info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
199th book from AP// Conjectures of Math and Physics
17 views
Skip to first unread message
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 16, 2021, 4:00:11 AM9/16/21
to
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Sep 15, 2021, 3:07:45 AM (24 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 3:30:22 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> CONJECTURE #16.1
>
> Statement: All of set theory belongs in Logic and not Mathematics, especially Venn Diagrams. And specifically, all of set theory belongs in Pragmatism Philosophy that belongs in Logic.
>
> Possible lead in a proof of the conjecture is that in Old Logic, riddled full of error and mistakes, and one of their disgusting mistakes was the Either..Or.. Or.. Both, which is in reality a "compacted contradiction of terms. The Either-OR-OR-Both of Old Logic is no better than if someone answered your question by saying YesNo. So, what the hell is a answer of "YesNo". Do they mean yes, or do they mean no. Same sort of gross error of Old Logic of their Either..Or..Or.. Both. And the people in Old Logic were so so mindless of logic itself, that none of them had even a itsy bitsy brain of logic to question-- "hey, you fool, is it not alarming that you have several takes on the connector OR". I mean you have a inclusive Or and you have a exclusive Or. Which means, you have a half brain in ever doing logic.
>
> So why was no-one in Old Logic ever skeptical about their idiocy of 2 sorts of OR. Why not 2 types of AND or two types of If-Then. If you have two types of OR why not 2 or 3 types of NOT.
>
> So, I mean, those in Old Logic were truly failures of mental reasoning. And we can expect from such failures of mental reasoning that they would mess up on their contraption they call a "set".
>
> So what AP conjectures in #16, is that all of "set theory" belongs in Logic and Pragmatism where Pragmatism is the geometry wing or side of Logic, leaving the quantity or algebra side of Logic as the connectors with Existential and Universal quantification as the algebra of Logic.
>
> And the easy proof of this, I suspect is associated with that mindless Either-Or-Or-Both, that you cannot make a Venn Diagram of Either-Or-Or-Both, and giving us a easy proof.
>
> However, we can use the concept or word of "set" in New Math as having a loose meaning, for AP often says that Mathematics is a subset of Physics, yet set theory never belongs in mathematics. In mathematics, the closest or nearest we come to set theory is "sequence concept".
>
> Conjecture #16.2
> Statement: Prove that Set theory can never be a part of mathematics. Suggested proof: Mathematics has no concept of "disjoint". Although math has concept of discrete, as well as physics, but no concept of disjoint.
No, the proof is Halving or Thirding a given set, the reverse of Union is halving. And this is the proving mechanism, that Set theory is a part of Logic and Pragmatism philosophy but not a part of mathematics.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Sep 15, 2021, 2:22:57 PM (13 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 3:07:07 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 3:30:22 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > CONJECTURE #16.1
> >
> > Statement: All of set theory belongs in Logic and not Mathematics, especially Venn Diagrams. And specifically, all of set theory belongs in Pragmatism Philosophy that belongs in Logic.
> >
> > Possible lead in a proof of the conjecture is that in Old Logic, riddled full of error and mistakes, and one of their disgusting mistakes was the Either..Or.. Or.. Both, which is in reality a "compacted contradiction of terms. The Either-OR-OR-Both of Old Logic is no better than if someone answered your question by saying YesNo. So, what the hell is a answer of "YesNo". Do they mean yes, or do they mean no. Same sort of gross error of Old Logic of their Either..Or..Or.. Both. And the people in Old Logic were so so mindless of logic itself, that none of them had even a itsy bitsy brain of logic to question-- "hey, you fool, is it not alarming that you have several takes on the connector OR". I mean you have a inclusive Or and you have a exclusive Or. Which means, you have a half brain in ever doing logic.
> >
> > So why was no-one in Old Logic ever skeptical about their idiocy of 2 sorts of OR. Why not 2 types of AND or two types of If-Then. If you have two types of OR why not 2 or 3 types of NOT.
> >
> > So, I mean, those in Old Logic were truly failures of mental reasoning. And we can expect from such failures of mental reasoning that they would mess up on their contraption they call a "set".
> >
> > So what AP conjectures in #16, is that all of "set theory" belongs in Logic and Pragmatism where Pragmatism is the geometry wing or side of Logic, leaving the quantity or algebra side of Logic as the connectors with Existential and Universal quantification as the algebra of Logic.
> >
> > And the easy proof of this, I suspect is associated with that mindless Either-Or-Or-Both, that you cannot make a Venn Diagram of Either-Or-Or-Both, and giving us a easy proof.
> >
> > However, we can use the concept or word of "set" in New Math as having a loose meaning, for AP often says that Mathematics is a subset of Physics, yet set theory never belongs in mathematics. In mathematics, the closest or nearest we come to set theory is "sequence concept".
> >
> > Conjecture #16.2
> > Statement: Prove that Set theory can never be a part of mathematics. Suggested proof: Mathematics has no concept of "disjoint". Although math has concept of discrete, as well as physics, but no concept of disjoint.
> No, the proof is Halving or Thirding a given set, the reverse of Union is halving. And this is the proving mechanism, that Set theory is a part of Logic and Pragmatism philosophy but not a part of mathematics.
And of course, the other way around, in that there is something in Set theory for which mathematics never has or never can possess, and obviously that is Continuity. To have continuity, means throwing out Calculus.
The key to telling the difference between Mathematics and Logic is that Mathematics is discrete with the motion of calculus. While Logic embraces everything even fictional concepts such as Continuity. Which in itself is logical that you have to talk about fictional items to know what is "true real items". And this is the case of Physics also, in that Physics is a larger body of knowledge than Logic. Math is a subset of Logic and Logic is a subset of Physics.
And today I want to start CONJECTURES 17, and 18.
AP
King of Science, especially Physics
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Sep 15, 2021, 3:17:10 PM (12 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
CONJECTURE 17.1
The difference between Centripetal force and Centrifugal force. Halliday & Resnick, 1988 do not even bother in covering centrifugal but explain centripetal starting page 111 "Uniform Circular Motion" F= (m*v^2)/r.
Physics calls centrifugal force a "fictional force". And most books do not even bother teaching centrifugal. And most people are happy to memorize that centrifugal is the fiction force while centripetal is the real force, which is bothersome to almost everyone because they know centrifuges work to separate blood. Most students have heard of centrifuge and spinning liquids to separate, and here they come to physics and told that centrifugal force is a fiction force.
So here AP wants to straighten out this mess that Old Physics left behind. And I include this discussion in my upcoming TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year College.
So what is the truth behind centripetal and centrifugal forces. Is Centrifugal really a fiction force?
STATEMENT OF CONJECTURE 17.1 : We all know particle wave duality of physics. Well, AP conjectures that centripetal force is the Coulomb-gravity law of E' = (Voltage/(CB))' and one of those terms of the three terms of that differential equation has the Centripetal-Centrifugal force.
Old Physics failed to realize that Centripetal and Centrifugal both are genuine forces with opposite directions. None is fictional. And these two forces are like particle wave experiments. We design a experiment that shows the particle nature, or we design a different experiment to show the wave nature.
Same thing goes for Centripetal and Centrifugal, where centripetal is the wave nature of spinning motion while the centrifugal is the particle nature.
More to discuss....
But now before I forget I want to start Conjecture 18.1.
CONJECTURE 18.1 : It is somewhat easy to show in mathematics where all the closed loop figures of only straightlines 2D geometry can be broken down into a minimum number of right-triangles. Mind you these figures consist of only straightlines. But in New Math, there are no curve lines, none at all because the numbers are discrete with gaps in between one number to the next number, and so we have to join those two points with a straightline. This is 2D. What about 3D? Can we say all Closed loop 3D figures consist of a minimum number of right triangular wedges?
Statement: Every Closed loop 3D figure has a miniumum number of right triangular wedges.
Now that is not the real important conjecture I want to reach and grab for. The real important conjecture involves the Physics EM theory of Voltage = CBE where B magnetic field is always perpendicular to E, electric field (some like to think of E as angular momentum for it has the same units).
CONJECTURE 18.2 STATEMENT : Every volume of Space is composed of a minimum number of 3D right triangular wedges which in turn is a B field at right angle to a E field and for which the current is a 2D closed loop of a pencil-ellipse. And here we draw upon the previous conjecture of Centripetal and Centrifugal force.
CONJECTURE 18.3 STATEMENT : In the book The Elements Beyond Uranium, Seaborg, Loveland, 1990, page 73, shows the "The General Set and the The Cubic Set". And it has always bothered me why there should be two different sets. And here again we can assert Duality, of particle to wave. For electricity in EM theory does not flow well in straightline circuits for as electricity hits a vertex, it is disturbed, a disturbance of the electricity and so the vertices the sharp corners are rounded off to form a ellipsoid or pencil ellipse. Conjecture: prove that the two representations of General and Cubic are because one is wave other is particle.
AP
King of Science, especially Physics
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Sep 15, 2021, 4:29:51 PM (10 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Here I am tying together particle to wave, centripetal to centrifugal, General to Cubic representation.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Sep 15, 2021, 6:33:06 PM (8 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 4:28:33 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Here I am tying together particle to wave, centripetal to centrifugal, General to Cubic representation.
I do not know the history of the centripetal versus centrifugal force and the assigned "ficticious label to centrifugal". I do not know the history of that debate and would be intriguing to find out if before 1900 or after. But I do know for a fact, that Old Physics downplayed or undercut the centrifugal force. Maybe they saw it and thought of centrifugal as a form of Special Relativity in play. But they certainly could not deny the centrifuge machine that is operating each and every day across the world.
AP
King of Science, especially Physics
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Sep 15, 2021, 11:48:45 PM (3 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 6:31:28 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 4:28:33 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Here I am tying together particle to wave, centripetal to centrifugal, General to Cubic representation.
>
> I do not know the history of the centripetal versus centrifugal force and the assigned "ficticious label to centrifugal". I do not know the history of that debate and would be intriguing to find out if before 1900 or after. But I do know for a fact, that Old Physics downplayed or undercut the centrifugal force. Maybe they saw it and thought of centrifugal as a form of Special Relativity in play. But they certainly could not deny the centrifuge machine that is operating each and every day across the world.
I was just reading Wikipedia's entree of "Fictitious Force" saying " A fictitious force (also called a pseudo force, d'Alembert force, or inertial force is a force that appears to act on a mass whose motion is described using a non-inertial frame of reference.."
And I ask any reader, especially those who pride themselves of having a logical mind. Does that make sense? Not to me and I know I have a logical mind, much more so than the author of that above. Because the above does not explain anything. For the reader with a logical mind now has to ask-- what the hell is a non-inertial frame of reference.
You see, a author of something explaining something, needs to simplify in order to offer a explanation, not ratchet up the explanation where the explanation is more opaque and obfuscation than the original concept itself. More people understand a fictitious force on its periphery than they ever understand what the hell is a non-inertial frame of reference.
So what AP would do if asked to define fictitious force such as centrifugal force would be to say. There is no fiction to centrifugal force at all, but rather, like particle and wave duality. In some experiments you see all particle no wave, others you see all wave no particle. Same goes for centrifugal and centripetal, some experiments you see all one none the other and vice versa. This is why the centrifuge works so well.
Now AP has to review where in the Coulomb-gravity law of the EM laws the law of E' = (V/(CB))' =
E' = (V/(CB))' = V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2 which is Coulomb-gravity law.
(1st term as E production) -- 2nd term as inverse square of distance -- 3rd term as synchronicity
In those 3 terms can we spot a F= (m*v^2)/r.
Is the F= (m*v^2)/r some form of synchronicity, much like Ganymede and Europa are in sycnchronous orbit with Jupiter, or the Moon with Earth.
AP
King of Science, especially Physics
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
2:58 AM (now)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
If not for Centripetal versus centrifugal with centrifugal labeled as ficticious force, there would be no "ficticious force in all of physics.
And the reason it is labeled ficticious is because the Coulomb and gravity force were never recognized as a EM force, under the AP unification of all forces are EM force. So in the differential equation of Electric Field we end up with 3 terms and one of those three is where centrifugal force lies within. I think it is the synchronicity, such as the Moon is in synchronous orbit around Earth.
But I want to comment on human mind and scientists should have more logical brains. When I was 20 years old taking physics in college, this topic of centrifugal force being fictional struck me as pecularily strange and odd. So strange that I never believed it at 20, and having the centrifuge machine as constant reminder I was correct.
So what I am saying about logic, psychology and being a physicist. If in your training or career, you find something strange and odd, and no matter what is written up about it and attempts to explain it, if you still find it strange and odd. Means you are likely correct-- that it is wrong and full of error. But sadly, most scientists follow a herd instinct rather than their own intuition.
AP
Sep 15, 2021, 3:07:45 AM (24 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 3:30:22 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> CONJECTURE #16.1
>
> Statement: All of set theory belongs in Logic and not Mathematics, especially Venn Diagrams. And specifically, all of set theory belongs in Pragmatism Philosophy that belongs in Logic.
>
> Possible lead in a proof of the conjecture is that in Old Logic, riddled full of error and mistakes, and one of their disgusting mistakes was the Either..Or.. Or.. Both, which is in reality a "compacted contradiction of terms. The Either-OR-OR-Both of Old Logic is no better than if someone answered your question by saying YesNo. So, what the hell is a answer of "YesNo". Do they mean yes, or do they mean no. Same sort of gross error of Old Logic of their Either..Or..Or.. Both. And the people in Old Logic were so so mindless of logic itself, that none of them had even a itsy bitsy brain of logic to question-- "hey, you fool, is it not alarming that you have several takes on the connector OR". I mean you have a inclusive Or and you have a exclusive Or. Which means, you have a half brain in ever doing logic.
>
> So why was no-one in Old Logic ever skeptical about their idiocy of 2 sorts of OR. Why not 2 types of AND or two types of If-Then. If you have two types of OR why not 2 or 3 types of NOT.
>
> So, I mean, those in Old Logic were truly failures of mental reasoning. And we can expect from such failures of mental reasoning that they would mess up on their contraption they call a "set".
>
> So what AP conjectures in #16, is that all of "set theory" belongs in Logic and Pragmatism where Pragmatism is the geometry wing or side of Logic, leaving the quantity or algebra side of Logic as the connectors with Existential and Universal quantification as the algebra of Logic.
>
> And the easy proof of this, I suspect is associated with that mindless Either-Or-Or-Both, that you cannot make a Venn Diagram of Either-Or-Or-Both, and giving us a easy proof.
>
> However, we can use the concept or word of "set" in New Math as having a loose meaning, for AP often says that Mathematics is a subset of Physics, yet set theory never belongs in mathematics. In mathematics, the closest or nearest we come to set theory is "sequence concept".
>
> Conjecture #16.2
> Statement: Prove that Set theory can never be a part of mathematics. Suggested proof: Mathematics has no concept of "disjoint". Although math has concept of discrete, as well as physics, but no concept of disjoint.
No, the proof is Halving or Thirding a given set, the reverse of Union is halving. And this is the proving mechanism, that Set theory is a part of Logic and Pragmatism philosophy but not a part of mathematics.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Sep 15, 2021, 2:22:57 PM (13 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 3:07:07 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 3:30:22 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > CONJECTURE #16.1
> >
> > Statement: All of set theory belongs in Logic and not Mathematics, especially Venn Diagrams. And specifically, all of set theory belongs in Pragmatism Philosophy that belongs in Logic.
> >
> > Possible lead in a proof of the conjecture is that in Old Logic, riddled full of error and mistakes, and one of their disgusting mistakes was the Either..Or.. Or.. Both, which is in reality a "compacted contradiction of terms. The Either-OR-OR-Both of Old Logic is no better than if someone answered your question by saying YesNo. So, what the hell is a answer of "YesNo". Do they mean yes, or do they mean no. Same sort of gross error of Old Logic of their Either..Or..Or.. Both. And the people in Old Logic were so so mindless of logic itself, that none of them had even a itsy bitsy brain of logic to question-- "hey, you fool, is it not alarming that you have several takes on the connector OR". I mean you have a inclusive Or and you have a exclusive Or. Which means, you have a half brain in ever doing logic.
> >
> > So why was no-one in Old Logic ever skeptical about their idiocy of 2 sorts of OR. Why not 2 types of AND or two types of If-Then. If you have two types of OR why not 2 or 3 types of NOT.
> >
> > So, I mean, those in Old Logic were truly failures of mental reasoning. And we can expect from such failures of mental reasoning that they would mess up on their contraption they call a "set".
> >
> > So what AP conjectures in #16, is that all of "set theory" belongs in Logic and Pragmatism where Pragmatism is the geometry wing or side of Logic, leaving the quantity or algebra side of Logic as the connectors with Existential and Universal quantification as the algebra of Logic.
> >
> > And the easy proof of this, I suspect is associated with that mindless Either-Or-Or-Both, that you cannot make a Venn Diagram of Either-Or-Or-Both, and giving us a easy proof.
> >
> > However, we can use the concept or word of "set" in New Math as having a loose meaning, for AP often says that Mathematics is a subset of Physics, yet set theory never belongs in mathematics. In mathematics, the closest or nearest we come to set theory is "sequence concept".
> >
> > Conjecture #16.2
> > Statement: Prove that Set theory can never be a part of mathematics. Suggested proof: Mathematics has no concept of "disjoint". Although math has concept of discrete, as well as physics, but no concept of disjoint.
> No, the proof is Halving or Thirding a given set, the reverse of Union is halving. And this is the proving mechanism, that Set theory is a part of Logic and Pragmatism philosophy but not a part of mathematics.
And of course, the other way around, in that there is something in Set theory for which mathematics never has or never can possess, and obviously that is Continuity. To have continuity, means throwing out Calculus.
The key to telling the difference between Mathematics and Logic is that Mathematics is discrete with the motion of calculus. While Logic embraces everything even fictional concepts such as Continuity. Which in itself is logical that you have to talk about fictional items to know what is "true real items". And this is the case of Physics also, in that Physics is a larger body of knowledge than Logic. Math is a subset of Logic and Logic is a subset of Physics.
And today I want to start CONJECTURES 17, and 18.
AP
King of Science, especially Physics
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Sep 15, 2021, 3:17:10 PM (12 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
CONJECTURE 17.1
The difference between Centripetal force and Centrifugal force. Halliday & Resnick, 1988 do not even bother in covering centrifugal but explain centripetal starting page 111 "Uniform Circular Motion" F= (m*v^2)/r.
Physics calls centrifugal force a "fictional force". And most books do not even bother teaching centrifugal. And most people are happy to memorize that centrifugal is the fiction force while centripetal is the real force, which is bothersome to almost everyone because they know centrifuges work to separate blood. Most students have heard of centrifuge and spinning liquids to separate, and here they come to physics and told that centrifugal force is a fiction force.
So here AP wants to straighten out this mess that Old Physics left behind. And I include this discussion in my upcoming TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year College.
So what is the truth behind centripetal and centrifugal forces. Is Centrifugal really a fiction force?
STATEMENT OF CONJECTURE 17.1 : We all know particle wave duality of physics. Well, AP conjectures that centripetal force is the Coulomb-gravity law of E' = (Voltage/(CB))' and one of those terms of the three terms of that differential equation has the Centripetal-Centrifugal force.
Old Physics failed to realize that Centripetal and Centrifugal both are genuine forces with opposite directions. None is fictional. And these two forces are like particle wave experiments. We design a experiment that shows the particle nature, or we design a different experiment to show the wave nature.
Same thing goes for Centripetal and Centrifugal, where centripetal is the wave nature of spinning motion while the centrifugal is the particle nature.
More to discuss....
But now before I forget I want to start Conjecture 18.1.
CONJECTURE 18.1 : It is somewhat easy to show in mathematics where all the closed loop figures of only straightlines 2D geometry can be broken down into a minimum number of right-triangles. Mind you these figures consist of only straightlines. But in New Math, there are no curve lines, none at all because the numbers are discrete with gaps in between one number to the next number, and so we have to join those two points with a straightline. This is 2D. What about 3D? Can we say all Closed loop 3D figures consist of a minimum number of right triangular wedges?
Statement: Every Closed loop 3D figure has a miniumum number of right triangular wedges.
Now that is not the real important conjecture I want to reach and grab for. The real important conjecture involves the Physics EM theory of Voltage = CBE where B magnetic field is always perpendicular to E, electric field (some like to think of E as angular momentum for it has the same units).
CONJECTURE 18.2 STATEMENT : Every volume of Space is composed of a minimum number of 3D right triangular wedges which in turn is a B field at right angle to a E field and for which the current is a 2D closed loop of a pencil-ellipse. And here we draw upon the previous conjecture of Centripetal and Centrifugal force.
CONJECTURE 18.3 STATEMENT : In the book The Elements Beyond Uranium, Seaborg, Loveland, 1990, page 73, shows the "The General Set and the The Cubic Set". And it has always bothered me why there should be two different sets. And here again we can assert Duality, of particle to wave. For electricity in EM theory does not flow well in straightline circuits for as electricity hits a vertex, it is disturbed, a disturbance of the electricity and so the vertices the sharp corners are rounded off to form a ellipsoid or pencil ellipse. Conjecture: prove that the two representations of General and Cubic are because one is wave other is particle.
AP
King of Science, especially Physics
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Sep 15, 2021, 4:29:51 PM (10 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Here I am tying together particle to wave, centripetal to centrifugal, General to Cubic representation.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Sep 15, 2021, 6:33:06 PM (8 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 4:28:33 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Here I am tying together particle to wave, centripetal to centrifugal, General to Cubic representation.
I do not know the history of the centripetal versus centrifugal force and the assigned "ficticious label to centrifugal". I do not know the history of that debate and would be intriguing to find out if before 1900 or after. But I do know for a fact, that Old Physics downplayed or undercut the centrifugal force. Maybe they saw it and thought of centrifugal as a form of Special Relativity in play. But they certainly could not deny the centrifuge machine that is operating each and every day across the world.
AP
King of Science, especially Physics
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Sep 15, 2021, 11:48:45 PM (3 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 6:31:28 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 4:28:33 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Here I am tying together particle to wave, centripetal to centrifugal, General to Cubic representation.
>
> I do not know the history of the centripetal versus centrifugal force and the assigned "ficticious label to centrifugal". I do not know the history of that debate and would be intriguing to find out if before 1900 or after. But I do know for a fact, that Old Physics downplayed or undercut the centrifugal force. Maybe they saw it and thought of centrifugal as a form of Special Relativity in play. But they certainly could not deny the centrifuge machine that is operating each and every day across the world.
I was just reading Wikipedia's entree of "Fictitious Force" saying " A fictitious force (also called a pseudo force, d'Alembert force, or inertial force is a force that appears to act on a mass whose motion is described using a non-inertial frame of reference.."
And I ask any reader, especially those who pride themselves of having a logical mind. Does that make sense? Not to me and I know I have a logical mind, much more so than the author of that above. Because the above does not explain anything. For the reader with a logical mind now has to ask-- what the hell is a non-inertial frame of reference.
You see, a author of something explaining something, needs to simplify in order to offer a explanation, not ratchet up the explanation where the explanation is more opaque and obfuscation than the original concept itself. More people understand a fictitious force on its periphery than they ever understand what the hell is a non-inertial frame of reference.
So what AP would do if asked to define fictitious force such as centrifugal force would be to say. There is no fiction to centrifugal force at all, but rather, like particle and wave duality. In some experiments you see all particle no wave, others you see all wave no particle. Same goes for centrifugal and centripetal, some experiments you see all one none the other and vice versa. This is why the centrifuge works so well.
Now AP has to review where in the Coulomb-gravity law of the EM laws the law of E' = (V/(CB))' =
E' = (V/(CB))' = V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2 which is Coulomb-gravity law.
(1st term as E production) -- 2nd term as inverse square of distance -- 3rd term as synchronicity
In those 3 terms can we spot a F= (m*v^2)/r.
Is the F= (m*v^2)/r some form of synchronicity, much like Ganymede and Europa are in sycnchronous orbit with Jupiter, or the Moon with Earth.
AP
King of Science, especially Physics
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
2:58 AM (now)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
If not for Centripetal versus centrifugal with centrifugal labeled as ficticious force, there would be no "ficticious force in all of physics.
And the reason it is labeled ficticious is because the Coulomb and gravity force were never recognized as a EM force, under the AP unification of all forces are EM force. So in the differential equation of Electric Field we end up with 3 terms and one of those three is where centrifugal force lies within. I think it is the synchronicity, such as the Moon is in synchronous orbit around Earth.
But I want to comment on human mind and scientists should have more logical brains. When I was 20 years old taking physics in college, this topic of centrifugal force being fictional struck me as pecularily strange and odd. So strange that I never believed it at 20, and having the centrifuge machine as constant reminder I was correct.
So what I am saying about logic, psychology and being a physicist. If in your training or career, you find something strange and odd, and no matter what is written up about it and attempts to explain it, if you still find it strange and odd. Means you are likely correct-- that it is wrong and full of error. But sadly, most scientists follow a herd instinct rather than their own intuition.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 16, 2021, 5:03:44 PM9/16/21
to
CONJECTURE 19.1
Statement : the cause of increasing hurricanes and mega droughts and accelerated polar ice cap melt is due to the 0.005% yearly Solar Radiation increases because the Sun and Stars shine not from fusion but from Faraday Law of the muon inside of each and every 840MeV proton torus, where muon is thrusting through that proton torus creating magnetic monopoles of 0.5MeV storaged inside of neutrons as those neutrons from from 1eV into becoming 945MeV and then creating a new hydrogen atom that never existed before. I conjecture that the mathematics of 0.005% yearly increase in Sun radiation comes directly from the theory Sun shines from Faraday law, not from fusion.
CONJECTURE 19.2
Statement : I conjecture that the Canada heat dome of 2021 could not have been caused by Climate Change fossil fuel burning but rather because of Solar radiation yearly increase of 0.005%. Just too much energy requirements for fossil fuel burning. But easily done from a Sun gone Red Giant Initiation phase.
CONJECTURE 19.3
Statement : Rainfall and droughts and floods and hurricanes. I conjecture rainfall on Earth is a Zero-Sum-Game. Meaning that if it floods somewhere, means somewhere else will be short of water and have droughts. In 2021, Germany flooded, China flooded, Japan flooded, New York state flooded, Houston flooded, while Western USA States were in the grip of a mega drought.
CONJECTURE 19.4
Statement : Today the Sun is increasing solar radiation by 0.005% yearly. I conjecture that when the Sun is increasing solar radiation because the Sun shines from Faraday law, not the mistaken fusion, that when the Sun has yearly increase in radiation by 0.007% yearly, then all the interiors of continents will be as dry as the Sahara desert and the only places of rainfall are coast lines hit by hurricanes. I further conjecture that by the time the Sun radiates a 0.01 yearly increase in radiation, and if humanity has not yet landed on Europa with a human crew on board, that the chances of humanity going extinct is better than 75% going extinct.
CONJECTURE 20.1
Statement: We can define as "easiest proof" the proof of shortest lines to state the proof. I conjecture the easiest proof of the 231Pu Atom Totality is the proof that science is symmetry and to not have a Atom Totality means the statement --- All matter is composed of Atoms, yet the Universe is matter, so the Universe itself must be an Atom. Otherwise, the law that all matter is atoms must be qualified to exclude the Universe itself. I conjecture that such above is the easiest proof of the Atom Totality. And we can be guided by the Ancient proof that the Earth is round and not flat proof. Their easiest proof was that Sun is round, planets are round, Moon is round, hence by what can be said is crude mathematical induction that Earth must be round. Of course the Ancient Greeks had an even more sophisticated proof Earth was round. Then later on, the sailing around Earth, Magellan, is another proof. But the most easy of proofs that Earth is round is a crude math induction.
CONJECTURE 20.2
Statement : Is the easiest proof the Universe is 231Pu the fact that pi is 22/7 with exponent constant 19/7 because 231Pu is subshells 22, 19 occupied, in 7 shells.
CONJECTURE 21.1
Statement : I Conjecture that the rings observed by Caltech's Jarrett is either one of the 8 rings of the Cosmic Proton or the single ring of the Cosmic Muon of 5f6 Plutonium.
--- quoting ---
ned.ipac.caltech.edu
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/papers/LSS/
The third layer (0.01 < z < 0.02) is dominated by the P-P
supercluster
(left side of image) and the P-I supercluster extending up into the
ZoA terminating as the Great Attractor region (notably Abell 3627)
disappears behind a wall of Milky Way stars. An intriguing "ring" or
chain of galaxies seems to circle/extend from the northern to the
southern Galactic hemisphere (see also Figure 1). It is unknown
whether this ring-like structure is physically associated with the
cosmic web or an artifact of projection.
--- end quoting ---
CONJECTURE 22.1
Statement: I believe Reincarnation is the science of the Gods. And I am working hard to find any sort of solutions.
Statement : the cause of increasing hurricanes and mega droughts and accelerated polar ice cap melt is due to the 0.005% yearly Solar Radiation increases because the Sun and Stars shine not from fusion but from Faraday Law of the muon inside of each and every 840MeV proton torus, where muon is thrusting through that proton torus creating magnetic monopoles of 0.5MeV storaged inside of neutrons as those neutrons from from 1eV into becoming 945MeV and then creating a new hydrogen atom that never existed before. I conjecture that the mathematics of 0.005% yearly increase in Sun radiation comes directly from the theory Sun shines from Faraday law, not from fusion.
CONJECTURE 19.2
Statement : I conjecture that the Canada heat dome of 2021 could not have been caused by Climate Change fossil fuel burning but rather because of Solar radiation yearly increase of 0.005%. Just too much energy requirements for fossil fuel burning. But easily done from a Sun gone Red Giant Initiation phase.
CONJECTURE 19.3
Statement : Rainfall and droughts and floods and hurricanes. I conjecture rainfall on Earth is a Zero-Sum-Game. Meaning that if it floods somewhere, means somewhere else will be short of water and have droughts. In 2021, Germany flooded, China flooded, Japan flooded, New York state flooded, Houston flooded, while Western USA States were in the grip of a mega drought.
CONJECTURE 19.4
Statement : Today the Sun is increasing solar radiation by 0.005% yearly. I conjecture that when the Sun is increasing solar radiation because the Sun shines from Faraday law, not the mistaken fusion, that when the Sun has yearly increase in radiation by 0.007% yearly, then all the interiors of continents will be as dry as the Sahara desert and the only places of rainfall are coast lines hit by hurricanes. I further conjecture that by the time the Sun radiates a 0.01 yearly increase in radiation, and if humanity has not yet landed on Europa with a human crew on board, that the chances of humanity going extinct is better than 75% going extinct.
CONJECTURE 20.1
Statement: We can define as "easiest proof" the proof of shortest lines to state the proof. I conjecture the easiest proof of the 231Pu Atom Totality is the proof that science is symmetry and to not have a Atom Totality means the statement --- All matter is composed of Atoms, yet the Universe is matter, so the Universe itself must be an Atom. Otherwise, the law that all matter is atoms must be qualified to exclude the Universe itself. I conjecture that such above is the easiest proof of the Atom Totality. And we can be guided by the Ancient proof that the Earth is round and not flat proof. Their easiest proof was that Sun is round, planets are round, Moon is round, hence by what can be said is crude mathematical induction that Earth must be round. Of course the Ancient Greeks had an even more sophisticated proof Earth was round. Then later on, the sailing around Earth, Magellan, is another proof. But the most easy of proofs that Earth is round is a crude math induction.
CONJECTURE 20.2
Statement : Is the easiest proof the Universe is 231Pu the fact that pi is 22/7 with exponent constant 19/7 because 231Pu is subshells 22, 19 occupied, in 7 shells.
CONJECTURE 21.1
Statement : I Conjecture that the rings observed by Caltech's Jarrett is either one of the 8 rings of the Cosmic Proton or the single ring of the Cosmic Muon of 5f6 Plutonium.
--- quoting ---
ned.ipac.caltech.edu
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/papers/LSS/
The third layer (0.01 < z < 0.02) is dominated by the P-P
supercluster
(left side of image) and the P-I supercluster extending up into the
ZoA terminating as the Great Attractor region (notably Abell 3627)
disappears behind a wall of Milky Way stars. An intriguing "ring" or
chain of galaxies seems to circle/extend from the northern to the
southern Galactic hemisphere (see also Figure 1). It is unknown
whether this ring-like structure is physically associated with the
cosmic web or an artifact of projection.
--- end quoting ---
CONJECTURE 22.1
Statement: I believe Reincarnation is the science of the Gods. And I am working hard to find any sort of solutions.
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 16, 2021, 7:50:37 PM9/16/21
to
CONJECTURE 3.4 and upwards.
STATEMENT : considering the all enclusiveness the completeness of the magic number 6 for physics, we must explore if this is a minimal number to create other subjects and topics. For example, is 6 necessary and sufficient to create all language words?
Conjecture 3.4 : I conjecture that 6 is sufficient to create a alphabet and have all the words that English has words from a alphabet of 26 letters "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz". So AP conjectures that if 6 laws are sufficient to create all of physics, then 6 letters should be sufficient to create a language. And the only reason really that English has 26 letters is because of keeping the words short and allow for dialects. So for instance we keep "c" and throw out "z" as redundant. We keep "g" and throw out "j". We keep "m" and throw out "n".
Actually we can look back in history and see if there was a language with alphabet of only 6 letters for pronunciation. And perhaps we can look to the Indian language for clues as to whether a 6 letter alphabet ever existed, for I say that because many Indian words are very long, and that is what happens when you have a alphabet of only 6 letters.
CONJECTURE 3.5
Statement : Let me shift this idea that 6 is a magic number in all sciences, because Physics needs just 6 laws of EM theory for which all the forces of nature are unified under those 6 laws. Conjecture, can we build the smallest number system from 6 numbers where I count 0 as a number, that Old Math does not count in their base systems. So Old Math calls it Senary for base 6 but to me base 6 is 0,1,2,3,4. That would mean instead of Decimal system, would mean a system on 0,1,2,3,4 where 5 is 10 and 10 is 20. Now, some would say, especially severely toilet trained mathematicians, would say this is hoopla, kookish, because they would tightly grip and hold onto their fetish of binary since it is computers driven, and let me include the severely toilet trained computer engineers and their coworkers. So these folk would say, no, a system of 6 is not special but binary a system of 2 is special. AP would however disagree and that a system of 6 forms the smallest possible number representation system because, because it preserves Scale Numbers, or does it???? And what AP argues is that Binary cannot include the most valuable numbers of all-- the Scale numbers of 1, 10, 100, 1000, 10^4, etc. Binary destroys the Scale numbers where 10 is 1010. But a system based on 6 of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20, ... is conjectured to preserve Scale Numbers. Is AP true or false on this conjecture? For I doubt it myself.
On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 5:26:33 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 8:56:28 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Alright, let me do a 3rd Conjecture, for as I said, conjectures are easy, and the proof is hard.
>
> Recently in writing my TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year College came upon a conjecture that needs proving. A conjecture that not only applies to physics, mathematics and also logic.
>
> It is a dazzling, brilliant and magnificent conjecture. One that will knock your socks off without any effort. A conjecture that will keep my stalker enemies up awake at night and not able to sleep. A conjecture that will make all the award winning mathematicians, get outside and bark and howl at the moon.
>
> I noticed in physics that I needed 6 laws to cover all of ElectroMagnetic theory. And since all the forces of physics are reduced or unified to the EM force, means that 6 laws are all enclusive of all of Physics.
>
> So then I looked upon mathematics and found this magical number 6 for all-inclusiveness. And sure enough all of mathematics goes under the domain of 6 operations-- add, subtract, multiply,divide, integrate, derivative.
>
> Next I go to Logic and sure enough, 6 operators are all inclusive of the subject of Logic as -- Equal&Not, AND, OR, IF->Then, existential, universal.
>
> So, the idea is of All-Inclusiveness, that with these 6 in their respective subject matters, the entire science is covered.
>
> So here I conjecture that those sciences require 6 laws or operators to make a whole subject and no more are allowed.
>
> So, I conjecture that 6 fills physics, math, and logic and if anyone were to think a 7th was needed for physics, math, logic, they be wrong and muddleheaded.
>
> So, prove that physics, math, logic require 6 independent operators or laws and any more would be seen as redundancy of those 6.
>
> And AP further conjectures the reason underlying this magical number 6 is because the entire universe is just one atom of 231Pu and its geometry is the outer 5f6 that encompasses the entire cosmic atom. Notice the 6 in 5f6 shell of 231Pu. If we happened to live in a Cosmos where the Cosmic Atom was Americium and the outermost shell was 5f7, then in that universe, we would have 7 laws of physics and math having 7 operators as well as logic having 7 operators.
>
> Call this conjecture, #3 All encompassing 6 laws-operators.
>
> #3 CONJECTURE
>
Let me divide up Conjecture #3 for it has many corollaries in store. So the main conjecture is 3.1 of showing that 6 laws or 6 operators are necessary and sufficient to create physics and mathematics and logic.
Conjecture 3.2 : would say that Biology requires 6 units or operators, to cover all of biology in that 4 nucleotides plus 2 sugar phosphate strands in DNA. In other words, DNA is the photon or light wave of B magnetic field and E electric field in double transverse wave or in longitudinal wave. So here we have the "if and only if" of the magical important number 6.
Conjecture 3.3 : would say, that when one builds the axioms of Algebra in mathematics or the axioms of Geometry in mathematics, that 6 are necessary and sufficient to create Algebra and or Geometry. One of the most important algebra axioms was missed until AP discovered it recently in the early 21st century-- the axiom that a equation exists if and only if a positive Decimal Grid number exists on the rightside of equation all alone by itself at all times. If Tartaglia history down to Galois had known of this axiom would have spared themselves a lifetime of what is now seen as almost wasted math. So these conjectures point to the fact that 6 is a magical number in all sciences, and AP conjectures the reason for the magical 6 is because the Atom Totality Universe of 231Pu, is the 5f6 muon electric shell and that 6 is an all encompassing number. If the Universe was a 5f7 universe, our physics and math would depend on the magic number 7 not 6.
AP writes: The New Wave of math conjectures are so much more than Old Math conjectures, for the New Wave conjectures have footprints in all the sciences, an embrace of all sciences and math as one science.
STATEMENT : considering the all enclusiveness the completeness of the magic number 6 for physics, we must explore if this is a minimal number to create other subjects and topics. For example, is 6 necessary and sufficient to create all language words?
Conjecture 3.4 : I conjecture that 6 is sufficient to create a alphabet and have all the words that English has words from a alphabet of 26 letters "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz". So AP conjectures that if 6 laws are sufficient to create all of physics, then 6 letters should be sufficient to create a language. And the only reason really that English has 26 letters is because of keeping the words short and allow for dialects. So for instance we keep "c" and throw out "z" as redundant. We keep "g" and throw out "j". We keep "m" and throw out "n".
Actually we can look back in history and see if there was a language with alphabet of only 6 letters for pronunciation. And perhaps we can look to the Indian language for clues as to whether a 6 letter alphabet ever existed, for I say that because many Indian words are very long, and that is what happens when you have a alphabet of only 6 letters.
CONJECTURE 3.5
Statement : Let me shift this idea that 6 is a magic number in all sciences, because Physics needs just 6 laws of EM theory for which all the forces of nature are unified under those 6 laws. Conjecture, can we build the smallest number system from 6 numbers where I count 0 as a number, that Old Math does not count in their base systems. So Old Math calls it Senary for base 6 but to me base 6 is 0,1,2,3,4. That would mean instead of Decimal system, would mean a system on 0,1,2,3,4 where 5 is 10 and 10 is 20. Now, some would say, especially severely toilet trained mathematicians, would say this is hoopla, kookish, because they would tightly grip and hold onto their fetish of binary since it is computers driven, and let me include the severely toilet trained computer engineers and their coworkers. So these folk would say, no, a system of 6 is not special but binary a system of 2 is special. AP would however disagree and that a system of 6 forms the smallest possible number representation system because, because it preserves Scale Numbers, or does it???? And what AP argues is that Binary cannot include the most valuable numbers of all-- the Scale numbers of 1, 10, 100, 1000, 10^4, etc. Binary destroys the Scale numbers where 10 is 1010. But a system based on 6 of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20, ... is conjectured to preserve Scale Numbers. Is AP true or false on this conjecture? For I doubt it myself.
On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 5:26:33 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 8:56:28 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Alright, let me do a 3rd Conjecture, for as I said, conjectures are easy, and the proof is hard.
>
> Recently in writing my TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year College came upon a conjecture that needs proving. A conjecture that not only applies to physics, mathematics and also logic.
>
> It is a dazzling, brilliant and magnificent conjecture. One that will knock your socks off without any effort. A conjecture that will keep my stalker enemies up awake at night and not able to sleep. A conjecture that will make all the award winning mathematicians, get outside and bark and howl at the moon.
>
> I noticed in physics that I needed 6 laws to cover all of ElectroMagnetic theory. And since all the forces of physics are reduced or unified to the EM force, means that 6 laws are all enclusive of all of Physics.
>
> So then I looked upon mathematics and found this magical number 6 for all-inclusiveness. And sure enough all of mathematics goes under the domain of 6 operations-- add, subtract, multiply,divide, integrate, derivative.
>
> Next I go to Logic and sure enough, 6 operators are all inclusive of the subject of Logic as -- Equal&Not, AND, OR, IF->Then, existential, universal.
>
> So, the idea is of All-Inclusiveness, that with these 6 in their respective subject matters, the entire science is covered.
>
> So here I conjecture that those sciences require 6 laws or operators to make a whole subject and no more are allowed.
>
> So, I conjecture that 6 fills physics, math, and logic and if anyone were to think a 7th was needed for physics, math, logic, they be wrong and muddleheaded.
>
> So, prove that physics, math, logic require 6 independent operators or laws and any more would be seen as redundancy of those 6.
>
> And AP further conjectures the reason underlying this magical number 6 is because the entire universe is just one atom of 231Pu and its geometry is the outer 5f6 that encompasses the entire cosmic atom. Notice the 6 in 5f6 shell of 231Pu. If we happened to live in a Cosmos where the Cosmic Atom was Americium and the outermost shell was 5f7, then in that universe, we would have 7 laws of physics and math having 7 operators as well as logic having 7 operators.
>
> Call this conjecture, #3 All encompassing 6 laws-operators.
>
> #3 CONJECTURE
>
Let me divide up Conjecture #3 for it has many corollaries in store. So the main conjecture is 3.1 of showing that 6 laws or 6 operators are necessary and sufficient to create physics and mathematics and logic.
Conjecture 3.2 : would say that Biology requires 6 units or operators, to cover all of biology in that 4 nucleotides plus 2 sugar phosphate strands in DNA. In other words, DNA is the photon or light wave of B magnetic field and E electric field in double transverse wave or in longitudinal wave. So here we have the "if and only if" of the magical important number 6.
Conjecture 3.3 : would say, that when one builds the axioms of Algebra in mathematics or the axioms of Geometry in mathematics, that 6 are necessary and sufficient to create Algebra and or Geometry. One of the most important algebra axioms was missed until AP discovered it recently in the early 21st century-- the axiom that a equation exists if and only if a positive Decimal Grid number exists on the rightside of equation all alone by itself at all times. If Tartaglia history down to Galois had known of this axiom would have spared themselves a lifetime of what is now seen as almost wasted math. So these conjectures point to the fact that 6 is a magical number in all sciences, and AP conjectures the reason for the magical 6 is because the Atom Totality Universe of 231Pu, is the 5f6 muon electric shell and that 6 is an all encompassing number. If the Universe was a 5f7 universe, our physics and math would depend on the magic number 7 not 6.
AP writes: The New Wave of math conjectures are so much more than Old Math conjectures, for the New Wave conjectures have footprints in all the sciences, an embrace of all sciences and math as one science.
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 16, 2021, 10:46:42 PM9/16/21
to
On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 6:49:45 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> CONJECTURE 3.4 and upwards.
>
> STATEMENT : considering the all enclusiveness the completeness of the magic number 6 for physics, we must explore if this is a minimal number to create other subjects and topics. For example, is 6 necessary and sufficient to create all language words?
>
> Conjecture 3.4 : I conjecture that 6 is sufficient to create a alphabet and have all the words that English has words from a alphabet of 26 letters "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz". So AP conjectures that if 6 laws are sufficient to create all of physics, then 6 letters should be sufficient to create a language. And the only reason really that English has 26 letters is because of keeping the words short and allow for dialects. So for instance we keep "c" and throw out "z" as redundant. We keep "g" and throw out "j". We keep "m" and throw out "n".
>
> Actually we can look back in history and see if there was a language with alphabet of only 6 letters for pronunciation. And perhaps we can look to the Indian language for clues as to whether a 6 letter alphabet ever existed, for I say that because many Indian words are very long, and that is what happens when you have a alphabet of only 6 letters.
>
> CONJECTURE 3.5
>
> Statement : Let me shift this idea that 6 is a magic number in all sciences, because Physics needs just 6 laws of EM theory for which all the forces of nature are unified under those 6 laws. Conjecture, can we build the smallest number system from 6 numbers where I count 0 as a number, that Old Math does not count in their base systems. So Old Math calls it Senary for base 6 but to me base 6 is 0,1,2,3,4. That would mean instead of Decimal system, would mean a system on 0,1,2,3,4 where 5 is 10 and 10 is 20. Now, some would say, especially severely toilet trained mathematicians, would say this is hoopla, kookish, because they would tightly grip and hold onto their fetish of binary since it is computers driven, and let me include the severely toilet trained computer engineers and their coworkers. So these folk would say, no, a system of 6 is not special but binary a system of 2 is special. AP would however disagree and that a system of 6 forms the smallest possible number representation system because, because it preserves Scale Numbers, or does it???? And what AP argues is that Binary cannot include the most valuable numbers of all-- the Scale numbers of 1, 10, 100, 1000, 10^4, etc. Binary destroys the Scale numbers where 10 is 1010. But a system based on 6 of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20, ... is conjectured to preserve Scale Numbers. Is AP true or false on this conjecture? For I doubt it myself.
Thinking some more on this magic number 6 extension to bases of number systems. We would have to redefine binary as unary, ternary as binary, and base 5 as being base 6 all because we cannot count 0 as a number but a place value.
> CONJECTURE 3.4 and upwards.
>
> STATEMENT : considering the all enclusiveness the completeness of the magic number 6 for physics, we must explore if this is a minimal number to create other subjects and topics. For example, is 6 necessary and sufficient to create all language words?
>
> Conjecture 3.4 : I conjecture that 6 is sufficient to create a alphabet and have all the words that English has words from a alphabet of 26 letters "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz". So AP conjectures that if 6 laws are sufficient to create all of physics, then 6 letters should be sufficient to create a language. And the only reason really that English has 26 letters is because of keeping the words short and allow for dialects. So for instance we keep "c" and throw out "z" as redundant. We keep "g" and throw out "j". We keep "m" and throw out "n".
>
> Actually we can look back in history and see if there was a language with alphabet of only 6 letters for pronunciation. And perhaps we can look to the Indian language for clues as to whether a 6 letter alphabet ever existed, for I say that because many Indian words are very long, and that is what happens when you have a alphabet of only 6 letters.
>
> CONJECTURE 3.5
>
> Statement : Let me shift this idea that 6 is a magic number in all sciences, because Physics needs just 6 laws of EM theory for which all the forces of nature are unified under those 6 laws. Conjecture, can we build the smallest number system from 6 numbers where I count 0 as a number, that Old Math does not count in their base systems. So Old Math calls it Senary for base 6 but to me base 6 is 0,1,2,3,4. That would mean instead of Decimal system, would mean a system on 0,1,2,3,4 where 5 is 10 and 10 is 20. Now, some would say, especially severely toilet trained mathematicians, would say this is hoopla, kookish, because they would tightly grip and hold onto their fetish of binary since it is computers driven, and let me include the severely toilet trained computer engineers and their coworkers. So these folk would say, no, a system of 6 is not special but binary a system of 2 is special. AP would however disagree and that a system of 6 forms the smallest possible number representation system because, because it preserves Scale Numbers, or does it???? And what AP argues is that Binary cannot include the most valuable numbers of all-- the Scale numbers of 1, 10, 100, 1000, 10^4, etc. Binary destroys the Scale numbers where 10 is 1010. But a system based on 6 of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20, ... is conjectured to preserve Scale Numbers. Is AP true or false on this conjecture? For I doubt it myself.
So in base 5 we have 100 = 400, and 1,000 = 13,000, and 10,000= 310,000.
So, what I had conjectured above was the idea that the smallest base that can represent numbers and still contain Scale Numbers is base 5, only it is really base 6.
So it is looking to be that this conjecture is true from the looks of things. We know that 5 is half of 10 and we know the Decimal system representation of numbers carries the all important Scale Numbers. So far, it looks like base5 = base6 __does carry the Scale Numbers__.
Let me see if 100,000 base 10 yields a base5=base6 where all the zero digits are together in a row.
Yes, well we just take 400 x 13,000 in base 5= base 6 to get 510,000. I was looking to see if nothing like say 501,010 showed up, where all the zeros are in a row after a few nonzero digits.
So yes, the mighty magical number 6 of physics shows up in the most fundamental parts of mathematics, number representation.
Mostowski Collapse
Sep 17, 2021, 1:15:58 PM9/17/21
to
What happened, was the 199th book the final curtain
for AP brain farto. Archimedes Plutonium "pepsi"?
Lets remember him with a song:
Elton John - Candle In The Wind
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoOhnrjdYOc
for AP brain farto. Archimedes Plutonium "pepsi"?
Lets remember him with a song:
Elton John - Candle In The Wind
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoOhnrjdYOc
Mostowski Collapse
Sep 17, 2021, 1:27:44 PM9/17/21
to
Maybe AP brain farto had some problems with mosquitos?
"His neighbor, April Gawboy, said she gets along well with Archie.
"He really cares about me and my children," she said. "He really kind of
watches out for us. He's what I would call a perfect neighbor."
Gawboy recalled when Plutonium came to her house to cut away some shrubs
that had overgrown, then hauled away the refuse.
"I trust him 100 percent," she said, "but he's very different." He wears
a beekeeper's suit to fend off mosquitoes, but Gawboy said the neighbors
suspect his many tubs of rainwater breed armies of them."
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.religion.kibology/c/aW988Y8B8Vs/m/u7lpgvHILT0J
"His neighbor, April Gawboy, said she gets along well with Archie.
"He really cares about me and my children," she said. "He really kind of
watches out for us. He's what I would call a perfect neighbor."
Gawboy recalled when Plutonium came to her house to cut away some shrubs
that had overgrown, then hauled away the refuse.
"I trust him 100 percent," she said, "but he's very different." He wears
a beekeeper's suit to fend off mosquitoes, but Gawboy said the neighbors
suspect his many tubs of rainwater breed armies of them."
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.religion.kibology/c/aW988Y8B8Vs/m/u7lpgvHILT0J
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 17, 2021, 4:51:21 PM9/17/21
to
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
2:22 PM (1 hour ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
And this language foray for me is going to draw me into a scientific analysis of Languages. So far to date, I had not wanted to nor desired to enter language science. Having only trespassed on the fringes of Language science with my logic book of Pragmatism. But here, I am going to be drawn into this science by the quantity of 6.
And I suspect language is divided into two parts, the Spoken Language which came millions of years before a Written Language.
CONJECTURE 3.4.2, Statement : Every animal with a voice box or sound organs has a Spoken Language.
CONJECTURE 3.4.3, Statement: Every animal with a Spoken Language has at least a Vocabulary of 6 sounds.
Here is a quote from the web of work done on cat sounds.
--- quoting the web ---
Cat Sounds Mean?
Moelk said cats meow in different ways to convey:
Friendliness
Confidence
Dissatisfaction
Anger
Fear
Pain
Although emphasizing that these sounds are not words, Moelk said cats routinely change these to communicate their goals, desires and emotions
--- end quoting ---
CONJECTURE 3.4.4, Statement : A Written Language can come millions of years after a Spoken Language is transformed into a Written Language. It is unsure if humanity is the only animal with a written language. For it is unsure if the bee's dance is a written language or purely a spoken language.
3:43 PM (now)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
The conjectures that AP outlines with the magic number 6 comes from the logic that Physics is the overriding number one subject of all knowledge. Everything else come from physics. And since all of Physics is governed by 6 laws of EM theory where all the forces of physics are from these 6 laws, means that 6 is a magic number of all inclusion, of completeness of all encompassing.
If 6 laws can do all of physics, and since every other subject is a subset of physics, then it stands to reason 6 is a number in which all those other subjects can be built from 6 primitive units.
CONJECTURE 3.6
Statement: Since Physics primal axiom is All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism, and EM is encompassed by 6 laws, then where is the magic number 6 in the EM Spectrum? Hard to see that magic number 6 in the EM spectrum, but I conjecture it is there with hard fast boundaries. Taking a look at Feynman's EM Spectrum.
Quoting Feynman, page 2-5, Volume 1 Lectures on Physics---
The Electromagnetic Spectrum
Frequency in oscillations Name Rough behavior
per second
10^2 Electrical disturbance Field
5*10^5-10^6 Radio broadcast Waves
10^8 FM-TV Waves
10^10 Radar Waves
5*10^14 - 10^15 Light Waves
10^18 X-rays Particle
10^21 gamma-ray, nuclear Particle
10^24 gamma-ray, artificial Particle
10^27 gamma-ray, in cosmic rays Particle
And Feynman appears to have 8 regions, not 6. But I feel I can easily clean up those 8 to be actually 6 regions.
2:22 PM (1 hour ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 6:48:54 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
CONJECTURE 3.4 and upwards.
STATEMENT : considering the all enclusiveness the completeness of the magic number 6 for physics, we must explore if this is a minimal number to create other subjects and topics. For example, is 6 necessary and sufficient to create all language words?
Conjecture 3.4 : I conjecture that 6 is sufficient to create a alphabet and have all the words that English has words from a alphabet of 26 letters "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz". So AP conjectures that if 6 laws are sufficient to create all of physics, then 6 letters should be sufficient to create a language. And the only reason really that English has 26 letters is because of keeping the words short and allow for dialects. So for instance we keep "c" and throw out "z" as redundant. We keep "g" and throw out "j". We keep "m" and throw out "n".
Actually we can look back in history and see if there was a language with alphabet of only 6 letters for pronunciation. And perhaps we can look to the Indian language for clues as to whether a 6 letter alphabet ever existed, for I say that because many Indian words are very long, and that is what happens when you have a alphabet of only 6 letters.
I understand there is a living language that gets by on 12 letters of the alphabet, twice as many as my conjecture. A language Rotokas near Papua New Guinea. If they can get by on 12, then I see no reason that a more primitive alphabet can get by on 6 letters.
CONJECTURE 3.4 and upwards.
STATEMENT : considering the all enclusiveness the completeness of the magic number 6 for physics, we must explore if this is a minimal number to create other subjects and topics. For example, is 6 necessary and sufficient to create all language words?
Conjecture 3.4 : I conjecture that 6 is sufficient to create a alphabet and have all the words that English has words from a alphabet of 26 letters "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz". So AP conjectures that if 6 laws are sufficient to create all of physics, then 6 letters should be sufficient to create a language. And the only reason really that English has 26 letters is because of keeping the words short and allow for dialects. So for instance we keep "c" and throw out "z" as redundant. We keep "g" and throw out "j". We keep "m" and throw out "n".
Actually we can look back in history and see if there was a language with alphabet of only 6 letters for pronunciation. And perhaps we can look to the Indian language for clues as to whether a 6 letter alphabet ever existed, for I say that because many Indian words are very long, and that is what happens when you have a alphabet of only 6 letters.
And this language foray for me is going to draw me into a scientific analysis of Languages. So far to date, I had not wanted to nor desired to enter language science. Having only trespassed on the fringes of Language science with my logic book of Pragmatism. But here, I am going to be drawn into this science by the quantity of 6.
And I suspect language is divided into two parts, the Spoken Language which came millions of years before a Written Language.
CONJECTURE 3.4.2, Statement : Every animal with a voice box or sound organs has a Spoken Language.
CONJECTURE 3.4.3, Statement: Every animal with a Spoken Language has at least a Vocabulary of 6 sounds.
Here is a quote from the web of work done on cat sounds.
--- quoting the web ---
Cat Sounds Mean?
Moelk said cats meow in different ways to convey:
Friendliness
Confidence
Dissatisfaction
Anger
Fear
Pain
Although emphasizing that these sounds are not words, Moelk said cats routinely change these to communicate their goals, desires and emotions
--- end quoting ---
CONJECTURE 3.4.4, Statement : A Written Language can come millions of years after a Spoken Language is transformed into a Written Language. It is unsure if humanity is the only animal with a written language. For it is unsure if the bee's dance is a written language or purely a spoken language.
3:43 PM (now)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
The conjectures that AP outlines with the magic number 6 comes from the logic that Physics is the overriding number one subject of all knowledge. Everything else come from physics. And since all of Physics is governed by 6 laws of EM theory where all the forces of physics are from these 6 laws, means that 6 is a magic number of all inclusion, of completeness of all encompassing.
If 6 laws can do all of physics, and since every other subject is a subset of physics, then it stands to reason 6 is a number in which all those other subjects can be built from 6 primitive units.
CONJECTURE 3.6
Statement: Since Physics primal axiom is All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism, and EM is encompassed by 6 laws, then where is the magic number 6 in the EM Spectrum? Hard to see that magic number 6 in the EM spectrum, but I conjecture it is there with hard fast boundaries. Taking a look at Feynman's EM Spectrum.
Quoting Feynman, page 2-5, Volume 1 Lectures on Physics---
The Electromagnetic Spectrum
Frequency in oscillations Name Rough behavior
per second
10^2 Electrical disturbance Field
5*10^5-10^6 Radio broadcast Waves
10^8 FM-TV Waves
10^10 Radar Waves
5*10^14 - 10^15 Light Waves
10^18 X-rays Particle
10^21 gamma-ray, nuclear Particle
10^24 gamma-ray, artificial Particle
10^27 gamma-ray, in cosmic rays Particle
And Feynman appears to have 8 regions, not 6. But I feel I can easily clean up those 8 to be actually 6 regions.
Michael Moroney
Sep 17, 2021, 7:37:04 PM9/17/21
to
☠️ of Math and 🕱 of Physics Archimedes "antiscience" Plutonium
<plutonium....@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
>> CONJECTURE 3.5
>>
>> Statement : Let me shift this idea that 6 is a magic number in all sciences, because Physics needs just 6 laws of EM theory for which all the forces of nature are unified under those 6 laws. Conjecture, can we build the smallest number system from 6 numbers where I count 0 as a number, that Old Math does not count in their base systems. So Old Math calls it Senary for base 6 but to me base 6 is 0,1,2,3,4.
Oh good grief, how stoopid. The base is the number of different digits
to form numbers. 5 different symbols is Base 5.
> That would mean instead of Decimal system, would mean a system on 0,1,2,3,4 where 5 is 10 and 10 is 20. Now, some would say, especially severely toilet trained mathematicians, would say this is hoopla, kookish, because they would tightly grip and hold onto their fetish of binary since it is computers driven, and let me include the severely toilet trained computer engineers and their coworkers.
Your pathetic attempt to preemptively dismiss valid objections to your
kookishness has failed.
> So these folk would say, no, a system of 6 is not special but binary a system of 2 is special.
Binary (base 2) is used because of Boolean logic and the relative
simplicity of gates and relative usefulness of "true/false". Others
could be used but that gets bizarrely complicated. Some computers,
especially older ones, did used decimal logic in part. It was really mixed.
> But a system based on 6 of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20,
You mean Base 5. But the only "value" is your numerology, which has no
part in math or physics.
> We would have to redefine binary as unary, ternary as binary, and base 5 as being base 6
"We" again? You aren't even consistent here, wanting to decrease the
base number in some cases and increase it in another.
> all because we
"We"?
> cannot count 0 as a number but a place value.
In that case (as dumb as it is), why aren't you calling your Base 5
system "Base 4"? But of course, all digits are equally valid.
>
> AP
> Court Jester of Science, especially Physics
>
<plutonium....@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
>> CONJECTURE 3.5
>>
>> Statement : Let me shift this idea that 6 is a magic number in all sciences, because Physics needs just 6 laws of EM theory for which all the forces of nature are unified under those 6 laws. Conjecture, can we build the smallest number system from 6 numbers where I count 0 as a number, that Old Math does not count in their base systems. So Old Math calls it Senary for base 6 but to me base 6 is 0,1,2,3,4.
to form numbers. 5 different symbols is Base 5.
> That would mean instead of Decimal system, would mean a system on 0,1,2,3,4 where 5 is 10 and 10 is 20. Now, some would say, especially severely toilet trained mathematicians, would say this is hoopla, kookish, because they would tightly grip and hold onto their fetish of binary since it is computers driven, and let me include the severely toilet trained computer engineers and their coworkers.
kookishness has failed.
> So these folk would say, no, a system of 6 is not special but binary a system of 2 is special.
simplicity of gates and relative usefulness of "true/false". Others
could be used but that gets bizarrely complicated. Some computers,
especially older ones, did used decimal logic in part. It was really mixed.
> But a system based on 6 of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20,
part in math or physics.
> We would have to redefine binary as unary, ternary as binary, and base 5 as being base 6
base number in some cases and increase it in another.
> all because we
"We"?
> cannot count 0 as a number but a place value.
system "Base 4"? But of course, all digits are equally valid.
>
> AP
> Court Jester of Science, especially Physics
>
Message has been deleted
Michael Moroney
Sep 17, 2021, 11:12:37 PM9/17/21
to
🧟♂️ of Math and 👻 of Physics Archimedes "Putin's Stooge" Plutonium
<plutonium....@gmail.com> tarded:
>> So Dartmouth College need to see the fake Kibo Parry ellipse-is-a-conic-section proof again? Here you go!
You already forgot the proofs the ellipse really is a conic section and
now think it's fake? Since you couldn't understand the last one, how
about this one?
From: qbwr...@gmail.com
Here is a plane and cone
x + 1 = z
and
2*x^2 + 2*y^2 = z^2
Square the first equation giving us
x^2 + 2*x + 1 = z^2
In the second equation replace z^2 with x^2 + 2*x + 1 giving us
2*x^2 + 2*y^2 = x^2 + 2*x + 1
Subtract x^2 + 2*x - 1 from both sides giving us
x^2 - 2*x + 1 + 2*y^2 = 2
Replace x^2 - 2*x + 1 with (x-1)^2 giving us
(x-1)^2 + 2*y^2 = 2
That is EXACTLY the equation of an ellipse
And there are two planes of symmetry.
No matter how you tilt or rotate an ellipse it
REMAINS an ellipse and has TWO PLANES of symmetry,
just like the intersection of a plane and cylinder
remains an ellipse no matter what the slope of the
plane is.
<plutonium....@gmail.com> tarded:
>> So Dartmouth College need to see the fake Kibo Parry ellipse-is-a-conic-section proof again? Here you go!
You already forgot the proofs the ellipse really is a conic section and
now think it's fake? Since you couldn't understand the last one, how
about this one?
From: qbwr...@gmail.com
Here is a plane and cone
x + 1 = z
and
2*x^2 + 2*y^2 = z^2
Square the first equation giving us
x^2 + 2*x + 1 = z^2
In the second equation replace z^2 with x^2 + 2*x + 1 giving us
2*x^2 + 2*y^2 = x^2 + 2*x + 1
Subtract x^2 + 2*x - 1 from both sides giving us
x^2 - 2*x + 1 + 2*y^2 = 2
Replace x^2 - 2*x + 1 with (x-1)^2 giving us
(x-1)^2 + 2*y^2 = 2
That is EXACTLY the equation of an ellipse
And there are two planes of symmetry.
No matter how you tilt or rotate an ellipse it
REMAINS an ellipse and has TWO PLANES of symmetry,
just like the intersection of a plane and cylinder
remains an ellipse no matter what the slope of the
plane is.
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 18, 2021, 12:04:56 AM9/18/21
to
Re: 🐸David C. Montgomery, "evil stalker shithead" David L. Webb, 🐢 Philip J. Hanlon flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 6:19:06 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> ☠️ Dartmouth Dana P. Williams, of Math and 🕱 of Physics Peter Winkler "antiscience"
Miles P. Blencowe,
> Robert R. Caldwell, Brian Charles Chabover, > blithered:
On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 8:56:30 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 🐸 Richard Denton, Robert A. Fesen, of Math and 🐢 of Physics Marcelo Gleiser, Ryan Hickox, Mary K. Hudson, Village Idiot"
>James William LaBelle, Kristina Anne Lynch, > fails at math and science:
>
> Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used
> in the proof:
>
> ^ x
> |
> -+- <= x=h
> .' | `.
> . | .
> | | |
> ' | '
> `. | .'
> y <----------+ <= x=0
>
> Cone (side view):
> .
> /|\
> / | \
> /b | \
> /---+---' <= x = h
> / |' \
> / ' | \
> / ' | \
> x = 0 => '-------+-------\
> / a | \
>
> Proof:
>
> r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence
>
> y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.
>
> Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1 ...equation of an ellipse
>
> qed
Dartmouth College: Philip J. Hanlon, Joseph Helble, Asher Auel, Peter Doyle, Anne Gelb, Marcia Groszek, Ethan Levien, Peter J Mucha, Rosa C. Orellana, Scott D. Pauls, Daniel N. Rockmore, Thomas R. Shemanske, John, D Trout, Erik van Erp, John Voight, Dorothy I. Wallace, David L. Webb, Dana P. Williams, Peter Winkler
Miles P. Blencowe, Robert R. Caldwell, Brian Charles Chabover, Richard Denton, Robert A. Fesen, Marcelo Gleiser, Ryan Hickox, Mary K. Hudson, James William LaBelle, Kristina Anne Lynch, Robyn Millan, Hans Mueller, Elisabeth Newton, Roberto Onofrio, Alex Rimberg, Barrett N. Rogers, John R. Thorstensen, Lorenza Viola, Martin N. Wybourne, Joseph D. Harris, Walter E. Lawrence, David C. Montgomery, Gary Alan Wegner
AP writes: AP no longer tolerates Criminal Stalkers such as Kibo Parry M of 28 years nonstop, and shreds his attacks and spits them back into his lap.
6) Criminal-Stalking is defined as constant attacking of another person's character exclusive of science content in his/her threads for more than 1 year. In the case of criminal stalking the attackee, can just shred the attackers post and repost. For stalking is not science, nor academics nor debate nor discussion. Stalking is insanity and criminal behavior.
3rd published book
AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
Length: 21 pages
File Size: 1620 KB
Print Length: 21 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
#8-2, 11th published book
World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 19May2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
Length: 137 pages
Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1307 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 137 pages
Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 6:19:06 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> ☠️ Dartmouth Dana P. Williams, of Math and 🕱 of Physics Peter Winkler "antiscience"
Miles P. Blencowe,
> Robert R. Caldwell, Brian Charles Chabover, > blithered:
On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 8:56:30 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 🐸 Richard Denton, Robert A. Fesen, of Math and 🐢 of Physics Marcelo Gleiser, Ryan Hickox, Mary K. Hudson, Village Idiot"
>James William LaBelle, Kristina Anne Lynch, > fails at math and science:
> >
> So Dartmouth College need to see the fake Kibo Parry ellipse-is-a-conic-section proof again? Here you go!
>
>
>
> Some preliminaries:
> So Dartmouth College need to see the fake Kibo Parry ellipse-is-a-conic-section proof again? Here you go!
>
>
>
>
> Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used
> in the proof:
>
> ^ x
> |
> -+- <= x=h
> .' | `.
> . | .
> | | |
> ' | '
> `. | .'
> y <----------+ <= x=0
>
> Cone (side view):
> .
> /|\
> / | \
> /b | \
> /---+---' <= x = h
> / |' \
> / ' | \
> / ' | \
> x = 0 => '-------+-------\
> / a | \
>
> Proof:
>
> r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence
>
> y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.
>
> Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1 ...equation of an ellipse
>
> qed
Dartmouth College: Philip J. Hanlon, Joseph Helble, Asher Auel, Peter Doyle, Anne Gelb, Marcia Groszek, Ethan Levien, Peter J Mucha, Rosa C. Orellana, Scott D. Pauls, Daniel N. Rockmore, Thomas R. Shemanske, John, D Trout, Erik van Erp, John Voight, Dorothy I. Wallace, David L. Webb, Dana P. Williams, Peter Winkler
Miles P. Blencowe, Robert R. Caldwell, Brian Charles Chabover, Richard Denton, Robert A. Fesen, Marcelo Gleiser, Ryan Hickox, Mary K. Hudson, James William LaBelle, Kristina Anne Lynch, Robyn Millan, Hans Mueller, Elisabeth Newton, Roberto Onofrio, Alex Rimberg, Barrett N. Rogers, John R. Thorstensen, Lorenza Viola, Martin N. Wybourne, Joseph D. Harris, Walter E. Lawrence, David C. Montgomery, Gary Alan Wegner
AP writes: AP no longer tolerates Criminal Stalkers such as Kibo Parry M of 28 years nonstop, and shreds his attacks and spits them back into his lap.
6) Criminal-Stalking is defined as constant attacking of another person's character exclusive of science content in his/her threads for more than 1 year. In the case of criminal stalking the attackee, can just shred the attackers post and repost. For stalking is not science, nor academics nor debate nor discussion. Stalking is insanity and criminal behavior.
3rd published book
AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
Length: 21 pages
File Size: 1620 KB
Print Length: 21 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
#8-2, 11th published book
World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 19May2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
Length: 137 pages
Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1307 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 137 pages
Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
0 new messages