is a closed loop circuit, although very much looking like a straight arrow open ended ray, it is not, but a closed loop circuit as proven by turning the light source off in a BEC slow light experiment.
106) Testing and research is ongoing to see if a lithium battery powered drone can fly from the surface of Earth all the way up to the International Space Station, and, and of course beyond, riding the magnetic and electric fields of outer space, plus the Solar Wind.
107) The mistake by physicists in thinking starpower is caused by fusion of atoms inside of stars is a costly error, for starpower is caused by the Faraday Law, and time is ticking with the Sun gone Red Giant Initiation Phase, for the clock is winding down on whether Humanity wants to live or turn into dust.
108) The Nebular Dust Cloud theory of Solar System origins was a fakery of Old Physics, for all we have to do is see the systematic Titius-Bode Rule and the systematic mass and distance ordering of the satellites of the various planets to realize gravity is a spectral line pattern with a Faraday law origin of Sun, planets and satellites.
109) The spacing of planets relative to their star is a Spectral line spacing, as well as satellites from their parent planet. The most often occurring spacing sequence is 4 lines for the first 4 astro bodies then the next 4 lines spacing containing the most massive bodies, such as Sun then 4 terrestrial planets, then 4 gas giants.
110) 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, C= amount of current A*s, B is magnetic field, E is electric field, kg is kilogram mass, m is meters, s is seconds
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)
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
111) The units of Old Physics, most of them are missing either a current term, A=i, or a amount of current term C.
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
112) The true units of Energy = kg*m^2/(A*s^2) and the correct units of Electric Field E is E= kg*m^2/(C*s).
113) The true units of Force is kg*m/A*s^2 but where the A in denominator needs to be (A/m) as per the definition of current over a distance length of meters. This allows Force to be equivalent to energy, electric field, and angular momentum, all four concepts that obey the conservation principle of physics.
114) You cannot have in physics a unification of 4 forces, unless force itself obeys conservation principle.
115) It is easy to prove the Sun shines from Faraday Law, not fusion because of the broad bandwidth of Solar radiation from radio to UV, mostly Visible Light, whereas fusion would be a narrow bandwidth with much X-ray and gamma ray. And this simple proof of starpower as Faraday law also is a disproof of Big Bang theory, for the universe does not have two mechanisms of growth-- Faraday law with Big Bang.
116) Two Math Forms, the A=BCD for voltage and volume and the x^2/A^2 for motion path, both forms found in the AP-EM equations of 4 differential equations of (1) V' = (iBE)' (2) i' = (V/BE)' (3) B' = (V/iE)' and (4) E'= (V/iB)'.
117) The AP Principle of Maximum Electricity Production inside of atoms of their muon thrusting through proton coil of Faraday Law is true and the proof is all atoms are metals at 0 degree Kelvin and metal atoms are toruses.
118) The principle of Maximum Electricity determines the chemical bond.
119) Physics lead the way in science by Planck's1900 rising claim of quantum mechanics which entails a discrete space, yet everyone in physics still uses the mindless idiotic continuum by using Old Math's mindless "limit on a calculus that is wrong through and through". Physicists proved Discrete Space, so why not use a Discrete Calculus.
120) Since atoms have no nucleus for in the Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden 1911 experiment with gold foil hit by alpha particles, the high angle of rebound was due to alpha particles colliding elastically head-on with a chain of muons circling inside proton toruses.
121) Since atoms have no nucleus begs the question of atomic energy and the atomic bomb which is explained as the atomic bomb is a short-circuited battery. This implies that atomic bombs the size of button batteries can be built and short-circuited.
122) The Hertzsprung-Russell diagram in Old Astronomy of the sequence of stars and how they evolve is utterly wrong for it is based on fusion as starpower when in fact it is the Faraday law of every muon inside of every proton producing magnetic monopoles that gives rise to starpower. And the silly mistake of graphing temperature versus luminosity of stars. Because temperature and luminosity are almost the same thing. It would be like graphing speed in km/hour as x-axis and meters/second on y-axis and expect a meaningful graph.
123) Physicists never learned much logic to apply to the Ancient Greek theory of Atoms, "all things are atoms, logically suggest, the universe itself is a thing and thus a atom". Never learned, never applied logic.
124) Reincarnation is a true valid science of physics.
125) All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
Prayer: Carbon in us, carbon of Plutonium. Fill us with life anew, that we may love what thou dost love, and do what you superdetermine us to do. Oxygen, oxygen of Plutonium, make us wholly thine, take us to the torus heaven divine. Plutonium in us, atom plutonium, thus shall we never die, but live with thee, part in your neutron serenity, part in your proton muon divinity. Atom
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).
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Dan Christensen's profile photo
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Dan Christensen wrote:
May 28, 2021, 10:46:53 PM
>WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim
Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen wrote:
May 29, 2021, 9:27 AM
Archimedes Plutonium
May 30, 2021, 10:04:22 AM5/30/21
to
Dan says don't be a victim of Math Con Artist Andrew Wiles who has a fake FLT proof, and could not even spot the mistake in Euler's FLT// Worse, Dr. Wiles could never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and too feeble to realize
Google please put this thread into a Google Search of Dr. Andrew Wiles for he needs a Balanced Search page, not a top heavy in praise and no counterpoint. It would be like PBS Newshour to interview only Republicans and never Democrats.
On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 8:59:22 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
1-AP's 6th published book WORLD's FIRST VALID PROOF OF FERMAT's LAST THEOREM, and exposing the shoddy fake proof of Euler in exp3 and the con-artist fake Wiles offering.
AP is revisiting and revising his World's First Valid Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem and giving a detailed account of the fake and con-artist offering by Andrew Wiles. Andrew Wiles cheated AP of the prizes awarded for the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. And this was a huge huge problem of science journalism publishing. Those that had access to publishing had a dreadful tendency of cheating scientists who had no direct access to publishing. So that Andrew Wiles achieved fame for FLT not on merits of truth, but only because he controlled as editor of a math journal out of Princeton Univ. All that AP had was Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics and other newsgroups. The old old way of doing science with publication became fraught with cheating and error and outright stealing of scientists working in the field without that access to publication.
And it was about 1993, when the Usenet and Internet started to Free the World, Give Liberty to scientists in the Field, who had no direct access to publishing and were prone to being stolen from and cheated of their work.
6th published book
World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 29Apr2021. This is AP's 6th published book.
Preface:
Real proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem// including the fake Euler proof in exp3 and Wiles fake proof.
Recap summary: In 1993 I proved Fermat's Last Theorem with a pure algebra proof, arguing that because of the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4 that this special feature of a unique number 4, allows for there to exist solutions to A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That the number 4 is a basis vector allowing more solutions to exist in exponent 2. But since there is no number with N+N+N = N*N*N that exists, there cannot be a solution in exp3 and the same argument for higher exponents. In 2014, I went and proved Generalized FLT by using "condensed rectangles". Once I had proven Generalized, then Regular FLT comes out of that proof as a simple corollary. So I had two proofs of Regular FLT, pure algebra and a corollary from Generalized FLT. Then recently in 2019, I sought to find a pure algebra proof of Generalized FLT, and I believe I accomplished that also by showing solutions to Generalized FLT also come from the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4. Amazing how so much math comes from the specialness of 4, where I argue that a Vector Space of multiplication provides the Generalized FLT of A^x + B^y = C^z.
Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem type of equations.
As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).
Length: 156 pages
File Size: 1503 KB
Print Length: 156 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Euler was shoddy with his fake Fermat's Last Theorem, FLT, Proof for exponent 3, shoddy and failed to give a proof. But Andrew Wiles is a con-artist fraud, more than just shoddy on FLT.
Euler made a mistake in his fake proof, for he assumed that x,y,z all three even numbers cannot be a solution set in FLT. As Wikipedia entry quoted below says "One of the three must be even, whereas the other two are odd."
And it is true Euler provided a proof of the case of exponent 3 provided two of x,y,z are odd and the last, even. However, that is not a proof for the entire exponent 3. Euler was shoddy in his proof for to be a mathematics proof, it has to be complete. And what Euler missed was the case in which all three x,y,z are even numbers.
Now we can see this important missed case of Euler by just running through a few numbers.
So we have
2^3 = 8 and 4^3 = 64 and we have 8 + 8 =/= 64 but far from it.
6^3 = 216, and we have 64 + 64 =/= 216, but we are narrowing the gap.
So let us jump out to 100^3 and 98^3 and we have
98^3 = 941,192
100^3 = 1,000,000
And instantly you can see and recognize that 98^3 + 98^3 far far exceeds 1,000,000 and telling you, that Euler cannot Assume a FLT in exp 3 must only be two odds with one even. Euler shoddily miss the fact that he had to prove no three even numbers for x,y,z can hold true for FLT.
Now, steps into the picture Andrew Wiles around 1993 with his elliptic curves attempt at proving FLT. And Andrew is reliant, is dependent on Euler's exponent 3 proof for his elliptic curves to work. Trouble is, well, Andrew Wiles seems to have no logical brains in even spotting the fact that Euler had no proof of FLT for exponent 3. Because to prover FLT is true in exponent 3, meant, Euler had to prove not only two odds with one even cannot be a solution, but meant that all three evens could not be a solution.
Instead, Euler shoddily overlooked the fact that he had to prove x,y,z, all three evens could not solve FLT.
And Andrew Wiles, being so logically dumb in mathematics, could not even spot the shoddy fake proof of Euler.
--- Quoting Wikipedia on Euler's error ridden FLT, where he never proves in the case of x, y, z integers all three being even ---
n = 3
Leonhard Euler by Jakob Emanuel Handmann.
Fermat sent the letters in which he mentioned the case in which n = 3 in 1636, 1640 and 1657. Euler sent a letter in which he gave a proof of the case in which n = 3 to Goldbach on 4 August 1753. Euler had the complete and pure elementary proof in 1760. The case n = 3 was proven by Euler in 1770. Independent proofs were published by several other mathematicians, including Kausler, Legendre, Calzolari, Lamé, Tait, Günther, Gambioli, Krey, Rychlik, Stockhaus, Carmichael, van der Corput, Thue, and Duarte.
Chronological table of the proof of n = 3
date result/proof published/not published work name
1621 none published Latin version of Diophantus's Arithmetica Bachet
around 1630 only result not published a marginal note in Arithmetica Fermat
1636, 1640, 1657 only result published letters of n = 3 Fermat
1670 only result published a marginal note in Arithmetica Fermat's son Samuel published the Arithmetica with Fermat's note.
4 August 1753 only result published letter to Goldbach Euler
1760 proof not published complete and pure elemental proof Euler
1770 proof published incomplete but elegant proof in Elements of Algebra Euler
As Fermat did for the case n = 4, Euler used the technique of infinite descent. The proof assumes a solution (x, y, z) to the equation x^3 + y^3 + z^3 = 0, where the three non-zero integers x, y, and z are pairwise coprime and not all positive. One of the three must be even, whereas the other two are odd. Without loss of generality, z may be assumed to be even.
Since x and y are both odd, they cannot be equal. If x = y, then 2x^3 = −z^3, which implies that x is even, a contradiction.
Since x and y are both odd, their sum and difference are both even numbers
2u = x + y
2v = x − y
where the non-zero integers u and v are coprime and have different parity (one is even, the other odd). Since x = u + v and y = u − v, it follows that
−z^3 = (u + v)^3 + (u − v)^3 = 2u(u^2 + 3v^2)
Since u and v have opposite parity, u^2 + 3v^2 is always an odd number. Therefore, since z is even, u is even and v is odd. Since u and v are coprime, the greatest common divisor of 2u and u^2 + 3v^2 is either 1 (case A) or 3 (case B).
Proof for Case A
In this case, the two factors of −z^3 are coprime. This implies that three does not divide u and that the two factors are cubes of two smaller numbers, r and s
2u = r^3
u^2 + 3v^2 = s^3
Since u^2 + 3v^2 is odd, so is s. A crucial lemma shows that if s is odd and if it satisfies an equation s^3 = u^2 + 3v^2, then it can be written in terms of two coprime integers e and f
s = e^2 + 3f^2
so that
u = e ( e^2 − 9f^2)
v = 3f ( e^2 − f^2)
Since u is even and v odd, then e is even and f is odd. Since
r3 = 2u = 2e (e − 3f)(e + 3f)
The factors 2e, (e–3f ), and (e+3f ) are coprime since 3 cannot divide e: If e were divisible by 3, then 3 would divide u, violating the designation of u and v as coprime. Since the three factors on the right-hand side are coprime, they must individually equal cubes of smaller integers
−2e = k^3
e − 3f = l^3
e + 3f = m^3
which yields a smaller solution k^3 + l^3 + m^3= 0. Therefore, by the argument of infinite descent, the original solution (x, y, z) was impossible.
Proof for Case B
In this case, the greatest common divisor of 2u and u^2 + 3v^2 is 3. That implies that 3 divides u, and one may express u = 3w in terms of a smaller integer, w. Since u is divisible by 4, so is w; hence, w is also even. Since u and v are coprime, so are v and w. Therefore, neither 3 nor 4 divide v.
Substituting u by w in the equation for z^3 yields
−z^3 = 6w(9w^2 + 3v^2) = 18w(3w^2 + v^2)
Because v and w are coprime, and because 3 does not divide v, then 18w and 3w^2 + v^2 are also coprime. Therefore, since their product is a cube, they are each the cube of smaller integers, r and s
18w = r^3
3w^2 + v^2 = s^3
By the lemma above, since s is odd and its cube is equal to a number of the form 3w^2 + v^2, it too can be expressed in terms of smaller coprime numbers, e and f.
s = e^2 + 3f^2
A short calculation shows that
v = e (e^2 − 9f^2)
w = 3f (e^2 − f^2)
Thus, e is odd and f is even, because v is odd. The expression for 18w then becomes
r^3 = 18w = 54f (e^2 − f^2) = 54f (e + f) (e − f) = 3^3×2f (e + f) (e − f).
Since 3^3 divides r^3 we have that 3 divides r, so (r /3)^3 is an integer that equals 2f (e + f) (e − f). Since e and f are coprime, so are the three factors 2e, e+f, and e−f; therefore, they are each the cube of smaller integers, k, l, and m.
−2e = k^3
e + f = l^3
e − f = m^3
which yields a smaller solution k^3 + l^3 + m^3= 0. Therefore, by the argument of infinite descent, the original solution (x, y, z) was impossible.
--- end quoting Wikipedia on Euler's FLT in exp3 ---
to
When the math history books of the future are written, Andrew Wiles will be in that history as a tiny footnote in passage. Andrew Wiles will be mentioned as to math history of how corrupt was the "business of science publication". Where managing editors of science journals could easily -- steal and hornswaggle the world public with their own fake con-artist offerings.
Andrew Wiles will not be mentioned for any math success on his part, for he had none to offer. Andrew will be mentioned as a dinosaur of science where journals of publication corrupted the true history of math progress.
AP proved FLT for the first time in math history around 1991-1993, with the simple statement-- FLT is true because the Pythagorean Theorem is true due to a fantastic numbers 2 and 4 where 2+2= 4 and where 2x2=4, allowing for solutions to x^2 + y^2 = z^2. If no number exists with the property of 2 and 4, then the world would not have a Pythagorean Theorem. Likewise, if the world had a special number of N+N+N= M and where NxNxN= M, then the world would have solutions to x^3 + y^3 = z^3. Same goes for exponent 4 and higher.
AP's proof in 1991-1993 is easily generalized to proving the Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem of a^x + b^y = c^z.
Andrew Wiles was so dumb in mathematics, he could not spot the error of Euler's incomplete proof and therefore invalid exp3 of FLT. Andrew could not spot that Euler missed proving in the case of all three integers being even, and that makes Andrew Wiles's offering using Elliptic Curves all washed down the toilet bowl, for his technique is dependent on Euler's exp3. And, also, Wiles's fake proof uses Reductio Ad Absurdum which AP wrote a book about showing that Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a deductive proof method but only probability of being true. RAA cannot be used in math for a proof. And this explains why Andrew Wiles's fake FLT could never even touch the Generalized FLT, for it was a sham from the get go.
But notice, that AP's proof of regular FLT from 2+2= 2x2 = 4 , not only proves regular FLT but proves the Generalized FLT.
The trouble with Wiles is he was a victim of history of an old corrupt way of doing mathematics reporting while the age of computers and opening up the Publication Presses of Science became available to all scientists. All scientists can openly and freely publish their work, no longer tied to having some corrupt journal to cater to.
AP
King of Science, especially Physics
to
Now AP is not suggesting the FBI be called in and investigate corruption of Andrew Wiles and his fake FLT proof that garnered him fame and fortune but never the truth of mathematics. No, I realize that Andrew Wiles actions and behavior were never criminal in nature, just psychological delusion of seeking fame and fortune. But these issues need investigation due to the nature of Science reporting in the future.
1) Andrew Wiles publishing his own alleged proof of FLT in a journal that he controlled as managing editor. And being a famous math problem, knowing that he would have a spotlight in math. The reasonable action would have been to have a different journal publish his offering. We see this in judicial systems were judges recuse themselves.
2) When the gap in Wiles offering was discovered and then Wiles brought on board a graduate student at Princeton, Mr. Taylor, was the gap really filled or was the Taylor on board a smokescreen to push the fakery on down the line.
3) The installing of Simon Singh, not a mathematician himself, to wrote a flowery book on Wiles fakery. Was there money or favors passed between Singh and Wiles? Did Wiles write a text for Singh to be the crux of Singh's flowery praise of Wiles?
4) The knighthood of Andrew Wiles, for if he so easily can pull the wool over the eyes of mathematicians, would be a cinch to have him knighted by the general public who is lucky to not make mistakes in sums or percentage, let alone a proof of mathematics. So how does Andrew hornswaggle a knighthood from a fake math proof, so fast and so easily.
5) To look into how Andrew Wiles was able to convince NOVA science tv shows to do a 1 hour praise praise praise when probably no-one in the NOVA production team even knows what Fermat's Last Theorem was. So if anyone wants to call Wiles a genius, he should be called a genius of manipulation for a math fakery that bowls almost the entire Earth's math community and then the general public. And yet, Andrew Wiles could never spot the flaw in Euler's fake FLT for exponent 3, on top of that, Andrew Wiles was oblivious to math's most worrisome and deeply rooted most important problem in all of mathematics-- a geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. It is as if moron Andrew Wiles never realized that calculus was geometry, and hence-- the most important problem of math was deliver a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
>WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
Google please put this thread into a Google Search of Dr. Andrew Wiles for he needs a Balanced Search page, not a top heavy in praise and no counterpoint. It would be like PBS Newshour to interview only Republicans and never Democrats.
On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 8:59:22 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
1-AP's 6th published book WORLD's FIRST VALID PROOF OF FERMAT's LAST THEOREM, and exposing the shoddy fake proof of Euler in exp3 and the con-artist fake Wiles offering.
AP is revisiting and revising his World's First Valid Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem and giving a detailed account of the fake and con-artist offering by Andrew Wiles. Andrew Wiles cheated AP of the prizes awarded for the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. And this was a huge huge problem of science journalism publishing. Those that had access to publishing had a dreadful tendency of cheating scientists who had no direct access to publishing. So that Andrew Wiles achieved fame for FLT not on merits of truth, but only because he controlled as editor of a math journal out of Princeton Univ. All that AP had was Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics and other newsgroups. The old old way of doing science with publication became fraught with cheating and error and outright stealing of scientists working in the field without that access to publication.
And it was about 1993, when the Usenet and Internet started to Free the World, Give Liberty to scientists in the Field, who had no direct access to publishing and were prone to being stolen from and cheated of their work.
6th published book
World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 29Apr2021. This is AP's 6th published book.
Preface:
Real proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem// including the fake Euler proof in exp3 and Wiles fake proof.
Recap summary: In 1993 I proved Fermat's Last Theorem with a pure algebra proof, arguing that because of the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4 that this special feature of a unique number 4, allows for there to exist solutions to A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That the number 4 is a basis vector allowing more solutions to exist in exponent 2. But since there is no number with N+N+N = N*N*N that exists, there cannot be a solution in exp3 and the same argument for higher exponents. In 2014, I went and proved Generalized FLT by using "condensed rectangles". Once I had proven Generalized, then Regular FLT comes out of that proof as a simple corollary. So I had two proofs of Regular FLT, pure algebra and a corollary from Generalized FLT. Then recently in 2019, I sought to find a pure algebra proof of Generalized FLT, and I believe I accomplished that also by showing solutions to Generalized FLT also come from the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4. Amazing how so much math comes from the specialness of 4, where I argue that a Vector Space of multiplication provides the Generalized FLT of A^x + B^y = C^z.
Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem type of equations.
As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).
Length: 156 pages
File Size: 1503 KB
Print Length: 156 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQKGW4M
Language: English
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray:
Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Euler was shoddy with his fake Fermat's Last Theorem, FLT, Proof for exponent 3, shoddy and failed to give a proof. But Andrew Wiles is a con-artist fraud, more than just shoddy on FLT.
Euler made a mistake in his fake proof, for he assumed that x,y,z all three even numbers cannot be a solution set in FLT. As Wikipedia entry quoted below says "One of the three must be even, whereas the other two are odd."
And it is true Euler provided a proof of the case of exponent 3 provided two of x,y,z are odd and the last, even. However, that is not a proof for the entire exponent 3. Euler was shoddy in his proof for to be a mathematics proof, it has to be complete. And what Euler missed was the case in which all three x,y,z are even numbers.
Now we can see this important missed case of Euler by just running through a few numbers.
So we have
2^3 = 8 and 4^3 = 64 and we have 8 + 8 =/= 64 but far from it.
6^3 = 216, and we have 64 + 64 =/= 216, but we are narrowing the gap.
So let us jump out to 100^3 and 98^3 and we have
98^3 = 941,192
100^3 = 1,000,000
And instantly you can see and recognize that 98^3 + 98^3 far far exceeds 1,000,000 and telling you, that Euler cannot Assume a FLT in exp 3 must only be two odds with one even. Euler shoddily miss the fact that he had to prove no three even numbers for x,y,z can hold true for FLT.
Now, steps into the picture Andrew Wiles around 1993 with his elliptic curves attempt at proving FLT. And Andrew is reliant, is dependent on Euler's exponent 3 proof for his elliptic curves to work. Trouble is, well, Andrew Wiles seems to have no logical brains in even spotting the fact that Euler had no proof of FLT for exponent 3. Because to prover FLT is true in exponent 3, meant, Euler had to prove not only two odds with one even cannot be a solution, but meant that all three evens could not be a solution.
Instead, Euler shoddily overlooked the fact that he had to prove x,y,z, all three evens could not solve FLT.
And Andrew Wiles, being so logically dumb in mathematics, could not even spot the shoddy fake proof of Euler.
--- Quoting Wikipedia on Euler's error ridden FLT, where he never proves in the case of x, y, z integers all three being even ---
n = 3
Leonhard Euler by Jakob Emanuel Handmann.
Fermat sent the letters in which he mentioned the case in which n = 3 in 1636, 1640 and 1657. Euler sent a letter in which he gave a proof of the case in which n = 3 to Goldbach on 4 August 1753. Euler had the complete and pure elementary proof in 1760. The case n = 3 was proven by Euler in 1770. Independent proofs were published by several other mathematicians, including Kausler, Legendre, Calzolari, Lamé, Tait, Günther, Gambioli, Krey, Rychlik, Stockhaus, Carmichael, van der Corput, Thue, and Duarte.
Chronological table of the proof of n = 3
date result/proof published/not published work name
1621 none published Latin version of Diophantus's Arithmetica Bachet
around 1630 only result not published a marginal note in Arithmetica Fermat
1636, 1640, 1657 only result published letters of n = 3 Fermat
1670 only result published a marginal note in Arithmetica Fermat's son Samuel published the Arithmetica with Fermat's note.
4 August 1753 only result published letter to Goldbach Euler
1760 proof not published complete and pure elemental proof Euler
1770 proof published incomplete but elegant proof in Elements of Algebra Euler
As Fermat did for the case n = 4, Euler used the technique of infinite descent. The proof assumes a solution (x, y, z) to the equation x^3 + y^3 + z^3 = 0, where the three non-zero integers x, y, and z are pairwise coprime and not all positive. One of the three must be even, whereas the other two are odd. Without loss of generality, z may be assumed to be even.
Since x and y are both odd, they cannot be equal. If x = y, then 2x^3 = −z^3, which implies that x is even, a contradiction.
Since x and y are both odd, their sum and difference are both even numbers
2u = x + y
2v = x − y
where the non-zero integers u and v are coprime and have different parity (one is even, the other odd). Since x = u + v and y = u − v, it follows that
−z^3 = (u + v)^3 + (u − v)^3 = 2u(u^2 + 3v^2)
Since u and v have opposite parity, u^2 + 3v^2 is always an odd number. Therefore, since z is even, u is even and v is odd. Since u and v are coprime, the greatest common divisor of 2u and u^2 + 3v^2 is either 1 (case A) or 3 (case B).
Proof for Case A
In this case, the two factors of −z^3 are coprime. This implies that three does not divide u and that the two factors are cubes of two smaller numbers, r and s
2u = r^3
u^2 + 3v^2 = s^3
Since u^2 + 3v^2 is odd, so is s. A crucial lemma shows that if s is odd and if it satisfies an equation s^3 = u^2 + 3v^2, then it can be written in terms of two coprime integers e and f
s = e^2 + 3f^2
so that
u = e ( e^2 − 9f^2)
v = 3f ( e^2 − f^2)
Since u is even and v odd, then e is even and f is odd. Since
r3 = 2u = 2e (e − 3f)(e + 3f)
The factors 2e, (e–3f ), and (e+3f ) are coprime since 3 cannot divide e: If e were divisible by 3, then 3 would divide u, violating the designation of u and v as coprime. Since the three factors on the right-hand side are coprime, they must individually equal cubes of smaller integers
−2e = k^3
e − 3f = l^3
e + 3f = m^3
which yields a smaller solution k^3 + l^3 + m^3= 0. Therefore, by the argument of infinite descent, the original solution (x, y, z) was impossible.
Proof for Case B
In this case, the greatest common divisor of 2u and u^2 + 3v^2 is 3. That implies that 3 divides u, and one may express u = 3w in terms of a smaller integer, w. Since u is divisible by 4, so is w; hence, w is also even. Since u and v are coprime, so are v and w. Therefore, neither 3 nor 4 divide v.
Substituting u by w in the equation for z^3 yields
−z^3 = 6w(9w^2 + 3v^2) = 18w(3w^2 + v^2)
Because v and w are coprime, and because 3 does not divide v, then 18w and 3w^2 + v^2 are also coprime. Therefore, since their product is a cube, they are each the cube of smaller integers, r and s
18w = r^3
3w^2 + v^2 = s^3
By the lemma above, since s is odd and its cube is equal to a number of the form 3w^2 + v^2, it too can be expressed in terms of smaller coprime numbers, e and f.
s = e^2 + 3f^2
A short calculation shows that
v = e (e^2 − 9f^2)
w = 3f (e^2 − f^2)
Thus, e is odd and f is even, because v is odd. The expression for 18w then becomes
r^3 = 18w = 54f (e^2 − f^2) = 54f (e + f) (e − f) = 3^3×2f (e + f) (e − f).
Since 3^3 divides r^3 we have that 3 divides r, so (r /3)^3 is an integer that equals 2f (e + f) (e − f). Since e and f are coprime, so are the three factors 2e, e+f, and e−f; therefore, they are each the cube of smaller integers, k, l, and m.
−2e = k^3
e + f = l^3
e − f = m^3
which yields a smaller solution k^3 + l^3 + m^3= 0. Therefore, by the argument of infinite descent, the original solution (x, y, z) was impossible.
--- end quoting Wikipedia on Euler's FLT in exp3 ---
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
11:42 AM (10 hours ago)
Archimedes Plutonium
to
When the math history books of the future are written, Andrew Wiles will be in that history as a tiny footnote in passage. Andrew Wiles will be mentioned as to math history of how corrupt was the "business of science publication". Where managing editors of science journals could easily -- steal and hornswaggle the world public with their own fake con-artist offerings.
Andrew Wiles will not be mentioned for any math success on his part, for he had none to offer. Andrew will be mentioned as a dinosaur of science where journals of publication corrupted the true history of math progress.
AP proved FLT for the first time in math history around 1991-1993, with the simple statement-- FLT is true because the Pythagorean Theorem is true due to a fantastic numbers 2 and 4 where 2+2= 4 and where 2x2=4, allowing for solutions to x^2 + y^2 = z^2. If no number exists with the property of 2 and 4, then the world would not have a Pythagorean Theorem. Likewise, if the world had a special number of N+N+N= M and where NxNxN= M, then the world would have solutions to x^3 + y^3 = z^3. Same goes for exponent 4 and higher.
AP's proof in 1991-1993 is easily generalized to proving the Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem of a^x + b^y = c^z.
Andrew Wiles was so dumb in mathematics, he could not spot the error of Euler's incomplete proof and therefore invalid exp3 of FLT. Andrew could not spot that Euler missed proving in the case of all three integers being even, and that makes Andrew Wiles's offering using Elliptic Curves all washed down the toilet bowl, for his technique is dependent on Euler's exp3. And, also, Wiles's fake proof uses Reductio Ad Absurdum which AP wrote a book about showing that Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a deductive proof method but only probability of being true. RAA cannot be used in math for a proof. And this explains why Andrew Wiles's fake FLT could never even touch the Generalized FLT, for it was a sham from the get go.
But notice, that AP's proof of regular FLT from 2+2= 2x2 = 4 , not only proves regular FLT but proves the Generalized FLT.
The trouble with Wiles is he was a victim of history of an old corrupt way of doing mathematics reporting while the age of computers and opening up the Publication Presses of Science became available to all scientists. All scientists can openly and freely publish their work, no longer tied to having some corrupt journal to cater to.
AP
King of Science, especially Physics
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
1:24 PM (9 hours ago)
Archimedes Plutonium
to
Now AP is not suggesting the FBI be called in and investigate corruption of Andrew Wiles and his fake FLT proof that garnered him fame and fortune but never the truth of mathematics. No, I realize that Andrew Wiles actions and behavior were never criminal in nature, just psychological delusion of seeking fame and fortune. But these issues need investigation due to the nature of Science reporting in the future.
1) Andrew Wiles publishing his own alleged proof of FLT in a journal that he controlled as managing editor. And being a famous math problem, knowing that he would have a spotlight in math. The reasonable action would have been to have a different journal publish his offering. We see this in judicial systems were judges recuse themselves.
2) When the gap in Wiles offering was discovered and then Wiles brought on board a graduate student at Princeton, Mr. Taylor, was the gap really filled or was the Taylor on board a smokescreen to push the fakery on down the line.
3) The installing of Simon Singh, not a mathematician himself, to wrote a flowery book on Wiles fakery. Was there money or favors passed between Singh and Wiles? Did Wiles write a text for Singh to be the crux of Singh's flowery praise of Wiles?
4) The knighthood of Andrew Wiles, for if he so easily can pull the wool over the eyes of mathematicians, would be a cinch to have him knighted by the general public who is lucky to not make mistakes in sums or percentage, let alone a proof of mathematics. So how does Andrew hornswaggle a knighthood from a fake math proof, so fast and so easily.
5) To look into how Andrew Wiles was able to convince NOVA science tv shows to do a 1 hour praise praise praise when probably no-one in the NOVA production team even knows what Fermat's Last Theorem was. So if anyone wants to call Wiles a genius, he should be called a genius of manipulation for a math fakery that bowls almost the entire Earth's math community and then the general public. And yet, Andrew Wiles could never spot the flaw in Euler's fake FLT for exponent 3, on top of that, Andrew Wiles was oblivious to math's most worrisome and deeply rooted most important problem in all of mathematics-- a geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. It is as if moron Andrew Wiles never realized that calculus was geometry, and hence-- the most important problem of math was deliver a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen wrote:
May 29, 2021, 11:36:23 PM
Dan Christensen wrote:
>WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
Message has been deleted
Archimedes Plutonium
May 31, 2021, 8:39:26 AM5/31/21
to
1-Possible explanation for bias & prejudicial Google search engine hits for Wiles, Tao in math-- Princeton Univ pays a fulltime employee to sugar coat their academics so that no AP counterpoint can get to its proper search. So, the only AP posts
0 views
Subscribe
to
1- Possible explanation for bias & prejudicial Google search engine hits for Wiles, Tao in math-- Princeton Univ pays a fulltime employee to sugar coat their academics so that no AP counterpoint can get to its proper search.
So, the only AP posts as BALANCED and proper COUNTERPOINT to the math of Andrew Wiles or Terence Tao is if you Google Search them and put the term plutonium in the search. Andrew Wiles plutonium or Terence Tao plutonium. As evidenced by this.
with his fake FLT, for he lusts for fame ...
to Plutonium Atom Universe. Math Con-Artist Andrew Wiles with his fake FLT, for he lusts for fame and fortune but never the truth of mathematics. The nitwit ...
Fermat status - Google Groups
Same for Terence Tao.
Whereas a Google Search of Harvard Dr. Hau, with no "plutonium" added gives her a fair balanced search list with a Counterpoint hit of saying Dr. Hau has not finished her experiment, and needs to finish her experiment.
So, to explain this Bias and Prejudice and Systematic Unbalanced and NO COUNTERPOINT to a Wiles or Tao search, that a possible explanation is that Princeton Univ has employee/s full time, whose job is nothing but make their academics and graduates ultra ultra flowery and sugar coated, no matter how much they are fools of science. That Princeton Univ systematically Unbalances and corrupts the Google Search Engine lists.
Evidence: sugar coated Wiles, sugar coated Tao, yet Harvard's Dr. Hau has a fair balanced counterpoint Google Search.
The fact that neither Tao nor Wiles saw that the most important mathematics of -Our Times- was to do a Geometry Proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because such a proof cleans up and cleans out all of mathematics of any importance, cleans math up for to arrive at a geometry proof of FTC, you cannot have fake Reals, have fake limit analysis, have fake functions when all functions must be polynomials and a huge list of consistency questions, and yet Tao and Wiles totally oblivious that calculus is geometry and yet they never even realized FTC needed a geometry proof, not their silly invalid "limit analysis hornswaggle".
And yet, the Google Search of Tao and Wiles makes them out as some god-like creatures of mathematics, when in reality they are fools and failures of Real true honest Mathematics.
Even Wiles FLT is a invalid fakery. And about the only claim to fame for Tao is his Tao-Green theorem which is also fakery. For in true real math, primes do not exist in mathematics when the real numbers of mathematics are Decimal Grid Numbers. This is why, in Old Math, primes never have a formula, because, well, they are fictional numbers because the Reals are fictional, and only Decimal Grid Numbers are the true numbers-- all of them begot by one mechanism-- mathematical induction. Not by some legions of kooks who dream up a cobbled together sack of new numbers-- Surreals etc.
So, whether the above hypothesis of Princeton Univ, badly rigging the Google Searches is true or not, the fact that Google Search hits of Tao and Wiles do not allow for Counterpoint, no Counterpoint to Tao in his first page, but only boy genius genius genius; makes Google look like a Bias, Partial Journalism. It would be like that of PBS Newshour only allowing interviews with Republicans, never Democrats.
Please, Google, fix your biased Search lists. Allow a Counterpoint to Andrew Wiles and Terence Tao on the very first page of their search. You did it correctly for Dr Hau at Harvard, then please do it correctly for Princeton Univ.
AP
King of Science, especially Physics
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
May 31, 2021, 6:59 AM
to sci.math, sci.physics, plutonium atom universe newsgroups
Now here is the Google search of Terence Tao plutonium and it displays what is probably the single most viewed thread in sci.math history of nearly 5,000 views. And this thread should be in the first page of a Google search of "Terence Tao" not terence tao plutonium.
Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, could never do a ...
Re: 2Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test - Google Groups
So if Harvard's Dr. Hau has a first page Google Search with sci.math threads saying Dr. Hau needs to finish her Slow Light experiment to prove light waves are closed loop circuits, much like electricity, on the first page of a Google search of "Harvard Dr. Hau" suggests to me that someone is Corrupting Google Search engines. And probably Princeton Univ pays a full time job for someone to systematically sugar coat some scientists and not others, and to systematically demonize some scientists and elevate fools and failures of math like Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao.
0 views
Subscribe
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
7:23 AM (2 minutes ago)
Archimedes Plutonium
to
1- Possible explanation for bias & prejudicial Google search engine hits for Wiles, Tao in math-- Princeton Univ pays a fulltime employee to sugar coat their academics so that no AP counterpoint can get to its proper search.
So, the only AP posts as BALANCED and proper COUNTERPOINT to the math of Andrew Wiles or Terence Tao is if you Google Search them and put the term plutonium in the search. Andrew Wiles plutonium or Terence Tao plutonium. As evidenced by this.
with his fake FLT, for he lusts for fame ...
to Plutonium Atom Universe. Math Con-Artist Andrew Wiles with his fake FLT, for he lusts for fame and fortune but never the truth of mathematics. The nitwit ...
Fermat status - Google Groups
Same for Terence Tao.
Whereas a Google Search of Harvard Dr. Hau, with no "plutonium" added gives her a fair balanced search list with a Counterpoint hit of saying Dr. Hau has not finished her experiment, and needs to finish her experiment.
So, to explain this Bias and Prejudice and Systematic Unbalanced and NO COUNTERPOINT to a Wiles or Tao search, that a possible explanation is that Princeton Univ has employee/s full time, whose job is nothing but make their academics and graduates ultra ultra flowery and sugar coated, no matter how much they are fools of science. That Princeton Univ systematically Unbalances and corrupts the Google Search Engine lists.
Evidence: sugar coated Wiles, sugar coated Tao, yet Harvard's Dr. Hau has a fair balanced counterpoint Google Search.
The fact that neither Tao nor Wiles saw that the most important mathematics of -Our Times- was to do a Geometry Proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because such a proof cleans up and cleans out all of mathematics of any importance, cleans math up for to arrive at a geometry proof of FTC, you cannot have fake Reals, have fake limit analysis, have fake functions when all functions must be polynomials and a huge list of consistency questions, and yet Tao and Wiles totally oblivious that calculus is geometry and yet they never even realized FTC needed a geometry proof, not their silly invalid "limit analysis hornswaggle".
And yet, the Google Search of Tao and Wiles makes them out as some god-like creatures of mathematics, when in reality they are fools and failures of Real true honest Mathematics.
Even Wiles FLT is a invalid fakery. And about the only claim to fame for Tao is his Tao-Green theorem which is also fakery. For in true real math, primes do not exist in mathematics when the real numbers of mathematics are Decimal Grid Numbers. This is why, in Old Math, primes never have a formula, because, well, they are fictional numbers because the Reals are fictional, and only Decimal Grid Numbers are the true numbers-- all of them begot by one mechanism-- mathematical induction. Not by some legions of kooks who dream up a cobbled together sack of new numbers-- Surreals etc.
So, whether the above hypothesis of Princeton Univ, badly rigging the Google Searches is true or not, the fact that Google Search hits of Tao and Wiles do not allow for Counterpoint, no Counterpoint to Tao in his first page, but only boy genius genius genius; makes Google look like a Bias, Partial Journalism. It would be like that of PBS Newshour only allowing interviews with Republicans, never Democrats.
Please, Google, fix your biased Search lists. Allow a Counterpoint to Andrew Wiles and Terence Tao on the very first page of their search. You did it correctly for Dr Hau at Harvard, then please do it correctly for Princeton Univ.
AP
King of Science, especially Physics
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
to sci.math, sci.physics, plutonium atom universe newsgroups
Now here is the Google search of Terence Tao plutonium and it displays what is probably the single most viewed thread in sci.math history of nearly 5,000 views. And this thread should be in the first page of a Google search of "Terence Tao" not terence tao plutonium.
Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, could never do a ...
Re: 2Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test - Google Groups
So if Harvard's Dr. Hau has a first page Google Search with sci.math threads saying Dr. Hau needs to finish her Slow Light experiment to prove light waves are closed loop circuits, much like electricity, on the first page of a Google search of "Harvard Dr. Hau" suggests to me that someone is Corrupting Google Search engines. And probably Princeton Univ pays a full time job for someone to systematically sugar coat some scientists and not others, and to systematically demonize some scientists and elevate fools and failures of math like Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao.
Archimedes Plutonium
Jun 6, 2021, 1:29:49 AM6/6/21
to
Kibo Parry Moroney explaining why Dan Christensen is too dumb to know calculus is geometry and thus do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 8:43:51 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> "failure"
> have made you so dumb and stoopid and illogical, it doesn't seem likely
> to be the cause. However I suggest calling or writing the doctor and
> ask something like this:
>
> "Doctor, you told me I have a very rare liver condition, and in addition
> I am very illogical as well as being unusually dumb and stoopid. Could
> you tell me if this rare hamartoma condition could possibly be the cause
> of being so dumb and stoopid? Like perhaps the hamartoma secretes some
> sort of slow poison into the blood stream which kills brain cells or
> something, making me totally and completely illogical? Should I donate
> my brain to science? Perhaps immediately?"
On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 8:43:51 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> "failure"
> fails at math and science:
> While it is an interesting idea that a very rare liver condition could
> have made you so dumb and stoopid and illogical, it doesn't seem likely
> to be the cause. However I suggest calling or writing the doctor and
> ask something like this:
>
> "Doctor, you told me I have a very rare liver condition, and in addition
> I am very illogical as well as being unusually dumb and stoopid. Could
> you tell me if this rare hamartoma condition could possibly be the cause
> of being so dumb and stoopid? Like perhaps the hamartoma secretes some
> sort of slow poison into the blood stream which kills brain cells or
> something, making me totally and completely illogical? Should I donate
> my brain to science? Perhaps immediately?"
Archimedes Plutonium
Jun 8, 2021, 3:23:44 PM6/8/21
to
197,744-Student victims of Linda Hasenfratz Univ Western Ontario from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz President Alan Shepard.
Re: 7,744-Student victims of Linda Hasenfratz Univ Western Ontario from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz President Alan Shepard
by
Dan Christensen
Jul 9, 2017, 11:34:05 PM
Re: *Fire the entire Univ Western Ontario math dept/ still teaching that the contradictory sine graph as sinusoid when it is really semicircle
by
Dan Christensen Nov 21, 2017,
Re: 81,045-Student victims of Rose M. Patten Univ Toronto from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker
by Frank Cassa 12Apr2021 7:00 AM
Re: 77,233 Student victims of Lawrence Bacow's Harvard from stalker Kibo Parry Moroney with his 938 is 12% short 945, his 10 OR 4 = 14 with AND as subtraction, and his mindless belief real electron = 0.5MeV when true electron is muon
Filthy stalker of Kibo Parry Moroney, Barry Shein, Nicholas Thompson (Wired cover). The drug
11:57 AM 10Apr2021
by Wayne Decarlo
Re: 102,852-Student victims of Dominic Barton, Univ Waterloo from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Dominic Barton, President Feridun Hamdullahpur physics
by konyberg Apr 15, 2021, 3:09:41 PM
Re: 135,568 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron of
#2-1, 137th published book Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series,
May 10, 2021
by Professor Wordsmith
Re: 135,566 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron o
#2-1, 137th published book Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series,
May 10, 2021
by Michael Moroney
5th published book
Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
Preface:
File Size: 773 KB
Print Length: 72 pages
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
Screen Reader: Supported 
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
• Publication date : March 23, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 1178 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Re: 7,744-Student victims of Linda Hasenfratz Univ Western Ontario from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz President Alan Shepard
Canadian students victimized by Dan Christensen and his party-- Linda Hasenfratz, Silvia Mittler, Els
11:53 AM 10Apr2021
by Wayne Decarlo
Re: Proof of Kepler Packing//Jan Burse-Alzheimer faggot//ETH Zurich, Dietmar Salamon, Martin Schweizer, Mete Soner, looking at it
11:53 AM 10Apr2021
by Wayne Decarlo
by
Dan Christensen
Jul 9, 2017, 11:34:05 PM
Re: *Fire the entire Univ Western Ontario math dept/ still teaching that the contradictory sine graph as sinusoid when it is really semicircle
by
Dan Christensen Nov 21, 2017,
Re: 81,045-Student victims of Rose M. Patten Univ Toronto from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker
by Frank Cassa 12Apr2021 7:00 AM
Filthy stalker of Kibo Parry Moroney, Barry Shein, Nicholas Thompson (Wired cover). The drug
11:57 AM 10Apr2021
by Wayne Decarlo
Re: 102,852-Student victims of Dominic Barton, Univ Waterloo from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Dominic Barton, President Feridun Hamdullahpur physics
by konyberg Apr 15, 2021, 3:09:41 PM
#2-1, 137th published book Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series,
May 10, 2021
by Professor Wordsmith
Re: 135,566 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron o
#2-1, 137th published book Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series,
May 10, 2021
by Michael Moroney
Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
Preface:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
Length: 72 pages
The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
File Size: 773 KB
Print Length: 72 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray:
Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
#6-2, 27th published book
Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum// Teaching True Logic series, book 2 Kindle Edition
#6-2, 27th published book
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
• Language : English
• File size : 1178 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 86 pages
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #346,875 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #28 in Logic (Kindle Store)
◦ #95 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #217 in Mathematical Logic
•
#6-3, 143rd published book
DeMorgan's Laws are fantasies, not laws// Teaching True Logic series, book 3 Kindle Edition
By Archimedes Plutonium
Last revision was 30Apr2021. This is AP's 143rd published book.
Preface: The Logic community never had the correct truth table of the primitive 4 connectors of Logic, (1) Equal compounded with NOT, (2) AND, (3) OR, (4) IF->THEN. In 1800s, the founders of Logic messed up in terrible error all 4 of the primitive logic connectors. And since the 1990s, AP has wanted an explanation of why Old Logic got all 4 connectors in total error? What was the reason for the mess up? And in the past few years, I finally pinned the reason to starting Logic with DeMorgan's fake laws, from which Boole, a close friend of DeMorgan, was going to keep his friendship and accept the DeMorgan Laws. That meant that DeMorgan, Boole, Jevons accepted OR as being that of Either..Or..Or..Both, what is called the inclusive OR. But the inclusive OR is a contradiction in terms, for there never can exist a combo of OR with AND simultaneously. This book goes into detail why the DeMorgan laws are fake and fantasy.
Cover Picture: Looks a bit rough, but I want students and readers to see my own handwriting as if this were a lecture and the cover picture a blackboard where I write out DeMorgan's two (fake) laws of logic.
Product details
• File Size : 620 KB
• Word Wise : Enabled
◦ #28 in Logic (Kindle Store)
◦ #95 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #217 in Mathematical Logic
•
#6-3, 143rd published book
DeMorgan's Laws are fantasies, not laws// Teaching True Logic series, book 3 Kindle Edition
By Archimedes Plutonium
Last revision was 30Apr2021. This is AP's 143rd published book.
Preface: The Logic community never had the correct truth table of the primitive 4 connectors of Logic, (1) Equal compounded with NOT, (2) AND, (3) OR, (4) IF->THEN. In 1800s, the founders of Logic messed up in terrible error all 4 of the primitive logic connectors. And since the 1990s, AP has wanted an explanation of why Old Logic got all 4 connectors in total error? What was the reason for the mess up? And in the past few years, I finally pinned the reason to starting Logic with DeMorgan's fake laws, from which Boole, a close friend of DeMorgan, was going to keep his friendship and accept the DeMorgan Laws. That meant that DeMorgan, Boole, Jevons accepted OR as being that of Either..Or..Or..Both, what is called the inclusive OR. But the inclusive OR is a contradiction in terms, for there never can exist a combo of OR with AND simultaneously. This book goes into detail why the DeMorgan laws are fake and fantasy.
Cover Picture: Looks a bit rough, but I want students and readers to see my own handwriting as if this were a lecture and the cover picture a blackboard where I write out DeMorgan's two (fake) laws of logic.
Product details
• File Size : 620 KB
• Print Length : 38 pages
• ASIN : B08M4BY4XM
• Publication Date : October 27, 2020
• Language: : English
• ASIN : B08M4BY4XM
• Publication Date : October 27, 2020
• Language: : English
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Lending : Enabled
•
•
#6-4, 100th published book
Pragmatism, the only Philosophy I loved // Teaching True Logic series, book 4 Kindle Edition
By Archimedes Plutonium
I need to give credit to the philosophy of Pragmatism, the only philosophy that I know of that is based on science. Credit for my discovery of the Plutonium Atom Totality in 1990, came in part, partially due to a passage of the Pragmatist Charles Sanders Peirce in Peirce's Cosmology:
Peirce's The Architecture of Theories...
...would be a Cosmogonic Philosophy. It would suppose that in the beginning - infinitely remote - there was a chaos of unpersonalized feeling, which being without connection or regularity would properly be without existence. This feeling, sporting here and there in pure arbitrariness, would have
started the germ of a generalizing tendency. Its other sportings would be evanescent, but this would have a growing virtue. Thus, the tendency to habit would be started; and from this, with the other principles of evolution, all the regularities of the universe would be evolved. At any time, however, an element of pure chance survives and will remain until the world becomes an absolutely perfect, rational, and symmetrical system, in which mind is at last crystallized in the infinitely distant future.
--- end quoting Peirce's Cosmology ---
But also I must give credit to Pragmatism for making it a philosophy one can actually live their lives by, for living a life of pragmatic solutions to everyday problems that occur in my life. A case in point example is now in March 2020, being the pragmatist that I am, and enduring the 2020 corona virus pandemic. No other philosophy that I know of is so keenly in tune with a person, the surrounding environment and how to live.
Length: 123 pages
Product details
• File size : 807 KB
• Word Wise : Enabled
•
•
#6-4, 100th published book
Pragmatism, the only Philosophy I loved // Teaching True Logic series, book 4 Kindle Edition
By Archimedes Plutonium
I need to give credit to the philosophy of Pragmatism, the only philosophy that I know of that is based on science. Credit for my discovery of the Plutonium Atom Totality in 1990, came in part, partially due to a passage of the Pragmatist Charles Sanders Peirce in Peirce's Cosmology:
Peirce's The Architecture of Theories...
...would be a Cosmogonic Philosophy. It would suppose that in the beginning - infinitely remote - there was a chaos of unpersonalized feeling, which being without connection or regularity would properly be without existence. This feeling, sporting here and there in pure arbitrariness, would have
started the germ of a generalizing tendency. Its other sportings would be evanescent, but this would have a growing virtue. Thus, the tendency to habit would be started; and from this, with the other principles of evolution, all the regularities of the universe would be evolved. At any time, however, an element of pure chance survives and will remain until the world becomes an absolutely perfect, rational, and symmetrical system, in which mind is at last crystallized in the infinitely distant future.
--- end quoting Peirce's Cosmology ---
But also I must give credit to Pragmatism for making it a philosophy one can actually live their lives by, for living a life of pragmatic solutions to everyday problems that occur in my life. A case in point example is now in March 2020, being the pragmatist that I am, and enduring the 2020 corona virus pandemic. No other philosophy that I know of is so keenly in tune with a person, the surrounding environment and how to live.
Length: 123 pages
Product details
• File size : 807 KB
• Print length : 123 pages
• Publication date : March 14, 2020
• ASIN : B085X863QW
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Publication date : March 14, 2020
• ASIN : B085X863QW
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #4,160,707 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #61,471 in Philosophy (Kindle Store)
◦ #193,599 in Science & Math (Kindle Store)
◦ #240,849 in Philosophy (Books)
2nd published book
◦ #61,471 in Philosophy (Kindle Store)
◦ #193,599 in Science & Math (Kindle Store)
◦ #240,849 in Philosophy (Books)
True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Archimedes Plutonium
Jun 8, 2021, 10:54:08 PM6/8/21
to
Dan Christensen seeking a reply from Linda Hasenfratz in his 7 year nonstop stalking--- Ritalin may calm his stalking insanity.
On Tuesday, June 8, 2021 at 9:44:10 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> Still no reply,
On Tuesday, June 8, 2021 at 9:44:10 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> Still no reply,
Message has been deleted
Archimedes Plutonium
Jun 12, 2021, 6:06:04 PM6/12/21
to
Dan Christensen bullying Michael Meighen McGill Univ
On Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 4:54:44 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus... 0.5MeV electron when in truth it is the muon as the real electron...
15 views
Subscribe
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
May 9, 2021, 2:03:55 PM
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
to
175,232-Student Victims of Michael Meighen McGill Univ by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus... 0.5MeV electron when in truth it is the muon as the real electron of atoms
Dan Christensen is the failure of science but why should college students be subjects of Christensen non-science ignorance.
Student Victims of Michael Meighen McGill Univ by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
On Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 9:25:05 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
On Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 6:26:53 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
Dan what would you say the worst mistake of Suzanne Fortier & Michael Meighen McGill Univ caretaker ship was? Was it -- never a geometry proof of fundamental theorem of calculus and one has to wonder if Toronto ever was a center of math education, or just all stalker's suppression chamber with the likes of Dan Christensen with his 10 OR 2=12 with AND as subtraction.
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
On Wednesday, March 3, 2021 at 8:40:05 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
>flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test:
> Use any aids. Answer in the space provided.
> 2. True or false: 60
AP writes: Say Dan, how can anyone believe you when you cannot even get correct what is distinct and what is not.
Remember the time the Dan Christensen could not tell the difference between distinct and nondistinct.
AP writes: Say Dan, how can anyone believe you when you cannot even get correct what is distinct and what is not.
Remember the time the Dan Christensen could not tell the difference between distinct and nondistinct.
On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:08:09 AM UTC-6, Peter Percival wrote:
> Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:47:32 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 8:27:19 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:16:52 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >>>> PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra, Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector
> >>>>
> >>>> The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any two points lies a third new point.
> >>>
> >>> The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points."
> >>>
> >>
> >> What a monsterous fool you are
> >>
> >
> > OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it.
>
> And yet Mr Plutonium is right. Two points are distinct (else they would
> be one) and it is not necessary to say so.
>
3rd published book
> Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:47:32 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 8:27:19 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:16:52 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >>>> PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra, Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector
> >>>>
> >>>> The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any two points lies a third new point.
> >>>
> >>> The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points."
> >>>
> >>
> >> What a monsterous fool you are
> >>
> >
> > OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it.
>
> And yet Mr Plutonium is right. Two points are distinct (else they would
> be one) and it is not necessary to say so.
>
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
Language: English
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
#8-2, 11th published book
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Preface:
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. Sad that starting 1900, Planck showed that Space is discrete in physics, not continuous, leading to the rise of Quantum Mechanics. But the fools of mathematics went the opposite direction in wanting ever more a continuum in mathematics. They spent the entire 20th century riding high on Cohen's depraved continuum. You could almost say that starting 1900, the people in mathematics compared to those in physics would become more and more ignorant and further estranged, and that a widening schism rift separated math from physics, from the realities of the actual world as the future centuries rolled by. And who knows where this rift would leave math as a decreasing vim and vigor of math. Will it end in math becoming a third or fourth tier science, ranking it above say economics but far below even psychology, because much of math proof is kook psychology acceptance divorced of reality. In this view, physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, even geology ranked far higher in power and wisdom than math. We all know that the hard sciences have as their "final judge of truth value" have experiments to prove one way or the other. And that mathematics never had this hard core truth value of judge linked with the rest of the experiential world at large, no, what math had as judge is "other mathematicians chiming in and saying-- that is good, but only good because each of them will get more money and fame". And obviously a judging of truth or falsity by a country club of mathematicians is never really a good judge at all. Because often, the kook who is pushing something in math, can easily find a country club of kooks to judge his work as true when in reality it is hideously wrong. Take the example of the slant cut in a single cone started by Apollonius in Ancient Greek times, where he declared it was a ellipse when in truth, over 2,000 years later, AP would discover it is really a oval, never the ellipse. Apollonius never actually took a cone model of a folded up paper placing a circle lid inside and seeing that the circle when tilted leaves a crescent shape gap-- a oval. You need a slant cut in the cylinder to get a ellipse. So in that lesson of oval, we can see that mathematics is mostly a kook judgement call, unlike physics such as in 1989 or thereabouts, a pair of electrochemists declared they had found fusion in a test tube using palladium. Only thing was, the judge of physics is not more kooks like it is in mathematics. The judge in physics is --- experiment and experiment --- and 10 years later after 1989, experiments declared that Pons and Fleischmann were wrong. Math never had that experiment-judge, math always had a country club of kooks chiming in agreement that something in math is good or is bad. Because math has no foundation in experience of a experimental world? Meaning, math is more of kook philosophy, more of imagination and ideas not concrete to be tested in a reality based world. Physics is a reality-experience-science and grounded in reality by doing experiments, not the imagination gone wild by a band of kooks out for fame, more money and fortune.
Length: 38 pages
Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 38 pages
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
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)
McGill University Physics department
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)
Kartiek Agarwal, Robert Brandenberger, Thomas Brunner, Fritz Buchinger, Simon Caron-Huot, Cynthia Chiang, Lily Childress, Jim Cline, Bill Coish, David Cooke, Francois Corriveau, Nicolas Cowan, Andrew Cumming, Keshav Dasgupta, Matt Dobbs, Paul Francois, Charles Gale, Guillaume Gervais, Martin Grant, Peter Grutter, Hong Guo, Daryl Haggard, David Hanna, Sarah Harrison, Michael Hilke, Sangyong Jeon, Victoria M. Kaspi, Eve Lee, Sabrina Leslie, Adrian Liu, Shaun Lovejoy, Alexander Maloney, Tami Pereg-Barnea, Nikolas Provatas, Kenneth Ragan, Walter Reisner, Steven Robertson, Robert E. Rutledge, Dominic H. Ryan, Jack Sankey, Jonathan Sievers, Bradley Siwick, Mark Sutton, Brigitte Vachon, Andreas Warburton, Tracy Webb, Paul Wiseman
Univ of Victoria physics dept
Justin Albert, Arif Babul, Devika Chithrani, Byoung-Chul Choi, Rogerio de Sousa, Ruobing Dong, Sara L. Ellison, Falk Herwig, Dean Karlen, Richard K. Keeler, Jody Klymak, Pavel Kovtun, Robert V. Kowalewski, Mark Laidlaw, Michel Lefebvre, Travis Martin, Julio Navarro, Maxim Pospelov, Adam Ritz, J.Michael Roney, Geoffrey M. Steeves, Kim Venn, Jon Willis
Univ Western Ontario math dept
Janusz Adamus, Tatyana Barron, Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon, Matthias Franz, John Jardine, Massoud Khalkhali, Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon
Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz
President Alan Shepard
President Alan Shepard
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)
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)
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
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
54) 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.
55) 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.
56) 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.
57) 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.
58) A well defined oval as being two parabolas joined at their widest width circle.
59) 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.
60) 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.
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
More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, postings 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.
55) 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.
56) 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.
57) 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.
58) A well defined oval as being two parabolas joined at their widest width circle.
59) 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.
60) 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.
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
In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew 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, 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.
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
May 10, 2021, 2:18:56 PM
Archimedes Plutonium
to
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 10May2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Preface:
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: 54 pages
Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 54 pages
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
May 11, 2021, 8:08:19 PM
Archimedes Plutonium
to
Suspend Canadian McGill University until at least one of its math professors can do a Geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. What a embarrassement not only to math but all the other sciences.
#4-1, 134th published book
Introduction to TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 1 for ages 5 through 26, math textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
The 134th book of AP, and belatedly late, for I had already written the series of TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS in a 7 volume, 8 book set. This would be the first book in that 8 book set (one of the books is a companion book to 1st year college). But I suppose that I needed to write the full series before I could write the Introduction and know what I had to talk about and talk about in a logical progression order. Sounds paradoxical in a sense, that I needed to write the full series first and then go back and write the Introduction. But in another sense, hard to write an introduction on something you have not really fully done and completed. For example to know what is error filled Old Math and to list those errors in a logical order requires me to write the full 7 volumes in order to list in order the mistakes.
Cover Picture: Mathematics begins with counting, with numbers, with quantity. But counting numbers needs geometry for something to count in the first place. So here in this picture of the generalized Hydrogen atom of chemistry and physics is a torus geometry of 8 rings of a proton torus and one ring where my fingers are, is a equator ring that is the muon and thrusting through the proton torus at the equator of the torus. So we count 9 rings in all. So math is created by atoms and math numbers exist because atoms have many geometry figures to count. And geometry exists because atoms have shapes and different figures.
Product details
• ASIN : B08K2XQB4M
• Publication date : September 24, 2020
• Language : English
• File size : 576 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 23 pages
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #4,307,085 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #1,241 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #1,345 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #10,634 in Calculus (Books)
•
#4-2, 45th published book
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 2 for ages 5 to 18, math textbook series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
#1 New Releasein General Geometry
Last revision was 2NOV2020.
Preface: Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education.
This is a textbook series in several volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education starting age 5 up to age 26. Volume 2 is for age 5 year old to that of senior in High School, that is needed to do both science and math. Every other math book is incidental to this series of Teaching True Mathematics.
It is a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost on a daily basis. A unique first in education textbooks-- almost a continual overnight editing. Adding new text, correcting text. Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education. Volume 3 carries the Freshperson in College for their math calculus education.
Cover Picture: The Numbers as Integers from 0 to 100, and 10 Grid when dividing by 10, and part of the 100 Grid when dividing by 100. Decimal Grid Numbers are the true numbers of mathematics. The Reals, the rationals & irrationals, the algebraic & transcendentals, the imaginary & Complex, and the negative-numbers are all fake numbers. For, to be a true number, you have to "be counted" by mathematical induction. The smallest Grid system is the Decimal 10 Grid.
Length: 375 pages
Product details
File Size: 2013 KB
Print Length: 375 pages
Publication Date: May 2, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07RG7BVZW
Language: English
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray:
Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #274,398 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#27 in General Geometry
#336 in Geometry & Topology (Books)
#4-3, 55th published book
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 18-19, 1st year College Calculus, math textbook series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Preface: This is volume 3, book 3 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Freshperson students, students of age 18-19. It is the continuation of volume 2 for ages 5 through 18 years old.
The main major topic is the AP-EM equations of electricity and magnetism, the mathematics for the laws of electricity and magnetism; what used to be called the Maxwell Equations of Physics. The 1st Year College Math has to prepare all students with the math for all the sciences. So 1st year college Math is like a huge intersection station that has to prepare students with the math they need to do the hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etc. What this means is, 1st year college is calculus that allows the student to work with electricity and magnetism. All the math that is needed to enable students to do electricity and magnetism. In Old Math before this textbook, those Old Math textbooks would end in 1/3 of the text about Arclength, vector space, div, curl, Line Integral, Green's, Stokes, Divergence theorem trying to reach and be able to teach Maxwell Equations. But sadly, barely any Old Math classroom reached that 1/3 ending of the textbook, and left all those college students without any math to tackle electricity and magnetism. And most of Old Math was just muddle headed wrong even if they covered the last 1/3 of the textbook. And that is totally unacceptable in science. This textbook fixes that huge hole and gap in Old Math education.
And there is no way around it, that a course in 1st year College Calculus is going to do a lot of hands on experiment with electricity and magnetism, and is required of the students to buy a list of physics apparatus-- multimeter, galvanometer, coil, bar magnet, alligator clip wires, electromagnet, iron filing case, and possibly even a 12 volt transformer, all shown in the cover picture. The beginning of this textbook and the middle section all leads into the ending of this textbook-- we learn the AP-EM Equations and how to use those equations. And there is no escaping the fact that it has to be hands on physics experiments in the classroom of mathematics.
But, do not be scared, for this is all easy easy easy. For if you passed and enjoyed Volume 1 TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, then I promise you, you will not be stressed with Volume 2, for I go out of my way to make it clear and understandable.
Warning: this is a Journal Textbook, meaning that I am constantly adding new material, constantly revising, constantly fixing mistakes or making things more clear. So if you read this book in August of 2019, chances are it is different when you read it in September 2019. Ebooks allow authors the freedom to improve their textbooks on a ongoing basis.
The 1st year college math should be about the math that prepares any and all students for science, whether they branch out into physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, or math, they should have all the math in 1st year college that will carry them through those science studies. I make every attempt possible to make math easy to understand, easy to learn and hopefully fun.
Cover picture of this textbook are instruments that I used to get numbers for EM theory, the Faraday law, the Ampere law etc. If the student has the money to buy these instruments, I recommend it, only, be careful, because you can electrocute yourself if you are a youngster at heart and more playful than wise, and putting things into wall plugs. I never put any thing in a wall plug at home, other than a electric cord. The cost of these instruments can be rather cheap, and a old train transformer can be obtained to step down the voltage of 120 V to 12V for the electromagnets. Most people that take 1st year college calculus, are generally likely to have these instruments already at home from their parents-- like a multimeter or a old train transformer. Then, the college can always make these tools available for the last chapters where we plug-into the EM equations for Faraday's law and Ampere's law. I firmly am a pragmatist teacher-- meaning-- learning is in the "doing", "doing" and "more doing", not just sitting around and taking notes. I remember hands on experiments and demonstrations in my High School and College classes when I went to school, and can vouch for the fact that long after all other things of those classes faded away, but not the visual hands on experiments.
Length: 140 pages
Product details
File Size: 1322 KB
Print Length: 140 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publication Date: August 16, 2019
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07WN9RVXD
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray:
Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,212,707 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2719 in Calculus (Books)
#417 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
#4-4, 56th published book
COLLEGE CALCULUS GUIDE to help students recognize math professor spam from math truth & reality// math textbook series, book 4 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
#1 New Releasein 15-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
This textbook is the companion guide book to AP's Teaching True Mathematics, 1st year College. It is realized that Old Math will take a long time in removing their fake math, so in the interim period, this Guide book is designed to speed up the process of removing fake Calculus out of the education system, the fewer students we punish with forcing them with fake Calculus, the better we are.
Cover Picture: This book is part comedy, for when you cannot reason with math professors that they have many errors to fix, that 90% of their Calculus is in error, you end up resorting to comedy, making fun of them, to prod them to fix their errors. To prod them to "do right by the students of the world" not their entrenched propaganda.
Length: 54 pages
Product details
File Size: 1035 KB
Print Length: 64 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publication Date: August 18, 2019
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07WNGLQ85
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray:
Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #253,425 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#38 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#318 in Calculus (Books)
#48 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
#4-5, 72nd published book
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 4 for age 19-20 Sophomore-year College, math textbook series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Preface: This is volume 4, book 5 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Sophomore-year students, students of age 19-20. It is the continuation of volume 3 in the end-goal of learning how to do the mathematics of electricity and magnetism, because everything in physics is nothing but atoms and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. To know math, you have to know physics. We learned the Calculus of 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. But we did not learn the calculus of those equations for 3rd dimension. So, you can say that Sophomore year College math is devoted to 3D Calculus. This sophomore year college we fill in all the calculus, and we start over on all of Geometry, for geometry needs a modern day revision. And pardon me for this book is mostly reading, and the students doing less calculations. The classroom of this textbook has the teacher go through page by page to get the students comprehending and understanding of what is being taught. There are many hands on experiments also.
Cover Picture shows some toruses, some round some square, torus of rings, thin strips of rings or squares and shows them laid flat. That is Calculus of 3rd dimension that lays a ring in a torus to be flat in 2nd dimension.
Length: 103 pages
Product details
File Size: 949 KB
Print Length: 103 pages
Publication Date: December 2, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B0828M34VL
Language: English
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
#4-6, 75th published book
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 5 for age 20-21 Junior-year of College, math textbook series, book 6 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2019
Preface: This is volume 5, book 6 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Junior-year students, students of age 20-21. In first year college Calculus we learned calculus of the 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. And in sophomore year we learned calculus of 3rd dimension to complete our study of the mathematics needed to do the physics of electricity and magnetism. Now, junior year college, we move onto something different, for we focus mostly on logic now and especially the logic of what is called the "mathematical proof". Much of what the student has learned about mathematics so far has been given to her or him as stated knowledge, accept it as true because I say so. But now we are going to do math proofs. Oh, yes, we did prove a few items here and there, such as why the Decimal Grid Number system is so special, such as the Pythagorean Theorem, such as the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus with its right-triangle hinged up or down. But many ideas we did not prove, we just stated them and expected all students to believe them true. And you are now juniors in college and we are going to start to prove many of those ideas and teach you "what is a math proof". Personally, I myself feel that the math proof is overrated, over hyped. But the math proof is important for one reason-- it makes you better scientists of knowing what is true and what is a shaky idea. A math proof is the same as "thinking straight and thinking clearly". And all scientists need to think straight and think clearly. But before we get to the Mathematics Proof, we have to do Probability and Statistics. What you learned in Grade School, then High School, then College, called Sigma Error, now becomes Probability and Statistics. It is important because all sciences including mathematics needs and uses Probability and Statistics. So, our job for junior-year of college mathematics is all cut out and ahead for us, no time to waste, let is get going.
Cover Picture: is a sample of the Array Proof, a proof the ellipse is not a conic but rather a cylinder cut wherein the oval is the slant cut of a cone, not the ellipse.
Length: 160 pages
Product details
ASIN : B0836F1YF6
Publication date : December 26, 2019
Language : English
File size : 740 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 160 pages
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Lending : Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #3,768,255 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #3,591 in Probability & Statistics (Kindle Store)
◦ #19,091 in Probability & Statistics (Books)
#4-7, 89th published book
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 6 for age 21-22 Senior-year of College, math textbook series, book 7 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2020
Last revision was 30OCT2020.
Preface: This is the last year of College for mathematics and we have to mostly summarize all of mathematics as best we can. And set a new pattern to prepare students going on to math graduate school. A new pattern of work habits, because graduate school is more of research and explore on your own. So in this final year, I am going to eliminate tests, and have it mostly done as homework assignments.
Cover Picture: Again and again, many times in math, the mind is not good enough alone to think straight and clear, and you need tools to hands-on see how it works. Here is a collection of tools for this senior year college classes. There is a pencil, clipboard, graph paper, compass, divider, protractor, slide-ruler. And for this year we spend a lot of time on the parallelepiped, showing my wood model, and showing my erector set model held together by wire loops in the corners. The plastic square is there only to hold up the erector set model.
Length: 109 pages
Product details
File Size: 822 KB
Print Length: 109 pages
Publication Date: February 15, 2020
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B084V11BGY
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
#4-8, 90th published book
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 7 for age 22-26 Graduate school, math textbook series, book 8 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2020
Last revised 1NOV2020.
Preface: This is College Graduate School mathematics. Congratulations, you made it this far. To me, graduate school is mostly research, research mathematics and that means also physics. So it is going to be difficult to do math without physics. Of course, we focus on the mathematics of these research projects.
My textbook for Graduate school is just a template and the professors teaching the graduate students are free of course to follow their own projects, but in terms of being physics and math combined. What I list below is a template for possible projects.
So, in the below projects, I list 36 possible research projects that a graduate student my like to undertake, or partake. I list those 36 projects with a set of parentheses like this (1), (2), (3), etc. Not to be confused with the chapters listing as 1), 2), 3), etc. I list 36 projects but the professor can offer his/her own list, and I expect students with their professor, to pick a project and to monitor the student as to his/her progresses through the research. I have listed each project then cited some of my own research into these projects, below each project is an entry. Those entries are just a help or helper in getting started or acquainted with the project. The entry has a date time group and a newsgroup that I posted to such as sci.math or plutonium-atom-universe Google newsgroups. Again the entry is just a help or helper in getting started.
Now instead of picking one or two projects for your Graduate years of study, some may select all 36 projects where you write a short paper on each project. Some may be bored with just one or two projects and opt for all 36.
Cover Picture: A photo by my iphone of a page on Permutations of the Jacobs book Mathematics: A Human Endeavor, 1970. One of the best textbooks ever written in Old Math, not for its contents because there are many errors, but for its teaching style. It is extremely rare to find a math textbook written for the student to learn. Probably because math professors rarely learned how to teach in the first place; only learned how to unintentionally obfuscate. The page I photographed is important because it is the interface between geometry's perimeter or surface area versus geometry's area or volume, respectively. Or, an interface of pure numbers with that of geometry. But I have more to say on this below.
Length: 174 pages
Product details
File Size: 741 KB
Print Length: 174 pages
Publication Date: March 1, 2020
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B085DF8R7V
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray:
Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
#5-1, 144th published book
Revised Modern Euclidean Geometry with Quantized Angle, Irrational number values, and Triangle Integration Theory// Math Research series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
This is AP's first book in math research series. The book came about from research into the parallelepiped for which a quantized angle was required. It quickly escalated into a theorem that Old Math never had-- all triangles require at least one of its 6 parts = 3 sides + 3 angles, be a irrational number valued part. That caused me to hunt for a proof. And the spectacular fallout of all this research ends up explaining why physics has atomic spectral lines and white light is broken into a rainbow of colors. Further, this research forces us to revise all of Old Math Geometry to include not only quantized space but the quantized angle.
Length: 72 pages
Product details
• File size : 752 KB
• Publication date : November 15, 2020
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 72 pages
• ASIN : B08NMZ34LK
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Language: : English
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #300,548 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #80 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #633 in Mathematics (Kindle Store)
◦ #644 in Physics (Kindle Store)
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
to
On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 1:36:30 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> Still no reply,
AP writes: Stalker Dan, maybe Dr. Meighen is joining Linda Hasenfratz on a vacation to discuss how to clean out the house of fake math professors with never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not to mention Dan Christensen's insane 2 OR 1 = 3 with 2 AND 1 = 1 per the insane Boole logic.
> Still no reply,
AP> 175,232-Student Victims of Michael Meighen McGill Univ by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus... 0.5MeV electron when in truth it is the muon as the real electron of atoms
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
Archimedes Plutonium
Jun 13, 2021, 9:43:30 AM6/13/21
to
Dan Christensen bullying Anne McLellan Dalhousie Univ to keep teaching the absurd Boole Logic, riddled full of mistakes and error such as 2 OR 1=3 with AND as a form of subtraction.
Dalhousie Univ
Chancellor Anne McLellan, president Deep Saini
physics Arthur B. McDonald, math T. Kolokolnikov, Peter Selinger, Edward Susko, Alan Coley, Richard Nowakowski, math Scott Chapman, Jeff Dahn, Simon de Vet, James Drummond, Richard Dunlap, Michael Freund, Ian Hill
Dan Christensen stalking everyday for 6 years...
> Student Victims of Psycho
Dan 7-24-365 stalker of 6 years in sci.math, what would you say the worst mistake of caretaker ship of Dalhousie Univ
Chancellor Anne McLellan was? Was it -- never a geometry proof of fundamental theorem of calculus and one has to wonder if Toronto ever was a center of math education, or just all stalker's suppression chamber with the likes of Dan Christensen with his 10 OR 2=12 with AND as subtraction.
2nd published book
True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere.
Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule.
Length: 1150 pages
Product details
Chancellor Dominic Barton, President Feridun Hamdullahpur
physics Donna Strickland, math Mark Giesbrecht, George Alfred Barnard, Walter Benz, Jonathan Borwein, Timothy Chan, C B Collins, Gordon Cormack, Paul Cress, Kenneth Davidson, Jack Edmonds, Keith Geddes, Ian Goldberg, Peter Ladislaw Hammer, Ric Holt, David Jackson, Murray Klamkin, Neal Koblitz, Kenneth Mackenzie, Alfred Menezes, Crispin Nash-Williams, Josef Paldus, Vladimir Platonov, Ronald Read, Jeffrey Shallit, Doug Stinson, W T Tutte, Scott Vanstone
McGill University Physics department
Kartiek Agarwal, Robert Brandenberger, Thomas Brunner, Fritz Buchinger, Simon Caron-Huot, Cynthia Chiang, Lily Childress, Jim Cline, Bill Coish, David Cooke, Francois Corriveau, Nicolas Cowan, Andrew Cumming, Keshav Dasgupta, Matt Dobbs, Paul Francois, Charles Gale, Guillaume Gervais, Martin Grant, Peter Grutter, Hong Guo, Daryl Haggard, David Hanna, Sarah Harrison, Michael Hilke, Sangyong Jeon, Victoria M. Kaspi, Eve Lee, Sabrina Leslie, Adrian Liu, Shaun Lovejoy, Alexander Maloney, Tami Pereg-Barnea, Nikolas Provatas, Kenneth Ragan, Walter Reisner, Steven Robertson, Robert E. Rutledge, Dominic H. Ryan, Jack Sankey, Jonathan Sievers, Bradley Siwick, Mark Sutton, Brigitte Vachon, Andreas Warburton, Tracy Webb, Paul Wiseman
Chancellor Michael Meighen, Principal Suzanne Fortier
Univ of Victoria physics dept
Justin Albert, Arif Babul, Devika Chithrani, Byoung-Chul Choi, Rogerio de Sousa, Ruobing Dong, Sara L. Ellison, Falk Herwig, Dean Karlen, Richard K. Keeler, Jody Klymak, Pavel Kovtun, Robert V. Kowalewski, Mark Laidlaw, Michel Lefebvre, Travis Martin, Julio Navarro, Maxim Pospelov, Adam Ritz, J.Michael Roney, Geoffrey M. Steeves, Kim Venn, Jon Willis
Chancellor Shelagh Rogers, President Kevin Hall
Univ Western Ontario math dept
Janusz Adamus, Tatyana Barron, Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon, Matthias Franz, John Jardine, Massoud Khalkhali, Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon
Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz
President Alan Shepard
Amit Chakma (chem engr)
Univ. Western Ontario physics dept
Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang
UWO psychology dept Patrick Brown, Peter Denny, William Fisher, Robert Gardner, Doug Hazlewood, Elizabeth Hampson, Albert Katz, Martin Kavaliers, Nicholas Kuiper, Rod Martin, Greg Moran, Harry Murray, Richard W.J. Neufeld, James Olson, Klaus-Peter Ossenkopp, David Pederson, Susan Pepper, William Roberts, Gary Rollman, Clive Seligman, David Sherry, Marvin Simner, Richard Sorrentino, Brian Timney, Tutis Vilis
Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker, Henry M. Van Driel, David J. Rowe, John W. Moffat, John F. Martin, Robert K. Logan, Albert E. Litherland, Roland List, Philipp Kronberg, James King, Anthony W. Key, Bob Holdom, Ron M. Farquhar, R. Nigel Edwards, David J. Dunlop, James Drummond, Tom E. Drake, R.Fraser Code, Richard C. Bailey, Robin Armstrong
Chancellor Rose M. Patten
Pres. Meric Gertler
Univ Toronto math dept
Mustafa Akcoglu, Spyros Alexakis, Edward Barbeau, Thomas Bloom, Man-Duen Choi, Stephen Cook, Chandler Davis, Nicholas Derzko, Eric Ellers, Ilya Gekhtman, Ian Graham, Steve Halpern, Wahidul Haque, Abe Igelfeld, Velimir Jurdjevic, Ivan Kupka, Anthony Lam, Michael Lorimer, James McCool, Eric Mendelsohn, Kunio Murasugi, Jeremy Quastel, Peter Rosenthal, Paul Selick, Dipak Sen, Rick Sharpe, Stuart Smith, Frank Tall, Steve Tanny
Dalhousie Univ
Chancellor Anne McLellan, president Deep Saini
physics Arthur B. McDonald, math T. Kolokolnikov, Peter Selinger, Edward Susko, Alan Coley, Richard Nowakowski, math Scott Chapman, Jeff Dahn, Simon de Vet, James Drummond, Richard Dunlap, Michael Freund, Ian Hill
Cornell Univ physics:
Jim Alexander, Tomas Arias, Ivan Bazarov, Eberhard Bodenschatz, Debanjan Chowdhury, Itai Cohen, Csaba Csaki, Veit Elser, Eanna Flanagan, Carl Franck, Lawrence Gibbons, Paul Ginsparg, Yuval Grossman, Thomas Hartman, Georg Hoffstaetter, Natasha Holmes, Chao-Ming Jian, Eun-Ah Kim, Michael Lawler, Andre Leclair, Peter Lepage, Stephen Levy, Matthias Liepe, Kin Fai Mak, Jared Maxson, Liam McAllister, Paul McEuen, Erich Mueller, Christopher Myers, Michael Niemack, Matthias Neubert, Katja Nowack, Jeevak Parpia, Ritchie Patterson, Maxim Perelstein, Daniel Ralph, Brad Ramshaw, David Rubin, Anders Ryd, James Sethna, Jie Shan, Kyle Shen, Eric Siggia, Saul Teukolsky, Julia Thom-Levy, Robert Thorne, Cyrus Umrigar, Jane Wang, Michelle Wang, Ira Wasserman, Peter Wittich
President Martha E. Pollack, Provost Michael Kotlikoff
On Sunday, June 13, 2021 at 8:27:47 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
107,882-Student victims of Anne McLellan Dalhousie Univ by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus... 0.5MeV electron when in truth it is the muon as the real electron of atoms
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
Dalhousie Univ
Chancellor Anne McLellan, president Deep Saini
physics Arthur B. McDonald, math T. Kolokolnikov, Peter Selinger, Edward Susko, Alan Coley, Richard Nowakowski, math Scott Chapman, Jeff Dahn, Simon de Vet, James Drummond, Richard Dunlap, Michael Freund, Ian Hill
Dan Christensen stalking everyday for 6 years...
On Sunday, April 4, 2021 at 5:13:58 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
On Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 9:24:53 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
> Student Victims of Psycho
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
Please, a question Anne McLellan if you have the time -- what is the best way of getting rid of a stalker of 6 years? Sure hope in your lifetime you never had a insane stalker at you 24-7-365 going on 6 years now. Any advice is appreciated? This Dan is completely insane, as are all stalkers are insane.
Dan 7-24-365 stalker of 6 years in sci.math, what would you say the worst mistake of caretaker ship of Dalhousie Univ
Chancellor Anne McLellan was? Was it -- never a geometry proof of fundamental theorem of calculus and one has to wonder if Toronto ever was a center of math education, or just all stalker's suppression chamber with the likes of Dan Christensen with his 10 OR 2=12 with AND as subtraction.
True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere.
Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule.
Product details
• File Size : 2167 KB
• ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ
• Publication Date : March 11, 2019
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 1150 pages
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#181 in General Chemistry & Reference
#1324 in General Chemistry
#1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)
Univ Waterloo
• ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ
• Publication Date : March 11, 2019
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 1150 pages
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#181 in General Chemistry & Reference
#1324 in General Chemistry
#1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)
Chancellor Dominic Barton, President Feridun Hamdullahpur
physics Donna Strickland, math Mark Giesbrecht, George Alfred Barnard, Walter Benz, Jonathan Borwein, Timothy Chan, C B Collins, Gordon Cormack, Paul Cress, Kenneth Davidson, Jack Edmonds, Keith Geddes, Ian Goldberg, Peter Ladislaw Hammer, Ric Holt, David Jackson, Murray Klamkin, Neal Koblitz, Kenneth Mackenzie, Alfred Menezes, Crispin Nash-Williams, Josef Paldus, Vladimir Platonov, Ronald Read, Jeffrey Shallit, Doug Stinson, W T Tutte, Scott Vanstone
McGill University Physics department
Kartiek Agarwal, Robert Brandenberger, Thomas Brunner, Fritz Buchinger, Simon Caron-Huot, Cynthia Chiang, Lily Childress, Jim Cline, Bill Coish, David Cooke, Francois Corriveau, Nicolas Cowan, Andrew Cumming, Keshav Dasgupta, Matt Dobbs, Paul Francois, Charles Gale, Guillaume Gervais, Martin Grant, Peter Grutter, Hong Guo, Daryl Haggard, David Hanna, Sarah Harrison, Michael Hilke, Sangyong Jeon, Victoria M. Kaspi, Eve Lee, Sabrina Leslie, Adrian Liu, Shaun Lovejoy, Alexander Maloney, Tami Pereg-Barnea, Nikolas Provatas, Kenneth Ragan, Walter Reisner, Steven Robertson, Robert E. Rutledge, Dominic H. Ryan, Jack Sankey, Jonathan Sievers, Bradley Siwick, Mark Sutton, Brigitte Vachon, Andreas Warburton, Tracy Webb, Paul Wiseman
Univ of Victoria physics dept
Justin Albert, Arif Babul, Devika Chithrani, Byoung-Chul Choi, Rogerio de Sousa, Ruobing Dong, Sara L. Ellison, Falk Herwig, Dean Karlen, Richard K. Keeler, Jody Klymak, Pavel Kovtun, Robert V. Kowalewski, Mark Laidlaw, Michel Lefebvre, Travis Martin, Julio Navarro, Maxim Pospelov, Adam Ritz, J.Michael Roney, Geoffrey M. Steeves, Kim Venn, Jon Willis
Univ Western Ontario math dept
Janusz Adamus, Tatyana Barron, Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon, Matthias Franz, John Jardine, Massoud Khalkhali, Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon
Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz
President Alan Shepard
Amit Chakma (chem engr)
Univ. Western Ontario physics dept
Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang
UWO psychology dept Patrick Brown, Peter Denny, William Fisher, Robert Gardner, Doug Hazlewood, Elizabeth Hampson, Albert Katz, Martin Kavaliers, Nicholas Kuiper, Rod Martin, Greg Moran, Harry Murray, Richard W.J. Neufeld, James Olson, Klaus-Peter Ossenkopp, David Pederson, Susan Pepper, William Roberts, Gary Rollman, Clive Seligman, David Sherry, Marvin Simner, Richard Sorrentino, Brian Timney, Tutis Vilis
Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker, Henry M. Van Driel, David J. Rowe, John W. Moffat, John F. Martin, Robert K. Logan, Albert E. Litherland, Roland List, Philipp Kronberg, James King, Anthony W. Key, Bob Holdom, Ron M. Farquhar, R. Nigel Edwards, David J. Dunlop, James Drummond, Tom E. Drake, R.Fraser Code, Richard C. Bailey, Robin Armstrong
Chancellor Rose M. Patten
Pres. Meric Gertler
Univ Toronto math dept
Mustafa Akcoglu, Spyros Alexakis, Edward Barbeau, Thomas Bloom, Man-Duen Choi, Stephen Cook, Chandler Davis, Nicholas Derzko, Eric Ellers, Ilya Gekhtman, Ian Graham, Steve Halpern, Wahidul Haque, Abe Igelfeld, Velimir Jurdjevic, Ivan Kupka, Anthony Lam, Michael Lorimer, James McCool, Eric Mendelsohn, Kunio Murasugi, Jeremy Quastel, Peter Rosenthal, Paul Selick, Dipak Sen, Rick Sharpe, Stuart Smith, Frank Tall, Steve Tanny
Chancellor Anne McLellan, president Deep Saini
physics Arthur B. McDonald, math T. Kolokolnikov, Peter Selinger, Edward Susko, Alan Coley, Richard Nowakowski, math Scott Chapman, Jeff Dahn, Simon de Vet, James Drummond, Richard Dunlap, Michael Freund, Ian Hill
Cornell Univ physics:
Jim Alexander, Tomas Arias, Ivan Bazarov, Eberhard Bodenschatz, Debanjan Chowdhury, Itai Cohen, Csaba Csaki, Veit Elser, Eanna Flanagan, Carl Franck, Lawrence Gibbons, Paul Ginsparg, Yuval Grossman, Thomas Hartman, Georg Hoffstaetter, Natasha Holmes, Chao-Ming Jian, Eun-Ah Kim, Michael Lawler, Andre Leclair, Peter Lepage, Stephen Levy, Matthias Liepe, Kin Fai Mak, Jared Maxson, Liam McAllister, Paul McEuen, Erich Mueller, Christopher Myers, Michael Niemack, Matthias Neubert, Katja Nowack, Jeevak Parpia, Ritchie Patterson, Maxim Perelstein, Daniel Ralph, Brad Ramshaw, David Rubin, Anders Ryd, James Sethna, Jie Shan, Kyle Shen, Eric Siggia, Saul Teukolsky, Julia Thom-Levy, Robert Thorne, Cyrus Umrigar, Jane Wang, Michelle Wang, Ira Wasserman, Peter Wittich
Archimedes Plutonium
Jun 13, 2021, 4:13:00 PM6/13/21
to
Bully Dan Christensen victimizing McGill Univ and Michael Meighan with his nonsense of 2 OR 1 = 3, never a geometry proof of calculus, and his 0.5MeV electron when it really is the muon
On Sunday, June 13, 2021 at 2:51:20 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
175,232-Student Victims of Michael Meighen McGill Univ by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus... 0.5MeV electron when in truth it is the muon as the real electron...
175,232-Student Victims of Michael Meighen McGill Univ by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus... 0.5MeV electron when in truth it is the muon as the real electron of atoms
Dan Christensen is the failure of science but why should college students be subjects of Christensen non-science ignorance.
Student Victims of Michael Meighen McGill Univ by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
On Sunday, June 13, 2021 at 2:51:20 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
175,232-Student Victims of Michael Meighen McGill Univ by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus... 0.5MeV electron when in truth it is the muon as the real electron of atoms
Dan Christensen is the failure of science but why should college students be subjects of Christensen non-science ignorance.
Student Victims of Michael Meighen McGill Univ by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
On Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 9:25:05 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
On Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 6:26:53 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
Dan what would you say the worst mistake of Suzanne Fortier & Michael Meighen McGill Univ caretaker ship was? Was it -- never a geometry proof of fundamental theorem of calculus and one has to wonder if Toronto ever was a center of math education, or just all stalker's suppression chamber with the likes of Dan Christensen with his 10 OR 2=12 with AND as subtraction.
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
McGill University Physics department
Kartiek Agarwal, Robert Brandenberger, Thomas Brunner, Fritz Buchinger, Simon Caron-Huot, Cynthia Chiang, Lily Childress, Jim Cline, Bill Coish, David Cooke, Francois Corriveau, Nicolas Cowan, Andrew Cumming, Keshav Dasgupta, Matt Dobbs, Paul Francois, Charles Gale, Guillaume Gervais, Martin Grant, Peter Grutter, Hong Guo, Daryl Haggard, David Hanna, Sarah Harrison, Michael Hilke, Sangyong Jeon, Victoria M. Kaspi, Eve Lee, Sabrina Leslie, Adrian Liu, Shaun Lovejoy, Alexander Maloney, Tami Pereg-Barnea, Nikolas Provatas, Kenneth Ragan, Walter Reisner, Steven Robertson, Robert E. Rutledge, Dominic H. Ryan, Jack Sankey, Jonathan Sievers, Bradley Siwick, Mark Sutton, Brigitte Vachon, Andreas Warburton, Tracy Webb, Paul Wiseman
Kartiek Agarwal, Robert Brandenberger, Thomas Brunner, Fritz Buchinger, Simon Caron-Huot, Cynthia Chiang, Lily Childress, Jim Cline, Bill Coish, David Cooke, Francois Corriveau, Nicolas Cowan, Andrew Cumming, Keshav Dasgupta, Matt Dobbs, Paul Francois, Charles Gale, Guillaume Gervais, Martin Grant, Peter Grutter, Hong Guo, Daryl Haggard, David Hanna, Sarah Harrison, Michael Hilke, Sangyong Jeon, Victoria M. Kaspi, Eve Lee, Sabrina Leslie, Adrian Liu, Shaun Lovejoy, Alexander Maloney, Tami Pereg-Barnea, Nikolas Provatas, Kenneth Ragan, Walter Reisner, Steven Robertson, Robert E. Rutledge, Dominic H. Ryan, Jack Sankey, Jonathan Sievers, Bradley Siwick, Mark Sutton, Brigitte Vachon, Andreas Warburton, Tracy Webb, Paul Wiseman
Univ of Victoria physics dept
Justin Albert, Arif Babul, Devika Chithrani, Byoung-Chul Choi, Rogerio de Sousa, Ruobing Dong, Sara L. Ellison, Falk Herwig, Dean Karlen, Richard K. Keeler, Jody Klymak, Pavel Kovtun, Robert V. Kowalewski, Mark Laidlaw, Michel Lefebvre, Travis Martin, Julio Navarro, Maxim Pospelov, Adam Ritz, J.Michael Roney, Geoffrey M. Steeves, Kim Venn, Jon Willis
Justin Albert, Arif Babul, Devika Chithrani, Byoung-Chul Choi, Rogerio de Sousa, Ruobing Dong, Sara L. Ellison, Falk Herwig, Dean Karlen, Richard K. Keeler, Jody Klymak, Pavel Kovtun, Robert V. Kowalewski, Mark Laidlaw, Michel Lefebvre, Travis Martin, Julio Navarro, Maxim Pospelov, Adam Ritz, J.Michael Roney, Geoffrey M. Steeves, Kim Venn, Jon Willis
Univ Western Ontario math dept
Janusz Adamus, Tatyana Barron, Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon, Matthias Franz, John Jardine, Massoud Khalkhali, Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon
Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz
President Alan Shepard
Amit Chakma (chem engr)
Univ. Western Ontario physics dept
Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang
UWO psychology dept Patrick Brown, Peter Denny, William Fisher, Robert Gardner, Doug Hazlewood, Elizabeth Hampson, Albert Katz, Martin Kavaliers, Nicholas Kuiper, Rod Martin, Greg Moran, Harry Murray, Richard W.J. Neufeld, James Olson, Klaus-Peter Ossenkopp, David Pederson, Susan Pepper, William Roberts, Gary Rollman, Clive Seligman, David Sherry, Marvin Simner, Richard Sorrentino, Brian Timney, Tutis Vilis
Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker, Henry M. Van Driel, David J. Rowe, John W. Moffat, John F. Martin, Robert K. Logan, Albert E. Litherland, Roland List, Philipp Kronberg, James King, Anthony W. Key, Bob Holdom, Ron M. Farquhar, R. Nigel Edwards, David J. Dunlop, James Drummond, Tom E. Drake, R.Fraser Code, Richard C. Bailey, Robin Armstrong
Chancellor Rose M. Patten
Pres. Meric Gertler
Univ Toronto math dept
Mustafa Akcoglu, Spyros Alexakis, Edward Barbeau, Thomas Bloom, Man-Duen Choi, Stephen Cook, Chandler Davis, Nicholas Derzko, Eric Ellers, Ilya Gekhtman, Ian Graham, Steve Halpern, Wahidul Haque, Abe Igelfeld, Velimir Jurdjevic, Ivan Kupka, Anthony Lam, Michael Lorimer, James McCool, Eric Mendelsohn, Kunio Murasugi, Jeremy Quastel, Peter Rosenthal, Paul Selick, Dipak Sen, Rick Sharpe, Stuart Smith, Frank Tall, Steve Tanny
Janusz Adamus, Tatyana Barron, Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon, Matthias Franz, John Jardine, Massoud Khalkhali, Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon
Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz
President Alan Shepard
Amit Chakma (chem engr)
Univ. Western Ontario physics dept
Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang
UWO psychology dept Patrick Brown, Peter Denny, William Fisher, Robert Gardner, Doug Hazlewood, Elizabeth Hampson, Albert Katz, Martin Kavaliers, Nicholas Kuiper, Rod Martin, Greg Moran, Harry Murray, Richard W.J. Neufeld, James Olson, Klaus-Peter Ossenkopp, David Pederson, Susan Pepper, William Roberts, Gary Rollman, Clive Seligman, David Sherry, Marvin Simner, Richard Sorrentino, Brian Timney, Tutis Vilis
Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker, Henry M. Van Driel, David J. Rowe, John W. Moffat, John F. Martin, Robert K. Logan, Albert E. Litherland, Roland List, Philipp Kronberg, James King, Anthony W. Key, Bob Holdom, Ron M. Farquhar, R. Nigel Edwards, David J. Dunlop, James Drummond, Tom E. Drake, R.Fraser Code, Richard C. Bailey, Robin Armstrong
Chancellor Rose M. Patten
Pres. Meric Gertler
Univ Toronto math dept
Mustafa Akcoglu, Spyros Alexakis, Edward Barbeau, Thomas Bloom, Man-Duen Choi, Stephen Cook, Chandler Davis, Nicholas Derzko, Eric Ellers, Ilya Gekhtman, Ian Graham, Steve Halpern, Wahidul Haque, Abe Igelfeld, Velimir Jurdjevic, Ivan Kupka, Anthony Lam, Michael Lorimer, James McCool, Eric Mendelsohn, Kunio Murasugi, Jeremy Quastel, Peter Rosenthal, Paul Selick, Dipak Sen, Rick Sharpe, Stuart Smith, Frank Tall, Steve Tanny
Cornell Univ physics:
Jim Alexander, Tomas Arias, Ivan Bazarov, Eberhard Bodenschatz, Debanjan Chowdhury, Itai Cohen, Csaba Csaki, Veit Elser, Eanna Flanagan, Carl Franck, Lawrence Gibbons, Paul Ginsparg, Yuval Grossman, Thomas Hartman, Georg Hoffstaetter, Natasha Holmes, Chao-Ming Jian, Eun-Ah Kim, Michael Lawler, Andre Leclair, Peter Lepage, Stephen Levy, Matthias Liepe, Kin Fai Mak, Jared Maxson, Liam McAllister, Paul McEuen, Erich Mueller, Christopher Myers, Michael Niemack, Matthias Neubert, Katja Nowack, Jeevak Parpia, Ritchie Patterson, Maxim Perelstein, Daniel Ralph, Brad Ramshaw, David Rubin, Anders Ryd, James Sethna, Jie Shan, Kyle Shen, Eric Siggia, Saul Teukolsky, Julia Thom-Levy, Robert Thorne, Cyrus Umrigar, Jane Wang, Michelle Wang, Ira Wasserman, Peter Wittich
Jim Alexander, Tomas Arias, Ivan Bazarov, Eberhard Bodenschatz, Debanjan Chowdhury, Itai Cohen, Csaba Csaki, Veit Elser, Eanna Flanagan, Carl Franck, Lawrence Gibbons, Paul Ginsparg, Yuval Grossman, Thomas Hartman, Georg Hoffstaetter, Natasha Holmes, Chao-Ming Jian, Eun-Ah Kim, Michael Lawler, Andre Leclair, Peter Lepage, Stephen Levy, Matthias Liepe, Kin Fai Mak, Jared Maxson, Liam McAllister, Paul McEuen, Erich Mueller, Christopher Myers, Michael Niemack, Matthias Neubert, Katja Nowack, Jeevak Parpia, Ritchie Patterson, Maxim Perelstein, Daniel Ralph, Brad Ramshaw, David Rubin, Anders Ryd, James Sethna, Jie Shan, Kyle Shen, Eric Siggia, Saul Teukolsky, Julia Thom-Levy, Robert Thorne, Cyrus Umrigar, Jane Wang, Michelle Wang, Ira Wasserman, Peter Wittich
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages