Archimedes Plutonium

2018-04-07 04:44:15 UTC

Permalink

Michael Moroney writes:Raw Message

10:38 PM (45 minutes ago)

And here:

[ ] ...and to the wrong newsgroup...

[ ] ...multiple times...

[X] ...in a topic/topics explicitly created by him for doing so...

[ ] ...with a subject about flunking a nonexistent test never taken...

[X] ...and the subject mentions totally uninvolved people...

[X] ...who are university math or physics professors...

[X] ...and he includes a stalker list of physics and/or math professors...

[ ] ...to the extent the comment is no longer recognizable...

[ ] ...includes random snippets by other critics, spammers or babblers...

[ ] ...which are attributed to yet other critics, spammers or babblers...

[X] ...or the "you gotta draw pictures of calculus" repost...

[X] ...and includes the dumb ascii art cat/owl thing...

[X] ...which, of course, is not actually a mistake at all...

AP writes:: Moroney failed even Grade School Math for here he was asked percentage-- 938 is what percent short of 945

Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.

Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.

Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass

of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.

AP writes:: Moroney--the tireless stalker for 26 years-- they are all dumb, and Moroney the dumbest of all, the very dumbest of them all, for to this very day you believe 1 OR 2 = 3, you believe an ellipse is a conic section when it was a cylinder section, so pathetically dumb is Moroney who still believes sine is a sinusoid when in truth it is a semicircle wave, you believe Oresme harmonic series diverges when in reality it converges, you believe Calculus works by having rectangles of 0 width (see below). And worst of all, the pathetic ignorant Moroney of Boston believes you can have a covalent bond in chemistry with a proton at 938 and electron at .5 MeV, when the truth be known the proton is 840MeV and electron = 105 MeV. So, all of you are just plain dumb and ignorant about both math and physics. How can anyone in Boston, go to class in any college and believe 1 OR 2 = 3, when even a street urchin knows 1 AND 2 = 3Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.

Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass

of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.

MIT math dept.

Michael Artin, Martin Bazant, Bonnie Berger, Roman Bezrukavnikov, Alexei Borodin, John Bush, Herman Chernoff, Henry Cohn, Laurent Demanet*, Richard Dudley, Jörn Dunkel, Alan Edelman, Pavel Etingof, Daniel Freedman, Michel Goemans, Vadim Gorin, Harvey Greenspan, Victor Guillemin, Larry Guth, Sigurdur Helgason, Anette Hosoi, David Jerison, Steven Johnson, Victor Kac, Steven Kleiman, Daniel Kleitman, Andrew Lawrie, Tom Leighton, George Lusztig, Arthur Mattuck, Davesh Maulik, Richard Melrose, Haynes Miller, William Minicozzi, Ankur Moitra, Elchanan Mossel, Tomasz Mrowka, James Munkres, Andrei Negut, Aaron Pixton, Bjorn Poonen, Alexander Postnikov, Philippe Rigollet, Rodolfo Rosales, Giulia Saccà, Gerald Sacks, Paul Seidel, Scott Sheffield, Peter Shor, Isadore Singer, Michael Sipser, Jared Speck, Gigliola Staffilani, Richard Stanley, Harold Stark, Gilbert Strang, Daniel Stroock, Goncalo Tabuada, Alar Toomre, David Vogan

President: L. Reif (electrical engineer)

MIT physics dept

William Bertozzi, Robert Birgeneau, Hale Bradt, Bernard Burke, George Clark , Jeffrey Goldstone, Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins *, Paul Joss, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon, Irwin Pless, Paul Schechter, James Young

/\-------/\

\::O:::O::/

(::_ ^ _::)

\_`-----'_/

You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Boston?

And, even though you-- professors of math/physics, want to remain stupid in Real Electron/Calculus, your students deserve better.

Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole

President Larry Summers

Harvard Physics dept

Jacob Barandes, Howard Berg, Michael Brenner, Adam Cohen, Eugene Demler, Michael Desai *

Louis Deslauriers, John Doyle, Cora Dvorkin, Gary Feldman, Douglas Finkbeiner, Melissa Franklin, Gerald Gabrielse, Howard Georgi, Sheldon Glashow, Roy Glauber, Jene Golovchenko, Markus Greiner, Roxanne Guenette, Girma Hailu, Bertrand Halperin, Lene Hau

Thomas Hayes, Eric Heller, Jason Hoffman, Jenny Hoffman, Gerald Holton, Paul Horowitz, John Huth, Arthur Jaffe, Daniel Jafferis, Efthimios Kaxiras, Philip Kim, John Kovac, Erel Levine

Mikhail Lukin, Logan McCarty, L. Mahadevan, Vinothan Manoharan, Eric Mazur, Masahiro Morii

David Morin, Julia Mundy, Cherry Murray, David Nelson, Kang Ni, Hongkun Park, William Paul

Peter Pershan, Mara Prentiss, Lisa Randall, Matthew Reece, Subir Sachdev, Aravinthan Samuel, Matthew Schwartz, Irwin Shapiro, Isaac Silvera, Andrew Strominger, Christopher Stubbs, Cumrun Vafa, Ronald Walsworth, David Weitz, Robert Westervelt, Richard Wilson

Tai Wu, Amir Yacoby, Susanne Yelin, Xi Yin

Harvard Math dept

Noam Elkies, Dennis Gaitsgory, Robin Gottlieb, Benedict Gross, Joseph Harris, Heisuke Hironaka, Michael Hopkins, Arthur Jaffe, David Kazhdan, Mark Kisin, Peter Kronheimer, Jacob Lurie, Eric Maskin, Barry Mazur, Curtis McMullen, David Mumford, Martin Nowak, Gerald Sacks, Wilfried Schmid, Yum-Tong Siu, Shlomo Sternberg, John Tate, Cliff Taubes, Hugh Woodin, Horng-Tzer Yau, Shing-Tung Yau

/\-------/\

\::O:::O::/

(::_ ^ _::)

\_`-----'_/

You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Boston?

And, even though you-- professors of math/physics, want to remain stupid in Real Electron/Calculus, your students deserve better.

SEE PICTURE DIAGRAM of FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS below, professors hate teaching this for it shows their "limit calculus to be a joke"

PICTURE DIAGRAM OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS

By April 2015, was there for the first time a picture diagram proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, not just an analysis argument, but a geometry proof (see below). Old Math could never assemble a picture diagram of the FTC. All they could do is argue with limit concept an analysis argument, never a geometry proof of FTC.

A picture diagram proof of FTC changes all of calculus and thus, changes all of mathematics for it requires a infinity borderline to produce an actual number for the infinitesimal, and that number is the inverse of the infinity borderline. Requiring a infinity borderline to produce the infinitesimal changes all of mathematics, and throwing out the limit concept. By changing all of Calculus and thus correcting mathematics, all of math before 2015 was just trash math.

Picture Diagram needed for Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

Why no continuum and no curves exist in Math, so that the Calculus

can exist, and does exist

by Archimedes Plutonium

Calculus is based upon there being Grid points in geometry, no

continuum, but actually, empty space between two neighboring points.

This is called Discrete geometry, and in physics, this is called

Quantum Mechanics. In 10 Grid, the first few numbers are 0, .1, .2,

.3, etc. That means there does not exist any number between 0 and .1,

no number exists between .1 and .2. Now if you want more precise

numbers, you go to a higher Grid like that of 100 Grid where the first

few numbers are 0, .01, .02, .03, etc.

Calculus in order to exist at all, needs this empty space between

consecutive numbers or successor numbers. It needs that empty space so

that the integral of calculus is actually small rectangles whose

interior area is not zero. So in 10 Grid, the smallest width of any

Calculus rectangle is of width .1. In 100 Grid the smallest width is

.01.

But, this revolutionary understanding of Calculus does not stop with

the Integral, for having empty space between numbers, means no curves

in math exist, but are ever tinier straight-line segments.

It also means, that the Derivative in Calculus is part and parcel of

the function graph itself. So that in a function such as y = x^2, the

function graph is the derivative at a point. In Old Math, they had the

folly and idiocy of a foreign, alien tangent line to a function graph

as derivative. In New Math, the derivative is the same as the function

graph itself. And, this makes commonsense, utter commonsense, for the

derivative is a prediction of the future of the function in question,

and no way in the world can a foreign tangent line to a point on the

function be able to predict, be able to tell where the future point of

that function be. The only predictor of a future point of a function,

is the function graph itself.

If the Calculus was done correctly, conceived correctly, then a

minimal diagram explains all of Calculus. Old Math never had such a

diagram, because Old Math was in total error of what Calculus is, and

what Calculus does.

The fundamental picture of all of Calculus are these two of a

trapezoid and rectangle. In fact, call the picture, the

FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS, Picture

Trapezoid for derivative as the roof-top of

the trapezoid, which must be a straight-line segment. If it is curved,

you cannot fold it down to form a integral rectangle. And the

rectangle for integral as area.

From this:

B

/|

/ |

A /----|

/ |

| |

|____|

The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)

so that it can be hinged at A, and swiveled down to form rectangle for

integral.

To this:

______

| |

| |

| |

---------

And the derivative of x= A, above is merely the dy/dx involving points

A and B. Thus, it can never be a curve in Calculus. And the AB is part

of the function graph itself. No curves exist in mathematics and no

continuum exists in mathematics.

In the above we see that CALCULUS needs and requires a diagram in

which you can go from derivative to integral, or go from integral to

derivative, by simply a hinge down to form a rectangle for area, or a

hinge up to form the derivative from a given rectangle.

Why in Old Math could no professor of math ever do the Calculus

Diagram? Why? The answer is simple, no-one in Old Math pays attention

to Logic, and that no-one in Old Math was required to take formal

Logic when they attended school. So a person bereft of Logic, is never

going to find mistakes of Logic and think clear and think straight.

by Archimedes Plutonium

------------------

-------------------

Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall

12 PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon

by Archimedes Plutonium

Proofs that the Real Electron=muon and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall

PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon

1st proof is chemical bonding cannot exist with momentum of 938 versus .5MeV

Chemical Bonds are covalent, ionic, metallic. You simply cannot get atoms to bond if the electron is thought of as the .5MeV particle, only with a muon at 105 MeV and the proton at 840 MeV with neutron at 945 MeV do you have the physics of angular momentum that allows bonding in Chemistry. The .5MeV particle was, all along a magnetic monopole of a photon with .5 MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy.

AP