Discussion:
unpaid AP doing the world's finest logic, while Cambridge, Stanford, Harvard, Yale, Princeton teach dunce Logic
Add Reply
Archimedes Plutonium
2017-10-29 02:38:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Why cannot Cambridge, Harvard, Stanford, MIT, CalTech ever do correct Logic, why an unpaid Archimedes Plutonium is doing their work

Now the world is full of paid and salaried professors of math and logic, thousands and thousands of them, yet, with all that money, not a single one of them is able to fix up Logic. Not a one is able to think clear and to think straight. AP is not paid to do this work, yet AP is the only one fixing up a mess.

Correction of Logic errors by Archimedes Plutonium
3. Logic errors:: otherwise we cannot think clearly and think straight and true
History of those pathetic errors::


The 4 connectors of Logic are:

1) Equal (equivalence) plus Not (negation) where the two are combined as one
2) And (conjunction)
3) Or (exclusive or) (disjunction)
4) Implication

New Logic

EQUAL/NOT table:
T  = T  = T
T  = not F  = T
F  = not T  = T
F =  F   = T

Equality must start or begin logic because in the other connectors, we cannot say a result equals something if we do not have equality built already. Now to build equality, it is unary in that T=T and F =F. So we need another unary connector to make equality a binary. Negation is that other connector and when we combine the two we have the above table.

Equality combined with Negation allows us to proceed to build the other three logic connectors.

Now, unfortunately, Logic must start with equality allied with negation and in math what this connector as binary connector ends up being-- is multiplication for math. One would think that the first connector of Logic that must be covered is the connector that ends up being addition of math, not multiplication. But maybe we can find a philosophy-logic answer as to why Logic starts with equal/not and is multiplication rather than addition.

Here you we have one truth table equal/not whose endresult is 4 trues.

New Logic
AND
T &  T  = T
T & F  = T
F &  T  = T
F  & F   = F

AND is ADD in New Logic, and that makes a whole lot of common sense. AND feels like addition, the joining of parts. And the truth table for AND should be such that if given one true statement in a series of statements then the entire string of statements is true. So if I had P and Q and S and R, I need only one of those to be true to make the string true P & Q & S & R = True if just one statement is true.

The truth table of AND results in 3 trues and 1 false.

New Logic
OR(exclusive)
T or  T  = F
T or F  = T
F or  T  = T
F  or F   = F

OR is seen as a choice, a pick and choose. So if I had T or T, there is no choice and so it is False. If I had T or F there is a choice and so it is true. Again the same for F or T, but when I have F or F, there is no choice and so it is false. OR in mathematics, because we pick and discard what is not chosen, that OR is seen as subtraction.

OR is a truth table whose endresult is 2 trues, 2 falses.

New Logic
IMPLIES (Material Conditional)
IF/THEN
MOVES INTO
T ->  T  = T
T ->  F  = F
F ->  T  = U probability outcome
F ->  F   = U probability outcome

A truth table that has a variable which is neither T or F, but U for unknown or a probability outcome. We need this U so that we can do math where 0 divided into something is not defined.

Now notice there are four truth tables where the endresult is 4 trues, 3 trues with 1 false, 2 trues with 2 falses and finally a truth table with a different variable other than T or F, with variable U. This is important in New Logic that the four primitive connectors, by primitive I mean they are independent of one another so that one cannot be derived by the other three. The four are axioms, independent. And the way you can spot that they are independent is that if you reverse their values so that 4 trues become 4 falses. For AND, reversal would be FFFT instead of TTTF. For OR, a reversal would be TFFT instead of FTTF.

To be independent and not derivable by the other three axioms you need a condition of this:

One Table be 4 of the same
One Table be 3 of the same
One Table be 2 of the same
And to get division by 0 in mathematics, one table with a unknown variable.

So, how did Old Logic get it all so wrong so bad? I think the problem was that in the 1800s when Logic was being discovered, is that the best minds of the time were involved in physics, chemistry, biology and looked upon philosophy and logic as second rate and that second rate minds would propose Old Logic. This history would be from Boole 1854 The Laws of Thought, and Jevons textbook of Elementary Lessons on Logic, 1870. Boole started the Old Logic with the help of Jevons and fostered the wrong muddleheaded idea that OR was ADD, when it truly is AND. But once you have textbooks about Logic, it is difficult to correct a mistake because of the money making social network wants to make more money, not go around fixing mistakes. So this nightmarish mistakes of the truth tables was not seen by Frege, by Russell, by Whitehead, by Carnap, by Godel, and by 1908 the symbols and terminology of the Old Logic truth tables were so deep rooted into Logic, that only a Logical minded person could ever rescue Logic.

by Archimedes Plutonium
Michael Moroney
2017-10-29 04:15:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Why cannot Cambridge, Harvard, Stanford, MIT, CalTech ever do correct
Logic, why an unpaid Archimedes Plutonium is doing their work
Now the world is full of paid and salaried professors of math and logic,
thousands and thousands of them, yet, with all that money, not a single
one of them is able to fix up Logic. Not a one is able to think clear and
to think straight. AP is not paid to do this work, yet AP is the only one
fixing up a mess.
Unfortunately, the job prospects for a Math Failure such as yourself are
very poor, while a Successful Mathematician has a bright future as either
a math professor at a university, or in the computer or intelligence
fields. In fact a quick job search cannot find anything with a job
requirement of Math Failure or Failure at Mathematics, while good math
professors are a valuable asset for universities. It appears you are out
of luck.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Correction of Logic errors by Archimedes Plutonium
<snip crap>

This is a really spectacular failure; it's as spectactular as claiming
a sine wave is semicircles. Too bad the job prospects as a Math Failure
are really poor, you are really, really good at it.

The job prospects for Liar are much better, however. The job title is
"Politician". You are a good liar, you tell many lies about myself, for
example. However, a politician needs to tell believable lies, at least
believable enough to fool people for a while. You need to work on that.
hanson
2017-10-29 04:43:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
No matter how furiously & how many times Neo-Nazi APe
Lewdi Poehl <***@gmail.com>, posts,
it will not hide the fact that "AP is the Cranio-rectally
inverted village idiot Lewdi Poehl", who never does any
physics & when he thinks he does it is always, at best,
just <http://tinyurl.com/APe-Archie-Plutonium-s-crap> which
is why Archimedes Plutonium's APe-shit is unpaid. --- LOL
Archimedes Plutonium
2017-10-29 13:00:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
     Elevator doesn't go all the way to the penthouse.

     End of season sale at the cerebral department.

How dumb and stupid is MIT math with village idiots John Gabriel, Dan Christensen, Mike Moroney, Hanson, Jan Burse, Jan Bielawski? So stupid they taught sine derivative was cosine when it is obvious that the slope of sine at x= .5 is .866/.5 = 1.7 yet cosine values never exceed 1. Boy, that is really stupid.


     Fighting the war with a water pistol.

     Fired his retro-rockets a little late.

Fruitcake loon nattering nut nuttery kook

     Landing on one engine.

How dumb and stupid is Hanson, Mike Moroney, Benj, Dan Christensen, Porat, Jan Bielawski, Jan Burse in science? So dumb they think you can have a Doppler shift of light waves yet Special Relativity says otherwise.

     Four cents short of a nickel.

     Full throttle, dry tank.

     Gasoline engine, diesel fuel.

     Gates are down, the lights are flashing, but the train isn't coming.

How dumb and stupid is the Hanson, Dan Christensen, Jan Bielawski, Porat, Jan Burse, Zelos Malum, Benj, Konyberg, Mike Moroney, James McGinn in sci.physics? So dumb they think there is repulsion in magnetism, and too stupid to realize it is "denial of same space occupancy" of the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Too lazy to actually do an experiment to see if attract equals repel, for if one is stronger than the other, means the other is nonexistent.

     Gets his mail at an unknown zip code.

     Goalie for the dart team.
hanson
2017-10-29 14:28:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Hate-monger APe <***@gmail.com> wrote:
"How dumb and stupid are APe's "Arse Plotiums" and
<http://tinyurl.com/APe-Archie-Plutonium-s-crap> when
the APe himself brags to be the "Cranio-rectally inverted
village idiot Lewdi Poehl", and posters Porat, Benj, Mike
Moroney, James McGinn et.al, in sci.physics, tell the
Gay Neo-Nazi Lewdi Poehl so, since Lewdi never does
any physics & when the Lewdi APe thinks he does it,
it is always, at best, that the Lewdi APe cranks himself
& pajama-Lewdi begins to sings his "Handel's Hallelujah".
.. to which the Lewdi APe added: "You can say that again"
LOL
Archimedes Plutonium
2017-10-30 02:14:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Allen Back, Allen Hatcher, Alfred H. Schatz why does Cornell's arxiv.org refuse to publish the greatest Calculus since Newton/Leibniz ? Why?

My insistence that Calculus be given a Picture Diagram of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is not published by Cornell's Arxiv.org.

My writings proving the diagram revolutionizes Calculus. So why is Arxiv.org refusing to publish this new Calculus math? Is it the policy of Cornell to not publish math that is too revolutionary and too true that it upsets the existing "fake math that Cornell University and other schools teach"

All I ask, is that Cornell's arxiv.org publish this below excerpt---

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. 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

Why not publish the above???
Cornell Univ math dept
Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty
Marcelo Aguiar
Jason Manning
Slawomir Solecki
Dan M. Barbasch
Karola Meszaros
Philippe Sosoe
Yuri Berest
Justin Moore
Birgit E. Speh
Louis Billera
Camil Muscalu
Michael E. Stillman
Xiaodong Cao
Anil Nerode
Robert S. Strichartz
Robert Connelly
Michael Nussbaum
Steven Strogatz
R. Keith Dennis
Irena Peeva
Edward Swartz
Daniel Halpern-Leistner
Ravi Ramakrishna
Nicolas Templier
Timothy J. Healey
Richard H. Rand
Alex Townsend
Tara Holm
Timothy Riley
Alexander Vladimirsky
John H. Hubbard
Laurent Saloff-Coste
Marten Wegkamp
Martin Kassabov
Shankar Sen
James E. West
Allen Knutson
Richard A. Shore
Inna Zakharevich
Lionel Levine
Reyer Sjamaar
David Zywina
Emeritus and Retired Faculty
Allen Back
Allen Hatcher
Alfred H. Schatz
James H. Bramble
David W. Henderson
John Smillie
Kenneth S. Brown
J.T. Gene Hwang
Moss E. Sweedler
Stephen U. Chase
Yulij Ilyashenko
Daina Taimina
Marshall M. Cohen
Peter J. Kahn
Robert E. Terrell
Clifford J. Earle
Harry Kesten
Maria S. Terrell
Roger H. Farrell
G. Roger Livesay
Karen Vogtmann
Leonard Gross
Michael D. Morley
Beverly West
John M. Guckenheimer
sci.physics
2017-10-30 05:44:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Allen Back, Allen Hatcher, Alfred H. Schatz why does Cornell's
arxiv.org refuse to publish the greatest Calculus since Newton/Leibniz
? Why?
My insistence that Calculus be given a Picture Diagram of the
Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is not published by Cornell's Arxiv.org.
My writings proving the diagram revolutionizes Calculus. So why is
Arxiv.org refusing to publish this new Calculus math? Is it the policy
of Cornell to not publish math that is too revolutionary and too true
that it upsets the existing "fake math that Cornell University and
other schools teach"
All I ask, is that Cornell's arxiv.org publish this below excerpt---
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. 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.
______|         ||         ||         |---------
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
Why not publish the above???
*
One reason not to publish the above.

It is random gibberish out of contact with reality and out of contact
with the known ideas of mathematics and physics.

How many reasons does one need?

earle
*
hanson
2017-10-30 06:38:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Lewdi, save your prolix Hate mongering and simply
update & amend your Lewdi APe's enemy list below:


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

In <http://tinyurl.com/APe-Archie-Plutonium-s-crap>
Hate-monger APe <***@gmail.com>
the Neo-Nazi himself brags to be the "Cranio-rectally
inverted village idiot Lewdi APe Poehl", who has posted
in his AP "Arse Plotiums" the current members of
_________ Lewdi APe's enemy list__________:
Porat, Benj, Hanson Mike Moroney, James McGinn,
Serg io, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Dan Christensen,
John Gabriel, Jan Burse, Jan Bielawski, ....
Marcelo Aguiar, Jason Manning, Slawomir Solecki
Dan M. Barbasch, Karola Meszaros, Philippe Sosoe
Yuri Berest, Justin Moore, Birgit E. Speh , Louis Billera
Camil Muscalu, Michael E. Stillman, Xiaodong Cao,
Anil Nerode , Robert S. Strichartz, Robert Connelly
Michael Nussbaum, Steven Strogatz, R. Keith Dennis
Irena Peeva , Edward Swartz , Daniel Halpern-Leistner,
Ravi Ramakrishna , Nicolas Templier , Timothy J. Healey
Richard H. Rand, Alex Townsend ,Tara Holm ,Timothy Riley
Alexander Vladimirsky , John H. Hubbard , Laurent Saloff-Coste
Marten Wegkamp, Martin Kassabov , Shankar Sen ,
James E. West , Allen Knutson , Richard A. Shore
Inna Zakharevich, Lionel Levine, Reyer Sjamaar, David Zywina
Emeritus and Retired Faculty, Allen Back , Allen Hatcher
Alfred H. Schatz, James H. Bramble, David W. Henderson
John Smillie, Kenneth S. Brown , J.T. Gene Hwang
Moss E. Sweedler , Stephen U. Chase ,Yulij Ilyashenko
Daina Taimina , Marshall M. Cohen , Peter J. Kahn
Robert E. Terrell , Clifford J. Earle , Harry Kesten ,Maria
S. Terrell , Roger H. Farrell , G. Roger Livesay , Karen Vogtmann
Leonard Gross , Michael D. Morley, Beverly West
John M. Guckenheimer...
_________ Lewdi APe's Idol list__________:
The only 2 friends of Lewi APe's are Harvey Weinstein
to whom pajama-Lewdi sings his "Handel's Hallelujah"
lullaby to,.....

& <http://tinyurl.com/Glazier-the-loud-retarded-pig>
who is a Face-Shitter & a Criminal Grave yard Vandal
whose handle <***@0gmail.com>
anagrams to __"reber A. Hitler, z0g@ gmail.com" ___
.. to which the Lewdi APe added: "You can say that again"
hanson wrote:
LOL & ROTFLMAO over the antics of the Anti-Semite
& girly Neo-Nazi Ludwig "Lewdi" Poehl from SD, whose
orig.nym was "Archie-boob Decrepitus", who can be seen
here with his Neo Nazi ilk in link
<https://www.youtube.com/v/FN7r0Rr1Qyc&autoplay=1 >, with
Lewdi's picture at 1:24 - 1:30 & 2:12 & 2:14... wherein the APe
worries that his Neo-Nazi clan may discover that Lewdi is gay,
which he hides by frantically posting load after load of his
APe-"Arse Plotiums" with which Lewdi flagellates his barren
mind. "It's a pity" says Lewdi APe's Master SwineBert Glazier
Archimedes Plutonium
2019-03-01 09:07:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Alzheimer
Path: t131ni2957wmt.0!nntp.google.com!goblin2!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!nntp.TheWorld.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ***@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)


Alan H. Guth,Michael E. Brown,Konstantin Batygin,Ben Bullock,Edward Witten is Moroney giving away supersonic missile tech of MIT to Russia?? Too stupid to learn proton is 840MeV, real electron was 105MeV and .5MeV was Dirac's magnetic monopole


AP writes: Reason I ask if kibo Moroney is a traitor and agent of Russia is because he has stu.neva.ru in his address. And likely MIT and CMU are working on missile technology

Gilbert Strang,L. Reif,William Bertozzi, MIT vs. Daniela L. Rus,Farnum Jahanian,Jeremy Avigad,CMU are you like Moroney too stupid to learn proton is _not_ 938MeV electron .5MeV when they really are 840MeV, 105MeV in order to have chemistry bonding

CMU versus MIT are you like Moroney too stupid to learn proton is _not_ 938MeV electron .5MeV when they really are 840MeV, 105MeV in order to have chemistry bonding

Too stupid to learn proton is _not_ 938MeV electron .5MeV when they really are 840MeV, 105MeV in order to have chemistry bonding

Isaac Silvera, Andrew Strominger, Christopher Stubbs Harvard physicists are you like Moroney too stupid to learn proton is _not_ 938MeV electron .5MeV when they really are 840MeV, 105MeV in order to have chemistry bonding

Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon, Irwin Pless, MIT physicists are you like Moroney too stupid to learn proton is _not_ 938MeV electron .5MeV when they really are 840MeV, 105MeV in order to have chemistry bonding


The world no longer needs physics professors who cannot understand Angular Momentum and that the Chemical bond cannot exist with proton = 938MeV, electron= .5MeV. The true proton is 840MeV, true electron= muon = 105MeV and the little particle of .5MeV that JJ Thomson discovered is actually Dirac's magnetic monopole.
Math Failure
Path: a204ni9727wmh.0!nntp.google.com!goblin3!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!nntp.TheWorld.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ***@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
From: ***@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math

Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 00:13:10 +0000 (UTC)
Was he too much of a failure way
back then as well?
..
.- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
, . `.' ' `.
.' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
. ; .' . `. ;
; . ' `. . '
. ' ` `. |
. '. '
. 0 0 ' `.
' `
; `
.' `
; U `
; '; `
: | ;.. :` `
: `;. ```. .-; | '
'. ` ``.., .' :' '
; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' Hi, I am the loud mouth idiot hatemonger nonstop, stalker. I post under the name Moroney or kibo or dozens of other fake names for hatred is my game, not science. I love it when Usenet was created because I was a bully but did not want to be pommeled into the ground for spitting hatred on people and Usenet allows me to spit hatred 24 hours 360 days. I am a hate monger who hates people and hates science-- for I am a worthless shithead of a living being-Moroney. As kibo Moroney shein, I want to teach new kids on the block how to pester, harass, authors, just as I have done for 26 years-- the new kids of Dan Christensen, Jan Burse (if not in prison), Zelos Malum, qwbr, Jan Bielawski, Erik Eastside, Earle Jones, Konyberg, Franz, teach them how to be a shithead just like me.
` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` `. ````'''''' ' '
` . ' '
/ ` `. ' ' .
/ ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
/ .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
/ .'' ; ` .' `
...'.' ; .' ` .' `
"" .' .' | ` .; \ `
; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
:' | ' ` , `. `
| ' ` ' `. `
` ' ` ; `. |
`.' ` ; `-'
`...'



Moroney math failure, here is where the fool thinks 938 is short of 945 by 12%, and he pretends he is an electrical engineer. Perhaps the first e.e. in the world that cannot do a percentage correctly
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.
Carnegie Mellon Univ. math dept
Jeremy Avigad, Steve Awodey, Egon Balas, Manuel Blum, Tom Bohman, Boris Bukh, Clinton Conley, Gerard P. Cornuejols, James Cummings, Irene Fonseca, Florian Frick, Alan Frieze, Rami Grossberg, Yu Gu, William J. Hrusa, Gautam Iyer, David Kinderlehrer, Dmitry Kramkov, John P. Lehoczky, Giovanni Leoni, Po-Shen Loh, Johannes Muhle-Karbe, Wesley Pegden, Robert Pego, Javier Pena, Agoston Pisztora, Hayden Schaeffer, Jack Schaeffer, Ernest Schimmerling, Steven E. Shreve, Dejan Slepcev, Richard Statman, Shlomo Ta'asan, Ian Tice, Tomasz Tkocz, Noel J. Walkington, Franziska Weber

president cmu: Farnum Jahanian, computer science

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  

LIST of Failed Physicists because they still believe electron is .5MeV, in no order



Peter Higgs
Rainer Weiss
Kip S. Thorne
Barry C. Barish
David J. Thouless
F. Duncan M. Haldane
John M. Kosterlitz
Takaaki Kajita
Arthur B. McDonald
Francois Englert
Saul Perlmutter
Brian P. Schmidt
Adam G. Riess
Makoto Kobayashi
Toshihide Maskawa
Yoichiro Nambu
John C. Mather
George F. Smoot
Roy J. Glauber
David J. Gross
Hugh David Politzer
Frank Wilczek
Raymond Davis Jr.
Masatoshi Koshiba
Riccardo Giacconi
Gerardus 't Hooft
Martinus J.G. Veltman
Jerome I. Friedman
Henry W. Kendall
Richard E. Taylor
Carlo Rubbia
Simon van der Meer
William Alfred Fowler
Kenneth G. Wilson
James Watson Cronin
Val Logsdon Fitch
Sheldon Lee Glashow
Steven Weinberg
.
.
little fishes
.
.
layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = 1 while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV

Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass
Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu
more and more layers of error thinking physics
.
.
John Baez
Brian Greene
Lisa Randall
Alan H. Guth
Michael E. Brown
Konstantin Batygin
Ben Bullock
Larry Harson
Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley
Edward Witten


Yes, what did they say-- the power of Sun and stars is not really fusion but is the Faraday Law inside of atoms creating monopoles and turning Space into energy that fuels the Sun and stars. My rough estimate is that fusion only supplies 10% or less of Sun and stars.

But of course, I could not have discovered the true starpower when under the silly idea that the electron was a mere .5MeV when it truly is 105 MeV.

In that manner, physics departments are racist physicists for the knowledge that Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840 MeV, and the .5MeV was Dirac's Magnetic Monopole is going on 2 years now in the public eye starting 2017, yet none of these physicists (these poor physicists lacking understanding of angular momentum has raised a single peep). The reason they keep their mouths shut, is because they are so poor in physics, they do not want to be embarrassed. These gentlemen and ladies are not physicists, for a real physicist would debate the issue, not hide from the issue. And real physicist would not discount a discovery because of the person-- Archimedes Plutonium who discovered it.


Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu


::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ . . | . /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
--------------- -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
--------------- --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / . . | . \ .


http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ 
whole entire Universe is just one big atom 
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2019-03-01 21:34:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Michael Moroney AlzheimerPlutonium <***@gmail.com> fails at math and science: >Subject: Re: William Alfred Fowler,Kenneth G. Wilson,James Watson Cronin is Moroney (a traitor?) giving away supersonic missile tech of MIT to Russia?? Too stupid to learn



Michael Moroney
2:19 PM (1 hour ago)

Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test

Alzheimer

AP WRITES: NEVER ANY MATH, NEVER ANY PHYSICS, JUST 26 YEARS OF HATRED SPEW FROM THE INSANE STALKER MORONEY STALK STALK STALK
Michael Moroney
2019-03-01 22:30:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
How stupid in math is Andrew Beal-- so stupid he still thinks an ellipse
is a conic,
Oh you misplaced the ellipse-is-a-conic proof again! No problem, here it
is!


Below you will find a simple *proof* that shows that certain conic
sections are ellipses.

Some preliminaries:

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






x-no-archive: yes
Michael Moroney
2019-03-01 22:35:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Apparently everyone at Reed College is as blind and ignorant of the ellipse
as is Moroney. Here is a proof the ellipse is never a conic and was shown
You want to learn from Reed College why the ellipse is a conic section?
Perhaps they will teachthis!

Below you will find a simple *proof* that shows that certain conic
sections are ellipses.

Some preliminaries:

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


x-no-archive: yes
Archimedes Plutonium
2019-03-02 16:15:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Cambridge, Stanford, why do you continue to use Contradiction logic of Either..Or..Or..Both and teach and corrupt young minds. You must realize that contradiction leads to OR being add when any 10 year old is smarter than you with 3 AND 2=5, not Cambridge &Stanford’s 3OR2 =5. And everyone says your smart schools but in fact your pathetic fools schools.

Are you trying to be a worthless education shithead like Moroney—kibo—shein—std—MIT—CMU posts ??
Alzheimer
Archimedes Plutonium
2019-03-04 16:05:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Alzheimer
AP writes: The Moroney Stalker SONG

SONG( played with a light rapp and reggae music beat)

Stalk, stalk stalk Moroney, crock, crock, crock


Moroney has a feeble mind-brain
Your conic cut is just insane
For a slant cut in cone is an oval
Your moron brain is a joke-offal
You failed the ellipse, and too stupid for the plane
For you are just simply totally insane

Why you stalk, stalk stalk, you
worthless crock crock crock
Not even an ellipse, can you do
The oval is the conic cut
but you are so dumb and stupid too
Your entire head is up your lue

Moroney, so dumb in physics evermore
the kook thinks electron is .5MeV, or more
the gook thinks proton is 938MeV, mass
why does he keep his head up his ass
For the real proton is 840MeV rest mass

The real electron is the muon would'n you know
And it is 105 MeV rest mass, hello hello
Moroney, still with his head up his ass
The .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole
Yes, at last, .5MeV rest mass
But there is Moroney, still, with head up his ass
Stalk, stalk,stalk, worthless Moroney crock crock

Then there is the negative numbers foolery
Which the Moroney is a subscribed buffoonery
Touting negative here, negative there
Yet no negative number exists anywhere.

Then there is the way the Sun and stars shine
Moroney has his head in grime
The oaf thinks the stars and Sun shine from fusion
When in truth, they shine electromagnetic no confusion
Faraday law, but the Moroney is a failure bent on crime

Yes the Sun and stars shine from Faraday law
Inside each and every atom of a star
Muon thrusting through proton
The Faraday law produces magnetic monopoles
Not by fusion does a star shine, no no no monopoles
People who believe in fusion have a head full of holes

Moroney thinks Boole logic is great
With its 5 OR 3 equalling 8
Even a village idiot knows 5 AND 3 is 8
What can you expect from Moroney borne
A pinhead brain and a day late

Moroney, Christensen, Burse cabal
Model their minds after the Boole pitfall
They love contradiction of Either..Or..Or..Both
Is that why they are all three such a screwball
But the true story of Boole needs be told after-all

The story of Boole needs be told
For western civilization logic was sold
Boole went to school in a downpour rain
Not carrying a umbrella and not changing clothes
Taught his class in a freezing shivering cold

Of course the students were all laughing at this Boole clown
From whence Boole caught pneumonia and frowned
You would think Boole had a logical mind
But no, he insisted his wife make him more cold
By cold bathes and wet the bed in cold drown

Of course Boole would not pneumonia survive
But his foolish logic of 3 OR 2 equals five , thrives
Would carry on and fill books for Education
Parasites like Christensen, Burse, Moroney,
Jan Bielawski, Eastside to teach phony lies.

Shame that Western Civilization bases its logic on pinheads
Instead of sound reasoning, but what can be said
Is that education in schools these days is more concerned
About money flow of textbooks teaching fakery that it be
Then about the real truth of the world where 2 AND 1 is 3

Then these stalking education parasites of Moroney galore
As if parents paying $50,000 dollars a year in tuition
To schools like ETH, MIT, Harvard, Stanford admission
For their kids to be brainwashed that calculus is adding
Of rectangles of zero width, yes zero width added as
1 OR 1 equals 2 all so that parasites of math get their textbook
Cut of the profits along with professors, who cares about
Truth of math or science as long as money flows to parasatoids

AP
Michael Moroney
2019-03-04 20:45:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
AlzheimerPlutonium <***@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

<100+ lines of spam, snipped and reported>

Alzheimer Plutonium, I see your autism meltdown is still raging.



x-no-archive: yes
Archimedes Plutonium
2019-03-05 06:54:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Alzheimer
AP writes: The Moroney Stalker SONG

SONG( played with a light rapp and reggae music beat)

Stalk, stalk stalk Moroney, crock, crock, crock

SAGA I

Moroney has a feeble mind-brain
Your conic cut is just insane
For a slant cut in cone is an oval
Your moron brain is a joke-offal
You failed the ellipse, and too stupid for the plane
For you are just simply totally insane

Why you stalk, stalk stalk, you
worthless crock crock crock
Not even an ellipse, can you do
The oval is the conic cut
but you are so dumb and stupid too
Your entire head is up your loo loo lu

Moroney, so dumb in physics evermore
the kook thinks electron is .5MeV, or so
the gook thinks proton is 938MeV, mass
why does he keep his head up his ass
For the real proton is 840MeV rest mass

The real electron is the muon wouldn't you know
And it is 105 MeV rest mass, hello hello
Moroney, still with his head up his ass
The .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole
Yes,   at last, .5MeV rest mass
But there is Moroney, still, with head up his ass
Stalk, stalk,stalk, worthless Moroney crock crock

Then there is the negative numbers foolery
Which the Moroney is a subscribed buffoonery
Touting negative here, negative there
Yet no negative number exists anywhere.

Then there is the way the Sun and stars shine
Moroney has his head in grime
The oaf thinks the stars and Sun shine from fusion
When in truth, they shine electromagnetic no confusion
Faraday law, but the Moroney is a failure bent on crime

Yes the Sun and stars shine from Faraday law
Inside each and every atom of a star
Muon thrusting through proton
The Faraday law produces magnetic monopoles
Not by fusion does a star shine, but by monopoles
Believers in fusion have their head full of holes

Moroney thinks Boole logic is great
With its 5 OR 3 equalling 8
Even a village idiot knows 5 AND 3 is 8
What can you expect from Moroney borne
A pinhead brain and a day late

Moroney, Christensen, Burse cabal
Model their minds after the Boole pitfall
They love contradiction of Either..Or..Or..Both
Is that why they are all three such a screwball
But the true story of Boole needs be told after-all

The story of Boole needs be told
For western civilization logic was sold
Boole went to school in a downpour rain
Not carrying a umbrella and not changing clothes
Taught his class in a freezing shivering cold

Of course the students were all laughing at this Boole clown
From whence Boole caught  pneumonia and frowned
You would think Boole had a logical mind
But no, he insisted his wife make him more cold
By cold bathes and wet the bed in cold drown

Of course Boole would not pneumonia survive
But his foolish logic of 3 OR 2 equals five , thrives
Would carry on and fill books for Education
Parasites like Christensen, Burse, Moroney,
Jan Bielawski, Eastside to teach phony lies.

Shame that Western Civilization bases its logic on pinheads
Instead of sound reasoning, but what can be said
Is that education in schools these days is more concerned
About money flow of textbooks teaching fakery that it be
Then about the real truth of the world where 2 AND 1 is 3

SAGA II


Then these stalking education parasites of Moroney galore
As if parents paying $50,000 dollars a year in tuition and more
To schools like ETH, MIT, Harvard, Stanford admission
For their kids to be brainwashed that calculus is addition
Of rectangles of zero width, for zero multiply is zero
1 OR 1 equals 2 all so that parasites of math get their textbook
Cash of the profits along with professors, who cares about
Truth of math or science as long as money flows to parasitoids
Flows to Parasitoids

Parasitoids infesting education so much that it be
Of course that is where much of money is found easily
Where there is money there are parasites, for sure
We can easily see and the truth of Climate Change
And math and physics textbooks are mangled and deranged

For parasites of education are money grubs of highest degree
Just as the textbooks of math and physics authored by grubs
Are so expensive and never free
And our students and kids brainwashed by these grubs
So math and physics professors can live rich and free
And never worrying nor needing to fix their mistakes
And errors for that takes time away Mediterranean vacation Sea

So why fix mistakes and errors in physics and math
Asks Wiles, Conway, Tao, Singh, Hales, Stillwell
from a Med vacation Sea bath
For fixing math mistakes and errors, crimps the flow of cash
When we all would like to take another Med vacation Sea bath
For we like the steaks, champagne, chocolate cherries alas
And leave the trash of fixing errors to students, and AP to bash

Then again the trigonometry of sine wave needs mending
But Stillwell, Tao, Conway, Wiles, Ribet, Hales back on Greek isle cocktail blending
Sine was never a sinusoid wave, but rather a semicircle wave
For Stillwell,Tao,Conway, Wiles,Ribet,Hales refuse to fix sine
So long as they get their money flow suits them just fine

The matter of the sine wave being truly a semicircle wave
Not a sinusoid wave caught the attention of Conway in rave
And so did Conway admit the sine was truly a semicircle wave
Surreal he measured the money flow in fixing that math error
And like his Game of Life, decided another Med cruise is fairer
And that fixing errors and mistakes,is too much strife, in the Game of Life

The American Mathematical Society, AMS, what is their creed?
What is there philosophy and creed we must askk, or are they smoking weed
For certainly, fixing errors and mistakes in math is not on their agenda at all
So is it money that moves the AMS, big or small
Money and only money seems what the AMS is all about
Because, well they can never even admit the ellipse was never a conic, without a doubt.

And ask any of those of AMS, or Fields or Abel persons
Why they never bothered with a proof of Fundamental Theorem
Of Calculus as a geometry proof?
Was it too hard or they too dumb to do a geometry proof thereof
And why hand out more prizes left and right
When no prizewinner can ever fix the errors and mistakes strewn before
Are you in math all dumb and stupid as the rug on the floor?

Why do you scold your students when they make math mistakes?
You lower their grade and make them stay late
You penalize and exercise students who make mistakes
Yet you math professors never fix your own errors and mistakes
You ignore, ellipse is no conic, Calculus needs a geometry proof,
Sine is a semicircle wave not sinusoid, Either..Or..Or..Both is embraced by stupid math professors, oops, late for that coffee and Danish

Now once was Wiles with a FLT proof offered
But so dumb is Wiles in FLT he could not detect the mistake of Euler
For Euler proffered FLT in exponent three
But Euler forgot he had to prove the case of all three evens
Euler just proved one case of two odds, one even
But then Wiles desired fame and fortune not truth of math
So Wiles ends up littering the world with another mindnumbing trash

The story of FLT keeps going on, for another play was Beal
He pondered about Generalized FLT, and did the math spiel
He figured if he offered a prize for its proof and rigged it so lean
So he never had to pay-out, for AP proved his conjecture in 2014
Then he would have free publicity for life
As a stunt and would run all the way to the bank laughing like a wild teen
Even though Andrew Beal and AMS custody, none of them could tell
the difference between an ellipse and a oval, nor FLT

Now the AMS and US colleges are bad in math education, so very bad
That their classrooms are more like note taking factories, very sad
Where students learn not a shred of math in class
And have to rely on a shoddy textbook that is filled to the gills in symbols trash
Chickenscratching hieroglyphics terminology never designed to teach math
And professors never required to take "how to teach" courses, and test curves
Means not much learning going on, students dropping out of math, and better off going to a Med Sea bath

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2019-03-04 00:55:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Alzheimer
AP writes: The Moroney Stalker Poem

Stalk, stalk stalk Moroney, crock, crock, crock

Why you stalk, stalk stalk, you
worthless crock crock crock
Not even an ellipse, can you do
The oval is the conic cut
but you are so dumb and stupid
Your entire head is up your crock

Moroney has a feeble brain
Your conic cut is just insane
For a slant cut in cone is an oval
Your moron brain is a joke offal
You failed the ellipse, and too stupid for the plane
For you are just simply totally insane

Moroney, so dumb in physics too, too, too
the loon thinks electron is .5MeV, mass
the goon thinks proton is 938MeV, mass
why does he keep his head up his ass
For the real proton is 840MeV rest mass

The real electron is the muon would'n you know
And it is 105 MeV rest mass, hello
Moroney, still with his head up his ass
The .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole
Yes, at last .5MeV rest mass
But there is Moroney, still, with head up his ass
Stalk, stalk,stalk, worthless Moroney crock crock crock

AP
Michael Moroney
2019-03-04 01:06:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
AP writes: The Moroney Stalker Poem
Thank you for requesting another Babble-o-meter Calculation!

☑ Archie reposts the same old, same old, yet again...
☑ ...and again and again...
☑ ...Post has no new content, in fact...
☐ ...Archie's spam complains about other spammers or babblers...
☑ ...Purpose of post is to remain #1 Front Page Hog...
☐ .....meanwhile, Archie complains of some other "Front Page Hog"...
☑ ...Post posted in the wrong topic...
☐ .....and to the wrong newsgroup...
☐ ...Archie awards self Nobel Prize/claims he should be so awarded...
☐ .....Archie rejects self-awarded Nobel, real awardees don't deserve it...
☐ ...Archie sour grapes Nobel or other science/math prize...
☑ ...Post contains The Truth because Archie said it is true...
☐ ...Phrases such as "Old Science" (actual science) and "New Science (babbling of author)...
☑ ...One word: Logorrhea...
☑ ...Another word: Graphomania...
☐ ...Author thinks cutting up magazines disproves actual math proofs...
☑ ...Author thinks a bad dream is an excellent basis for physics...
☑ ...Archie doesn't understand Usenet, not even after 26+ years...
☐ ...Archie asks Google Groups to do something they can't do...
☑ ...Archie even thinks Google runs Usenet...
☑ .....even though Archie used Usenet even before there even was a Google...
☑ ...Archie won't engage in discussion in a discussion group...
☐ ...Writes "Keep out of my threads!"...
☐ ...Archie demands professors resign for not teaching his broken math...
☐ ...Post includes a stalker list of physics and/or math professors...
☑ ...Archie outwitted by someone too stoopid to come out of the rain AGAIN...
☑ ...Archie can't get over the shame of messing up percentages...
☑ ....he even still thinks 8.88 is "exactly" 9...
☐ ....and he thinks 16.81 is "spot on" 17...
☐ ...Archie is envious that I weighed the electron and he didn't...
☐ ...Post includes the dumb ascii art cat/owl thing...
☐ ...Post contains ascii art of Archie's butthole...
☐ .....Oh no! Archie's ascii art butthole is OPENING!!!
☐ ...and Archie doesn't realize ascii art is so 1980s...
☐ ...Archie tries to involve totally uninvolved people...
☐ .....with a subject about flunking a nonexistent test no one ever took...
☐ .....but has no clue they will never see his post...
☐ .....and has no clue they probably don't know what Usenet is...
☐ .....he expects them to have power/authority they simply don't...
☑ ...Too stoopid to realize attack posts just produce more posts like this...
☑ ...Google Groups poster. 'Nuf said.

Archie's Babbling Nonsense score: 18 plutoniums!
Archimedes Plutonium
2019-03-17 04:23:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Math Failure
Alzheimer
AP writes: How about a warning for those poor poor students going into a Cambridge classroom taught by dunces that 3 OR 2 = 5 when the nearby village idiot of Cambridge knows it is 3 AND 2 = 5. Not even mentioning the fact that those dunces still think to this day that JJ Thomson discovered the atom's electron when in fact he discovered the Dirac magnetic monopole.


Drs:Ansorge, Atature, Barker, Barnes, Bartlett, Batley, Baumberg, Bohndiek, of Cambridge are you like Moroney too stupid to learn proton is _not_ 938MeV electron .5MeV when they really are 840MeV, 105MeV in order to have chemistry bonding
Michael Moroney
2019-06-12 14:00:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
8:36 AM (8 hours ago)
1.1 AP writes: I would not call Dr. Weinberg a failure even though he cannot see or
admit a ellipse is never a conic
Ok, so you really like seeing this cool ellipse-is-a-conic-section proof! Here you
go!

Some preliminaries:

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



x-no-archive: yes
Archimedes Plutonium
2019-06-13 01:23:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Autistic
Harvard's_Jason Hoffman, Jenny Hoffman, Gerald Holton, Paul Horowitz, John Huth, Arthur Jaffe, Daniel Jafferis, Efthimios Kaxiras, Philip Kim, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938
Autistic
Physics minnow
AP writes: Unpacking Moroney, suggests the reason Harvard is too dumb to see that 9 x 105MeV = 945MeV and the proton is clocked in at 938MeV with only a less than 1% sigma error, implies the real proton is 840MeV with a muon = real electron attached. Since none at Harvard could ever understand AP's proof ellipse is never a conic section (for that is the oval,not the ellipse) but rather the ellipse is a cylinder section; stands to reason they are far far too stupid at Harvard to see real proton is 840MeV.
What, your slow motion autism meltdown
I always knew you were dumb and stoopid, but I never thought you would be
dumb and stoopid enough to threaten violence.
Physics Minnow
Autistic
why does not Baez, totally worthless in science, just change his name to abu Re: 1kicking out stalkers-- Jan Burse, Dan Christensen, John Baez //
blow it out your ass ... oh,
what was that smell, in the first place
***@gmail.com

4/5/17


stalkers out kciking cans

yup, complex field is tres c00l
Only if you failed Calculus would you think that
nanadittos ... when you ever have any result
from ye olde mathe, I'm sure that it will be new -- to you


AP writes: instead of spamming newsgroups, why not do something worthwhile-- Confirm real electron is 105MeV, real proton is 840MeV and that little particle JJ Thomson discovered in 1897 turns out to be not the atom electron but rather the Dirac magnetic monopole.


AP writes: Is the reason Physicists have not yet confirmed real proton is 840MeV not 938, because its scientists behave much like stalker kibo Parry Moroney-- cesspool mind of hatred with daily hate sheets on people rather than spend their daily activity on uncovering the true proton is 840MeV stuck with the real electron as muon doing a Faraday Law dance inside the atom making electricity and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole.


       o-:^>___?
       `~~c--^c'
Navy dog says: remember the time the failed engineer kibo Parry Moroney said 938 is short of 945 by 12%. How could any engineer pass school not knowing percentages?

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
 
 > Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
 > Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
 
 Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass
 > of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.



AP Atom Model replacing the Rutherford-Bohr Atom Model (Physics series for High School Book 1) Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item


#1 New Releasein General Chemistry & Reference


See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$3.00 to buy


The Rutherford and Bohr model of the Atom is seen now as fake physics. And it will take a lot of time before that nonsense is removed and replaced in science textbooks and classrooms for a truer model of the Atom. So to accelerate that movement towards the truth of what the Atom is, I present this short book for High School. In the age of the Internet, when we discover true science but am teaching fake science, we need a process to quicken the exit of fake science. Not to wait around for 50 years to be teaching the true science, we should be teaching the true science as fast as possible and to remove the fake science in our school curriculums in a timely and orderly manner. So this small book is a pattern for future removal of fake science from school curriculums. This small book explains what the Rutherford-Bohr model was and why it was phony science. And I explain what replaces the Rutherford-Bohr model with the AP model of the Atom. So the pattern is -- show both -- and then authors of texts will eliminate the fake science until it is a passing footnote.

Cover Picture is a coil and a bar magnet and a galvanometer that measures the current produced as the bar magnet is thrust through the coil. This is Faraday's Law and needs to be taught in High School.



Read less


Length: 12 pages
Word Wise: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled
Mat


Product details
File Size: 2207 KB
Print Length: 12 pages
Publication Date: April 10, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07QKHRWG8
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #220,321 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#5 in 30-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#39 in General Chemistry & Reference
#381 in General Chemistry

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe        



How the Sun and Stars truly shine, not by fusion, but by Faraday's Law (Physics series for High School Book 2) Kindle Edition
• by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
• Be the first to review this item





• See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$3.00 to buy

One of my recent books (published a few days ago) was the AP model of the interior of atoms replacing the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom. And the differences are vast between these two atom models, for the AP model has the Faraday law going on, with actual work and job for the subatomic particles. And in that Atom model book, I was complaining that our modern science education school system has no good way of ridding itself of fake science where we keep on teaching propaganda and fake science for as much as 50 years beyond the discovery of what the true underlying science actually is. I gave as an example the Wegener Continental Drift theory in geology, where students had to suffer 50 years of a fake static-earth-theory when the Continental Drift theory was all around. One of the reasons for the delay in teaching the truth of science, is there is so much money interests involved of people selling fake science textbooks. And this is where the Internet can come in and play a vital role in school education, because the Internet can publish books of "true science" and get them exposed to a world audience, and so fake science like the static-earth theory would have been gone long before 50 years had elapsed if the internet were present for Wegener.

But now an even bigger and more important theory of science and physics is here and threatens to throw out as fake science the fusion theory of star energy, especially since it is "How the Sun shines". In effect, the question is, how do all stars shine? What is their energy source. And hard to believe that this topic in current science education with their explanation as "being fusion" is fake science. We all know what the answer is from present day science-- that stars and sun shine because of fusion. That they fuse hydrogen and light elements to make heavier elements like helium and in that fusion they give off energy which is sunshine. But is it true? Is that true science. You would be surprised to find out, that such is not the truth of how stars and Sun shine. They do not shine because of fusion. They shine because the Faraday law is going on inside each and every atom in that star or the Sun.

Now, here is another science teaching that needs to replace the fake science of fusion for the Sun and stars. And it should not take 50 years like Wegener's continental drift to push out the fake static earth theory. We should not have to wait 50 years for our teachers to teach the truth about how the stars and Sun shine with energy. And so, here again, just as in the previous book "AP's model of the Atom", I present the old theory of how stars shine and alongside that old fake theory, I present the new true theory. And in that presentation, we can give the entire science education community, give them about say 5 years of time in which to completely remove the old fake theory that fusion causes stars and Sun to shine with energy. When in fact, the truth is, Faraday Law causes stars and the Sun to shine.

Cover Picture is my photograph of a Google search on my computer of Sun images.

Read less


Length: 14 pages
Word Wise: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled
Matchbook Price: $0.99 What's this?

File Size: 1629 KB
Print Length: 14 pages
Publication Date: April 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07QRPZQ4Q
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 


Would you like to tell us about a lower price?

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item





See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$5.00 to buy

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math where they had a ill-defined infinity; they had the fakery of Limit concept; and they had the fakery of a continuum.

The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus basically says the integral is inverse to the derivative and the derivative is inverse to the integral. By inverse is meant that you can go to one given the other and vice versa, such as add is the inverse of subtract, so if we had 10 + 4 = 14 then the inverse is subtract 4 and we have 14-4 = 10 back to 10 where we started from. And the geometry proof involves a rectangle and a right triangle hinged atop a trapezoid. You hinge it one direction you have dy*dx for area of a rectangle for integral area. You hinge it the other direction you have the dy/dx for slope or derivative from the trapezoid formed.

Sad that Old Math was so full of ill-defined concepts and fake concepts that never was a geometry proof of FTC ever possible in Old Math.

Length: 29 pages
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled

File Size: 1224 KB
Print Length: 29 pages
Publication Date: March 14, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQTNHMY
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #293,690 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#18 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#70 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
#471 in Calculus (Books)

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe        
Archimedes Plutonium

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item





See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$3.00 to buy

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 

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS (textbook in the making-- journal textbook): journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; and ages 19 to 26, Volume 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item


#1 New Release in General Geometry


See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$9.99 to buy

This is the one textbook in two volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education needs, 5 year old to 26 year old through all of mathematics that is needed to do science. Every other math book is incidental to this one. And the student needs this math book for all their math and science needs. A one-size-fits-all for mathematics study.

I call it a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost continuously. A unique first in education textbooks-- continual overnight editing.

What prompted me to write this textbook is that the Old Math is too much filled with error, mistakes and just sheer nonsense. In the early 2000s I wrote about 5 editions of Correcting Math textbooks and about 9 editions of True Calculus, but then I got so fed up and tired with all the mistakes of Old Math, that I decided the best route to go is throw out all of Old Math and start anew.

Now I wrestled with publishing a "rough first edition" now, or to wait about a year in polishing the textbook and then publish it. I wrestled with this and decided I have enough of a skeleton text, that I can continually polish with overnight editing, and that it would be of more benefit to readers to have this skeleton text and watch and wait as the months and years go by to see the continual polishing take affect. So I decided tonight to publish, for the benefit of many to see, rather than wait a year to see a polished text. I may have made a mistake in this decision for I do not want to turn off anyone to math. But maybe I made the correct decision to allow others to see this book a full year ahead of schedule. Bon Voyage!

Length: 328 pages
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled


File Size: 1968 KB
Print Length: 328 pages
Publication Date: May 2, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07RG7BVZW
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #274,398 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#27 in General Geometry
#336 in Geometry & Topology (Books)


Plutonium Atom Totality Universe, Atom Totality Series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item

See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$9.99 to buy

Cover picture: is what the interior and exterior of most atoms looks like once you apply Faraday's Law to subatomic particles.This picture is a coil of 88 rings torus with a smaller ring inside. The 88 coil rings represent 11 protons in a Faraday Law magnetic induction coil and the smaller ring is a muon as a bar magnet thrusting through the proton coil, thereby, producing electricity.

The goal and aim of the 8th edition of Atom Totality, 2017 was to iron out all the mathematics of Electricity and Magnetism so that the AP-Maxwell Equations embodied all the mathematics of physics. In other words, all of physics is handled by the AP-Maxwell Equations. But in the course of straightening out the EM math of physics, I made my second greatest science discovery-- that the real proton was 840MeV, real electron was the muon at 105MeV and that little particle we all thought was the electron since JJ Thompson discovered it in 1897, was in fact not the electron but was Dirac's magnetic monopole. I made that discovery in the midst of my writing the 8th edition (only goes to show that most of our best ideas come from organizing and placing our thoughts into order-- writing a book). And so this 9th edition goal and aim is to go back and fix the picture of atoms, their geometry, and incorporate that discovery, mostly by fixing the picture of what atoms exterior and interior geometry is, in light of the fact that there is the Faraday Law going on inside of atoms.

Length: 114 pages
Word Wise: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled
Matchbook Price: $2.99 What's this?


Product details
File Size: 2354 KB
Print Length: 115 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publication Date: June 10, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07SW87BF5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #285,417 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#826 in Astronomy (Books)
#166 in Astronomy (Kindle Store)
#671 in Physics (Kindle Store)




Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe        
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2019-06-13 21:34:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Harvard's_Lisa Randall, Matthew Reece, Subir Sachdev, Aravinthan Samuel, Matthew Schwartz, Irwin Shapiro, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938
Autistic
Autistic
Autistic
Physics minnow
AP writes: Unpacking Moroney, suggests the reason Harvard-MIT is too dumb to see that 9 x 105MeV = 945MeV and the proton is clocked in at 938MeV with only a less than 1% sigma error, implies the real proton is 840MeV with a muon = real electron attached. Since none at MIT-Harvard could ever understand AP's proof ellipse is never a conic section (for that is the oval,not the ellipse) but rather the ellipse is a cylinder section; stands to reason they are far far too stupid at Harvard-MIT to see real proton is 840MeV.
What, your slow motion autism meltdown
I always knew you were dumb and stoopid, but I never thought you would be
dumb and stoopid enough to threaten violence.
Physics Minnow
Autistic
why does not Baez, totally worthless in science, just change his name to abu Re: 1kicking out stalkers-- Jan Burse, Dan Christensen, John Baez //
blow it out your ass ... oh,
what was that smell, in the first place
***@gmail.com

4/5/17


stalkers out kciking cans

yup, complex field is tres c00l
Only if you failed Calculus would you think that
nanadittos ... when you ever have any result
from ye olde mathe, I'm sure that it will be new -- to you


AP writes: instead of spamming newsgroups, why not do something worthwhile-- Confirm real electron is 105MeV, real proton is 840MeV and that little particle JJ Thomson discovered in 1897 turns out to be not the atom electron but rather the Dirac magnetic monopole.


AP writes: Is the reason Physicists have not yet confirmed real proton is 840MeV not 938, because its scientists behave much like stalker kibo Parry Moroney-- cesspool mind of hatred with daily hate sheets on people rather than spend their daily activity on uncovering the true proton is 840MeV stuck with the real electron as muon doing a Faraday Law dance inside the atom making electricity and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole.


       o-:^>___?
       `~~c--^c'
Navy dog says: remember the time the failed engineer kibo Parry Moroney said 938 is short of 945 by 12%. How could any engineer pass school not knowing percentages?

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
 
 > Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
 > Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
 
 Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass
 > of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.



AP Atom Model replacing the Rutherford-Bohr Atom Model (Physics series for High School Book 1) Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item


#1 New Releasein General Chemistry & Reference


See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$3.00 to buy


The Rutherford and Bohr model of the Atom is seen now as fake physics. And it will take a lot of time before that nonsense is removed and replaced in science textbooks and classrooms for a truer model of the Atom. So to accelerate that movement towards the truth of what the Atom is, I present this short book for High School. In the age of the Internet, when we discover true science but am teaching fake science, we need a process to quicken the exit of fake science. Not to wait around for 50 years to be teaching the true science, we should be teaching the true science as fast as possible and to remove the fake science in our school curriculums in a timely and orderly manner. So this small book is a pattern for future removal of fake science from school curriculums. This small book explains what the Rutherford-Bohr model was and why it was phony science. And I explain what replaces the Rutherford-Bohr model with the AP model of the Atom. So the pattern is -- show both -- and then authors of texts will eliminate the fake science until it is a passing footnote.

Cover Picture is a coil and a bar magnet and a galvanometer that measures the current produced as the bar magnet is thrust through the coil. This is Faraday's Law and needs to be taught in High School.



Read less


Length: 12 pages
Word Wise: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled
Mat


Product details
File Size: 2207 KB
Print Length: 12 pages
Publication Date: April 10, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07QKHRWG8
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #220,321 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#5 in 30-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#39 in General Chemistry & Reference
#381 in General Chemistry

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe        



How the Sun and Stars truly shine, not by fusion, but by Faraday's Law (Physics series for High School Book 2) Kindle Edition
• by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
• Be the first to review this item





• See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$3.00 to buy

One of my recent books (published a few days ago) was the AP model of the interior of atoms replacing the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom. And the differences are vast between these two atom models, for the AP model has the Faraday law going on, with actual work and job for the subatomic particles. And in that Atom model book, I was complaining that our modern science education school system has no good way of ridding itself of fake science where we keep on teaching propaganda and fake science for as much as 50 years beyond the discovery of what the true underlying science actually is. I gave as an example the Wegener Continental Drift theory in geology, where students had to suffer 50 years of a fake static-earth-theory when the Continental Drift theory was all around. One of the reasons for the delay in teaching the truth of science, is there is so much money interests involved of people selling fake science textbooks. And this is where the Internet can come in and play a vital role in school education, because the Internet can publish books of "true science" and get them exposed to a world audience, and so fake science like the static-earth theory would have been gone long before 50 years had elapsed if the internet were present for Wegener.

But now an even bigger and more important theory of science and physics is here and threatens to throw out as fake science the fusion theory of star energy, especially since it is "How the Sun shines". In effect, the question is, how do all stars shine? What is their energy source. And hard to believe that this topic in current science education with their explanation as "being fusion" is fake science. We all know what the answer is from present day science-- that stars and sun shine because of fusion. That they fuse hydrogen and light elements to make heavier elements like helium and in that fusion they give off energy which is sunshine. But is it true? Is that true science. You would be surprised to find out, that such is not the truth of how stars and Sun shine. They do not shine because of fusion. They shine because the Faraday law is going on inside each and every atom in that star or the Sun.

Now, here is another science teaching that needs to replace the fake science of fusion for the Sun and stars. And it should not take 50 years like Wegener's continental drift to push out the fake static earth theory. We should not have to wait 50 years for our teachers to teach the truth about how the stars and Sun shine with energy. And so, here again, just as in the previous book "AP's model of the Atom", I present the old theory of how stars shine and alongside that old fake theory, I present the new true theory. And in that presentation, we can give the entire science education community, give them about say 5 years of time in which to completely remove the old fake theory that fusion causes stars and Sun to shine with energy. When in fact, the truth is, Faraday Law causes stars and the Sun to shine.

Cover Picture is my photograph of a Google search on my computer of Sun images.

Read less


Length: 14 pages
Word Wise: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled
Matchbook Price: $0.99 What's this?

File Size: 1629 KB
Print Length: 14 pages
Publication Date: April 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07QRPZQ4Q
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 


Would you like to tell us about a lower price?

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item





See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$5.00 to buy

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math where they had a ill-defined infinity; they had the fakery of Limit concept; and they had the fakery of a continuum.

The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus basically says the integral is inverse to the derivative and the derivative is inverse to the integral. By inverse is meant that you can go to one given the other and vice versa, such as add is the inverse of subtract, so if we had 10 + 4 = 14 then the inverse is subtract 4 and we have 14-4 = 10 back to 10 where we started from. And the geometry proof involves a rectangle and a right triangle hinged atop a trapezoid. You hinge it one direction you have dy*dx for area of a rectangle for integral area. You hinge it the other direction you have the dy/dx for slope or derivative from the trapezoid formed.

Sad that Old Math was so full of ill-defined concepts and fake concepts that never was a geometry proof of FTC ever possible in Old Math.

Length: 29 pages
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled

File Size: 1224 KB
Print Length: 29 pages
Publication Date: March 14, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQTNHMY
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #293,690 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#18 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#70 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
#471 in Calculus (Books)

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe        
Archimedes Plutonium

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item





See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$3.00 to buy

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 

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS (textbook in the making-- journal textbook): journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; and ages 19 to 26, Volume 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item


#1 New Releasein General Geometry


See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$9.99 to buy

This is the one textbook in two volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education needs, 5 year old to 26 year old through all of mathematics that is needed to do science. Every other math book is incidental to this one. And the student needs this math book for all their math and science needs. A one-size-fits-all for mathematics study.

I call it a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost continuously. A unique first in education textbooks-- continual overnight editing.

What prompted me to write this textbook is that the Old Math is too much filled with error, mistakes and just sheer nonsense. In the early 2000s I wrote about 5 editions of Correcting Math textbooks and about 9 editions of True Calculus, but then I got so fed up and tired with all the mistakes of Old Math, that I decided the best route to go is throw out all of Old Math and start anew.

Now I wrestled with publishing a "rough first edition" now, or to wait about a year in polishing the textbook and then publish it. I wrestled with this and decided I have enough of a skeleton text, that I can continually polish with overnight editing, and that it would be of more benefit to readers to have this skeleton text and watch and wait as the months and years go by to see the continual polishing take affect. So I decided tonight to publish, for the benefit of many to see, rather than wait a year to see a polished text. I may have made a mistake in this decision for I do not want to turn off anyone to math. But maybe I made the correct decision to allow others to see this book a full year ahead of schedule. Bon Voyage!

Length: 328 pages
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled


File Size: 1968 KB
Print Length: 328 pages
Publication Date: May 2, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07RG7BVZW
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #274,398 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#27 in General Geometry
#336 in Geometry & Topology (Books)


Plutonium Atom Totality Universe, Atom Totality Series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item





See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$9.99 to buy

Cover picture: is what the interior and exterior of most atoms looks like once you apply Faraday's Law to subatomic particles.This picture is a coil of 88 rings torus with a smaller ring inside. The 88 coil rings represent 11 protons in a Faraday Law magnetic induction coil and the smaller ring is a muon as a bar magnet thrusting through the proton coil, thereby, producing electricity.

The goal and aim of the 8th edition of Atom Totality, 2017 was to iron out all the mathematics of Electricity and Magnetism so that the AP-Maxwell Equations embodied all the mathematics of physics. In other words, all of physics is handled by the AP-Maxwell Equations. But in the course of straightening out the EM math of physics, I made my second greatest science discovery-- that the real proton was 840MeV, real electron was the muon at 105MeV and that little particle we all thought was the electron since JJ Thompson discovered it in 1897, was in fact not the electron but was Dirac's magnetic monopole. I made that discovery in the midst of my writing the 8th edition (only goes to show that most of our best ideas come from organizing and placing our thoughts into order-- writing a book). And so this 9th edition goal and aim is to go back and fix the picture of atoms, their geometry, and incorporate that discovery, mostly by fixing the picture of what atoms exterior and interior geometry is, in light of the fact that there is the Faraday Law going on inside of atoms.

Length: 114 pages
Word Wise: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled
Matchbook Price: $2.99 What's this?


Product details
File Size: 2354 KB
Print Length: 115 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publication Date: June 10, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07SW87BF5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #285,417 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#826 in Astronomy (Books)
#166 in Astronomy (Kindle Store)
#671 in Physics (Kindle Store)




Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe        
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2019-06-14 05:48:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Princeton's_Nicholas Katz, Sergiu Klainerman, Simon Kochen, Joseph Kohn, János Kollár Professor, Elliott Lieb,too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938
Autistic
Autistic
Autistic
Autistic
Physics minnow
AP writes: Unpacking Moroney, suggests the reason Harvard-MIT is too dumb to see that 9 x 105MeV = 945MeV and the proton is clocked in at 938MeV with only a less than 1% sigma error, implies the real proton is 840MeV with a muon = real electron attached. Since none at MIT-Harvard could ever understand AP's proof ellipse is never a conic section (for that is the oval,not the ellipse) but rather the ellipse is a cylinder section; stands to reason they are far far too stupid at Harvard-MIT to see real proton is 840MeV.
What, your slow motion autism meltdown
I always knew you were dumb and stoopid, but I never thought you would be
dumb and stoopid enough to threaten violence.
Physics Minnow
Autistic
why does not Baez, totally worthless in science, just change his name to abu Re: 1kicking out stalkers-- Jan Burse, Dan Christensen, John Baez //
blow it out your ass ... oh,
what was that smell, in the first place
***@gmail.com

4/5/17


stalkers out kciking cans

yup, complex field is tres c00l
Only if you failed Calculus would you think that
nanadittos ... when you ever have any result
from ye olde mathe, I'm sure that it will be new -- to you


AP writes: instead of spamming newsgroups, why not do something worthwhile-- Confirm real electron is 105MeV, real proton is 840MeV and that little particle JJ Thomson discovered in 1897 turns out to be not the atom electron but rather the Dirac magnetic monopole.


AP writes: Is the reason Physicists have not yet confirmed real proton is 840MeV not 938, because its scientists behave much like stalker kibo Parry Moroney-- cesspool mind of hatred with daily hate sheets on people rather than spend their daily activity on uncovering the true proton is 840MeV stuck with the real electron as muon doing a Faraday Law dance inside the atom making electricity and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole.


       o-:^>___?
       `~~c--^c'
Navy dog says: remember the time the failed engineer kibo Parry Moroney said 938 is short of 945 by 12%. How could any engineer pass school not knowing percentages?

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
 
 > Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
 > Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
 
 Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass
 > of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.



AP-Faraday Law replacing Nebular Dust Cloud theory (Physics series for High School Book 3) Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item



See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$3.00 to buy 



How our Sun and planets that make-up the Solar System, came to be is not the Nebular Dust Cloud theory. Nebular Dust Cloud is a fake theory that posits the remnants of long past supernova explosions creating dust and uniformly spread, and that this dust cloud condensed into forming our Solar System is a silly theory proffered by silly mind's of science. For one, it makes no sense that our Universe has many many supernova explosions and dust clouds spread uniformly in vast regions of the universe to account for all solar systems. Supernova are rare and cannot explain the abundance and uniformity of solar systems. When science has no theory to explain something-- they grab the first silly theory that comes along, no matter how bad it is, for science abhors a vacuum of explanation. What this book offers is a alternative theory of how the Solar System formed that makes logical sense given the observations. I believe the true theory of how the Solar System formed starts around 1977 with Dirac's book "Directions in Physics" with his "new radioactivities". Then that "new radioactivities" is picked up by AP in his Plutonium Atom Totality theory as seed-dots of the electron dot cloud, by 1990. And during the 1990's AP used a mechanism of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization (rsnm), explaining that particles of energy like neutrons or photons are shot from the Atom Totality Nucleus to increase the mass of astronomy bodies and let them grow larger. But not much else occurred on this theory until 2017. Then by 2017, this new-radioactivities and seed dots and rsnm is further elaborated upon by the real electron of atoms is the muon at 105MeV and the real proton is 840 MeV, and the little particle that J.J. Thomson discovered in 1897 was in fact, Dirac's magnetic monopole at .5MeV. What that discovery lead to in 2018 is the realization that subatomic particles are doing a job, a task, doing work inside of atoms, doing a function inside of atoms, where the proton is a Faraday coil and a muon is a Faraday bar magnet doing the Faraday law in producing-- electricity, magnetic monopoles. As the atoms produce monopoles, the atom itself grows, and increases in size and mass to grow into a new atomic numbered atom, where hydrogen grows into helium, helium grows into lithium, etc etc. So by 2018, we see how atoms grow into newer atoms and thus, the creation and formation and growing of our Solar System is simply the atoms growing inside themselves, from taking the Space they occupy and converting Space via AP-Faraday Law into creating new and more energy, mass, matter, becoming a newer higher atomic element. So we do not need a Nebular Dust Cloud, nor do we need a Big Bang theory.

There is no need for Nebular Dust Clouds. All that is needed is the AP-Faraday Law that converts Space into magnetic monopoles that grows the atom to become a larger heavier atom. And magnetic monopoles are the seed-dot from which an entire planet can be grown, with the start of a new hydrogen atom and that growing into helium, and more monopoles growing into hydrogen, more growing into helium, and helium growing into lithium and on and on.

Cover Picture: Nasa pictures of some of the planets of our Solar System from my computer.


Length: 43 pages
Word Wise: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

File Size: 1593 KB
Print Length: 43 pages
Publication Date: March 22, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07NNXZ9Z8
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 


Unification of the 4 Forces of Physics as All being Electromagnetism (Physics series for High School Book 4) Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item



See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$3.00 to buy 


Ever since I discovered the universe was one big atom in 1990 and that this atom was a plutonium atom, I vowed to solve what the unification of the 4 forces of physics was. Those 4 forces in 1990 were 1) Strong Nuclear force, 2) Weak Nuclear force, 3) Electricity/Magnetism force 4) Gravity. In physics, much of the 1900s was spent on finding a unification of those four forces. Most of the famous physicists of the 1900s was dabbling in this desire to unify those 4 forces. Trouble was, hardly anyone trying to unify the four forces of physics had a logical mind to be ever able to do that task. And, sadly, when the history books of physics are written on the topic of unification of the 4 forces of physics, it is not a achievement but rather a whisking away by a broom that sweeps away dust and dirt. There never was 4 forces of physics, all the forces of physics were just electricity and magnetism. If all the forces of physics is electricity and magnetism means there are no 3 other forces to have to unify. And the year was 2017 with AP's 8th edition of Atom Totality Universe that the slow reality was beginning to unfold. And the reasoning is utterly simple and easy. Since the proton is the coil of Faraday's Law and the electron muon is the bar magnet in Faraday's Law, there is no Strong Nuclear Force (see my book AP model of atoms). In addition, with the Faraday Law going on, there is no Weak Nuclear Force for the radioactivity of atoms is mostly the ejection of magnetic monopoles due to Faraday Law. Gravity as 10^-40 weaker than Electromagnetism and with the identical same formula as Coulomb law of EM, means there never was a gravity force apart from electricity and magnetism. Some in Old Physics complain that EM has both attract and repel. But they were wrong on that account also. For there are two concepts-- actual repel and then there is a concept of "denial of same space occupancy". Magnetism and Electricity have no repel force at all. They have a denial of same space occupancy which fools many in science and physics. So what happened in the history of Physics, with their quest to unify the 4 forces, ended in a whimper, where it was seen that the interior of atoms has a Faraday Law of EM going on, which immediately dismisses a Strong Nuclear force and a Weak Nuclear force. And gravity is just a minimal EM attraction force.

So Old Physics had a quest to unify 4 forces, but it turns out, there never was 4 different separate forces.

Cover Picture: My photograph of page 2-10 from The Feynman Lectures on Physics 1963, in which my first understanding that there were 4 forces of physics and how they compared to one another. I do not recall when I saw this, perhaps when 20 years old-- 1970 or thereabouts at the University of Cincinnati. I do remember taking a class in physics where all it was, was watching a film series of Feynman lecturing. I do not recall how many films that was, but I thoroughly enjoyed it. This film series on Feynman occurred at Utah State University circa 1978.

Length: 25 pages
Word Wise: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled
Matchbook Price: $0.99 What's this?

File Size: 1406 KB
Print Length: 25 pages
Publication Date: April 14, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07QMLMJDN
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 

Charge does not exist in Science, what does exist is WIRE in electromagnetism//(Physics series for High School Book 5) Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item





See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$5.00 to buy

Just recently, a few days ago, I decided to do these small books with a potent message, to make a series of them as Ebooks sold by Amazon's Kindle. What they all have in common for education purposes, is a huge true teaching of a true concept in physics (or chemistry) alongside a fake concept. These series books are brief, and are written in the most simple of language as possible for the High School student. And, each of these books in this 7 part series contains a huge error of Old Physics or Old Chemistry. This book in particular stands out of its error that we teach students so much fake science and at such a young age. That it cripples their minds in science thereafter for the rest of their lives in science. In a recent book of this series I spoke of a new modern means of ridding science of fakery theories by contrasting them and thus allowing for about a 5 years of teaching the fake along with the true theory of science to eventually expurge the fake science so the textbooks written no longer have the fake science. But in doing this book I realized that is not going to work well enough for the science fakery of "charge". And that science education needs a far far better way of handling and dealing with fake science that is heavily entrenched such as "charge". And I think the answer is already here, and lies in the set-up of Kindle Amazon. For I can edit any one of these books, overnight. Plus, the bonus, I save trees from being turned into books. I am a tree lover by nature-- my favorite is rock-elm. So the modern day publishing needs to be quick and fast and edit-able immediately, and without the old publishing with their biased-and-stealing-gatekeepers. Kindle Amazon is the way forward for science publication in all its publication needs, especially the education of science, for we can correct mistakes -- overnight in science. All science textbooks of the future will be a Kindle type of E-book, which the teacher can edit overnight, if need be.

The new modern society means of communicating true science needs to be a fast system, not a dragged out 5 years or 50 years to have meaningful changes. So in science of doing science books, textbooks, and even journal publication, is better done in a Kindle Amazon model, because it has rapid editing, where we can teach the true science and dismiss the fake old science, as fast as overnight. We no longer have to wait 5 years or in the case of Wegener, waiting 50 years. All the old ways of publishing science are fossil antique ways, for they are time consuming and entrench fakery science. Just like the very recent hullabaloo commotion over a Dr. Bouman report of a black hole photograph, which is fake physics for no black-hole ever existed nor will ever exist since black hole theory contradicts Maxwell equations. Maxwell Equations can never give you a black hole. So, rather than science putting up with con-artist fakery of physics, the internet removes the fake black hole photo by reminding Dr. Bouman, Dr. Greene that Maxwell theory cannot have black holes and why they did not first see if they could produce a well known astronomical object like the set of twin stars of HD98800 or a globular cluster, whether their photo technique reproduces known objects, first, rather than the foisting and fetching of publicity fame over a fake theory of physics.

This small book is a attempt to steer High School students away from the fakery of "charge" in science-- especially physics and chemistry. It is one of the most pernicious and evil mistakes of science today. For it is hard to remove from the mind once a person has been brainwashed with "charge". Even though charge is nonexistent, a fantasy and delusion concept is charge. What is real and true in science is "Wire". And what replaces "charge" is "wire". And, wire comes in two types-- electricity flowing clockwise or electricity flowing counterclockwise.



Length: 26 pages
Word Wise: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled
Matchbook Price: $1.99 What's this?

File Size: 1397 KB
Print Length: 26 pages
Publication Date: April 15, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07QSS4HZC
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 

Doppler redshift (blueshift) has nothing to do with motion of source and cannot tell you distance// (Physics series for High School Book 6) Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item





See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$4.00 to buy

What the Doppler redshift & blueshift really are-- heat and magnetism shifts of 8 Rings of the proton in hydrogen

---Quoting Bronowski's The Ascent of Man, page 336---
That was Bohr's marvellous idea.The inside of an atom is invisible, but there is a window in it, a stained-glass window: the spectrum of the atom. Each element has its own spectrum, which is not continuous like that which Newton got from white light, but has a number of bright lines which characterize that element. For example, hydrogen has three rather vivid lines in its visible spectrum: a red line, a blue-green line, and a blue line. Bohr explained them each as a release of energy when the single electron in the hydrogen atom jumps from one of the outer orbits to one of the inner orbits.  
... These emissions from many billions of atoms simultaneously are what we see as a characteristic hydrogen line.
--- end quoting Bronowski's 1973 book ---

Here again, the trouble with that physics as discussed by Bronowski is the interior of atoms is a Faraday Law going on, not the simplistic foolish idea of particles having no job, no task, no function.

The entire reason we even have spectral lines is because of the Proton particle is a coil of rings where the proton has 8 rings

))))))))

The electron muon is the bar magnet in Faraday Law inside a hydrogen atom and is another ring that thrusts through those 8 rings of the Proton shown above.

It is each of these 8 rings of the proton that Hydrogen atom has various spectral lines.

And what causes a shift in the spectral lines, a shift of either red shift or blue shift, is when the atoms of hydrogen in a star is heated, that the heat causes a shift in spectral lines.

And heat or magnetism can cause a shift in spectral lines.

In Old Physics, with their Bohr simpleton and wrong model, they had to explain redshift and blue shift, and what they did was violate the Special Relativity theory that the light wave is never affected by the motion of the source it comes from. So they wrongly said-- the motion of a star, whether coming at the observer is blue shifted and if the motion of the star is going away from the observer-- is redshifted.

What the AP model says is far different. The atoms in a star have the Faraday Law going on, and those protons in those atoms are each 8 rings of a Faraday Coil, each ring can give a spectral line. And when that coil of Rings, 8 in hydrogen of its single proton, when those 8 rings are heated or magnetically influenced, those 8 rings can either be redshifted or blueshifted.

Cover Picture: Auroras found on Jupiter which are blueshifted. This is the key to both redshift and blueshift, for these shifts in light wavelengths is not caused by "motion of source" but caused by the thermodynamics and magnetic field the light spectra waves are produced. Some shifting occurs as the light waves travel in Space and bent by refraction-diffraction of light.

Length: 15 pages
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled


File Size: 2179 KB
Print Length: 15 pages
Publication Date: April 17, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07QTFYXZL
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 

Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item




See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$5.00 to buy 


First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.

The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.

My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.

Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.




Length: 65 pages
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled

File Size: 764 KB
Print Length: 65 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 


Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item





See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$9.99 to buy 




These are the TRUE Truth Tables of the 4 connectors of Logic

Equal+Not                    
T = T  =  T                      
T = ~F = T                      
F = ~T = T
F = F   = T   

If--> then                  
T --> T  = T
T --> F  = F
F --> T  = U  (unknown or uncertain)           
F --> F  = U  (unknown or uncertain)

And
T  &  T = T                       
T  &  F = T                      
F  &  T = T                      
F  &  F = F                      


Or
T  or  T  = F
T  or  F  = T
F  or  T  = T
F  or  F  = F

Those can be analyzed as being Equal+Not is multiplication, If-->then is division, And is addition and Or is subtraction in mathematics. Now I need to emphasis this error of Old Logic, the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.

Now in Old Logic they had for Reductio Ad Absurdum as displayed by this schematic:

|    | ~p
|    |---
|    | .
|    | .
|    | q
|    | .
|    | .
|    | ~q
| p

Which is fine except for the error of not indicating the end conclusion of "p" is only a probability of being true, not guaranteed as true. And this is the huge huge error that mathematicians have fallen victim of. For the Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a proof method for mathematics, it is probability of being true or false. Math works on guaranteed truth, not probability. This textbook is written to fix that error.

Cover Picture: I like my covers to be like as if a blackboard in school to connect with students. This is a picture of the above Reductio Ad Absurdum, as a student or teacher would write in their notes or blackboard.

Read less


Length: 82 pages
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled
Matchbook Price: $2.99 What's this?

File Size: 1175 KB
Print Length: 82 pages
Publication Date: March 23, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07Q18GQ7S
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe        
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2019-06-14 17:04:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Princeton's_Simon Kochen, Nicholas Katz, Sergiu Klainerman,Joseph Kohn, János Kollár Professor, Elliott Lieb,too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938
Autistic
Autistic
Autistic
Autistic
Autistic
Autistic
Autistic
Physics minnow
AP writes: Unpacking Moroney, suggests the reason Harvard-MIT is too dumb to see that 9 x 105MeV = 945MeV and the proton is clocked in at 938MeV with only a less than 1% sigma error, implies the real proton is 840MeV with a muon = real electron attached. Since none at MIT-Harvard could ever understand AP's proof ellipse is never a conic section (for that is the oval,not the ellipse) but rather the ellipse is a cylinder section; stands to reason they are far far too stupid at Harvard-MIT to see real proton is 840MeV.
What, your slow motion autism meltdown
I always knew you were dumb and stoopid, but I never thought you would be
dumb and stoopid enough to threaten violence.
Physics Minnow
Autistic
why does not Baez, totally worthless in science, just change his name to abu Re: 1kicking out stalkers-- Jan Burse, Dan Christensen, John Baez //
blow it out your ass ... oh,
what was that smell, in the first place
***@gmail.com

4/5/17


stalkers out kciking cans

yup, complex field is tres c00l
Only if you failed Calculus would you think that
nanadittos ... when you ever have any result
from ye olde mathe, I'm sure that it will be new -- to you


AP writes: instead of spamming newsgroups, why not do something worthwhile-- Confirm real electron is 105MeV, real proton is 840MeV and that little particle JJ Thomson discovered in 1897 turns out to be not the atom electron but rather the Dirac magnetic monopole.


AP writes: Is the reason Physicists have not yet confirmed real proton is 840MeV not 938, because its scientists behave much like stalker kibo Parry Moroney-- cesspool mind of hatred with daily hate sheets on people rather than spend their daily activity on uncovering the true proton is 840MeV stuck with the real electron as muon doing a Faraday Law dance inside the atom making electricity and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole.


       o-:^>___?
       `~~c--^c'
Navy dog says: remember the time the failed engineer kibo Parry Moroney said 938 is short of 945 by 12%. How could any engineer pass school not knowing percentages?

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
 
 > Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
 > Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
 
 Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass
 > of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.



AP-Faraday Law replacing Nebular Dust Cloud theory (Physics series for High School Book 3) Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item



See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$3.00 to buy 



How our Sun and planets that make-up the Solar System, came to be is not the Nebular Dust Cloud theory. Nebular Dust Cloud is a fake theory that posits the remnants of long past supernova explosions creating dust and uniformly spread, and that this dust cloud condensed into forming our Solar System is a silly theory proffered by silly mind's of science. For one, it makes no sense that our Universe has many many supernova explosions and dust clouds spread uniformly in vast regions of the universe to account for all solar systems. Supernova are rare and cannot explain the abundance and uniformity of solar systems. When science has no theory to explain something-- they grab the first silly theory that comes along, no matter how bad it is, for science abhors a vacuum of explanation. What this book offers is a alternative theory of how the Solar System formed that makes logical sense given the observations. I believe the true theory of how the Solar System formed starts around 1977 with Dirac's book "Directions in Physics" with his "new radioactivities". Then that "new radioactivities" is picked up by AP in his Plutonium Atom Totality theory as seed-dots of the electron dot cloud, by 1990. And during the 1990's AP used a mechanism of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization (rsnm), explaining that particles of energy like neutrons or photons are shot from the Atom Totality Nucleus to increase the mass of astronomy bodies and let them grow larger. But not much else occurred on this theory until 2017. Then by 2017, this new-radioactivities and seed dots and rsnm is further elaborated upon by the real electron of atoms is the muon at 105MeV and the real proton is 840 MeV, and the little particle that J.J. Thomson discovered in 1897 was in fact, Dirac's magnetic monopole at .5MeV. What that discovery lead to in 2018 is the realization that subatomic particles are doing a job, a task, doing work inside of atoms, doing a function inside of atoms, where the proton is a Faraday coil and a muon is a Faraday bar magnet doing the Faraday law in producing-- electricity, magnetic monopoles. As the atoms produce monopoles, the atom itself grows, and increases in size and mass to grow into a new atomic numbered atom, where hydrogen grows into helium, helium grows into lithium, etc etc. So by 2018, we see how atoms grow into newer atoms and thus, the creation and formation and growing of our Solar System is simply the atoms growing inside themselves, from taking the Space they occupy and converting Space via AP-Faraday Law into creating new and more energy, mass, matter, becoming a newer higher atomic element. So we do not need a Nebular Dust Cloud, nor do we need a Big Bang theory.

There is no need for Nebular Dust Clouds. All that is needed is the AP-Faraday Law that converts Space into magnetic monopoles that grows the atom to become a larger heavier atom. And magnetic monopoles are the seed-dot from which an entire planet can be grown, with the start of a new hydrogen atom and that growing into helium, and more monopoles growing into hydrogen, more growing into helium, and helium growing into lithium and on and on.

Cover Picture: Nasa pictures of some of the planets of our Solar System from my computer.


Length: 43 pages
Word Wise: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

File Size: 1593 KB
Print Length: 43 pages
Publication Date: March 22, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07NNXZ9Z8
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 


Unification of the 4 Forces of Physics as All being Electromagnetism (Physics series for High School Book 4) Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item



See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$3.00 to buy 


Ever since I discovered the universe was one big atom in 1990 and that this atom was a plutonium atom, I vowed to solve what the unification of the 4 forces of physics was. Those 4 forces in 1990 were 1) Strong Nuclear force, 2) Weak Nuclear force, 3) Electricity/Magnetism force 4) Gravity. In physics, much of the 1900s was spent on finding a unification of those four forces. Most of the famous physicists of the 1900s was dabbling in this desire to unify those 4 forces. Trouble was, hardly anyone trying to unify the four forces of physics had a logical mind to be ever able to do that task. And, sadly, when the history books of physics are written on the topic of unification of the 4 forces of physics, it is not a achievement but rather a whisking away by a broom that sweeps away dust and dirt. There never was 4 forces of physics, all the forces of physics were just electricity and magnetism. If all the forces of physics is electricity and magnetism means there are no 3 other forces to have to unify. And the year was 2017 with AP's 8th edition of Atom Totality Universe that the slow reality was beginning to unfold. And the reasoning is utterly simple and easy. Since the proton is the coil of Faraday's Law and the electron muon is the bar magnet in Faraday's Law, there is no Strong Nuclear Force (see my book AP model of atoms). In addition, with the Faraday Law going on, there is no Weak Nuclear Force for the radioactivity of atoms is mostly the ejection of magnetic monopoles due to Faraday Law. Gravity as 10^-40 weaker than Electromagnetism and with the identical same formula as Coulomb law of EM, means there never was a gravity force apart from electricity and magnetism. Some in Old Physics complain that EM has both attract and repel. But they were wrong on that account also. For there are two concepts-- actual repel and then there is a concept of "denial of same space occupancy". Magnetism and Electricity have no repel force at all. They have a denial of same space occupancy which fools many in science and physics. So what happened in the history of Physics, with their quest to unify the 4 forces, ended in a whimper, where it was seen that the interior of atoms has a Faraday Law of EM going on, which immediately dismisses a Strong Nuclear force and a Weak Nuclear force. And gravity is just a minimal EM attraction force.

So Old Physics had a quest to unify 4 forces, but it turns out, there never was 4 different separate forces.

Cover Picture: My photograph of page 2-10 from The Feynman Lectures on Physics 1963, in which my first understanding that there were 4 forces of physics and how they compared to one another. I do not recall when I saw this, perhaps when 20 years old-- 1970 or thereabouts at the University of Cincinnati. I do remember taking a class in physics where all it was, was watching a film series of Feynman lecturing. I do not recall how many films that was, but I thoroughly enjoyed it. This film series on Feynman occurred at Utah State University circa 1978.

Length: 25 pages
Word Wise: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled
Matchbook Price: $0.99 What's this?

File Size: 1406 KB
Print Length: 25 pages
Publication Date: April 14, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07QMLMJDN
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 

Charge does not exist in Science, what does exist is WIRE in electromagnetism//(Physics series for High School Book 5) Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item





See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$5.00 to buy

Just recently, a few days ago, I decided to do these small books with a potent message, to make a series of them as Ebooks sold by Amazon's Kindle. What they all have in common for education purposes, is a huge true teaching of a true concept in physics (or chemistry) alongside a fake concept. These series books are brief, and are written in the most simple of language as possible for the High School student. And, each of these books in this 7 part series contains a huge error of Old Physics or Old Chemistry. This book in particular stands out of its error that we teach students so much fake science and at such a young age. That it cripples their minds in science thereafter for the rest of their lives in science. In a recent book of this series I spoke of a new modern means of ridding science of fakery theories by contrasting them and thus allowing for about a 5 years of teaching the fake along with the true theory of science to eventually expurge the fake science so the textbooks written no longer have the fake science. But in doing this book I realized that is not going to work well enough for the science fakery of "charge". And that science education needs a far far better way of handling and dealing with fake science that is heavily entrenched such as "charge". And I think the answer is already here, and lies in the set-up of Kindle Amazon. For I can edit any one of these books, overnight. Plus, the bonus, I save trees from being turned into books. I am a tree lover by nature-- my favorite is rock-elm. So the modern day publishing needs to be quick and fast and edit-able immediately, and without the old publishing with their biased-and-stealing-gatekeepers. Kindle Amazon is the way forward for science publication in all its publication needs, especially the education of science, for we can correct mistakes -- overnight in science. All science textbooks of the future will be a Kindle type of E-book, which the teacher can edit overnight, if need be.

The new modern society means of communicating true science needs to be a fast system, not a dragged out 5 years or 50 years to have meaningful changes. So in science of doing science books, textbooks, and even journal publication, is better done in a Kindle Amazon model, because it has rapid editing, where we can teach the true science and dismiss the fake old science, as fast as overnight. We no longer have to wait 5 years or in the case of Wegener, waiting 50 years. All the old ways of publishing science are fossil antique ways, for they are time consuming and entrench fakery science. Just like the very recent hullabaloo commotion over a Dr. Bouman report of a black hole photograph, which is fake physics for no black-hole ever existed nor will ever exist since black hole theory contradicts Maxwell equations. Maxwell Equations can never give you a black hole. So, rather than science putting up with con-artist fakery of physics, the internet removes the fake black hole photo by reminding Dr. Bouman, Dr. Greene that Maxwell theory cannot have black holes and why they did not first see if they could produce a well known astronomical object like the set of twin stars of HD98800 or a globular cluster, whether their photo technique reproduces known objects, first, rather than the foisting and fetching of publicity fame over a fake theory of physics.

This small book is a attempt to steer High School students away from the fakery of "charge" in science-- especially physics and chemistry. It is one of the most pernicious and evil mistakes of science today. For it is hard to remove from the mind once a person has been brainwashed with "charge". Even though charge is nonexistent, a fantasy and delusion concept is charge. What is real and true in science is "Wire". And what replaces "charge" is "wire". And, wire comes in two types-- electricity flowing clockwise or electricity flowing counterclockwise.



Length: 26 pages
Word Wise: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled
Matchbook Price: $1.99 What's this?

File Size: 1397 KB
Print Length: 26 pages
Publication Date: April 15, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07QSS4HZC
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 

Doppler redshift (blueshift) has nothing to do with motion of source and cannot tell you distance// (Physics series for High School Book 6) Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item





See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$4.00 to buy

What the Doppler redshift & blueshift really are-- heat and magnetism shifts of 8 Rings of the proton in hydrogen

---Quoting Bronowski's The Ascent of Man, page 336---
That was Bohr's marvellous idea.The inside of an atom is invisible, but there is a window in it, a stained-glass window: the spectrum of the atom. Each element has its own spectrum, which is not continuous like that which Newton got from white light, but has a number of bright lines which characterize that element. For example, hydrogen has three rather vivid lines in its visible spectrum: a red line, a blue-green line, and a blue line. Bohr explained them each as a release of energy when the single electron in the hydrogen atom jumps from one of the outer orbits to one of the inner orbits.  
... These emissions from many billions of atoms simultaneously are what we see as a characteristic hydrogen line.
--- end quoting Bronowski's 1973 book ---

Here again, the trouble with that physics as discussed by Bronowski is the interior of atoms is a Faraday Law going on, not the simplistic foolish idea of particles having no job, no task, no function.

The entire reason we even have spectral lines is because of the Proton particle is a coil of rings where the proton has 8 rings

))))))))

The electron muon is the bar magnet in Faraday Law inside a hydrogen atom and is another ring that thrusts through those 8 rings of the Proton shown above.

It is each of these 8 rings of the proton that Hydrogen atom has various spectral lines.

And what causes a shift in the spectral lines, a shift of either red shift or blue shift, is when the atoms of hydrogen in a star is heated, that the heat causes a shift in spectral lines.

And heat or magnetism can cause a shift in spectral lines.

In Old Physics, with their Bohr simpleton and wrong model, they had to explain redshift and blue shift, and what they did was violate the Special Relativity theory that the light wave is never affected by the motion of the source it comes from. So they wrongly said-- the motion of a star, whether coming at the observer is blue shifted and if the motion of the star is going away from the observer-- is redshifted.

What the AP model says is far different. The atoms in a star have the Faraday Law going on, and those protons in those atoms are each 8 rings of a Faraday Coil, each ring can give a spectral line. And when that coil of Rings, 8 in hydrogen of its single proton, when those 8 rings are heated or magnetically influenced, those 8 rings can either be redshifted or blueshifted.

Cover Picture: Auroras found on Jupiter which are blueshifted. This is the key to both redshift and blueshift, for these shifts in light wavelengths is not caused by "motion of source" but caused by the thermodynamics and magnetic field the light spectra waves are produced. Some shifting occurs as the light waves travel in Space and bent by refraction-diffraction of light.

Length: 15 pages
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled


File Size: 2179 KB
Print Length: 15 pages
Publication Date: April 17, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07QTFYXZL
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 

Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item




See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$5.00 to buy 


First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.

The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.

My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.

Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.




Length: 65 pages
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled

File Size: 764 KB
Print Length: 65 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 


Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item





See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$9.99 to buy 




These are the TRUE Truth Tables of the 4 connectors of Logic

Equal+Not                    
T = T  =  T                      
T = ~F = T                      
F = ~T = T
F = F   = T   

If--> then                  
T --> T  = T
T --> F  = F
F --> T  = U  (unknown or uncertain)           
F --> F  = U  (unknown or uncertain)

And
T  &  T = T                       
T  &  F = T                      
F  &  T = T                      
F  &  F = F                      


Or
T  or  T  = F
T  or  F  = T
F  or  T  = T
F  or  F  = F

Those can be analyzed as being Equal+Not is multiplication, If-->then is division, And is addition and Or is subtraction in mathematics. Now I need to emphasis this error of Old Logic, the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.

Now in Old Logic they had for Reductio Ad Absurdum as displayed by this schematic:

|    | ~p
|    |---
|    | .
|    | .
|    | q
|    | .
|    | .
|    | ~q
| p

Which is fine except for the error of not indicating the end conclusion of "p" is only a probability of being true, not guaranteed as true. And this is the huge huge error that mathematicians have fallen victim of. For the Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a proof method for mathematics, it is probability of being true or false. Math works on guaranteed truth, not probability. This textbook is written to fix that error.

Cover Picture: I like my covers to be like as if a blackboard in school to connect with students. This is a picture of the above Reductio Ad Absurdum, as a student or teacher would write in their notes or blackboard.

Read less


Length: 82 pages
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled
Matchbook Price: $2.99 What's this?

File Size: 1175 KB
Print Length: 82 pages
Publication Date: March 23, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07Q18GQ7S
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe        
Archimedes Plutonium

Loading...