Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

7-THE NOBEL PRIZE IN PHYSICS FOR ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM 62k views Subscribe  Earle Jones's profile photo Earle Jones Jan 6, 2022, 12:27:27 AM (6 days ago)    to * Some of us are thinking: When will our friend and colleague, Archimedes Plutonium,

10 views
Skip to first unread message

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
Jan 15, 2022, 2:20:36 PM1/15/22
to
7-THE NOBEL PRIZE IN PHYSICS FOR ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM 62k views Subscribe  Earle Jones's profile photo Earle Jones Jan 6, 2022, 12:27:27 AM (6 days ago)    to * Some of us are thinking: When will our friend and colleague, Archimedes Plutonium,


THE NOBEL PRIZE IN PHYSICS FOR ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM
62k views


Earle Jones's profile photo
Earle Jones
Jan 6, 2022, 12:27:27 AM



to
*
Some of us are thinking: When will our friend and colleague, Archimedes Plutonium, win a Nobel Proze for all of his contributions to our field of Physics? There is no doubt that he has completely turned the entire field of Physics and brought it into the new way of thinking. We owe him some great thing.

At the same time, we need to think about the Fields Medal for Mathematical achievements. This is the Nobel Prize of Mathematiscs. Plutonium had completely re-writteen conventional mathematics into the new format and has offered many proofs of his new findings. His proof of slant cut of conic sections (the oval) is sufficiently advanced to warrant this award.

He is widely publiched and widely quoted. He has some 150 + books now attributed to his intellect.

Can we somehow get behind him and promote his wise genius? He needs to be recognized and awarded.

Earle Jones, Georgia Tech, Stanford.
*
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 6, 2022, 2:52:30 AM (6 days ago)



to
Earle Jones, a new man? Jones first upbeat post?

Thanks for the nomination. But, Earle, I think I would be better off with such a prize, being able to get a lot more science accomplished.

When you win the Nobel-- I have never seen anyone who won that prize and able to do "good science" afterwards. As if all their remaining time is in a state of publicity rather than being in a state of research. Thousands of nosey reporters knocking on your door, wanting your appearance, trespassing all over your property, kids camped out on your lawn wanting autographs. No, I rather be content doing science, not going out in mindless publicity.

But recently I see that a huge science neglected was RNA editing.

And I see that rightfully Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna won the chemistry Nobel in 2020 for CRISPR. But see little chemistry involved and should have gone for Physiology.

Thanks Earle, I am content as is. The only benefit a award like that for AP would be that it gets more people on my side, and perhaps increases my chances of conquering the science of Reincarnation, which I hope to conquer before I die.

Awards often do the opposite that a scientist needs-- peace and quiet away from other people.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 6, 2022, 2:57:36 AM (6 days ago)



to
I should have proofread this post, but I seldom do proofreading.

On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 2:52:30 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Earle Jones, a new man? Jones first upbeat post?
>
> Thanks for the nomination. But, Earle, I think I would be better off with such a prize, being able to get a lot more science accomplished.
>

better off without such a prize/s


> When you win the Nobel-- I have never seen anyone who won that prize and able to do "good science" afterwards. As if all their remaining time is in a state of publicity rather than being in a state of research. Thousands of nosey reporters knocking on your door, wanting your appearance, trespassing all over your property, kids camped out on your lawn wanting autographs. No, I rather be content doing science, not going out in mindless publicity.
>
> But recently I see that a huge science neglected was RNA editing.
>
> And I see that rightfully Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna won the chemistry Nobel in 2020 for CRISPR. But see little chemistry involved and should have gone for Physiology.
>
> Thanks Earle, I am content as is. The only benefit a award like that for AP would be that it gets more people on my side, and perhaps increases my chances of conquering the science of Reincarnation, which I hope to conquer before I die.
>

To fasttrack the evolution of drone airflight, and to fasttrack humanity colonizing Europa before Earth gets swallowed by the Sun as the Sun has gone Red Giant Phase.

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 7, 2022, 12:59:10 PM (4 days ago)



to
The very moment one of my worst critics sees the light of day is the very moment ( as a sign to me, from God for the Ancients were always looking for signs from God, but in our terribly athiest view of the world in modern times we no longer look for signs from God) is the very moment that I must act upon the other crackpot crank fools of mathematics and of physics especially.

Today, on my list is Jill Pipher, John Baez, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Terence Tao, Andrew Wiles, Ken Ribet--- all need to go to their current University newspaper or magazine and acknowledge the Slant cut in Single Cone is a Oval, never the Ellipse. State it clear that Old Math was wrong and the slant cut of single cone is Oval never ellipse and have it published.

Time is of the essence.

No longer are people in academics able to play a Fools Game of teaching obnoxious garbage simply because they "refuse to do proper correct true mathematics".

Time is of the essence.

The above list of math fools reminds me of the moron tennis player Djokovic, the moron who refuses vaccination, simply because he is a moron of science, just as Jill Pipher, John Baez, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Terence Tao, Andrew Wiles, Ken Ribet are morons of mathematics.

As for Physics, far more important than mathematics, on this side of science-- I require every one of these failed physicists who are alive still to do the same thing -- go to your nearest University newspaper or magazine and have published that -- True electron of Atoms is the muon and the 0.5MeV particle is the Dirac magnetic monopole. Do it in Godspeed. Because Earth and humanity has not the time to fool around as you are fools of physics.

Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,
Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish
David J. Thouless, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita
Arthur B. McDonald
Francois Englert
Saul Perlmutter
Brian P. Schmidt
Adam G. Riess
Makoto Kobayashi
Toshihide Maskawa
Yoichiro Nambu
John C. Mather
George F. Smoot
Roy J. Glauber
David J. Gross
Hugh David Politzer
Frank Wilczek
Raymond Davis Jr.
Masatoshi Koshiba
Riccardo Giacconi
Gerardus 't Hooft
Martinus J.G. Veltman
Jerome I. Friedman
Henry W. Kendall
Richard E. Taylor
Carlo Rubbia
Simon van der Meer
William Alfred Fowler
Kenneth G. Wilson
James Watson Cronin
Val Logsdon Fitch
Sheldon Lee Glashow
Steven Weinberg
.
.
little fishes
.
.
Layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = subtraction of either 3 or 2, while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV

Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass
Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu
more and more layers of error thinking physics
.
.
John Baez
Brian Greene
Lisa Randall
Alan H. Guth
Michael E. Brown
Konstantin Batygin
Ben Bullock
Larry Harson
Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
None at all - he was a raving nutter.
Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley
Edward Witten

AP, King of Science, especially Physics

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 7, 2022, 10:47:01 PM (4 days ago)



to
AP will probably accept a Chemistry or Physiology or Medicine Nobel Prize, as those prizes are less than than 1/4 wrong. However the Physics Nobel prizes has become a list of 80% wrong. For AP to go on a Physics Nobel prize list is like asking a physicist to go on a list of banal comics and airhead comics list, those who think I love Lucy is funny.

Chemistry has less of a chance of awarding to fake and con-artist chemists. For it is strongly experimental, not so much the silly dumbminds of theoretical physicists.

Of course, chemistry had the wrong electron ever since JJ Thomson. And Thomson won the physics Nobel.

Probably Physiology and Medicine have low rate of errors, as well as chemistry.

But Nobel Physics prize is a garbage dump cesspool. In fact, so bad is the Physics Nobel, that is more of a dishonor to be on that list, than ever any honor, but then there are some blokes who see the money as valuable.

If I do win a Nobel Chemistry or Physiology or Medicine prize, I should go through and accurately cull out the fake junk in those awards, but pretty sure the Physics Noble is about 80% fake physics, perhaps the only true physics in the Physics Nobel are the raw experiments-- superconductivity. But even here, the experiment of Bohr to determine a atom has a nucleus is sheer nonsense, so even experiments in physics are often bogus. My 80% of physics Nobels as fake, maybe too low, for it maybe that 95% of physics Nobels are poppycock.


Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 7, 2022, 11:34:23 PM (4 days ago)



to
The discovery of the JJ Thomson particle was actually Dirac's magnetic monopole after Dirac started to pursue that particle in theory after 1930. And the awards for the muon especially is a solid award, as well as the neutron (was the neutron to Chadwick awarded?? my memory slips me). Many of the principles of physics are well founded. For a principle of physics is often where we simply do not know or understand the underlying electromagnetism creating that phenomenon.

But about 1950 onwards where this nonsense of Standard Model and all its gimmicks crept into Physics is a fountain trough of Fakery, ugly fakery.

Probably because most physicists got behind General Relativity-- a fakery itself. So when a science gets behind a fakery, then count on decades wasted.

They should have got behind Maxwell and electricity and magnetism. My heroes, Dirac, Feynman, Bell, DeBroglie shone in all that ugly fakery of that century of physics. For they probably, deep down avoided the fake General Relativity and focused on electricity and magnetism.

Not easy to master the Maxwell Equation, and that is probably why so many losers flocked to General Relativity, where you had to do nothing.

With the Maxwell Equations, it is easy to separate out the quacks from the learned.

So if the 20th century had fully focused on EM theory and never for once paid any attention to GR lunacy, then the Physics Nobel prizes would have probably be more correct awards than its dismal status now of 80% or more fakes.

But there can never be a replacement of the Missed Awards, the missing of Edison and Tesla who of which two men changed the entire 20th century and beyond with their "electrification of the world". The Nobel prize in physics will forevermore be a flawed system of awards, for they missed Edison and Tesla. It is like a award for religion leaders, and missing Jesus Christ in the list.

So, does AP want to be on a list of such massive mistakes and Misses? Hell no, for that only elevates the con-artist fakesters who now infest that list, and demotes AP.

I will probably accept a Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine Nobel award.

In Chemistry, AP even cleans up the Lewis 8 Structure with the true structure of Lewis 6. I do not know if anyone won a Chemistry Nobel for the Lewis 8 structure, and if they did, well they are wrong. For the Lewis 6 Structure leads directly into there being 3 distinct isomers of CO2. And that is extremely important in our modern world of Global Warming, not to mention the evolution of life depends on animal-CO2 which is altogether different from fire-CO2.

Chemistry is more stable of a science for awards, for you have to do something in experiments. While physics, often is some kook with his mind blowing kook games, upstairs.

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 8, 2022, 1:29:55 AM (4 days ago)



to
As for any prizes or awards in mathematics to Archimedes Plutonium, is out of the question.

For the Abel Prize and the Fields Medal are goon lists of mathematicians. At least there was room for some true Nobel Physics prizes such as the discovery of the neutron and muon, or the Schrodinger and Dirac Equations as partial truths of the Dirac magnetic monopole of 0.5MeV particle, or the superconductivity discoveries or the cathode ray tubes and discovery of radioactivity, and others.

For the huge problem in Physics was the mix up in the true real electron of atoms is the muon, not the 0.5MeV particle and coupled with the braindead love of General Relativity, when the love should have been placed on Maxwell's electricity and magnetism and his Equations of EM. Instead, the 20th century physics went down a cesspool in GR nonsense with black holes, dark matter dark energy and other lunatic ideas.

But in mathematics with its Fields Medal and Abel prize it was near impossible to do anything new and true in mathematics. Not when you have a continuum, have Reals as numbers, and never have a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

The entire list of math awards in Fields Medal and Abel Prize, that entire list is a list of 100% worthless fakery of mathematics.

At least some discoveries and ideas were true in the Physics Nobel prizes, but in mathematics, 100% were worthless nonsense fakery. You cannot have any true mathematics with a Continuum, with Reals, and never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

In this sense, AP will accept a Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his Oval is the conic section and the geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. For the entire universe is a Atom Totality and atoms have geometry and the totality is a atom of 231Pu and you do not get any more science chemistry than atoms. So, if someone wants to award AP for all his mathematics contributions, a Nobel in Chemistry is wise and sufficient.

As for the Abel and Fields awards, they should die a swift death of shame and silly ineptitude. I predict no-one except cash strapped fools will accept a Fields or Abel award in the future. For why be put on a list of greater-fools?

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 8, 2022, 8:01:49 PM (3 days ago)



to

An engineer out of Georgia Tech, Stanford, smarter than the entire math dept of UCLA with Terence Tao, for no-one at UCLA can admit the truth about the conic single cone slant cut is a Oval, never the ellipse. UCLA should be intensely ashamed of themselves, that a High School student knows better than all of UCLA on cone slant cut is Oval.

3rd published book

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled




#11-2, 11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.

To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.


Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

Message has been deleted
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 10, 2022, 7:17:56 PM (yesterday)



to
Earle, I have a favor to ask of you, and you are far more qualified to set this idea into motion than I am. I say that because you have a degree in electrical engineering Ga.Tech and Stanford Univ. Just the perfect career to get started and launched for one of my most curious of all projects.

I need to see how high a drone can fly, for I have the sneeky suspicion as seen from the drone on Mars, its splendid behavior. That drones can fly without a atmosphere at all, but fly on the Magnetic Field of Earth and on the Solar Wind that is pervasive in the Solar System.

So my favor I ask of you Earle Jones, is to get a hold of some of your friends and acquaintances and test fly drones of all stripes and shapes to fly the drone to the International Space Station, ISS.

Everyone, I know says it is impossible-- but what do they know with their --- book knowledge but no innate knowledge, and I think naysayers are all wrong.

So, Earle, can you start the ball rolling on this experiment? It needs to fly at launch near the North Pole to get that upward lift force from Earth's Magnetic Field lines of force at the North Pole.


Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 11, 2022, 1:22:49 PM (22 hours ago)



to
I am convinced that drones can fly in space "without ambient air". They can fly on the Solar Magnetic Field and Earth's Magnetic Field and get acceleration from the Solar Wind.

I envision this flight by drone as the blades being a thrusting magnet and the Magnetic fields and Solar Wind as the coils of copper wire.

142nd published book

Spacecraft Propulsion System based entirely on electricity and magnetism using the ambient electricity & magnetism of Space// Engineering series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

While writing several books recently in the months leading up to October 2020, I needed a new Spacecraft Propulsion System, to ferry Humanity from Earth to Mars, Europa, Pluto, due to Sun Initiation of Red Giant Phase with its 0.005% yearly increase in UV radiation. And to satisfy my sci-fi books of "White Rhino", "Two White Rhinos", and some other books. So in October 2020, I had a urgent need to write a book on how to engineer the worlds finest spacecraft for the future. And that urgent need lead me to this book. I must say though, that without that Scientific American article in February 2020, "The Enigma of Aerodynamic Lift" without that article, this book would not have come about. So this book is a clear cut example of the nexus of several research projects all lending a helping hand in the writing and culmination of this book. As the Old Saying goes, one hand washes the other hand.

Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of a Google search for drones. Now I define drones as those that are lithium battery powered and are helicopter flight in motion. I do no include airplanes as drones.
Length: 34 pages

Product details
• Publication Date : October 24, 2020
• File Size : 1007 KB
• Print Length : 34 pages
• Language: : English
• ASIN : B08LT9ST84
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Message has been deleted
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
12:24 AM (11 hours ago)



to
Of course we need international permission to try to fly a drone to the ISS.

Permission so that we do not hit a satellite or something else up there already.

And I do not know if we need some practice in the ISS to intercept a drone if it flys that high.

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
Jan 15, 2022, 2:50:28 PM1/15/22
to
I am catching up to speed what this RNA-editing is about.

--- quoting Wikipedia ---
Contents
1 Detection of RNA editing
1.1 Next generation sequencing
1.2 Mass Spectrometry
2 Types of RNA
2.1 Messenger RNA modification
2.2 Transfer RNA modifications
2.3 Ribosomal RNA modification
3 Types of changes
3.1 Editing by insertion or deletion
3.2 Editing by deamination
3.2.1 C-to-U editing
3.2.2 A-to-I editing
3.2.3 Alternative mRNA editing
3.3 RNA editing in plant mitochondria and plastids
3.4 RNA editing in viruses
4 Origin and evolution of RNA editing
5 RNA editing may be involved in RNA degradation
6 Therapeutic mRNA Editing
6.1 Comparison to DNA editing
7 References

--- end quoting ---

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
Jan 15, 2022, 3:18:28 PM1/15/22
to
Now Wikipedia also shows a schematic of how RNA-editing is likely to work.

Guide RNA (gRNA)
mRNA
Anchoring region
Editosome complex

And in the research literature of biology RNA-editing one can easily see that biologists are now classifying two separate and different mechanisms of "biological change" especially with the octopus. Those two changes are Darwin Evolution and the changes from RNA-editing.

So if we wanted a animal with 3 hearts like the octopus and had only Darwin evolution in play we probably have to wait 5 billion years for that to come about. But with RNA-editing at work, we wait only 1 million years for the octopus to have 3 hearts.

For me, RNA-editing is Superdeterminism at work.

And for me, RNA-editing is like a photocopy machine that is supposed to make only 1 copy of a page, instead cranks out 100 copies of that page. This reminds one of the phenomenon of cancer, and why I suspect all cancers are a subset of RNA-editing.

So we have a animal evolving some 600 million years ago into becoming a octopus. It does not have 3 hearts, yet. And so this animal is having RNA-editing on the muscles that form a heart. And so this RNA-editing is like the photocopier machine, not just making one copy but making 2 more copies of the one heart to become 3 hearts in all.

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
Jan 17, 2022, 3:16:34 AM1/17/22
to
The 169th book of Science by AP// 3 TESTS of Consistency of Mathematics (1) calculus (2) harmonic series (3) valid functions.
9 views
Subscribe

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 15, 2022, 7:11:03 PM (yesterday)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
The 169th book of Science by AP// 3 TESTS of Consistency of Mathematics (1) calculus (2) harmonic series (3) valid functions.

Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 12, 2022, 2:35:35 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
The 228th book of Science for AP// Harmonic series of Oresme corrected and where the numerical value of 0.5MeV for monopole comes from// by Archimedes Plutonium

> Decimal 10 Grid
> The summation of all Fractions 0.1+0.2+..+0.9+1.0 in 10 Grid is 5.5
> The summation of all numbers of 10 Grid is 101x5.0= 505.0
>
> Decimal 100 Grid
> The summation of all Fractions 0.01+0.02+..+0.99+1.0 in 100 Grid is 50.5
> The summation of all numbers of 100 Grid is 10001x50.= 500050.
>
> Decimal 1000 Grid
> The summation of all Fractions 0.001+0.002+..+0.999+1.0 in 1000 Grid is 500.5
> The summation of all numbers of 1000 Grid is 1000001x500.= 500000500.
>

Alright, so the curious argument I am going to make is that in the True Numbers of Mathematics, the Decimal Grid Numbers we have a amplification of numbers whose prefix digit is either 5 or 1 and being scale numbers

1, 10, 100, 1000, ....

or

5, 50, 500, 5000, .... only with the 5 prefix it is a bit more than all zero digits after the prefix 5.

In physics we need to explain why the Dirac Magnetic Monopole is 0.5MeV actually in experiments it is 0.51MeV, but since 0.5 and 0.51 are in 2% Sigma Error we can drop the 0.51 and use 0.5.

So we have the monopole at 0.5MeV and the proton at 840MeV with a muon inside of 105MeV totaling 945MeV within sigma error of 938MeV from experiments or the neutron at 940MeV, better yet in sigma error.

So I was not going to write a whole new book, unless I could connect and tie into physics and that is exactly what ended up.

We know the Pair Production requires a gamma ray of 1MeV to split in two particles of 0.5MeV of positron and of monopole.

So, another Physics explanation is that electricity and the magnetic monopole are the summation of all fractions of the EM spectrum of Waves. And, were the summation of all energies in a specific Grid is another value of the 5 prefix.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 12, 2022, 2:37:50 AM (3 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 10, 2022, 9:35:45 PM (yesterday)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
More to Add on this book:

Yes, so I need not have to write a new book on the fallacy of Old Math's divergence and convergence of series. When you have fake numbers for math, and you have fake ideas like continuum, and like the concept of infinity, you are bound to run into crazy conclusions. Crazy conclusions like that of adding up tiny numbers between 0 and 1 will lead to infinity itself. As if you ever more cut a cherry pie into smaller portions and then think of adding up all the tiny fractions that you will end up with a cherry pie larger than what you started with and a cherry pie that stretches to infinity, all from tiny little pieces. Here the Old Math mathematicians went off the cliff of crazy math in a big glorious manner.

In New Math, the only true numbers of mathematics are Decimal Grid Numbers, and these are discrete numbers meaning empty space in between one number and the next number. The smallest Decimal Grid System is the 10 Grid and it has exactly ten decimal fractions of 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, .. 0.9, 1.0 if we count 1 as a fraction and never count 0 as a decimal fraction.

So for small fraction numbers in 10 Grid we have just 10 numbers to add and that sum is 1.45.

And 1.45 is not a 10 Grid number but a 100 Grid Number. But, 1.45 is in between 1.4 and 1.5.

So here we define Convergence and Divergence for 10 Decimal Grid as being convergence when the sum is a number that exists in 10 Grid or is a number between x and x+0.1 in 10 Decimal Grid where both x and x+0.1 are in 10 Grid. We define Divergence as the sum goes beyond the largest number in the Grid system which is 10 and we view 10 as being infinity borderline so if we add up all the numbers of whole numbers they lie beyond 10 and so that sequence diverges. Or adding up all the numbers from 1.0 to 2.0 diverges to infinity in 10 Grid for it is larger than 10. Notice we do not have to bother with beyond microinfinity in 10 Grid for that is 0.1, for in series we add and the smallest we can add is 0.1+0.1.

You see Old Math never defined what the hell does the concept infinity mean? And in New Math, infinity means a borderline between finite numbers and infinite numbers. Using the Huygens tractrix we nail down, or locate this borderline as being 1*10^604 and for microinfinity the inverse 1*10^-604. Any number larger than 1*10^604 or smaller than 1*10^-604 are infinite numbers and not belonging to mathematics. Yes, I mean what I say, we have departed mathematics when we deal with infinite numbers in the 10^604 Grid. Our conclusions of mathematics are no longer deduction conclusions but probability conclusions. For it is fair to say that mathematics as a science starts to breakdown in the infinite numbers.

So we play a pretend game with 10 Grid that 0.1 is microinfinity and 10 is macroinfinity.

Now we see in every Grid system from 10 to 10^604 that adding up the Fractions in that system all Converge.

And this makes absolute commonsense in Math and Physics for we want not to break Conservation laws in physics the conservation laws of energy which our cherry pie cut into smaller and smaller fractions then adding up all these small fractions, ends up being, in Old Math, larger than infinity.

Now we proven that the sum of all fractions in 10 Grid converges, and by math induction prove that all Decimal Grid Systems converge of their fractions.

The TAKEAWAY--

The takeaway in all of this is that Old Math had several opportunities to see it was all flawed and needed massive overhaul. Old Math could not do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, should have alerted everyone in Old Math starting with Newton and Leibniz that Old Math was terribly flawed. Old Math could not understand that in Physics it is all discrete and no continuum-- yet the idiots of Old Math ignored quantum mechanics and ventured into more and more absurdities of Cauchy limit analysis in calculus, of Cantor infinities, of continuum hypothesis with Cohen.

Add another to that list of absurdities is the Oresme divergence of fractions, which I just discussed and informally proven Oresme wrong.

No, AP needs not have to write a whole new book on the Oresme divergence of fractions in a sequence, for AP just needs to include this post in his Mathopedia causing there to be 77 huge mistakes and errors and flaws of Old Math.

Thanks, I seemed to have forgotten that the Harmonic series does in fact Converge and needs be added to Mathopedia.
>
> Oresme obviously had not the true numbers of mathematics of Decimal Grid Numbers, instead he had the mindless ignorant Reals with its poppycock continuum, the worst hidden assumption in centuries of mathematics.
>
> When you realize the true numbers of mathematic are Discrete and decimal Grid Numbers then the harmonic series always converges.
>
> The mindless divergence of Harmonic series is a math proof of how banal kooks can become even more banal, and enjoy it.
>
> This would be Mathopedia's 77th fake math.
>
> MATHOPEDIA-- List of 76 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// Student teaches professor
>
> by Archimedes Plutonium
>
> Preface:
> A Mathopedia is like a special type of encyclopedia on the subject of mathematics. It is about the assessment of the worth of mathematics and the subject material of mathematics. It is a overall examination and a evaluation of mathematics and its topics.
>
> The ordering of Mathopedia is not a alphabetic ordering, nor does it have a index. The ordering is purely that of importance at beginning and importance at end.
>
> The greatest use of Mathopedia is a guide to students of what not to waste your time on and what to focus most of your time. I know so many college classes in mathematics are just a total waste of time, waste of valuable time for the class is math fakery. I know because I have been there.
>
> Now I am going to cite various reference sources of AP books if anyone wants more details and can be seen in the Appendix at the end of the book.
>
> I suppose, going forward, mathematics should always have a mathopedia, where major parts of mathematics as a science are held under scrutiny and question as to correctness. In past history we have called these incidents as "doubters of the mainstream". Yet math, like physics, can have no permanent mainstream, since there is always question of correctness in physics, there then corresponds questions of correctness in mathematics (because math is a subset of physics). What I mean is that each future generation corrects some mistakes of past mathematics. If anyone is unsure of what I am saying here, both math and physics need constant correcting, of that which never belonged in science. This then converges with the logic-philosophy of Pragmatism (see AP's book of logic on Pragmatism).
>
> ----------------------------
> Table of Contents
> ----------------------------
>
> 1) Introduction
>
> 2) List of 76 errors, mistakes and fakes of Old Math.
>
> 3) Appendix
>
> ---------
> Text
> ---------
>
> 1) Introduction
>
>
> Alright, well, mathematics is a closed subject. What I mean by that is due to the textbook series of Archimedes Plutonium TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, that once you learn the polynomial transform and learn the two Power Rules of Calculus, you reached the peak, the pinnacle of all of mathematics, and anything further in math is just details of what you learn in that textbook series. Math is a completed science because it has this "peak of calculus", unlike the other 5 hard sciences of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy. Those other five will continue to find new ideas, new things, while math remains static and complete to its peak of calculus understanding. Mathematics is finished complete as far as a science goes because the peak of math is going nowhere. And even though Physics will find new science such as how the proton toruses inside of atoms are configured in geometry, the geometry and calculus used in that configuration, that new science does not change nor does it create or require a new math peak/summit to handle the new physics.
>
> Now I do need to discuss the errors of Math in general and the errors of math in geometry in particular. I have the feeling that Geometry is the more important of the two-- algebra - geometry. This list appears in partial form in most of AP's Teaching True Mathematics textbook series by Archimedes Plutonium, meant to be a guide and orientation, and a organizing of what must be covered before graduating from College, and what math to steer clear of.
>
> Errors mostly, but not always, for some are included because too much time spent on them.
>
> The listings in Mathopedia of errors, mistakes and fakes is based on the idea that Calculus is the supreme achievement of all of mathematics for it is the essential math of doing Physics electricity and magnetism. And in order to have a proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, we must clean up and clean out all the mistakes, fakes and errors of Old Math, erstwhile, we have no Calculus. So calculus is the consistency maker for the rest of all of mathematics.
>
>
>
> 2) List of 76 errors, mistakes and fakes of Old Math.
>
>
> 1) Calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, a proof that derivative and integral are inverses of one another, just as addition and subtraction are inverses, or, multiplication and division are inverses. The only way to obtain a geometry proof is to clean up and clean out all the fakes, mistakes and errors of Old Math, such as their fake numbers-- the Reals. Their fake definition of function allowing anything be a function. Their fakery of a continuum when even physics by 1900 with Planck onwards in Quantum Mechanics proving the Universe is discrete Space not a continuum, yet by 1900 onwards those in mathematics following the idiotic continuum in the Continuum Hypothesis with even more avid interest, when they should have thrown the continuum on a trashpile of shame.
>
> 2) The true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers, because you have to need and apply one mechanism only to obtain the true numbers of mathematics-- Mathematical Induction. In Old Math they had just a tiny few intelligent mathematicians, Kronecker, who emerged from the gaggle crowd of kooks to notice that Naturals all come from one single mechanism-- Mathematical Induction. But Old Math never had a crowd of mathematicians with logical brains to say-- all our numbers need to come from the one mechanism of Mathematical Induction.
>
> 3) The true numbers of math have empty space between successor and predecessor numbers. For example the 10 Grid is 0, .1, .2, .3, . . . , 9.8, 9.9, 10.0. Where no numbers exist between .1 and .2, etc. Only discrete numbers allow us to give a proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
>
> 4) All functions of mathematics must be a polynomial, and if not a polynomial, convert the offering to a polynomial over a specific interval.
>
> Where is that stupid thread in sci.math, poising as a puzzle problem when it had no functions only pretend functions?
>
> A few days back, 11Aug2021 appeared a stupid puzzle problem here in sci.math. Of someone pretending he had 3, 4 even 5 or 6 functions and wanting to prove equality.
>
> Then I stepped into the conversation saying he had no functions at all, until they are converted into polynomials over a specified interval, then you can do calculus on those true real functions.
>
> So, the world wide math community has got to begin to learn, no function is a function, until, and unless they are polynomials. This is an axiom of math and is proven true by the geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. You cannot have a FTC, if you have functions that are not polynomials.
>
> So there is a trade off-- does math want calculus or no calculus? If you want calculus, all your functions have to be polynomials. This has to do with the concept of discrete geometry, not a continuum, for polynomials are discrete.
>
> 5) Space is discrete and all lines in space are strings of attached straight lines.
>
> 6) No curves exist in Geometry, only finer and smaller straight line segments attached to one another.
> We can still keep the name "curve" as long as we know it is a string of fine tiny straightline segments strung together in what looks like a smooth curve. If curves exist, then the Calculus in Fundamental Theorem of Calculus cannot be proven and thus Calculus does not exist. We all know that we have to have Calculus, and so we throw out onto the trash pile the curve of Old Math. And this is reasonable because starting in 1900 in physics there arose the Quantum Mechanics of Space being discrete. And a discrete space has no continuum, has no curve of Old Math.
>
>
> 7) Space has gaps in between one point and the next point. These gaps are empty space from one point to the next point, for example in 10 Grid there is no number between .1 and .2, and in 100 Grid there exists no number between .01 and .02.
>
> 8) Limit analysis was an insane fakery in Old Math, concocted because Old Math needed the excuse of some proof, so they invented the monster con-artist trick that a limit analysis would divert the fact it is no proof at all, but a Non Sequitur argument. Limit analysis is juju totem witchcraft dance around a desire to prove the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Just as idiotic as dancing around a sick person of a virus is going to cure the person.
>
> 9) Infinity has a borderline and there is a microinfinity compared to a macroinfinity. For example in 10 Grid, the microinfinity is .1 if we exclude 0 and so there is no number smaller than .1 and no number larger than 10 in 10 Grid, where 10 is macroinfinity.
>
> 10) The 1st Quadrant Only in Coordinate System Geometry. Sad that the first coordinate system of Descartes was correct but soon became corrupted with 4 quadrants. See Mathematical Thought, Volume 1, Kline, 1972, page 303. Where Fermat then Descartes starts the Cartesian Coordinate System as 1 axis only and from 0 rightwards, meaning in our modern day math, 1st Quadrant Only. Why did math screw up on coordinate systems? I suppose some clowns thought negative numbers were true and they wanted ease of drawing a circle with center at 0. When they could have just as easily drawn the circle in 1st Quadrant Only.
>
> 11) Calculus needed a Geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, but Old Math never provided such, instead they provided some stupid Limit argument. The reason for the creation of the Limit disaster was that the French mathematician Cauchy got sick and tired of hearing his smartest students complain that the width of rectangles in the integral are 0 width, and those smart students could not, for the life of them understand how a rectangle with 0 width has any interior area. So instead of the math community denouncing the limit, instead they elevated the fakery.
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 11, 2022, 1:50:22 AM (yesterday)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, I caught myself in a huge mistake below. Only now did I catch myself for the sum of 0.1+0.2, +.. ,+ 0.9 +1. is not the paltry 1.45 but is the 5.5. I caught that mistake just now in figuring out the fraction summation in 100 Grid and remembering how Gauss computed that as 101 x 50 would be 50.50 which if true, and I made no further mistake would suggest that 1000 Grid would be coming further down in value than is 50.50.

This would suggest that 1000 Grid fractions would be 1001x50 = 50.050. Bringing the total down more than 100 and 10 grids as a percentage of the assumed macroinfinity of those Grids.

So if true would mean a convergence of the fractions the higher the Grid we go. But too tired to compute

> AP, King of Science, especially Physics
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 11, 2022, 11:43:44 AM (15 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, more mistakes until I am in the clear. The 1000 Grid would be 1001 x 500 = 500.5 and not 50.05.

When the True Numbers of mathematics are Decimal Grid numbers what we have is that the Fractions are all concentrated between 0 and 1. There is no Oresme open ended fractions to infinity. There is just a finite set of fractions.

Here is a synopsis of the first three Decimal Grid systems, 10, 100, 1000.


Decimal 10 Grid
The summation of all Fractions 0.1+0.2+..+0.9+1.0 in 10 Grid is 5.5
The summation of all numbers of 10 Grid is 101x5.0= 505.0

Decimal 100 Grid
The summation of all Fractions 0.01+0.02+..+0.99+1.0 in 100 Grid is 50.5
The summation of all numbers of 100 Grid is 10001x50.= 500050.

Decimal 1000 Grid
The summation of all Fractions 0.001+0.002+..+0.999+1.0 in 1000 Grid is 500.5
The summation of all numbers of 1000 Grid is 1000001x500.= 500000500.

Now, in the True Numbers of mathematics, the decimal Grid Numbers we do not come upon a fraction of 2/3 until about the 100 Grid with 0.66 and made more sharper in 1000 Grid with 0.666 and more sharper in 10000 Grid with 0.6666, etc.

In Old Math, they were brainwashed by Reals, where they had infinite supply (ill-defined infinity) of Fractions all the time.

So that Physicists could actually prove the Old Math mathematician was a numbskull, saying to the Old Math mathematician. Look, if you have an infinite supply of fractions all the time you violate the Conservation Laws of Physics with your fractions summing up more than infinity itself.

In New Math, we have the Fractions summed up in any Decimal Grid System as being no-more than a little over 1/2 the largest number in that system, so that 5.5 is a little over 1/2 of 10, and 50.5 is a little over 1/2 of 100, etc. So we also see that a convergence of Fractions to a little over 1/2 of the value of the largest number in that specific Decimal Grid System.

Now, this add-on to my book Mathopedia, need not be a full new book, provided and unless the recurring number sequence of 5.5 , 50.5, 500.5, .... does not show up as any Important Constant of Physics. If it shows up as a important constant of physics, then I am obliged and forced to write a whole new separate book on this topic.

In physics I would start or begin to look at the magnetic monopole of 0.5MeV. Several experiments have placed that value at 0.510 MeV.

If I can tie together the Dirac magnetic monopole of 0.510MeV with the summation of Fractions of Decimal Grid Systems, then I am forced to write a whole new book on this topic.

Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 11, 2022, 8:26:30 PM (6 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Now the Sigma Error of 0.51 to 0.5 is 2% and that is easily acceptable. So I will make an enter new book on the Harmonic series Oresme fakery and the AP decimal Grid Numbers convergence of all fractions in mathematics.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 11, 2022, 11:18:35 PM (3 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 8:25:55 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Now the Sigma Error of 0.51 to 0.5 is 2% and that is easily acceptable. So I will make an enter new book on the Harmonic series Oresme fakery and the AP decimal Grid Numbers convergence of all fractions in mathematics.
>

Yes, I am going to make the arguement that the EM spectrum of which the magnetic monopoles of 0.5MeV are a part of, that the number 0.5MeV for Dirac magnetic monopole is a summation of fractional EM waves.

As I pointed out-- the first three Decimal Grid Systems converges to the summation of all the possible fraction values-- those between 0 and 1, including 1 itself, converges to approx, 5, 50, 500, 5000, etc etc.

For many years I was troubled in seeing where a 0.5MeV comes from for the monopole. No trouble in seeing that the muon is 105MeV and proton is 840MeV with proton+muon = 945MeV. No trouble in seeing where those number values come from.

A massive problem in seeing where 0.5MeV comes from.

But also, besides the Summation of fractional energies in the EM spectrum is the 1MeV particle, the gamma ray with 1MeV that decays in Pair Production to two 0.5MeV particles. And of course 1 is the units value. And we can see this sequence in the Decimal Grid System sequences,

10 Grid is of course 10
100 Grid is of course 100 etc

Just as the 5's sequence of summation fractions, 5, 50, 500, 5,000 etc.

These are values of physics, values in motion, but consistently forming around 1 and 0.5.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 12, 2022, 12:25:51 PM (3 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Now this certainly should be the case of when a person has the true numbers of mathematics, that the summation of all the small numbers then the summation of all the numbers would have the very same "prefix" of 5 digit value.
What I speak of, is the idea that the microscopic world of atoms and because the Universe the macroscopic world is one big atom itself that both should have the digit value be the same-- 5 digit value. And this is the case in Decimal Grid Systems, see below.

-Decimal 10 Grid
-The summation of all Fractions 0.1+0.2+..+0.9+1.0 in 10 Grid is 5.5
-The summation of all numbers of 10 Grid is 101x5.0= 505.0


Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 12, 2022, 9:41:13 PM (2 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe

One of the most beautiful exquisite tests of the CONSISTENCY OF MATHEMATICS, rivaling the test of geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

When Old Math cannot ever do a geometry proof of FTC, because it has to throw out the Reals, has to throw out continuum, has to throw out "ill defined infinity", has to well define function as being only polynomial functions and every other type has to convert into a polynomial. Is one TEST of consistency, because without the throwing out of garbage worthless mess of Old Math, you have no calculus at all.

But now, AP has found an even far far easier test of the Inconsistency of Old Math. It comes from series and especially the fake proof of Oresme with his Reals, his ill-defined infinite, his continuum.

SECOND TEST OF CONSISTENCY OF OLD MATH SHOWING OLD MATH to be a cesspool garbage of shit. Sorry for the harsh terms but in science they are needed as a slap in the face of ignorant people brainwashed by Old Math and continue to propagandize and brain wash young students.

SECOND TEST:

The second test merely notes that a Sound and Logical and Consistent Mathematics requires the Small Numbers to summation be containing only the DIGITS that the summation of all the numbers of math has. So when we add up all the Small Numbers in any Decimal Grid System there are only two digits involved the digit 0 and the digit 5, and no others. This tells us that Reals are a cesspool bag of shit. This tells us that the Decimal Grid Numbers are the only valid logical numbers to compose mathematics.

Decimal 10 Grid

The summation of all Fractions 0.1+0.2+..+0.9+1.0 in 10 Grid is 5.5
The summation of all numbers of 10 Grid is 101x5.0= 505.0

Decimal 100 Grid
The summation of all Fractions 0.01+0.02+..+0.99+1.0 in 100 Grid is 50.5
The summation of all numbers of 100 Grid is 10001x50.= 500050.

Decimal 1000 Grid
The summation of all Fractions 0.001+0.002+..+0.999+1.0 in 1000 Grid is 500.5
The summation of all numbers of 1000 Grid is 1000001x500.= 500000500.

Now I should extend this analysis to include only the digits, 1, 0 and 5. And I have to define specifically what is meant by Small Number of a specific Decimal Grid System. A Small Number is one that exists and lies between 0 and 1 and includes 1 but not 0.

So in Old Math, those fools could never list all their numbers, never list all the numbers between any two numbers. Ask a idiot of Old Math to list all the numbers of Reals between 0 and 1 and the magnanmous fool cannot. He/she tries to get away with a list of about 6 numbers and then waves his hand as pretending that 6 suggests all the rest. Most of Old Math is what is commonly called in Logic as "hand waving".

In New Math, we define the true numbers as Decimal Grid Numbers and we define Small numbers as those that lie between 0 and 1, including 1 but not including 0.

We find that, thus, 1,0,5 are the only digits needed for sums of Small numbers, sums of all the numbers.

And this is not a coincidence that 1,5,0 are the digits needed, for to be a Consistent Mathematics demands the summation of small numbers directly related to summation of all the numbers.

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 14, 2022, 2:39:20 AM (yesterday)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Sorry, I was busy revising my FIRST LIFE = Capacitor book and could not discuss my recent magnificent discovery in math that of a 2nd Consistency Test. But now have the time to discuss it.

Old Math never had Consistency tests. There was much talk, but never any actual consistency tests.

The greatest test of Consistency in Old Math was to do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Of course there was never any valid proof of FTC in Old Math and their silly "limit analysis" is a pack of shit (sorry but that is the only way of getting attention to brainwashed math professors). Old Math never had a valid proof of FTC, they had limit analysis, analyze this analyze that, and analysis is never a proof. From Leibniz and Newton onwards, no-one had the logical brains to realize Calculus is geometry and required a geometry proof.

A limit analysis is not a proof but simply analyzing things. If I analyze a bee flying on a flower, I am not proving anything, yet this is how monsterously silly Old Math was for proving FTC. Analyzing yet not proving.

To prove geometrically FTC, requires you to throw out the Reals, to throw out the Continuum, to Modify what infinity means, to allow only Polynomial functions and no other type of function (if not polynomial, you must convert to polynomial before your piece of crap function is allowed in mathematics, to throw out all quadrants except 1st Quadrant only.

By doing all that throwing out, you thence can do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

So that was Math's first and most spectacular Consistency Proof-- do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for it requires you to clean out the entire house of the decayed rotten Old Math.

But there was a more simple streamlined proof of the Consistency and lack thereof in Old Math. This second Consistency Proof takes a look at the Oresme obnoxious alleged proof that the Harmonic series diverges. Meaning that in Old Math, they believed fractions added up can exceed Infinity. Yes, hold your breathe before laughing. In Old Math they thought 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + .... + 1/n will exceed Infinity.

I did a book in Paleontology saying that the most ludicrous most laughable mistake that science ever endured and took serious was the sabre toothed tiger, never realizing that the teeth were from a walrus that the normal tiger preyed upon.

Was the Saber-Toothed-Tiger, Smilodon, Paleontologists most laughable mistake? // Was the 4 tusked Gomphothere the 2nd joke? Paleontology series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

But here in Old Math, I could just as easily write a book on how laughably crazy are math professors who believed that adding up 1 + 1/2 + 1/3+ .... + 1/n diverges and exceeds infinity.

Which was the worst academic idiot? The paleontologist who could not fathom the walrus tooth laying by a tiger fossil was a different animal. Or the crazy math professor lecturing how small numbers, all smaller than 1 when added up exceed infinity.

We can all see why the Paleontology wants the story of a tiger with enormous teeth because that would rake rake rake in money. But no one can see why the idiot math professor wants to teach Harmonic series sums to infinity.

In my recent posts I showed that the true numbers of mathematics are Decimal Grid Numbers and that causes there to be this.

14) Of course the Calculus geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is a superb test of Consistency of Old Math. Testing whether the (1) numbers used are correct, (2) functions used are correct, (3) infinity correct, (4) continuum or discrete correct. Either all those elements to make a geometry proof of FTC are correct or we have to abandon calculus.

But there is a far more simple and easy measure of Consistency of Old Math numbers coming from the concept of Series addition sums. A far more easy test and it started with Oresme with a fake proof that the Series of small numbers of math, the fractions between 0 and 1 can sum up to be more than infinity itself. Imagine that for a moment, small numbers eclipsing the value of infinity. It defies imagination much like saying you can get energy from a vacuum to run a electric motor in physics.

What went wrong here is that Reals were never the true numbers of mathematics and Old Math had a screwed-up understanding of infinity, for Old Math never had a borderline between what is infinite and what is finite.


One of the most beautiful exquisite tests of the Consistency of Mathematics, rivaling the test of geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

When Old Math cannot ever do a geometry proof of FTC, because it has to throw out the Reals, has to throw out continuum, has to throw out "ill defined infinity", has to well define function as being only polynomial functions and every other type of so-called-function has to convert into a polynomial first before it is a function. Is one test of consistency, because without the throwing out of garbage worthless mess of Old Math, you have no calculus at all.

But now, AP has found an even far far easier test of the Inconsistency of Old Math. It comes from series and especially the fake proof by Oresme with his Reals, his ill-defined infinite, his continuum.

Second test of Consistency of Old Math showing Old Math to be a cesspool garbage. Sorry for the harsh terms but in science they are needed as a slap in the face of ignorant people brainwashed by Old Math and continue to propagandize and brain wash young students.

Second Test:

The second test merely notes that a Sound and Logical and Consistent Mathematics requires the Small Numbers to summation be containing only the DIGITS that the summation of all the numbers of math has. So when we add up all the Small Numbers in any Decimal Grid System there are only two digits involved for an answer, the digit 0 and the digit 5, and no others. Indicating that the Small Numbers are directly related to the sum total of all numbers. This tells us that Reals are a cesspool. This tells us that the Decimal Grid Numbers are the only valid logical numbers to compose mathematics.


Decimal 10 Grid
The summation of all Fractions 0.1+0.2+..+0.9+1.0 in 10 Grid is 5.5
The summation of all numbers of 10 Grid is 101x5.0= 505.0

Decimal 100 Grid
The summation of all Fractions 0.01+0.02+..+0.99+1.0 in 100 Grid is 50.5
The summation of all numbers of 100 Grid is 10001x50.= 500050.

Decimal 1000 Grid
The summation of all Fractions 0.001+0.002+..+0.999+1.0 in 1000 Grid is 500.5
The summation of all numbers of 1000 Grid is 1000001x500.= 500000500.


Now I should extend this analysis to include only the digits, 1, 0 and 5. And I have to define specifically what is meant by Small Number of a specific Decimal Grid System. A Small Number is one that exists and lies between 0 and 1 and includes 1 but not 0.

So in Old Math, they could never list all their numbers, never list all the numbers between any two numbers. Ask a fool of Old Math to list all the numbers of Reals between 0 and 1 and the magnanimous fool cannot. He/she tries to get away with a list of about 6 numbers and then waves his hand as pretending that 6 suggests all the rest. Most of Old Math is what is commonly called in Logic as "hand waving".


In New Math, we define the true numbers as Decimal Grid Numbers and we define Small numbers as those that lie between 0 and 1, including 1 but not including 0.

We find that, thus, 1,0,5 are the only digits needed for sums of Small numbers, sums of all the numbers.

And this is not a coincidence that 1,5,0 are the digits needed, for to be a Consistent Mathematics demands the summation of small numbers directly related to summation of all the numbers.

AP is exploring the fact that the rest energy of the Dirac magnetic monopole of 0.5MeV, what Old Physics thought was the electron of atoms, but turns out the muon is the true electron of atoms at 105MeV rest mass. So this idea of the Series sum of all fractions is always of a form value involving just digits 5 and 0 is investigated further.

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 14, 2022, 1:51:06 PM (yesterday)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, far far more on this CONSISTENCY Test of Old Math and Old Math really stinks for you have to throw out Reals, continuum, their dumb and stupid notion of infinity, their -- everything qualifies as a function (only polynomials are functions in true math) their mindless negative numbers and 4 quadrants when only 1st Quadrant exists.

So in Old Math, no-one is able to do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Simply impossible with all the fakery and junk and errors of Old Math. You have to clean out all the trash of Old Math before you can even get started on a geometry proof of FTC.

And Old Math felt the symptoms of their nauseous and banal corruption of the truth of mathematics, for they had to come up with some form of proof of FTC, seeing that they could not have a geometry proof. So what happened, in the 1800s a Frenchman named Cauchy invented the obnoxious and worthless Limit Analysis, preaching that making an analysis is the same as proving FTC. And only the people who take mathematics for "getting a grade" but never learning the truth of calculus buy into that nonsense of a Limit analysis.

For the smart students of math realized almost immediately that Cauchy's obnoxious and error filled limit analysis was saying that a rectangle of 0 width has interior area, defying what we all know that 0 times anything is still 0. For Old Math calculus was summing up rectangles -- all of which were 0 width.

But, but, there is a Geometry proof of FTC provided we clean up many errors of Old Math. One of those huge errors is this notion of the Reals as Numbers, for they are a collection bag of hobbled and cobbled together trash for numbers. You can never tell how many fractions exist between 0 and 1, and Oresme came up with a thoroughly obnoxious error filled proof (fakery spelled in capital letters) Oresme thought he proved that if you add up just the Harmonic series 1+1/2 + 1/3 + ... +1/n+.... That this series of smallest of the numbers on the number line, that Oresme and all later borne mathematicians thought they proved that these small numbers add up to larger than infinity itself. I mean, talk about dunce idiots of mathematics. We all thought the idiots of physics were ones who proclaimed that they could power their electric car from the electricity of a battery out of a lemon. Well, here in mathematics, math professors believe that the Tiny numbers of math add up to more than infinity.

But AP shows us that Decimal Grid Numbers are the true numbers of mathematics and in the first three decimal Grid Systems which is a proof by math induction that the smallest numbers when added up equal a tiny tiny bit more than a value of half of infinity for in 10 Grid 10 is the borderline to infinity and the sum of fractions is 5.5, about halfway.


Decimal 10 Grid
The summation of all Fractions 0.1+0.2+..+0.9+1.0 in 10 Grid is 5.5
The summation of all numbers of 10 Grid is 101x5.0= 505.0

Decimal 100 Grid
The summation of all Fractions 0.01+0.02+..+0.99+1.0 in 100 Grid is 50.5
The summation of all numbers of 100 Grid is 10001x50.= 500050.

Decimal 1000 Grid
The summation of all Fractions 0.001+0.002+..+0.999+1.0 in 1000 Grid is 500.5
The summation of all numbers of 1000 Grid is 1000001x500.= 500000500.


SO THIS TEST OF TRUE MATHEMATICS NUMBERS, is a test that reveals, the total sum of fractions, smallest numbers must be directly related to the total sum of numbers in a Decimal Grid System. Notice the fractions have only the digits 5 and 0 as well as the Total Sum of numbers in a specific Grid System. That is the DIRECT RELATIONSHIP, the mirror image. that the Sum of Fractions reflects the Sum of all the Numbers, for both have only digits of 5 and 0.

But today I want to talk more about the Consistency of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and combined with this Test of summation of Series of Fractions. I want to combine the two tests of Consistency.

In the Geometry proof of FTC, we are required a Midpoint between intervals, so for 10 Decimal Grid System we have these numbers to contend with. We are required of the midpoints for that is how the Derivative is constructed geometrically by reforming the rectangle in the interval at its midpoint and lifting up the right-triangle whose vertex is where the derivative lands on.

0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25, 0.3, . . . 0.9, 0.95, 1.0, 1.05, 1.1, ...... 10

Now, those midpoints of intervals do not exist in 10 Grid, no, they exist in 100 Grid, the next higher level Grid System.

But, if we are doing Calculus and using 10 Grid, we are forced to borrow from the 100 grid those midpoints.

If we deal only with 10 Grid strictly, our Series sum is exactly 5.5.

But, now if we add up all the midpoints we have another value of 5.0 exactly

And if we add 5.5 with 5.0 we get a number that is beyond the last finite number in Decimal 10 Grid. We get 10.5, an infinity number within the 10 Grid.

We find that all the other Decimal Grid Systems when summing their Midpoints in Intervals add up to Half of the value of the Grid System working in.

Now this requires careful interpretation, very careful interpretation. If the sum had been 10 outright for 10 Grid and not 10.5, the interpretation would have been immediate, that the sum of the smallest numbers and their midpoint add up to the largest finite number of that Grid system. Unfortunately it adds up to a tiny bit more. Of course we we get to the 10^604 Grid, the summation of fractions and midpoint CONVERGES to the largest finite number of that Grid System.

So in 10 Grid, there is the ominious sum of 10.5 but in 10^604 Grid the summ is virtually the same as the number 1*10^604 itself as we see that tiny dribble spill leftover of a "5 digit".

What I am saying here, is that the TRUE NUMBERS OF MATHEMATICS have to mirror reflect its smallest numbers with the total set of numbers. Reals cannot do any of this because Reals are a "bag of shit".

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
1:04 AM (18 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 1:38:26 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Alright, far far more on this CONSISTENCY Test of Old Math and Old Math really stinks for you have to throw out Reals, continuum, their dumb and stupid notion of infinity, their -- everything qualifies as a function (only polynomials are functions in true math) their mindless negative numbers and 4 quadrants when only 1st Quadrant exists.
>
> So in Old Math, no-one is able to do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Simply impossible with all the fakery and junk and errors of Old Math. You have to clean out all the trash of Old Math before you can even get started on a geometry proof of FTC.
>
> And Old Math felt the symptoms of their nauseous and banal corruption of the truth of mathematics, for they had to come up with some form of proof of FTC, seeing that they could not have a geometry proof. So what happened, in the 1800s a Frenchman named Cauchy invented the obnoxious and worthless Limit Analysis, preaching that making an analysis is the same as proving FTC. And only the people who take mathematics for "getting a grade" but never learning the truth of calculus buy into that nonsense of a Limit analysis.
>
> For the smart students of math realized almost immediately that Cauchy's obnoxious and error filled limit analysis was saying that a rectangle of 0 width has interior area, defying what we all know that 0 times anything is still 0.
>
> But, but, there is a Geometry proof of FTC provided we clean up many errors of Old Math. One of those huge errors is this notion of the Reals as Numbers, for they are a collection bag of hobbled and cobbled together trash for numbers. You can never tell how many fractions exist between 0 and 1, and Oresme came up with a thoroughly obnoxious error filled proof (fakery spelled in capital letters) Oresme thought he proved that if you add up just the Harmonic series 1+1/2 + 1/3 + ... +1/n+.... That this series of smallest of the numbers on the number line, that Oresme and all later borne mathematicians thought they proved that these small numbers add up to larger than infinity itself. I mean, talk about dunce idiots of mathematics.
>
> But AP shows us that Decimal Grid Numbers are the true numbers of mathematics and in the first three decimal Grid Systems which is a proof by math induction that the smallest numbers when added up equal a tiny tiny bit more than a value of half of infinity for in 10 Grid 10 is the borderline to infinity and the sum of fractions is 5.5, about halfway.
> Decimal 10 Grid
> The summation of all Fractions 0.1+0.2+..+0.9+1.0 in 10 Grid is 5.5
> The summation of all numbers of 10 Grid is 101x5.0= 505.0
>
> Decimal 100 Grid
> The summation of all Fractions 0.01+0.02+..+0.99+1.0 in 100 Grid is 50.5
> The summation of all numbers of 100 Grid is 10001x50.= 500050.
>
> Decimal 1000 Grid
> The summation of all Fractions 0.001+0.002+..+0.999+1.0 in 1000 Grid is 500.5
> The summation of all numbers of 1000 Grid is 1000001x500.= 500000500.

I am slow to interpret this of Summation of Small Numbers with Midpoints.

It would be a easy interpretation if the sum were to equal the last finite number in value but for 10 Grid that sum is 10.5, for 100 Grid that sum is 100.5, for 1000 Grid that sum is 1000.5, for 10^604 Grid that sum is ---- add on a 0.5.

In this sense we can say the Sum of Fractions plus Midpoints is the value of the largest finite number plus tack on a 0.5.

Now I been thinking on this all day long, on and off. And one idea is that a 0.5, is the starting midpoint of the First Infinity Number Interval. Here I have flashbacks to the 1990s where I wasted so much time on P-adics. But here, perhaps, this 0.5 tack on is somehow the first number for Infinite Numbers, sort of like the P-adics going around in a circle, a circuit and coming to -2 which is 9999... 9998 then -1 which is 9999.....99999 and finally 0 and then 0.5 for a new p-adic circuit. Of course, in new true mathematics p-adics and negative numbers are nonexistent.

Anyway, if I fail to make any better of an explanation or interpretation than this, I still have succeeded in showing that the Reals are fake numbers because they are impossible to relate their small numbers with their total numbers.

Decimal Grid System as the true numbers of mathematics, directly relates all the numbers between 0 and 1 and the final largest finite number in that specific Grid System.

And, the most interesting part of this story is a direct link up to physics and the Dirac magnetic monopole of 0.5MeV, of course the gamma ray of 1MeV that in Pair production creates the positron and the antipositron (careful, it is not the electron, for that is the muon).

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
7:04 PM (now)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
I am going to push this book up as being my 169th published book of Science, for I have enough material already to publish. So instead of being 228th, it now becomes 169th.

And the title should be 3 TESTS of Consistency of Mathematics (1) calculus (2) harmonic series (3) valid functions.

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 15, 2022, 7:44:38 PM (yesterday)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, I discussed in length the primal greatest consistency test of Old Math-- was-- can it give a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?? And the resounding answer was-- not unless you throw out the Reals, all functions but polynomials, all numbers except for Decimal Grid Numbers, throw out continuum and its stupid silly limit analysis, throw out all negative numbers and all quadrants except for 1st Quadrant Only, throw out the silly nondefinition of infinity.

My, a lot of throwing out of trash of Old Math.

Then a second consistency test arises in Old Math having to do with the Oresme fakery of a harmonic series diverges. Imagine the ludicrousness of thinking very small tiny numbers can exceed infinity. The resolution of Series of small numbers is obtained by noting that the True numbers in mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers. And once you accept these as the true numbers of mathematics, you no longer have the absurd result of Small Numbers added up exceeds infinity.

Now I need a 3rd Test of Consistency of Old Math. A test involving what are valid functions. Throughout Old Math, we see a history of utter lousy logic applied or worse yet, no logic at all. In the history of mathematics, shows a pattern of "acceptance of everything that comes down the road" and never a logical interrogation. Never a test of logic as can be seen by the numbers in Old Math, for even as late as the 20th century we have con-artists with "new silly and stupid numbers" the surreals. And the whole of the numbers of Old Math were a hobgoblin collection of bags of numbers-- junk numbers all accepted and tossed into a huge pile called Reals, and as if that was not good enough to collect trash, they invented complex and p-adics and more.

Where the truth be known, math had only one set of true numbers all along-- Decimal Grid Numbers.

So in this third test of Old Math we examine up close the polynomial functions. And compare them to all the other functions.

Comparing is a form of Consistency testing.

And we quickly note something hugely, hugely important about polynomial functions. Something I learned in college freshman calculus at Univ Cincinnati in 1968. Something I marveled at, and something I held dear, even to this day.

For when you take calculus and doing the derivative or the integral, there is one function and one function type only that is supereasy to solve. Supereasy to solve over all other functions. (And this so much reminds me now of how I solved the unification of the 4 forces of physics-- pick out the one force that is the most perfect force, and then the other 3 forces have to be a form of that perfect force-- the EM force)

Here in math calculus, there is one form of function that is a perfect form for its derivative and integral all follow a simple Power Rule. And once you learned the Power Rule, you never have any trouble with derivative or integral.

So, well, the polynomial functions are the easiest functions as a class of functions to do calculus. This implies that all other functions are likely to be fake functions, until they are turned into polynomials over a prescribed interval.

And there is another beautiful feature of polynomial functions. They are such that you can take a few coordinate points on a graph and turn them into a polynomial function called the Lagrange transform.

Now we ask, do any other class of functions have a transform to turn all other different types of function into this type? The answer is no. Only the polynomial functions have a built in feature of turning any other function into a polynomial.

And now, finally, we have to ask, is the Polynomial function the only valid function and what is its relationship to the Decimal Grid Numbers?

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 15, 2022, 9:48:18 PM (yesterday)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
So here now, I have not dug deep into whether the Polynomials as functions, the only valid functions is intimately related to Decimal Grid Numbers with their holes and gaps in between one number and the next number. A straight line in 1st Quadrant Only is a polynomial function and does a straight line need and require discrete numbers?

I have not proven that, but I have proven the geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. With that proof of FTC, then I can safely say, that Polynomial functions require a Discrete Number System.

And I should not have been the only mathematician in the world in 1968 to notice the ease with which polynomials did all of calculus. That if we threw onto the trashpile every function except polynomials, the world of mathematics would be a thousand times better off. I should have not been the only mathematician to see the absolute ease with which polynomials glide through calculus. And this is alarming because the entire rest of the math community was making mathematics a higher and higher trash pile. As the teenager saying goes of math professors PhD, piled higher and deeper.

The ease, utter utter ease of derivative and integral of a polynomial function, yet only AP notices this in 1968. And the utter agony of doing derivatives or integrals of so called other functions that are not polynomials.

And again, the fact that their is a Transform, the Lagrange transform of turning any coordinate points into a polynomial function, yet nothing for other types of functions, should have been clear to everyone in math who does math as a career, that something is peculiar with polynomials as being special. So special they are the only Valid Functions.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 16, 2022, 3:17:31 PM (11 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Let us make it 4 TESTS of consistency, and this is likely to be the easiest test, even far more easy than that of harmonic series testing of consistency. Because in this test we simply note that 3rd dimension covers all of geometry. There is no 4th dimension or higher.

This test covers the need for Calculus to be 1st Quadrant Only, and no 4 quadrants in 2nd dimension, with no negative numbers. Of course the delusional Complex numbers with Imaginary numbers are the furthest reach into insanity. And then we note that Imaginary and Complex and negative numbers stupidity and insanity could have all be staved off if Old Math had simply realized a Axiom of Algebra that they missed-- YOU CAN NEVER HAVE A VALID EQUATION OF MATHEMATICS UNLESS THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE EQUATION HAS A POSITIVE NONZERO NUMBER THERE, ALL ALONE, AT ALL TIMES.

If Old Math had realized this is a crucial axiom of algebra, then much of what inflicts Old Math with its terminal diseased culture of phoniness, would have been abated.

The insanity of 4th dimension and higher even spilled over into physics with their multi dimensions, where even some goon clod physicists believe in a 11th dimension.

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
1:31 AM (1 hour ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Now I believe strongly there is this 4th test of Consistency that you can have only 3 dimensions.

And I suspect there is a direct proof out of the 6 EM laws of physics (what was formerly called the Maxwell Equations, only corrected of its many errors).

A direct proof that you cannot have a Faraday law of physics if you had 4th dimension. Something on those lines.

This is not the first time I thought of proving 3rd dimension is the last dimension, for years ago I have been wondering about this. Maybe now I can actually prove it.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
2:11 AM (1 minute ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe

Yes, I did solve it years ago, and even included it in several of my books on physics.

It is not the Faraday law or Ampere-Maxwell law or Coulomb law or but is rather the New Ohm's law the Voltage = current x magnetic field x electric field.

That is an equation of V = iBE and is a equation of volume in math. To say there is a 4th dimension is tantamount to saying that Volume does not capture all the volume of a prescribed region. That there is something more in geometry than volume, which is not true.

Only I am afraid, dumb people cannot buy that argument. Dumb people want something they cannot understand and hear it from other dumb people that it is true. Take for example Godel's or Cantor's nonsense in logic or math or Hawking's nonsense of black holes or Einstein's nonsense of General Relativity, for dumb people accept that wholeheartedly because they cannot understand it, and hear everyone around them saying-- it is true.

AP

0 new messages