info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
forgivme im sick i cry
37 views
Skip to first unread message
_
Mar 7, 2020, 6:01:10 AM3/7/20
to
forgivme im sick i cry
_
Mar 11, 2020, 3:06:42 PM3/11/20
to
forgiv me im sick i cry
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 8, 2022, 11:42:21 AM1/8/22
to
Jerome I. Friedman,Edward Witten,Alan H. Guth,Sheldon Glashow, Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,
Spammer Kibo Parry Moroney, why cannot--Raymond Davis Jr., Masatoshi Koshiba,Riccardo Giacconi,Gerardus 't Hooft,Martinus J.G. Veltman multiply 9 times 105MeV and see that the neutron and proton rest mass are within Sigma Error? Are they too stupid to see 9 x 105 nearly equals 940 or 938. Did they never learn Sigma Error????
Kibo the dumbest CIA agent but who is the dumbest physicist of 20th & 21st century? Was it Murray Gell-Mann, Steven Weinberg, Sheldon Glashow or Peter Higgs the dumbest physicists of the 20th and 21st century?? Well an answer to that question has to be everyone who believed that you can have a electron of atoms flying around its proton-outside the proton at a speed of 99% speed of light. Which goes to prove no-one in physics from Bohr onwards had a handle, had a understanding of what is Angular Momentum. No physicist of the 20th century was worth more than 10cents when it comes to angular momentum.
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 2:21:43 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> He didn't deserve his Nobel Prizes.
Peter Higgs needs publish in the Edinburgh University newspaper, and Roger Penrose at Oxford Univ student newspaper and Sheldon Glashow at Harvard Univ newspaper that he now acknowledges that the real electron of atoms is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday Law which is the reason that stars and Sun shine in the first place, not from fusion but from Faraday law. And this is very dangerous for Earth and humanity, for starshine by Faraday law means we have perhaps only 1,000 years to colonize Europa. And we do not need an idiot of physics like Sheldon Glashow and Peter Higgs telling us false physics, holding up true physics science all because they are self congratulating morons of physics.
>
> I demand that Peter Higgs go to the Edinburgh newspaper and publish the idea that real electron of atoms is the muon, for only a fool idiot like Peter Higgs who was deluded all his life long time in physics, would believe in the Bohr model that a electron is 0.5MeV circumnavigating on the outside of a proton of 938MeV and still stay clung to that proton even going at 99% speed of light (what fruitcakes have we here?).
>
> The moment physics realized the true electron of atoms was nearly the speed of light-- even the muon-- is the moment Old Physics needed to realize the true electron was INSIDE the proton, not outside but inside the proton to preserve angular momentum. For Old Physics never understood what the hell was Angular Momentum in the first place. You cannot have a electron outside a proton at 99% speed of light.
>
> So Peter Higgs, I need you to go to the Edinburgh newspaper and publish the fact that you now see the light of day that the true electron is muon stuck inside a Proton torus doing the Faraday law.
>
> Time is of the essence, Sheldon Glashow and Peter Higgs, failures of physics.
Spammer Kibo Parry Moroney, why cannot--Raymond Davis Jr., Masatoshi Koshiba,Riccardo Giacconi,Gerardus 't Hooft,Martinus J.G. Veltman multiply 9 times 105MeV and see that the neutron and proton rest mass are within Sigma Error? Are they too stupid to see 9 x 105 nearly equals 940 or 938. Did they never learn Sigma Error????
Kibo the dumbest CIA agent but who is the dumbest physicist of 20th & 21st century? Was it Murray Gell-Mann, Steven Weinberg, Sheldon Glashow or Peter Higgs the dumbest physicists of the 20th and 21st century?? Well an answer to that question has to be everyone who believed that you can have a electron of atoms flying around its proton-outside the proton at a speed of 99% speed of light. Which goes to prove no-one in physics from Bohr onwards had a handle, had a understanding of what is Angular Momentum. No physicist of the 20th century was worth more than 10cents when it comes to angular momentum.
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 2:21:43 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> He didn't deserve his Nobel Prizes.
Peter Higgs needs publish in the Edinburgh University newspaper, and Roger Penrose at Oxford Univ student newspaper and Sheldon Glashow at Harvard Univ newspaper that he now acknowledges that the real electron of atoms is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday Law which is the reason that stars and Sun shine in the first place, not from fusion but from Faraday law. And this is very dangerous for Earth and humanity, for starshine by Faraday law means we have perhaps only 1,000 years to colonize Europa. And we do not need an idiot of physics like Sheldon Glashow and Peter Higgs telling us false physics, holding up true physics science all because they are self congratulating morons of physics.
>
> I demand that Peter Higgs go to the Edinburgh newspaper and publish the idea that real electron of atoms is the muon, for only a fool idiot like Peter Higgs who was deluded all his life long time in physics, would believe in the Bohr model that a electron is 0.5MeV circumnavigating on the outside of a proton of 938MeV and still stay clung to that proton even going at 99% speed of light (what fruitcakes have we here?).
>
> The moment physics realized the true electron of atoms was nearly the speed of light-- even the muon-- is the moment Old Physics needed to realize the true electron was INSIDE the proton, not outside but inside the proton to preserve angular momentum. For Old Physics never understood what the hell was Angular Momentum in the first place. You cannot have a electron outside a proton at 99% speed of light.
>
> So Peter Higgs, I need you to go to the Edinburgh newspaper and publish the fact that you now see the light of day that the true electron is muon stuck inside a Proton torus doing the Faraday law.
>
> Time is of the essence, Sheldon Glashow and Peter Higgs, failures of physics.
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 20, 2022, 8:38:02 PM1/20/22
to
Ed Witten, John Baez,Brian Greene,Lisa Randall,Alan H. Guth,Michael E. Brown,Konstantin Batygin, Ben Bullock,Larry Harson,Mark Barton,Richard A. Muller, are they ever capable of multiplying 9 times 105MeV and see that the neutron and proton rest mass are within Sigma Error? Are they too stupid to see 9 x 105 nearly equals 940 or 938. Did they never learn Sigma Error????
Do they understand the meaning of this? That the real electron of the atom is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. And the 0.5MeV particle was not the atom's electron but was the Dirac magnetic monopole.
Do they understand the meaning of this? That the real electron of the atom is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. And the 0.5MeV particle was not the atom's electron but was the Dirac magnetic monopole.
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 22, 2022, 11:50:47 AM1/22/22
to
Richard A. Muller,Ed Witten, John Baez,Brian Greene,Lisa Randall,Alan H. Guth,Michael E. Brown,Konstantin Batygin, Ben Bullock,Larry Harson,Mark Barton are they ever capable of multiplying 9 times 105MeV and see that the neutron and proton rest mass are within Sigma Error? Are they too stupid to see 9 x 105 nearly equals 940 or 938. Did they never learn Sigma Error????
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 22, 2022, 10:07:18 PM1/22/22
to
Mark Barton,Richard A. Muller,Ed Witten, John Baez,Brian Greene,Lisa Randall,Alan H. Guth,Michael E. Brown,Konstantin Batygin, Ben Bullock,Larry Harson are they ever capable of multiplying 9 times 105MeV and see that the neutron and proton rest mass are within Sigma Error? Are they too stupid to see 9 x 105 nearly equals 940 or 938. Did they never learn Sigma Error????
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 23, 2022, 4:14:01 PM1/23/22
to
Baker,Bollobas,Smith,Coates,Gowers,Johnstone,Leader,Paternain publishing in Cambridge Univ student newspaper their apologies for teaching the mindless conclusion that the slant cut in single cone is a ellipse for in truth it is a Oval, because a single cone has but one axis of symmetry. To get a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry such as a cylinder. And that these math professors of Cambridge are begging the students to forgive them for their mindless math idiocy.
Cambridge Math Dept
Alan Baker, Bela Bollobas, Darwin Smith, John Coates, Timothy Gowers, Peter Johnstone, Imre Leader, Gabriel Paternain
TerenceTao,AndrewWiles, Thomas Hales, Jill Pipher, Ken Ribet, John Stillwell need to go to their affiliated University student newspaper and publish their apology for teaching the brainwashed propaganda that a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is in fact a Oval, never the ellipse, for a single cone has only 1 axis of symmetry.
>
> Because they were failures in ever recognizing a slant cut in single cone is a oval, meant they were failures all their life long in mathematics, never realizing that Calculus was geometry, and the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus required a geometry proof, not their mindless dumb and stupid limit-analysis.
>
>
> 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)
>
>
>
>
>
> #11-3, 24th published book
>
> World's First Proof of Kepler Packing Problem KPP // Math proof series, book 3 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> There has been a alleged proof of KPP by Thomas Hales, but his is a fakery because he does not define what infinity actually means, for it means a borderline between finite and infinite numbers. Thus, KPP was never going to be proven until a well-defined infinity borderline was addressed within the proof. And because infinity has a borderline means that in free space with no borderlines to tackle and contend with, the 12 kissing point density that is the hexagonal close packed is the maximum density. But the truth and reality of Kepler Packing is asking for maximum packing out to infinity. That means you have to contend and fight with the packing of identical spheres up against a wall or border. And so, in tackling that wall, we can shift the hexagonal closed pack to another type of packing, a hybrid type of packing in order to get "maximum packing". So no proof ever of KPP is going to happen unless the proof tackles a infinity border wall. In free-space, a far distance away from a wall barrier of infinity border, then, hexagonal closed pack reigns and is the packing in all of free space-- but, the moment the packing gets nearby the walls of infinity border, then, we re-arrange the hexagonal closed pack to fit in more spheres. Not unlike us packing a suitcase and then rearranging to fit in more.
>
> Cover picture: is a container and so the closed packing must be modified once the border is nearly reached to maximize the number of spheres.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN : B07NMV8NQQ
> • Publication date : March 20, 2019
> • Language : English
> • File size : 1241 KB
> • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> • Screen Reader : Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> • Print length : 60 pages
> • Lending : Enabled
>
> #11-4, 28th published book
>
> World's First Valid Proof of 4 Color Mapping Problem// Math proof series, book 4 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Now in the math literature it is alleged that Appel & Haken proved this conjecture that 4 colors are sufficient to color all planar maps such that no two adjacent countries have the same color. Appel & Haken's fake proof was a computer proof and it is fake because their method is Indirect Nonexistence method. Unfortunately in the time of Appel & Haken few in mathematics had a firm grip on true Logic, where they did not even know that Boole's logic is fakery with his 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 depending on which is subtracted. But the grave error in logic of Appel & Haken is their use of a utterly fake method of proof-- indirect nonexistence (see my textbook on Reductio Ad Absurdum). Wiles with his alleged proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is another indirect nonexistence as well as Hales's fake proof of Kepler Packing is indirect nonexistence.
> Appel & Haken were in a time period when computers used in mathematics was a novelty, and instead of focusing on whether their proof was sound, everyone was dazzled not with the logic argument but the fact of using computers to generate a proof. And of course big big money was attached to this event and so, math is stuck with a fake proof of 4-Color-Mapping. And so, AP starting in around 1993, eventually gives the World's first valid proof of 4-Color-Mapping. Sorry, no computer fanfare, but just strict logical and sound argument.
>
> Cover picture: Shows four countries colored yellow, red, green, purple and all four are mutually adjacent. And where the Purple colored country is landlocked, so that if it were considered that a 5th color is needed, that 5th color should be purple, hence, 4 colors are sufficient.
>
> Product details
> ASIN : B07PZ2Y5RV
> Publication date : March 23, 2019
> Language : English
> File size : 1183 KB
> Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> Screen Reader : Supported
> Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> X-Ray : Not Enabled
> Word Wise : Not Enabled
> Print length : 34 pages
> Lending : Enabled
>
> #11-5, 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).
>
> Product details
> • ASIN : B07PQKGW4M
> • Publication date : March 12, 2019
> • Language : English
> • File size : 1503 KB
> • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> • Screen Reader : Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> • Print length : 156 pages
> • Lending : Enabled
>
> #11-6, 19th published book
>
> World's First Proof of Collatz Conjecture// Math proof series, book 6 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 20Aug2021. This is AP's 19th published book.
>
> Preface: Old Math's Collatz conjecture, 1937, was this: If you land on an even number, you divide by 2 until you come to an odd number. If you come to or land on an odd number, you do a 3N+1 then proceed further. The conjecture then says that no matter what number you start with, it ends up being 1.
>
> What the Collatz proof of math tells us, is that so very often mathematicians pose a conjecture in which their initial formulation of the conjecture is murky, obfuscation and poorly designed statement. Such poorly designed statements can never be proven true or false. An example that comes to mind of another poorly designed conjecture is the No Odd Perfect Conjecture, in which the statement is obfuscation of factors. So for the odd number 9, is it 1+3, or is it 1+ 3 + 3. So when a mathematics conjecture is full of obfuscation and error in the statement, then these type of conjectures never have a proof. And takes a person with a logical mind to fix and straighten out the conjecture statement and then provide a proof, thereof.
>
> Cover picture: when I think of Collatz, I think of a slide, a slide down and so my French curve is the best slide I can think of, other than a slide-ruler, but a slide ruler is slide across.
>
>
>
>
> Product details
> • ASIN : B07PS98K5H
> • Publication date : March 16, 2019
> • Language : English
> • File size : 1955 KB
> • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> • Screen Reader : Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> • Print length : 61 pages
> • Lending : Enabled
> • Best Sellers Rank: #212,131 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #4 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> ◦ #9 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
> ◦ #32 in Number Theory (Books)
>
>
>
>
> #11-7, 20th published book
> World's First Proofs that No Perfect Cuboid Exists// Math proof series, book 7 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Someone on the Internet posed the unproven No Perfect Cuboid, and so I took up the challenge. I am usually a sucker for geometry riddles, more so than number theory. So I obliged. Then by 2014 I proved the matter and looking back at it now in 2019, I really really do not see what all the fuss was about-- that it was not that hard not hard at all. You just have to look carefully at sets of 4 right triangles and find an Impossibility Construction, why you cannot have those 4 right triangles all with positive integer numbers for their 3 sides. But the proof method is so hugely important in math-- impossibility of construction. And, please, do not confuse that method with Reductio Ad Absurdum, for RAA is not a valid proof method in mathematics (see my logic book on RAA). But, the method of Impossible Construction, although it might look like RAA, is totally different and fully valid in all aspects.
>
> But now, in hindsight in March 2019, writing this up, I see a very close connection of No Perfect Cuboid to that of Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem with its equation of A^x + B^y = C^z and the way I proved Generalized FLT was with "condensed rectangles" and the No Perfect Cuboid is a 3rd Dimension object but it is 4 rectangles of 4 right triangles we inspect. And we can pursue that connection between Generalized FLT and No Perfect Cuboid further, but not now.
>
> Cover Picture: Is that of 4 rectangular boxes, 2 of which are cubes sitting atop a book page of the Cubic Set for the Transuranium Atoms, from the textbook "The Elements Beyond Uranium" , Seaborg, Loveland, 1990. I am always looking for connections.
>
>
> Product details
> • ASIN : B07PMZQNNT
> • Publication date : March 16, 2019
> • Language : English
> • File size : 1382 KB
> • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> • Screen Reader : Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> • Print length : 61 pages
> • Lending : Enabled
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> #11-8, 21st published book
>
> World's First Proofs of Mathematics Oldest Unsolved Problems: No Odd Perfect and Finiteness of Perfect Numbers // Math proof series, book 8 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 26Apr2021. And this is AP's 21st published book.
>
> Preface: Now my history with these proofs goes back to 1991 to 1993, and have been finessing the proofs ever since. Some math proofs just nag nag and nag you. They just cannot be settled still. Their proof is a tiny tiny sliver of impossibility that is easily overlooked. Like an optical illusion that you are mislead into, or like those pictures where you look at it one way and you see a young lady and another way you see a very old lady.
>
> Now the No Odd Perfect Number is not a important proof in mathematics but mostly a spectacle for it does not teach much beyond making proper correct definitions. And murky definitions is what held a proof of No Odd Perfect, other than 1, held it back. The murky definition of factors, do we include 1 or not include, for example the odd number 9, do we include 3 twice or once for that we have 1* 9 and we have 3*3 and Old Math looked at that as 1 + 3, whereas I would look at that as 1 + 3 + 3. So when you have messy definitions, murky and messy, of course no proof will be found in over 2,000 years.
>
> Cover Picture: Shows our modern day new reality of the situation where the definition of "perfect" was a Ancient Greek idea, steeped in murky messy idea of factors and when to add factors, that no longer is suitable for mathematics.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN : B07PN1CPRP
> • Publication date : March 16, 2019
> • Language : English
> • File size : 1534 KB
> • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> • Print length : 28 pages
> • Lending : Enabled
>
>
> #11-9, 15th published book
>
> World's First Proofs of Infinitude of Twin-Primes, and Polignac Proved // Math proof series, book 9 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Circa 1991-1993, I gave an Old Math style of proof for the Infinitude of Twin Primes, modeling my proof as to a Euclid Infinitude of Primes Proof. But then came year 2009 when I found the way to make Infinity concept well-defined. Up until 2009, no-one in the world had a clear precise definition or understanding of what "infinity" was or what it means. It means a borderline between finite and infinite and the way to find this borderline is to use the Tractrix when the unit-tractrix area catches up with the area inside a unit circle is the infinity borderline and it happens to be when pi digits have three zeroes in a row, does the tractrix area equal the circle area-- hence, we reached infinity border and beyond are infinite numbers, no longer finite numbers. What that discovery does for proofs of infinitude is change all those proofs dramatically. And here in Twin-Primes and Polignac I show the reader how modern day New Math proves infinitude of any set of numbers.
>
>
> Cover Picture: Is a picture of the first five twin-primes.
>
> Product details
> ASIN : B07PMY1YWB
> Publication date : March 15, 2019
> Language : English
> File size : 1642 KB
> Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> Screen Reader : Supported
> Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> X-Ray : Not Enabled
> Word Wise : Not Enabled
> Print length : 9 pages
> Lending : Enabled
>
> #11-10, 16th published book
>
> World's First Proofs of Goldbach, Legendre, Staircase Conjectures// Math proof series, book 10 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> AP proved the Goldbach Conjecture starting 1993 where the Algebra Columns is the bedrock-key of the proof involved. The Algebra Column Array is the tool and no-one was going to prove Goldbach unless they had that tool, which the 2014 post of mine makes the array tool crystal clear. So starting 1993, I posted to sci.math about Array or Algebra Column which as a tool would render all proofs of this nature. The Goldbach conjecture historically dates back to 1742, and the Legendre conjecture dates 1752-1833. The Staircase conjecture is a wholly new conjecture proposed by AP circa 2016.
>
> Cover: Is a Algebra Column Array sequence starting with 6 Array and then 8 Array.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN : B07PS6MR48
> • Publication date : March 15, 2019
> • Language : English
> • File size : 1740 KB
> • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> • Screen Reader : Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> • Print length : 36 pages
> • Lending : Enabled
> Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #148,852 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> #4 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
> #38 in Number Theory (Books)
> #7 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
>
>
> #11-11, 25th published book
>
> Disproof of Riemann Hypothesis // Math proof series, book 11 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 31Oct2021. This is AP's 25th book of science.
>
> Preface: The Riemann Hypothesis was a conjecture never able to be proven and for good reason, for it was the last symptom of a rampant disease inside of mathematics. Old Math did not have the true numbers that compose mathematics. Old Math had a rag-tag ugly collection of fake numbers with their Reals, their Negative numbers compounded with Rationals compounded with Irrationals and then adding on the Imaginary. These are fake numbers, when the true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers. Because Old Math uses fake numbers, is the reason that Riemann Hypothesis just languished, languished and languished. You cannot prove something riddled in fakery. Below I demonstrate why having fake numbers in math, creates fake proofs, fake theorems, and creates a conjecture that can never be proven.
>
> Cover picture: Riemann Hypothesis deals with fake numbers of mathematics. When what is needed is the true numbers-- Decimal Grid Numbers. We learn Decimal Grid Numbers when very young, when just toddlers, wood counting blocks. All the true numbers of mathematics come from Mathematical Induction-- counting. Mathematical Induction is utterly absent in the Riemann Hypothesis, when it should be central to the hypothesis.
> Length: 58 pages
>
> Product details
> ASIN : B07PVDS1RC
> Publication date : March 20, 2019
> Language : English
> File size : 1475 KB
> Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> Screen Reader : Supported
> Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> X-Ray : Not Enabled
> Word Wise : Not Enabled
> Print length : 58 pages
> Lending : Enabled
> Best Sellers Rank: #5,118,638 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #643 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
> ◦ #1,398 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
> ◦ #3,559 in Number Theory (Books)
>
> #11-12, 152nd published book
> The 6th Regular Polyhedron-- hexagonal faces at infinity// Math proof series, book 12
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Format: Kindle Edition
>
> Last revision was 10Dec2021. And this is AP's 152nd published book of science.
> Preface: This is my 152nd book of science an exciting book, and it came out of the clear blue. The writing of it took a mere week's time and it is a byproduct of my 151st book of science, TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year College. Although my 151st book took me over a year to write; this book took just 1 week to write. Difference being that of a textbook versus that of a book on a specific topic, is 50 times more difficult because a textbook takes so much time in organizing, order, and fitting together pieces of each chapter in fact, whereas a single topic science book is like writing a prose story and is 50 times easier to write than a textbook.
> While I was doing 151st, I noticed and emphasized that all of physics is determined by 6 laws of physics, and the first principle of physics is All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. Then we notice that 6 laws cover all of physics, 6 laws of electricity and magnetism. We notice that all of logic and math is covered by 6 operators. And then we look at geometry's regular polyhedrons and find there are only 5 known regular polyhedron with a proof in Old Math that a 6th Regular Polyhedron cannot exist. An actual proof in Old Math that a 6th cannot exist.
> Well, AP knows better. For AP knows that if all of Physics is written in the language of just 6 laws and all of logic and mathematics are covered by 6 operators. That AP knows Old Math made a mistake in thinking they proved 5 regular polyhedron were all that exist as regular polyhedron. So Old Math made some or several mistakes in their so called proof that 5 and only 5 regular polyhedron exist, and that is what this book covers, the 6th regular polyhedron of the world, what it is, and what it looks like.
> Warning: the entire book is written from a sequential dated notebook, so if you read something early on, I may have changed my mind on the idea near the end. This is not a textbook, but a notebook of discovery and read it for its history.
> Cover Picture: is my iphone photograph of a soccer ball of 20 hexagons, 12 pentagons; and a glass ball covered by netting of tiny hexagons. Both objects I use in experiments of proving the 6th Regular Polyhedron.
>
>
> Product details
> • ASIN : B09K4PWKVK
> • Publication date : October 21, 2021
> • Language : English
> • File size : 839 KB
> • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> • Screen Reader : Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Word Wise : Enabled
> • Print length : 76 pages
> • Lending : Enabled
>
> #11-13, 160th published book
>
> MATHOPEDIA-- List of 76 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// Student teaches professor Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> 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 question of correctness in mathematics (because math is a subset of physics). What I mean is that each future generation corrects some mistakes of past mathematics. If anyone is unsure of what I am saying here, both math and physics need constant correcting, never belonged in science. This then converges with the logic-philosophy of Pragmatism (see AP's book of logic on Pragmatism).
>
> Product details
> • ASIN : B09MZTLRL5
> • Publication date : December 2, 2021
> • Language : English
> • File size : 1147 KB
> • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> • Screen Reader : Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> • Print length : 62 pages
> • Lending : Enabled
>
>
>
>
> 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
Cambridge Math Dept
Alan Baker, Bela Bollobas, Darwin Smith, John Coates, Timothy Gowers, Peter Johnstone, Imre Leader, Gabriel Paternain
TerenceTao,AndrewWiles, Thomas Hales, Jill Pipher, Ken Ribet, John Stillwell need to go to their affiliated University student newspaper and publish their apology for teaching the brainwashed propaganda that a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is in fact a Oval, never the ellipse, for a single cone has only 1 axis of symmetry.
>
> Because they were failures in ever recognizing a slant cut in single cone is a oval, meant they were failures all their life long in mathematics, never realizing that Calculus was geometry, and the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus required a geometry proof, not their mindless dumb and stupid limit-analysis.
>
>
> 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)
>
>
>
>
>
> #11-3, 24th published book
>
> World's First Proof of Kepler Packing Problem KPP // Math proof series, book 3 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> There has been a alleged proof of KPP by Thomas Hales, but his is a fakery because he does not define what infinity actually means, for it means a borderline between finite and infinite numbers. Thus, KPP was never going to be proven until a well-defined infinity borderline was addressed within the proof. And because infinity has a borderline means that in free space with no borderlines to tackle and contend with, the 12 kissing point density that is the hexagonal close packed is the maximum density. But the truth and reality of Kepler Packing is asking for maximum packing out to infinity. That means you have to contend and fight with the packing of identical spheres up against a wall or border. And so, in tackling that wall, we can shift the hexagonal closed pack to another type of packing, a hybrid type of packing in order to get "maximum packing". So no proof ever of KPP is going to happen unless the proof tackles a infinity border wall. In free-space, a far distance away from a wall barrier of infinity border, then, hexagonal closed pack reigns and is the packing in all of free space-- but, the moment the packing gets nearby the walls of infinity border, then, we re-arrange the hexagonal closed pack to fit in more spheres. Not unlike us packing a suitcase and then rearranging to fit in more.
>
> Cover picture: is a container and so the closed packing must be modified once the border is nearly reached to maximize the number of spheres.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN : B07NMV8NQQ
> • Publication date : March 20, 2019
> • Language : English
> • File size : 1241 KB
> • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> • Screen Reader : Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> • Print length : 60 pages
> • Lending : Enabled
>
> #11-4, 28th published book
>
> World's First Valid Proof of 4 Color Mapping Problem// Math proof series, book 4 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Now in the math literature it is alleged that Appel & Haken proved this conjecture that 4 colors are sufficient to color all planar maps such that no two adjacent countries have the same color. Appel & Haken's fake proof was a computer proof and it is fake because their method is Indirect Nonexistence method. Unfortunately in the time of Appel & Haken few in mathematics had a firm grip on true Logic, where they did not even know that Boole's logic is fakery with his 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 depending on which is subtracted. But the grave error in logic of Appel & Haken is their use of a utterly fake method of proof-- indirect nonexistence (see my textbook on Reductio Ad Absurdum). Wiles with his alleged proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is another indirect nonexistence as well as Hales's fake proof of Kepler Packing is indirect nonexistence.
> Appel & Haken were in a time period when computers used in mathematics was a novelty, and instead of focusing on whether their proof was sound, everyone was dazzled not with the logic argument but the fact of using computers to generate a proof. And of course big big money was attached to this event and so, math is stuck with a fake proof of 4-Color-Mapping. And so, AP starting in around 1993, eventually gives the World's first valid proof of 4-Color-Mapping. Sorry, no computer fanfare, but just strict logical and sound argument.
>
> Cover picture: Shows four countries colored yellow, red, green, purple and all four are mutually adjacent. And where the Purple colored country is landlocked, so that if it were considered that a 5th color is needed, that 5th color should be purple, hence, 4 colors are sufficient.
>
> Product details
> ASIN : B07PZ2Y5RV
> Publication date : March 23, 2019
> Language : English
> File size : 1183 KB
> Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> Screen Reader : Supported
> Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> X-Ray : Not Enabled
> Word Wise : Not Enabled
> Print length : 34 pages
> Lending : Enabled
>
> #11-5, 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).
>
> Product details
> • ASIN : B07PQKGW4M
> • Publication date : March 12, 2019
> • Language : English
> • File size : 1503 KB
> • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> • Screen Reader : Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> • Print length : 156 pages
> • Lending : Enabled
>
> #11-6, 19th published book
>
> World's First Proof of Collatz Conjecture// Math proof series, book 6 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 20Aug2021. This is AP's 19th published book.
>
> Preface: Old Math's Collatz conjecture, 1937, was this: If you land on an even number, you divide by 2 until you come to an odd number. If you come to or land on an odd number, you do a 3N+1 then proceed further. The conjecture then says that no matter what number you start with, it ends up being 1.
>
> What the Collatz proof of math tells us, is that so very often mathematicians pose a conjecture in which their initial formulation of the conjecture is murky, obfuscation and poorly designed statement. Such poorly designed statements can never be proven true or false. An example that comes to mind of another poorly designed conjecture is the No Odd Perfect Conjecture, in which the statement is obfuscation of factors. So for the odd number 9, is it 1+3, or is it 1+ 3 + 3. So when a mathematics conjecture is full of obfuscation and error in the statement, then these type of conjectures never have a proof. And takes a person with a logical mind to fix and straighten out the conjecture statement and then provide a proof, thereof.
>
> Cover picture: when I think of Collatz, I think of a slide, a slide down and so my French curve is the best slide I can think of, other than a slide-ruler, but a slide ruler is slide across.
>
>
>
>
> Product details
> • ASIN : B07PS98K5H
> • Publication date : March 16, 2019
> • Language : English
> • File size : 1955 KB
> • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> • Screen Reader : Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> • Print length : 61 pages
> • Lending : Enabled
> • Best Sellers Rank: #212,131 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #4 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> ◦ #9 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
> ◦ #32 in Number Theory (Books)
>
>
>
>
> #11-7, 20th published book
> World's First Proofs that No Perfect Cuboid Exists// Math proof series, book 7 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Someone on the Internet posed the unproven No Perfect Cuboid, and so I took up the challenge. I am usually a sucker for geometry riddles, more so than number theory. So I obliged. Then by 2014 I proved the matter and looking back at it now in 2019, I really really do not see what all the fuss was about-- that it was not that hard not hard at all. You just have to look carefully at sets of 4 right triangles and find an Impossibility Construction, why you cannot have those 4 right triangles all with positive integer numbers for their 3 sides. But the proof method is so hugely important in math-- impossibility of construction. And, please, do not confuse that method with Reductio Ad Absurdum, for RAA is not a valid proof method in mathematics (see my logic book on RAA). But, the method of Impossible Construction, although it might look like RAA, is totally different and fully valid in all aspects.
>
> But now, in hindsight in March 2019, writing this up, I see a very close connection of No Perfect Cuboid to that of Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem with its equation of A^x + B^y = C^z and the way I proved Generalized FLT was with "condensed rectangles" and the No Perfect Cuboid is a 3rd Dimension object but it is 4 rectangles of 4 right triangles we inspect. And we can pursue that connection between Generalized FLT and No Perfect Cuboid further, but not now.
>
> Cover Picture: Is that of 4 rectangular boxes, 2 of which are cubes sitting atop a book page of the Cubic Set for the Transuranium Atoms, from the textbook "The Elements Beyond Uranium" , Seaborg, Loveland, 1990. I am always looking for connections.
>
>
> Product details
> • ASIN : B07PMZQNNT
> • Publication date : March 16, 2019
> • Language : English
> • File size : 1382 KB
> • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> • Screen Reader : Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> • Print length : 61 pages
> • Lending : Enabled
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> #11-8, 21st published book
>
> World's First Proofs of Mathematics Oldest Unsolved Problems: No Odd Perfect and Finiteness of Perfect Numbers // Math proof series, book 8 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 26Apr2021. And this is AP's 21st published book.
>
> Preface: Now my history with these proofs goes back to 1991 to 1993, and have been finessing the proofs ever since. Some math proofs just nag nag and nag you. They just cannot be settled still. Their proof is a tiny tiny sliver of impossibility that is easily overlooked. Like an optical illusion that you are mislead into, or like those pictures where you look at it one way and you see a young lady and another way you see a very old lady.
>
> Now the No Odd Perfect Number is not a important proof in mathematics but mostly a spectacle for it does not teach much beyond making proper correct definitions. And murky definitions is what held a proof of No Odd Perfect, other than 1, held it back. The murky definition of factors, do we include 1 or not include, for example the odd number 9, do we include 3 twice or once for that we have 1* 9 and we have 3*3 and Old Math looked at that as 1 + 3, whereas I would look at that as 1 + 3 + 3. So when you have messy definitions, murky and messy, of course no proof will be found in over 2,000 years.
>
> Cover Picture: Shows our modern day new reality of the situation where the definition of "perfect" was a Ancient Greek idea, steeped in murky messy idea of factors and when to add factors, that no longer is suitable for mathematics.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN : B07PN1CPRP
> • Publication date : March 16, 2019
> • Language : English
> • File size : 1534 KB
> • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> • Print length : 28 pages
> • Lending : Enabled
>
>
> #11-9, 15th published book
>
> World's First Proofs of Infinitude of Twin-Primes, and Polignac Proved // Math proof series, book 9 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Circa 1991-1993, I gave an Old Math style of proof for the Infinitude of Twin Primes, modeling my proof as to a Euclid Infinitude of Primes Proof. But then came year 2009 when I found the way to make Infinity concept well-defined. Up until 2009, no-one in the world had a clear precise definition or understanding of what "infinity" was or what it means. It means a borderline between finite and infinite and the way to find this borderline is to use the Tractrix when the unit-tractrix area catches up with the area inside a unit circle is the infinity borderline and it happens to be when pi digits have three zeroes in a row, does the tractrix area equal the circle area-- hence, we reached infinity border and beyond are infinite numbers, no longer finite numbers. What that discovery does for proofs of infinitude is change all those proofs dramatically. And here in Twin-Primes and Polignac I show the reader how modern day New Math proves infinitude of any set of numbers.
>
>
> Cover Picture: Is a picture of the first five twin-primes.
>
> Product details
> ASIN : B07PMY1YWB
> Publication date : March 15, 2019
> Language : English
> File size : 1642 KB
> Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> Screen Reader : Supported
> Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> X-Ray : Not Enabled
> Word Wise : Not Enabled
> Print length : 9 pages
> Lending : Enabled
>
> #11-10, 16th published book
>
> World's First Proofs of Goldbach, Legendre, Staircase Conjectures// Math proof series, book 10 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> AP proved the Goldbach Conjecture starting 1993 where the Algebra Columns is the bedrock-key of the proof involved. The Algebra Column Array is the tool and no-one was going to prove Goldbach unless they had that tool, which the 2014 post of mine makes the array tool crystal clear. So starting 1993, I posted to sci.math about Array or Algebra Column which as a tool would render all proofs of this nature. The Goldbach conjecture historically dates back to 1742, and the Legendre conjecture dates 1752-1833. The Staircase conjecture is a wholly new conjecture proposed by AP circa 2016.
>
> Cover: Is a Algebra Column Array sequence starting with 6 Array and then 8 Array.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN : B07PS6MR48
> • Publication date : March 15, 2019
> • Language : English
> • File size : 1740 KB
> • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> • Screen Reader : Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> • Print length : 36 pages
> • Lending : Enabled
> Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #148,852 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> #4 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
> #38 in Number Theory (Books)
> #7 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
>
>
> #11-11, 25th published book
>
> Disproof of Riemann Hypothesis // Math proof series, book 11 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 31Oct2021. This is AP's 25th book of science.
>
> Preface: The Riemann Hypothesis was a conjecture never able to be proven and for good reason, for it was the last symptom of a rampant disease inside of mathematics. Old Math did not have the true numbers that compose mathematics. Old Math had a rag-tag ugly collection of fake numbers with their Reals, their Negative numbers compounded with Rationals compounded with Irrationals and then adding on the Imaginary. These are fake numbers, when the true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers. Because Old Math uses fake numbers, is the reason that Riemann Hypothesis just languished, languished and languished. You cannot prove something riddled in fakery. Below I demonstrate why having fake numbers in math, creates fake proofs, fake theorems, and creates a conjecture that can never be proven.
>
> Cover picture: Riemann Hypothesis deals with fake numbers of mathematics. When what is needed is the true numbers-- Decimal Grid Numbers. We learn Decimal Grid Numbers when very young, when just toddlers, wood counting blocks. All the true numbers of mathematics come from Mathematical Induction-- counting. Mathematical Induction is utterly absent in the Riemann Hypothesis, when it should be central to the hypothesis.
> Length: 58 pages
>
> Product details
> ASIN : B07PVDS1RC
> Publication date : March 20, 2019
> Language : English
> File size : 1475 KB
> Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> Screen Reader : Supported
> Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> X-Ray : Not Enabled
> Word Wise : Not Enabled
> Print length : 58 pages
> Lending : Enabled
> Best Sellers Rank: #5,118,638 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #643 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
> ◦ #1,398 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
> ◦ #3,559 in Number Theory (Books)
>
> #11-12, 152nd published book
> The 6th Regular Polyhedron-- hexagonal faces at infinity// Math proof series, book 12
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Format: Kindle Edition
>
> Last revision was 10Dec2021. And this is AP's 152nd published book of science.
> Preface: This is my 152nd book of science an exciting book, and it came out of the clear blue. The writing of it took a mere week's time and it is a byproduct of my 151st book of science, TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year College. Although my 151st book took me over a year to write; this book took just 1 week to write. Difference being that of a textbook versus that of a book on a specific topic, is 50 times more difficult because a textbook takes so much time in organizing, order, and fitting together pieces of each chapter in fact, whereas a single topic science book is like writing a prose story and is 50 times easier to write than a textbook.
> While I was doing 151st, I noticed and emphasized that all of physics is determined by 6 laws of physics, and the first principle of physics is All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. Then we notice that 6 laws cover all of physics, 6 laws of electricity and magnetism. We notice that all of logic and math is covered by 6 operators. And then we look at geometry's regular polyhedrons and find there are only 5 known regular polyhedron with a proof in Old Math that a 6th Regular Polyhedron cannot exist. An actual proof in Old Math that a 6th cannot exist.
> Well, AP knows better. For AP knows that if all of Physics is written in the language of just 6 laws and all of logic and mathematics are covered by 6 operators. That AP knows Old Math made a mistake in thinking they proved 5 regular polyhedron were all that exist as regular polyhedron. So Old Math made some or several mistakes in their so called proof that 5 and only 5 regular polyhedron exist, and that is what this book covers, the 6th regular polyhedron of the world, what it is, and what it looks like.
> Warning: the entire book is written from a sequential dated notebook, so if you read something early on, I may have changed my mind on the idea near the end. This is not a textbook, but a notebook of discovery and read it for its history.
> Cover Picture: is my iphone photograph of a soccer ball of 20 hexagons, 12 pentagons; and a glass ball covered by netting of tiny hexagons. Both objects I use in experiments of proving the 6th Regular Polyhedron.
>
>
> Product details
> • ASIN : B09K4PWKVK
> • Publication date : October 21, 2021
> • Language : English
> • File size : 839 KB
> • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> • Screen Reader : Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Word Wise : Enabled
> • Print length : 76 pages
> • Lending : Enabled
>
> #11-13, 160th published book
>
> MATHOPEDIA-- List of 76 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// Student teaches professor Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> 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 question of correctness in mathematics (because math is a subset of physics). What I mean is that each future generation corrects some mistakes of past mathematics. If anyone is unsure of what I am saying here, both math and physics need constant correcting, never belonged in science. This then converges with the logic-philosophy of Pragmatism (see AP's book of logic on Pragmatism).
>
> Product details
> • ASIN : B09MZTLRL5
> • Publication date : December 2, 2021
> • Language : English
> • File size : 1147 KB
> • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> • Screen Reader : Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> • Print length : 62 pages
> • Lending : Enabled
>
>
>
>
> 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
Message has been deleted
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 25, 2022, 4:21:06 PM1/25/22
to
Terence Tao needs to publish in UCLA student newspaper that he now sees the light of day that a single cone has but 1 axis of symmetry can so the slant cut is never an ellipse but instead is truly a Oval. And Terry apologizing that he taught this fake math for so long and will now teach correct and true math instead.
Kibo Parry Moron calls Terence Tao mentally slow, because Terry cannot admit slant cut in single cone is a oval, never the ellipse.
On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 2:55:35 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"barking fuckdog" flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
> "mentally...slow"
> fails at math and science:
> > MATHOPEDIA-- List of 77 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// Student teaches professor
> > by Archimedes Plutonium
AP writes, Kibo Parry Moron, give it time, for I am sure Terry Tao will one day be able to do what a High School student can do, is drop a Kerr lid inside a rolled up paper cone and see for himself that the crescent shape means the slant cut is a OVAL, never the ellipse. Math Professors need time to think through math for which High School students, fresh of mind, can breeze through.
Kibo Parry Moron calls Terence Tao mentally slow, because Terry cannot admit slant cut in single cone is a oval, never the ellipse.
On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 2:55:35 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"barking fuckdog" flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
> "mentally...slow"
> fails at math and science:
> > MATHOPEDIA-- List of 77 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// Student teaches professor
> > by Archimedes Plutonium
AP writes, Kibo Parry Moron, give it time, for I am sure Terry Tao will one day be able to do what a High School student can do, is drop a Kerr lid inside a rolled up paper cone and see for himself that the crescent shape means the slant cut is a OVAL, never the ellipse. Math Professors need time to think through math for which High School students, fresh of mind, can breeze through.
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 29, 2022, 12:22:48 AM1/29/22
to
2Terence Tao needs to publish in UCLA student newspaper that he now sees the light of day that a single cone has but 1 axis of symmetry can so the slant cut is never an ellipse but instead is truly a Oval. And Terry apologizing that he taught this fake math for so long and will now teach correct and true math instead.
Michael Moroney
Jan 29, 2022, 12:55:15 AM1/29/22
to
🦥 of Math and 🐢 of Physics Archimedes "mentally...slow" Plutonium
<plutonium....@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
> 2Terence Tao needs to publish in UCLA student newspaper that he now sees the light of day that a single cone has but 1 axis of symmetry can so the slant cut is never an ellipse but instead is truly a Oval. And Terry apologizing that he taught this fake math for so long and will now teach correct and true math instead.
What kind of evil light would make the King of Math do something as
incredibly dumb and stoopid as that? Tao would never do anything so
completely idiotic as that. He could prove the ellipse is a conic
section in his sleep!
<plutonium....@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
> 2Terence Tao needs to publish in UCLA student newspaper that he now sees the light of day that a single cone has but 1 axis of symmetry can so the slant cut is never an ellipse but instead is truly a Oval. And Terry apologizing that he taught this fake math for so long and will now teach correct and true math instead.
incredibly dumb and stoopid as that? Tao would never do anything so
completely idiotic as that. He could prove the ellipse is a conic
section in his sleep!
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
Feb 17, 2022, 4:33:03 PM2/17/22
to
CSUN Erika D. Beck, McGinn spam filling sci.physics just to hog the front page, Adriana Ocampo, Scott J. Horowitz, William Karush, Lorraine Foster, Olympia LePoint, as McGinn & Pennino shit spam sci.physics every day, William Alfred Fowler, Kenneth G. Wilson, James Watson Cronin, Val Logsdon Fitch, Sheldon Lee Glashow with their silly Standard Model, can they ever multiply muon mass 105MeV by 9 and see it is within Sigma Error of the neutron and proton (alleged proton rest mass) of 940MeV. Meaning what? Meaning that the proton is a composite of 8 muon rings and the neutron is 9 muon rings. And the muon is the real true electron of atoms, stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law of creating new electrical energy-- the reason stars and Sun shine. But no, the imps of physics like Sheldon Glashow and Peter Higgs put physics knowledge and understanding backwards in time, to caveman mentality physics with their impish Standard Model.
> >
> > Why do imps of physics like Glashow or Higgs never understand that a do nothing electron and do nothing proton are imp reasoning in physics. Whereas AP's particles are always doing some law of Electrodynamics. And why does Nobel award imps of science, do they like imp physics instead of true physics?
> >
> > Makoto Kobayashi, Toshihide Maskawa, Yoichiro Nambu, John C. Mather, George F. Smoot, Roy J. Glauber, David J. Gross -- please, please can they ever ask the simple question, of which is the atom's true real electron, the muon or the 0.5MeV particle that AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole.
> >
> > > > > ..
> > > > > .- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
> > > > > , . `.' ' `.
> > > > > .' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
> > > > > . ; .' . `. ;
> > > > > ; . ' `. . '
> > > > > . ' ` `. |
> > > > > . '. '
> > > > > . 0 0 ' `.
> > > > > ' `
> > > > > ; `
> > > > > .' `
> > > > > ; U `
> > > > > ; '; `
> > > > > : | ;.. :` `
> > > > > : `;. ```. .-; | '
> > > > > '. ` ``.., .' :' '
> > > > > ; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' Hi, I am McGinn antiscience with together my friends Claudius, Pennino, Pnal flood sci.physics everyday so as to hog front page, and thus no other post survives the front page more than 5 seconds.
> > > > > ` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
> > > > > ` ` ; ; ' '
> > > > > ` ` ; ; ' '
> > > > > ` `. ````'''''' ' '
> > > > > ` . ' '
> > > > > / ` `. ' ' .
> > > > > / ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
> > > > > / .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
> > > > > / .'' ; ` .' `
> > > > > ...'.' ; .' ` .' `
> > > > > "" .' .' | ` .; \ `
> > > > > ; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
> > > > > :' | ' ` , `. `
> > > > > | ' ` ' `. `
> > > > > ` ' ` ; `. |
> > > > > `.' ` ; `-'
> > > > > `...'
> >
> >
> > Robert Ingalls,David Kaplan,Univ Washington,Henry Lubatti,Lillian McDermott,Larry McLerran,Gerald Miller is the reason you have not yet confirmed real proton=840MeV, electron=105MeV, and .5MeV= Dirac magnetic monopole is offtopic Relf? Is Relf taking away your attention?
> >
> >
> > Stupid Nobel Physics prizes to those who cannot even ask the question of which is the atom's real true electron, the muon or 0.5MeV particle that AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> > 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
> > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > • Enhanced Typesetting : 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
> >
> > 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
> > • 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
> > • 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
> >
> > 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
> > Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> > Screen Reader: Supported
> > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
> > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #578,229 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> > #1610 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > #8526 in Physics (Books)
> > #18851 in Biological Sciences (Books)
> >
> >
> > #1-9, 163rd published book
> >
> >
> > Stellar System Evolution for Advanced Intelligent Life //Atom Totality science Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Format: Kindle Edition
> >
> >
> > Preface: This book explores the question of why the Sun has a planet with abundant life that evolved over 3.7 billion years ago into the advanced intelligent life of humans, yet the Sun has gone Red Giant initiation phase that threatens to destroy all life on Earth in the next few thousand years. The question of why even bother having advanced intelligent life if the home star quickly destroys that life and the planet it resides upon? Why bother with advanced intelligent life if it is put under such enormous stress and strain and energy to move to a distant satellite of Europa and Ganymede. Surely the Cosmic design must tell us why this is our fate.
> > Cover Picture: is my iphone photograph of Europa.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN : B09NQ65H9F
> > • Publication date : December 15, 2021
> > • Language : English
> > • File size : 999 KB
> >
> > 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
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN : B08PC99JJB
> > • Publication date : November 29, 2020
> > • Language: : English
> > • File size : 682 KB
> > • 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
> > Cover Picture: Is the book The History of Physics, by Isaac Asimov, 1966 and on top of the book are 4 cut-outs of bent circles representing magnetic monopoles which revolutionizes modern physics, especially the ElectroMagnetic theory.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN : B08RK33T8V
> > • Publication date : December 28, 2020
> > • Language : English
> > • File size : 794 KB
> > • Lending : Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #4,167,235 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #15,099 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #91,163 in Physics (Books)
> >
> >
> > #2-4, 151st published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4
> >
> > Maybe it was good that I had those impressions of physics education of poor education, which still exists throughout physics today. Because maybe I am forced to write this book, because of that awful experience of learning physics in 1969. Without that awful experience, maybe this textbook would have never been written by me.
> >
> > Cover picture is the template book of Halliday & Resnick, 1988, 3rd edition Fundamentals of Physics and sitting on top are cut outs of "half bent circles, bent at 90 degrees" to imitate magnetic monopoles. Magnetic Monopoles revolutionizes physics education, and separates-out, what is Old Physics from what is New Physics.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN : B09JW5DVYM
> > • Publication date : October 19, 2021
> > • Language : English
> > • File size : 1033 KB
> >
> > 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)
> >
> > Why do imps of physics like Glashow or Higgs never understand that a do nothing electron and do nothing proton are imp reasoning in physics. Whereas AP's particles are always doing some law of Electrodynamics. And why does Nobel award imps of science, do they like imp physics instead of true physics?
> >
> > Makoto Kobayashi, Toshihide Maskawa, Yoichiro Nambu, John C. Mather, George F. Smoot, Roy J. Glauber, David J. Gross -- please, please can they ever ask the simple question, of which is the atom's true real electron, the muon or the 0.5MeV particle that AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole.
> >
> > > > > ..
> > > > > .- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
> > > > > , . `.' ' `.
> > > > > .' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
> > > > > . ; .' . `. ;
> > > > > ; . ' `. . '
> > > > > . ' ` `. |
> > > > > . '. '
> > > > > . 0 0 ' `.
> > > > > ' `
> > > > > ; `
> > > > > .' `
> > > > > ; U `
> > > > > ; '; `
> > > > > : | ;.. :` `
> > > > > : `;. ```. .-; | '
> > > > > '. ` ``.., .' :' '
> > > > > ; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' Hi, I am McGinn antiscience with together my friends Claudius, Pennino, Pnal flood sci.physics everyday so as to hog front page, and thus no other post survives the front page more than 5 seconds.
> > > > > ` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
> > > > > ` ` ; ; ' '
> > > > > ` ` ; ; ' '
> > > > > ` `. ````'''''' ' '
> > > > > ` . ' '
> > > > > / ` `. ' ' .
> > > > > / ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
> > > > > / .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
> > > > > / .'' ; ` .' `
> > > > > ...'.' ; .' ` .' `
> > > > > "" .' .' | ` .; \ `
> > > > > ; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
> > > > > :' | ' ` , `. `
> > > > > | ' ` ' `. `
> > > > > ` ' ` ; `. |
> > > > > `.' ` ; `-'
> > > > > `...'
> >
> >
> > Robert Ingalls,David Kaplan,Univ Washington,Henry Lubatti,Lillian McDermott,Larry McLerran,Gerald Miller is the reason you have not yet confirmed real proton=840MeV, electron=105MeV, and .5MeV= Dirac magnetic monopole is offtopic Relf? Is Relf taking away your attention?
> >
> >
> > Stupid Nobel Physics prizes to those who cannot even ask the question of which is the atom's real true electron, the muon or 0.5MeV particle that AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole
> >
> > Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,
> > Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish
> > Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> > 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
> > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > • Enhanced Typesetting : 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
> > • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > • Print length : 20 pages
> > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > • 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
> > • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> > • Print length : 25 pages
> > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > • 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
> >
> > 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
> > Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> > X-Ray:
Not Enabled
> > Word Wise: Enabled
> > Lending: Enabled
> > Word Wise: Enabled
> > Screen Reader: Supported
> > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
> > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #578,229 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> > #1610 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > #8526 in Physics (Books)
> > #18851 in Biological Sciences (Books)
> >
> >
> > #1-9, 163rd published book
> >
> >
> > Stellar System Evolution for Advanced Intelligent Life //Atom Totality science Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Format: Kindle Edition
> >
> >
> > Preface: This book explores the question of why the Sun has a planet with abundant life that evolved over 3.7 billion years ago into the advanced intelligent life of humans, yet the Sun has gone Red Giant initiation phase that threatens to destroy all life on Earth in the next few thousand years. The question of why even bother having advanced intelligent life if the home star quickly destroys that life and the planet it resides upon? Why bother with advanced intelligent life if it is put under such enormous stress and strain and energy to move to a distant satellite of Europa and Ganymede. Surely the Cosmic design must tell us why this is our fate.
> > Cover Picture: is my iphone photograph of Europa.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN : B09NQ65H9F
> > • Publication date : December 15, 2021
> > • Language : English
> > • File size : 999 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > • Print length : 60 pages
> > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > • Lending : Enabled
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > #2-1, 137th published book
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> > • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > • Print length : 78 pages
> > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > • 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)
> >
> > 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. Now Asimov's book is full of error and mistakes, and that is disappointing but all of Old Physics is full of error. On errors and mistakes of Old Physics, the best I can do is warn the students, and the largest warning of all is that whenever someone in Old Physics says "electron" what they are talking about is really the Dirac magnetic monopole. And whenever they talk about the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, they are talking about huge huge grave mistakes, for the true atom is protons as 8 ringed toruses with a muon stuck inside of a proton doing the Faraday law and producing those magnetic monopoles as electricity. I use Asimov's book as a template but in the future, I hope to rewrite this textbook using no template at all, that is if I have time in the future.
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Cover Picture: Is the book The History of Physics, by Isaac Asimov, 1966 and on top of the book are 4 cut-outs of bent circles representing magnetic monopoles which revolutionizes modern physics, especially the ElectroMagnetic theory.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN : B08RK33T8V
> > • Publication date : December 28, 2020
> > • Language : English
> > • File size : 794 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > • Print length : 123 pages
> > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > • Lending : Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #4,167,235 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #15,099 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #91,163 in Physics (Books)
> >
> >
> > #2-4, 151st published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4
> > Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Preface: This is AP's 151st book of science published. It is one of my most important books of science because 1st year college physics is so impressionable on students, if they should continue with physics, or look elsewhere for a career. And also, physics is a crossroad to all the other hard core sciences, where physics course is mandatory such as in chemistry or even biology. I have endeavored to make physics 1st year college to be as easy and simple to learn. In this endeavor to make physics super easy, I have made the writing such that you will see core ideas in all capital letters as single sentences as a educational tool. And I have made this textbook chapter writing follow a logical pattern of both algebra and geometry concepts, throughout. The utmost importance of logic in physics needs to be seen and understood. For I have never seen a physics book, prior to this one that is logical. Every Old Physics textbook I have seen is scatter-brained in topics and in writing. I use as template book of Halliday & Resnick because a edition of H&R was one I was taught physics at University of Cincinnati in 1969. And in 1969, I had a choice of majors, do I major in geology, or mathematics, or in physics, for I will graduate from UC in 1972. For me, geology was too easy, but physics was too tough, so I ended up majoring in mathematics. If I had been taught in 1969 using this textbook that I have written, I would have ended up majoring in physics, my first love. For physics is not hard, not hard at all, once you clear out the mistakes and the obnoxious worthless mathematics that clutters up Old Physics, and the illogic that smothers much of Old Physics.
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> >
> > Maybe it was good that I had those impressions of physics education of poor education, which still exists throughout physics today. Because maybe I am forced to write this book, because of that awful experience of learning physics in 1969. Without that awful experience, maybe this textbook would have never been written by me.
> >
> > Cover picture is the template book of Halliday & Resnick, 1988, 3rd edition Fundamentals of Physics and sitting on top are cut outs of "half bent circles, bent at 90 degrees" to imitate magnetic monopoles. Magnetic Monopoles revolutionizes physics education, and separates-out, what is Old Physics from what is New Physics.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN : B09JW5DVYM
> > • Publication date : October 19, 2021
> > • Language : English
> > • File size : 1033 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > • Print length : 386 pages
> > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > • Lending : Enabled
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > #3-1, 2nd published book
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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)
0 new messages