Drs. Tobias Colding, Laurent Demanet of MIT are you as dumb as Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = monopole

[Archimedes Plutonium]

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

12 PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon
by Archimedes Plutonium

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

1st proof is chemical bonding cannot exist with momentum of 938 versus .5MeV
Chemical Bonds are covalent, ionic, metallic. You simply cannot get atoms to bond if the electron is thought of as the .5MeV particle, only with a muon at 105 MeV and the proton at 840 MeV with neutron at 945 MeV do you have the physics of angular momentum that allows bonding in Chemistry. The .5MeV particle was, all along a magnetic monopole of a photon with .5 MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy.


2nd proof with the direct observance some years back in Poland of a 840 Mev particle along with 105 MeV particle of the hydrogen atom.

Hello, well i found the below on the internet. I need a 840MeV particle that is the Real Proton. I have asked to look for it in the production of Muons. Is the below a production of muons along with 840 MeV particles?

Quoting

Indication For A Broad J(pc) = 2++ Meson At 840-mev Produced In The Reaction Pi- P ---> Pi+ Pi- N At High |t|
K. Rybicki, I. Sakrejda (Cracow, INP)
1985 - 10 pages

Z.Phys. C28 (1985) 65-74
DOI: 10.1007/BF01550250
Abstract (Springer)
The reaction π−p→π+π−n has been studied at 17.2 GeV/c and 63 GeV/c. A partial wave analysis shows a fairly broad (∼250 MeV) resonance at about 840 MeV. This object, already visible in moments of the angular distribution, is produced in theD wave with helicitym=2 via unnatural exchange. The cross section for the reaction π−p→D2U(840)n is only by an order of magnitude lower than that of ϱ(770) and falls likepLAB−2.1±0.3. We have not been able to explain this object by systematic experimental effects like acceptance and/orN* reflections; neither is the nature of the resonance (if real) clear to us.
--- end quote ---


3rd proof-- pull plug out of electrical socket and notice light flash. That flash of light was the magnetic monopoles as photons with charge energy of .5MeV, for the monopoles compose all electric currents.

4th proof is that the radius of the hydrogen proton shrinks too much when a muon is injected and that contradicts Standard Model. The reason is obvious-- the proton is 840 MeV electron is muon and then you add a second muon.

--- Quoting from www, Ars Technica, Researchers orbit a muon around an atom, confirm physics is broken ---

So, the proton radius puzzle remains a puzzle. The team behind this new work point to a number of measurements that could potentially help clarify it. Some of them involve better measurements with normal electrons; others involve scattering muons off protons themselves to see if there's an unknown force at work. The latter would tell us whether anything beyond the Standard Model will be needed to explain this puzzle.

--- end Quote ---

5th proof electrochemical battery is not explainable as Faraday law unless you concede the battery is a thrusting bar magnet, and thus, the battery is explained as a dipole magnet of the anode and cathode and the electrolyte solution is the ferromagnetism of spins all lined up. And thus a current in the circuit is because the battery as a thrusting magnet forces monopoles down the circuit wire.

6th proof, spin is charge, and charge is spin and the only particle for that is a ratio of permittivity to permeability as that of 10^-6/ 10^-12 is a charge energy of 10^6 or 1 MeV for photon charge energy, and that leaves the proton, electron=muon, monopole with .5MeV charge energy.


7th proof the Maxwell Equations are not symmetrical without current being the flow of magnetic monopoles.

8th proof, now, a straightforward proof that the muon is the real-electron can come from ion theory. The trouble is that weeding out a proof of electron = muon, is that we get entangled with the magnetic monopole. So, the proof is simple for ion theory, to prove the muon = real electron. Take for example iron Fe atoms, they are 26 protons, 26 electrons=muons
Now iron has ion states of -4, -2, -1, +1, +2, +3, +4, +5 +6, +7
So, suppose the electron = .5MeV particle and not the 105 MeV particle
That would mean Iron can exist as iron with 26 protons and only 19 electrons at one extreme and 26 protons and 30 electrons at the other extreme.
Now in Maxwell theory, there is a law that enforces Conservation of Energy, called the Lenz law in Faraday law. Otherwise, you have unlimited energy and Nature does not have unlimited energy.
So that in atoms, the protons become a thrusting bar magnet and the electrons= real-electrons are the closed loop of wire (inert gases are closed loop wires and why bonding exists is to close the loop of real-electron structure).
So, the proof that .5MeV are not electrons, is that iron bonds readily with other iron forming a compound of iron, the metal iron and metallic bond is due to iron atoms wanting to close the loop of their 26 Real Electrons. They close that loop by the metallic bond. That means, the existence of ions from -4 to +7 is unrelated altogether from Electron configuration. That ions are some other particle behavior but not the electron nor proton behavior.
The reason iron exists as iron from Fe-4 to Fe+7 is that the particle .5MeV is a surface interloper particle of atoms, it is a add-on particle not the integral electron of atoms. If the monopole were the electron we break conservation of energy by all these interlopers. The reason the chemical table is all built around the inert gases, is because Faraday's law must be obeyed and thus atoms with a closed loop of their electrons seek no bonding of electrons= muons. But atoms that have no closed loop of their muons, seek that closed loop structure and thus, they form covalent, ionic, metallic bonds with other muons of other atoms.

9th Proof. In Chemistry, it is rare, that a atom loses or gains any Real-Electron=muon.
And that is a 9th proof that Real Electron=muon, that beta decay in Old Physics, was not the electron of atoms but the transfer of Magnetic Monopoles.
The only real radioactive decay mode is the helium nucleus-- alpha decay
But there is never a Real Electron decay for that would mean muons spewed out of atoms. Nor do we see protons spewed out of atoms, Real Proton = 840 MeV. The so called hydrogen nucleus of a 938 MeV is not radioactive decay, for it is still a 840 proton + 105 muon = hydrogen atom.

10th Proof. Well, I spoke of the internal heart or core of the concept of Chemistry, that the proton/s and electron/s are two parts of the Faraday Law. The protons are the thrusting bar magnet and the electrons= muons forms the closed loop of wire. Essentially that is the heart and core of atomic physics, a replay of Faraday's law with protons and electrons.

But, however, the electrons= muons only forms a closed loop wire for Faraday's law in the inert gases, the helium, neon, argon, etc and all other atoms want to have that closed loop configuration. Thus, is borne the Chemistry of bonding. Chemistry is borne. So that one atom without a closed loop configuration bonds with another atom to achieve that goal. So chemistry bonding is that of muons bonded to other muons in different atoms.

Now, can these .5 MeV particles fulfill the atoms need to make their muons a closed loop? Obviously not, because ions of atoms such as Fe, iron, swing from -4 to +7 in ions, so that proves ions cannot solve a atom's problem of its electron structure being less than closed loop. Only muons of other atoms can fulfill a atom's need to be closed loop.

11th Proof. Solving the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly, alongside proton radius shrunk
--- Quoting from www, Ars Technica, Researchers orbit a muon around an atom, confirm physics is broken ---

So, the proton radius puzzle remains a puzzle. The team behind this new work point to a number of measurements that could potentially help clarify it. Some of them involve better measurements with normal electrons; others involve scattering muons off protons themselves to see if there's an unknown force at work. The latter would tell us whether anything beyond the Standard Model will be needed to explain this puzzle.
--- end Quote ---

Now in re-reading that Ars article on proton radius shrinking when a hydrogen atom of 840 MeV proton with electron = 105 MeV and then a second muon is tried to be compounded-- will of course, shrink the proton radius for the two muons with 1 proton all three are centered at the center of the proton.

But in re-reading was mentioned an anomaly I was not familiar with-- Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly.

And reading some results of that, I find surprizing for it was Feynman who claimed Electrodynamics was the supreme physics theory in accuracy of prediction.

But the anomaly is off by a mere .1%, which seems very very small to be not even an anomaly. Trouble is, the electron of Old Physics was found to be so accurate as to be described as physic's most precise finding ever, and that makes the .1% discrepancy ever so much larger.

Now, I was able to explain away the proton radius anomaly because the proton is not 938 MeV but is 840 MeV and the electron is not the .5MeV particle but rather is 105 MeV.

So, can I explain away the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly. I believe I can easily. For if you consider that what Old Physics measured as the electron magnetic moment was none other than the monopole as a dressed up photon magnetic moment. And it is easily seen that in EM theory the permeability constant is "exact" no uncertainty at 1.26*10^-6 H/m.

So, it is no wonder that Old Physics thought their electron magnetic moment in Quantum Electrodynamics was so ultra ultra precise-- for, they never measured the magnetic moment of the electron, but instead a magnetic monopole of the dressed up .5 MeV particle.

Then, when it came time to measure the magnetic moment of the muon, the real-true-electron, there is this .1% discrepancy, but there are discrepancies in the proton and neutron etc.

So, once we realized the Real Electron is the muon, afterall, there is no magnetic moment anomaly.

12th proof -- Static Electricity Re: Proofs that the Real Electron=muon

Alright, I need a 12th proof, for I do not want to neglect what is probably our first encounter with electricity-- static electricity. As we walk across a carpet and touch something we experience a spark. Trouble with static electricity, is that the concept makes out the atom as a flimsy structure, really really flimsy structure that electrons of atoms can be picked off so easily, and from very many diverse materials. One would think the structure of atoms was built of stronger stuff. And that is what the Electron = Muon concept is about, that it is so very very hard to separate a electron from its atom, just like separating a proton out of a nucleus. So the subject of static electricity is this interloper particle, this surface superficial particle that is easily "whipped up" as the magnetic monopole, just as easy as producing electricity in a Faraday Law demonstration of a thrusting bar magnet in closed loop of wire. For, we can easily imagine that our walk across a carpet is similar to a thrusting bar magnet and then the closed loop wire is when we touch something, having built up some monopoles in our body.

Old Physics would say that we picked up electrons on the carpet, and as we touch something, remit that imbalance of electrons.

New Physics would say that we picked up magnetic monopoles.

Now let us look at other static electric experiments. For when we rub a glass rod (+1) with silk, or rub a plastic rod (-1) with wool. Here again, Old Physics would say we pick off electrons of atoms.

New Physics would say, no, the atoms are still composed of all their electrons and protons. The only thing changed with the rubbing is that energy of the rub transfers to the magnetic monopole energy-- packets of .5MeV monopoles of charge energy. And the energy of rubbing becomes monopoles. These are those closed Lines of Force of a magnet, and the moment we touch something these stored up monopoles, flow from our body to that of the touched object.

How is that a proof the electron = muon?

Simple, in that the carpet, or plastic rod (-1) with wool or glass rod (+1) with silk, are materials that are electrically neutral substances, for the rubbing action was transformed not into free electrons, but was formed into monopoles. These substances remain electrically neutral, and the only change is that the rub created magnetic monopoles-- some + charged monopoles, some - charged monopoles, and these monopoles are superficial to the atoms where they formed.

Static Electricity is merely stored monopoles. Monopoles are conservation of energy, for the rubbing had to be transformed into some energy packets and that is-- monopoles of charge energy.

In the experiment of where we pick up bits of paper from either the glass rod or the plastic rod due to static electricity. What is happening here, is that the rod is not involved with the Real Electrons of atoms, but is involved with the superficial surface charged particle that is the magnetic monopole.

Now the electroscope is explained much much easier with magnetic monopoles rather than the silly electrons on one leaf pushing away the electrons on the second leaf.

For consider instead a closed loop line of force between the two leafs

/\
O

Where the leafs start out as ||

Then comes the charged rod of monopoles sending down a monopole closed loop O that pushes apart the two leafs.

Now i have two gold leafs and if true should leave the push apart looking more like this () rather than this /\. And that is what i have ()

by Archimedes Plutonium
------------------
-------------------

Don't forget to include a chapter on Failure. Its truth table is FFFF.
Stalking failure
Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.

Now, unlike Moroney, I do not believe for a moment that Harvard math professors cannot properly do a percentage, I don't believe that for a minute.

Moroney says he weighed the electron in High School, and then got a engineering degree, but how is that possible when he cannot even do math percentage correctly. Either Moroney is a liar or the world is nothing but fools.

Michael Moroney is not only a failure of math, --must have have been burnt out at school-- but also an insane crank on sci.math for 23 years now. I have often asked Google to please engineer a delete key so original authors of a thread can develop their own thread without these insane stalking poopers pooping up (Moroney a 23 year stalker). Let original authors delete any post in their thread which is unfit. Let insane stalkers make their own threads so they can crap all they wish without interrupting those doing serious science.

MAKE sci.math a Level Playing field, and stop tilting sci.math in favor of moron stalkers.

Drs. John Bush, Herman Chernoff of MIT are you as stupid as Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = monopole


MIT math dept.

Artin, Michael
Emeritus Professor of Mathematics
Algebraic Geometry, Non-Commutative Algebra

Bazant, Martin
Professor of Chemical Engineering and Applied Mathematics
Applied Mathematics, Electrokinetics, Microfluidics and Electrochemistry

Berger, Bonnie
Simons Professor of Mathematics
Theoretical Computer Science, Computational Biological Modeling

Bezrukavnikov, Roman
Professor of Mathematics
Representation Theory, Algebraic Geometry

Borodin, Alexei
Professor of Mathematics
Integrable Probability

Bush, John
Associate Department Head
Professor of Applied Mathematics
Academic Officer
Fluid Dynamics

Chernoff, Herman
Emeritus Professor of Applied Mathematics
Statistics, Probability

Cohn, Henry
Adjunct Professor
Discrete Mathematics

Colding, Tobias Holck
Cecil and Ida Green Distinguished Professor of Mathematics
Pure Mathematics Committee Chair
Differential Geometry, Partial Differential Equations
*On Leave Fall and Spring semesters*

Demanet, Laurent
Associate Professor of Applied Mathematics
Applied analysis, Scientific Computing

Dudley, Richard
Emeritus Professor of Mathematics
Probability, Statistics

Dunkel, Jörn
Assistant Professor of Applied Mathematics
Physical Applied Mathematics

Edelman, Alan
Professor of Applied Mathematics
Parallel Computing, Numerical Linear Algebra, Random Matrices

Etingof, Pavel
Professor of Mathematics
Representation Theory, Quantum Groups, Noncommutative Algebra

Freedman, Daniel
Emeritus Professor of Applied Mathematics
Theoretical Physics, Supergravity, Supersymmetry

Goemans, Michel
Interim Department Head
Professor of Mathematics
Theoretical Computer Science, Combinatorial Optimization

Gorin, Vadim
Assistant Professor of Mathematics
Probability, Representation Theory

Greenspan, Harvey
Emeritus Professor of Applied Mathematics
Fluid Mechanics

Guillemin, Victor
Professor of Mathematics
Differential Geometry

Guth, Larry
Professor of Mathematics
Metric geometry, harmonic analysis, extremal combinatorics

Helgason, Sigurdur
Emeritus Professor of Mathematics
Geometric Analysis

Hosoi, Anette
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
MacVicar Faculty Fellow
Fluid Dynamics, Numerical Analysis

Jerison, David
Professor of Mathematics
Partial Differential Equations, Fourier Analysis

Johnson, Steven
Professor of Applied Mathematics
Waves, PDEs, Scientific Computing

Kac, Victor
Professor of Mathematics
Algebra, Mathematical Physics

Mark Hyman, Jr. Career Development Associate Professor of Applied Mathematics
Theoretical Computer Science

Kleiman, Steven
Emeritus Professor of Mathematics
Algebraic Geometry, Commutative Algebra

Kleitman, Daniel
Emeritus Professor of Applied Mathematics
Combinatorics, Operations Research

Lawrie, Andrew
Assistant Professor of Mathematics
Analysis, Geometric PDEs

Leighton, Tom
Professor of Applied Mathematics
Theoretical Computer Science, Combinatorics

Lusztig, George
Abdun-Nur Professor of Mathematics
Group Representations, Algebraic Groups


Mattuck, Arthur
Emeritus Professor of Mathematics
Algebraic Geometry

Maulik, Davesh
Professor of Mathematics
Algebraic Geometry

Melrose, Richard
Professor of Mathematics
Partial Differential Equations, Differential Geometry

Miller, Haynes
Professor of Mathematics
Algebraic Topology

Minicozzi, William
Singer Professor of Mathematics
Geometric Analysis, PDEs

Moitra, Ankur
Rockwell International Career Development Associate Professor of Mathematics
Theoretical Computer Science, Machine Learning

Mossel, Elchanan
Professor of Mathematics
Probability, Algorithms and Inference

Mrowka, Tomasz
Professor of Mathematics
Gauge Theory, Differential Geometry
On Leave Fall and Spring semesters

Munkres, James
Emeritus Professor of Mathematics
Differential Topology

Neguț, Andrei
Assistant Professor of Mathematics
Algebraic Geometry, Representation Theory
On Leave Spring semester

Pixton, Aaron
Class of 1957 Career Development Assistant Professor
Algebraic Geometry
On Leave Spring semester

Poonen, Bjorn
Claude Shannon Professor of Mathematics
Algebraic Geometry, Number Theory

Postnikov, Alexander
Professor of Applied Mathematics
Algebraic Combinatorics

Rigollet, Philippe
Associate Professor of Mathematics
Statistics, Machine Learning

Rosales, Rodolfo
Professor of Applied Mathematics
Nonlinear Waves, Fluid Mechanics, Material Sciences, Numerical pde

Saccà, Giulia
Assistant Professor of Mathematics

Sacks, Gerald
Emeritus Professor of Mathematical Logic
Mathematical Logic, Recursion Theory, Computational Set Theory

Seidel, Paul
Levinson Professor of Mathematics
Mirror Symmetry
On Leave Fall and Spring semesters

Sheffield, Scott
Leighton Family Professor of Mathematics
Probability and Mathematical Physics

Shor, Peter
Morss Professor of Applied Mathematics
Applied Mathematics Committee Chair
Quantum Computation, Quantum Information

Singer, Isadore
Emeritus Institute Professor
Differential Geometry, Partial Differential Equations, Mathematical Physics

Sipser, Michael
Dean of School of Science
Donner Professor of Mathematics
MacVicar Faculty Fellow
Algorithms, Complexity Theory

Speck, Jared
Cecil and Ida B. Green Career Development Associate Professor of Mathematics
Analysis related to Mathematical Physics, General Relativity, PDEs

Staffilani, Gigliola
Abby Rockefeller Mauze Professor of Mathematics
Analysis: Dispersive Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations
On Leave Fall and Spring semesters

Stanley, Richard
Professor of Mathematics
Algebraic Combinatorics

Stark, Harold
Emeritus Professor of Mathematics
Number Theory

Strang, Gilbert
MathWorks Professor of Mathematics

Stroock, Daniel
Emeritus Professor of Mathematics
Probability, Stochastic Analysis

Tabuada, Goncalo
Associate Professor of Mathematics
Algebraic Topology, Noncommutative Algebraic Geometry

Toomre, Alar
Emeritus Professor of Applied Mathematics
Astrophysics, Stellar Dynamics, Fluid Mechanics

Vogan, David
Norbert Wiener Professor of Mathematics
Group Representations, Lie Theory


/\-------/\
\::O:::O::/
(::_ ^ _::)
\_`-----'_/
You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in MIT?
And, even though you-- professors of math, want to remain stupid in Calculus and Physics, your students deserve better.

[Michael Moroney]

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

<snip autistically reposted spam>

Wow, Archie's autistic meltdown is worse than I thought, with two more
autistic reposts of his bizarre nonsense posts directed to some uninvolved
professors, and including the famous 12 Failures of Plutonium.

Time for someone to call Archie's doc and tell him Archie needs his
meds adjusted.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Autistic

MIT's_Pavel Etingof, Daniel Freedman, Michel Goemans, Vadim Gorin, Harvey Greenspan, Victor Guillemin, Larry Guth, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938

Autistic

AP writes: they only need read AP's books:

MIT's_Pavel Etingof, Daniel Freedman, Michel Goemans, Vadim Gorin, Harvey Greenspan, Victor Guillemin, Larry Guth, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938

Physics minnow

AP writes: Unpacking Moroney, suggests the reason 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 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 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?

Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.

AP 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)



Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

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

[Archimedes Plutonium]

MIT's_Lee Grodzins , Paul Joss, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon, Irwin Pless, Paul Schechter, James Young, 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]

MIT's_Victor Kac, Steven Kleiman, Anette Hosoi, David Jerison, Steven Johnson,Daniel Kleitman,Andrew Lawrie, Tom Leighton, 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
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]

MIT's_Victor Kac, Anette Hosoi, David Jerison, Steven Johnson, Steven Kleiman, Daniel Kleitman,Andrew Lawrie, Tom Leighton, 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
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.




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: 115 pages
Word Wise: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled

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)



True Chemistry 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




Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of .5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is every where.

Cover picture: shows two of my chemical models, one of CO and the other CO2

Read less


Length: 1097 pages
Word Wise: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled
Matchbook Price: $2.99 What's this?


File Size: 1948 KB
Print Length: 1097 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLVMMSZ
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
                Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
                #181 in General Chemistry & Reference
                #1324 in General Chemistry
                #1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)


Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

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






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)


Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

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




AP's periodic journal of fakeries in science: Magazine of science and math fakes foisted on general public 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


The world is tired of "peer reviewed science" masquerading as the truth of science, when it is often the case that peer reviewed is false and fake science, even anti-science, as entrenched pork barrel money machines that look more towards "money money money". Or the peer review of magazines and journals that also look more towards "money" as a promotion ladder for unscrupulous professors climbing a promotion ladder at the school they teach. Publish, publish, publish, but seldom truth truth truth.

April 2019 issue-- discusses black holes as pure science fiction fakeries for a world that has a Pauli Exclusion Principle PEP, is a world that cannot simultaneously have a black hole. Physicists just never learned any logic to know that science cannot hold a contradiction. All science laws breakdown the minute you accept contradictions. Either the world has PEP but no black holes, or, the world has both, still a contradiction. Cover picture is HD98800 which is two binary star pairs and looks better as a black hole than does the fake recent black hole photo.

May issue --discusses the unwillingness of scientists and mathematicians to accept true science such as the ellipse is never a conic even when given a High School proof the ellipse is not a conic. And psychology is discussed as to "hate-envy-motivation" of scientists that blocks their minds from accepting the truth of science.

June issue of 2019-- discusses why and what the fake "gravity waves" reports from LIGO; what those reports really mean and measure.

July issue-- as yet to be decided, for the world of fake science is a long list to chose from..

Editor in chief of this magazine journal, AP

File Size: 1759 KB
Print Length: 31 pages
Publication Date: April 28, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07R5Q2199
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

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


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        
Archimedes Plutonium


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 


Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

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




World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 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


Real proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem// including the fake Euler proof in exp3 and Wiles fake proof

Recap summary: In 1993 I proved Fermat's Last Theorem with a pure algebra proof, arguing that because of the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4 that this special feature of a unique number 4, allows for there to exist solutions to A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That the number 4 is a basis vector allowing more solutions to exist in exponent 2. But since there is no number with N+N+N = N*N*N that exists, there cannot be a solution in exp3 and the same argument for higher exponents. In 2014, I went and proved Generalized FLT by using "condensed rectangles". Once I had proven Generalized, then Regular FLT comes out of that proof as a simple corollary. So I had two proofs of Regular FLT, pure algebra and a corollary from Generalized FLT. Then recently in 2019 I sought to find a pure algebra proof of Generalized FLT, and I believe I accomplished that also by showing solutions to Generalized FLT also come from the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4. Amazing how so much math comes from the specialness of 4, where I argue that a Vector Space of multiplication provides the Generalized FLT of A^x + B^y = C^z.

As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).

Length: 74 pages
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled

File Size: 1445 KB
Print Length: 74 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQKGW4M
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]

It must be a lot of fun for him to live in his very own fantasy world where he gets
to make up his own facts!

AP writes: well back in the 1900s, professors at MIT routinely lived in a world where they made up their own facts, and we can see that so plainly true in that they still believe a ellipse is a conic.

MIT's_Victor Kac, Anette Hosoi, David Jerison, Steven Johnson, Steven Kleiman, Daniel Kleitman,Andrew Lawrie, Tom Leighton, 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
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

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?
 
 > 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.
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: 115 pages
Word Wise: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled
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)
True Chemistry 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
Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of .5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is every where.
Cover picture: shows two of my chemical models, one of CO and the other CO2
Read less
Length: 1097 pages
Word Wise: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled
Matchbook Price: $2.99 What's this?
File Size: 1948 KB
Print Length: 1097 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLVMMSZ
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
                Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
                #181 in General Chemistry & Reference
                #1324 in General Chemistry
                #1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe        
Archimedes Plutonium
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)
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe        
Archimedes Plutonium
AP's periodic journal of fakeries in science: Magazine of science and math fakes foisted on general public 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
The world is tired of "peer reviewed science" masquerading as the truth of science, when it is often the case that peer reviewed is false and fake science, even anti-science, as entrenched pork barrel money machines that look more towards "money money money". Or the peer review of magazines and journals that also look more towards "money" as a promotion ladder for unscrupulous professors climbing a promotion ladder at the school they teach. Publish, publish, publish, but seldom truth truth truth.
April 2019 issue-- discusses black holes as pure science fiction fakeries for a world that has a Pauli Exclusion Principle PEP, is a world that cannot simultaneously have a black hole. Physicists just never learned any logic to know that science cannot hold a contradiction. All science laws breakdown the minute you accept contradictions. Either the world has PEP but no black holes, or, the world has both, still a contradiction. Cover picture is HD98800 which is two binary star pairs and looks better as a black hole than does the fake recent black hole photo.
May issue --discusses the unwillingness of scientists and mathematicians to accept true science such as the ellipse is never a conic even when given a High School proof the ellipse is not a conic. And psychology is discussed as to "hate-envy-motivation" of scientists that blocks their minds from accepting the truth of science.
June issue of 2019-- discusses why and what the fake "gravity waves" reports from LIGO; what those reports really mean and measure.
July issue-- as yet to be decided, for the world of fake science is a long list to chose from..
Editor in chief of this magazine journal, AP
File Size: 1759 KB
Print Length: 31 pages
Publication Date: April 28, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07R5Q2199
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

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


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        
Archimedes Plutonium
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 
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe        
Archimedes Plutonium
World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 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
Real proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem// including the fake Euler proof in exp3 and Wiles fake proof
Recap summary: In 1993 I proved Fermat's Last Theorem with a pure algebra proof, arguing that because of the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4 that this special feature of a unique number 4, allows for there to exist solutions to A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That the number 4 is a basis vector allowing more solutions to exist in exponent 2. But since there is no number with N+N+N = N*N*N that exists, there cannot be a solution in exp3 and the same argument for higher exponents. In 2014, I went and proved Generalized FLT by using "condensed rectangles". Once I had proven Generalized, then Regular FLT comes out of that proof as a simple corollary. So I had two proofs of Regular FLT, pure algebra and a corollary from Generalized FLT. Then recently in 2019 I sought to find a pure algebra proof of Generalized FLT, and I believe I accomplished that also by showing solutions to Generalized FLT also come from the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4. Amazing how so much math comes from the specialness of 4, where I argue that a Vector Space of multiplication provides the Generalized FLT of A^x + B^y = C^z.
As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).
Length: 74 pages
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled
File Size: 1445 KB
Print Length: 74 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQKGW4M
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]

Autistic

kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_Isom Herron,Yuri V Lvov, Harry McLaughlin, John E. Mitchell, Bruce Piper, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938


AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

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

Length: 21 pages


World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

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

Plutonium Atom Totality Universe, Atom Totality Series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

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: 115 pages


True Chemistry Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of .5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is every where.

Cover picture: shows two of my chemical models, one of CO and the other CO2

Length: 1154

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)

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

AP Atom Model replacing the Rutherford-Bohr Atom Model (Physics series for High School Book 1) Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
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.


Length: 12 pages


Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

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

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2019 12:39:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
To: Plutonium Atom Universe <plutonium-atom-***@googlegroups.com>
Subject: starting Volume 2 of Teaching True Mathematics// and starting with
the principle of Pattern

starting Volume 2 of Teaching True Mathematics// and starting with the principle of Pattern

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; and ages 19 to 26, Volume 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

I decided to start this volume 2. Even though I could polish more on Volume 1.

Recently I made a large discovery in math, dealing with a concept of Pattern. That every math topic or subject has to have a pattern. If something in math has no pattern, such as the Primes. That "no pattern" is a result of a half-baked concept.

Let us say someone wants a concept of "blue numbers". Trouble with that, how can one define blue number, and if defined, there can be no pattern because "blue" is arbitrary.

I left off with Volume 1 talking about the fact that Natural Numbers had no division. Naturals had addition and multiplication but not division. So, you cannot have a definition of prime when Naturals themselves have no division.

And for decades now, I have been searching for a pattern of primes. I tried looking for a pattern that out-bested Ulam with his Ulam Prime Spiral. The end result was-- primes have no pattern.

So, recently, now, I am convinced Primes have no pattern, but not because they are special mathematics, but because, they are not mathematics at all. And it has taken me months to find a appropriate analogy. The Ancient Greek trisection of the general angle using only unmarked straightedge and compass. It is impossible, but a few angles are able to be trisected. Same thing goes for primes-- a few Naturals are divisible such as 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, . .  but many are not evenly divisible.

And because most humans, even mathematicians have a low standard of Logic abilities. They would overlook the fact, the idea, that Naturals have no division in the first place, so to come up with a definition of Primes as divisible only by 1 and itself, is illogical based on the fact that Naturals have no division operation. Just as the trisection can do a few angles like a 90 degree angle, the vast majority of angles cannot be done.

So, that lead me to this large scientific discovery--

All Math and Science topics or subjects have to have a PATTERN. If they have no pattern, then the topic or subject is flawed, human mind flawed, where a definition or concept is poorly constructed.

In New Math, the true numbers are Decimal Grid Numbers and the smallest of these Grids is the 10 Grid which is all these numbers:

Decimal 10 Grid System
9.0, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5 9.6, 9.7, 9.8, 9.9, 10.0 
8.0, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 8.8, 8.9, 
7.0, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9, 
6.0, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 
5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 
4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 
3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 
2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 
1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 

0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 

If you examine the 10 Grid System, you see there are no prime numbers.

Prime numbers were a fakery idea and concept foisted onto the conscious of mathematics. They lacked logic and reasoning and understanding to see that if you have Naturals and Naturals have no division, then you cannot be running around defining prime number.

But, this large new discovery is seen over in Physics also. For decades now, I believed in the physics concept of electron dot cloud where dots compose a electron in Space and those dots are probability placed. That physics means-- no pattern. Fortunately, recently as of 2017, I discovered the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is the muon at 105MeV and the little particle of .5 MeV turns out not to be the electron of atoms but the Dirac magnetic monopole. What that does, or causes, is the idea and picture that the proton is a coil of 8 windings while the muon is one complete ring as bar magnet thrusting through the proton coil in Faraday's Law and this activity creates new magnetic monopoles= electricity.

All of that physics is PATTERNED, for the Faraday law is a pattern and coils and rings are patterns.

So, what I want to do is start off the Volume 2 of Teaching True Mathematics where I left off on Volume 1. This notion and idea that all science, including mathematics, every topic and subject must have PATTERN. In fact we can include that idea as a axiom of mathematics, and as a Principle of Physics.

AP

END


Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2019 21:53:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: AP -Maxwell Equations //SCIENCE COUNCIL RULES EARTH, series 2, 2019
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 04:53:57 +0000

AP -Maxwell Equations //SCIENCE COUNCIL RULES EARTH, series 2, 2019

Take any freshman college physics textbook in Norway, and get to the Maxwell Equations. Get to a sample exercise by the authors using the Maxwell Equations. I am using Halliday & Resnick. Now, see how easy or difficult it is to do that same sample exercise using the AP Maxwell Equations.


1) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field  B = kg /A*s^2
2) V = i*B*L       New Ohm's law, law of electricity
3) V' = (i*B*L)'          Ampere-Maxwell law
4) (V/i*L)'  = B'        Faraday law
5) (V/(B*L))' = i'      the new law of spin
6) (V/(i*B))' = L'      the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force


Coulomb law

(V/(i*B))' = L'

(V/(i*B))'  = (V'*i*B - V*i' B - V*i*B') / (i*B)^2

L' = (i^2B - B^3- V^2i) / i^2B^2

L' = (i^2B - B^3- V^2i) / i^2B^2

Ampere-Maxwell Law   (i*B*L)' = i'*B*L + i*B'L + i*B*L'

V' = (iBL)' = i'*B*L + i*B'*L + i*B*L'

= B*B*L + i*V*L + i*B*(i_C)

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Faraday law
B' = (V/i*L)' = (V'*i*L - V*i' *L - V*i*L') / (i*L)^2

= ((i_C)iL - VBL -Vi(i_C))/ i^2L^2

What I need to show, is that the AP-Maxwell Equations are so much easier to plug in than ever was the case of Old Physics Maxwell equations.

AP


Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 00:11:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: AP -Maxwell Equations //SCIENCE COUNCIL RULES EARTH, series 2, 2019
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 07:11:34 +0000

AP -Maxwell Equations //SCIENCE COUNCIL RULES EARTH, series 2, 2019

As i remember the Maxwell Equations, they are mostly plug in the numbers given.

In the AP Maxwell equations there is no electric field but instead a voltage.

Halliday & Resnick 3rd ed, Fundamentals of Physics, 1988, page 836 gives its first Maxwell Equation exercise involving Ampere law. The exercise is virtually all plug in.

If all Maxwell Equations are plug ins, then i and all students are home free from college education in math, for plug in are the easiest math of all.

So, if true about plug in there must be caveat. And the caveat is where we get the numbers to plug in. That must be the rub, getting the numbers to plug in are probably not straightforward at all. Such as in the first exercise they have dE/dt as 1.5*10^12 V/m*s

So the Maxwell Equations are mostly a field trip to a lab to collect numbers data, then plugging them in.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 00:38:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Are the Maxwell Equations mostly plug in, and the bulk of the work is
get the numbers data directly from experiments
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 07:38:53 +0000

Are the Maxwell Equations mostly plug in, and the bulk of the work is get the numbers data directly from experiments

Let me see if I am correct-- Old Physics Maxwell Eq. are mostly just plug ins, and the burden of the work is getting the numbers data from a in lab experimental set up. Am I correct on this notion? For if correct then the Old Physics Maxwell Equations were a push over, both for students and teachers, except, however, the teachers never realized this "push over" and felt they were difficult, hard, and remote.

So looking at Berkeley physics course-- volume 2 Electricity And Magnetism, Purcell, 1965 starts a exercise with Faraday's Law on pages 244-245. With B = 50 sin 377t, B in gauss and t in seconds. Electromotive force calculated in volts. And they end up with -0.059 cos 377t (volts).

Yes, looks to me like the Maxwell Eq of Old Physics are all plug ins, of numbers data collected from live experiments in the lab. And Purcell shows us why Physicists love, love and love the trig functions being in math and physics, because derivative of sin is cos and vice versa with coefficients to bear in mind.

But in true math and true physics, EM is not a sinusoid wave but rather a cycloid wave, and thus we throw out all the Old Math trigonometry functions both in math and physics, where the calculus has no trigonometry functions at all. Does that make the math a bit more difficult? Yes, but it makes math and physics with 100% clarity. No human mind can picture sinusoid waves with calculus, and the mind loses all sense of what is going on and is a slave to rumdummy algebra rules. Simply stated-- we can see what is going on.

The bulk of Freshman College math, is to be able to work with the AP-Maxwell Equations. That understanding spills over into all the sciences. For remember, there is no Schrodinger or Dirac Equations anymore, for they are a subset of the AP-Maxwell Equations.

Freshman College Math should set the course of any student in any science or engineering. Pass Freshman College Math, and you have all the math you need for life in science.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 09:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Freshman College math, probably the easiest math you will ever take
in science-- because it is Plug-in// Picking the brains.. survey of math-physics professors on Maxwell Equations
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 16:32:19 +0000

Freshman College math, probably the easiest math you will ever take in science-- because it is Plug-in// Picking the brains.. survey of math-physics professors on Maxwell Equations

Alright, I am in the midst of starting Volume 2 of TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS. It begins with Freshman College mathematics, and the bulk of the year is spent on AP Maxwell Equations. The good news is that it is mostly the mathematics of plug in. Nothing to be scared of and actually, Freshman year of college math can be the most easy year of ever doing any mathematics at all, because it is PLUG-IN.

I think everyone in the world who hates math, can do plug in.

And it is great great great, that Maxwell Equations is mostly, yes mostly all just plug in.

Give me the numbers and then plug into the equations.

The only hard part about teaching and learning Maxwell Equations, was going to the laboratory and obtaining the numbers you are about to plug in.

So we make a survey of math and physics professors and ask them why they were such pitiful wretches as teachers. We do a survey to see if they ever recognized the Maxwell Equations are just PLUG-IN. Why they made the most important and beautiful mathematics that the world must teach, why they covered it up and made it so oblique, so vague, so incomprehensible? Is it because teachers don't teach math but enjoy punishing students-- a sado masochism? Or is it because math teachers are so pathetically ignorant sods that could never teach math and they are there to make money.

So we see in Strang's book 1991, CALCULUS, let us hope he never made a new edition of such horrible teaching, on page 593 where he talks about Faraday's Law. Trouble is, never any examples of solving the equation. On page 594, Strang starts with Example 7, but never any case examples of solving any Maxwell Equations.

No wonder students hate math and have nightmares thereafter. No-one in education is telling students the straight up and the true blue, except AP.

The Maxwell Equations and the AP Maxwell Equations are the easiest math you will ever encounter in life, I guarantee you, the easiest math there ever was. Because it is all PLUG-IN mathematics.

The only hard part, is getting the numbers you will plug in. And to get those numbers, you have to step into a physics laboratory, or have the math teacher bring a demonstration of Faraday Law into the classroom and show you how he/she gets the numbers that you use to PLUG-IN.

What Strang and modern day math college classes teaches is obfuscation, horrible obfuscation and obscurity and incomprehension of math, because, well, they were never mathematicians in the first place. Because being a true mathematician, we cut through all that obscurity and make math plain simple easy for all. We make math fun and easy, so fun and easy, that the hardest math-- Maxwell equations, is the easiest of all math. Because, all you are really doing, is plugging numbers into simple equations. Strang puts his Maxwell Equations near the end of his 600 page nightmare. The author Archimedes Plutonium puts his AP-Maxwell Equations near the beginning of the textbook Volume 2 Teaching True Mathematics.

College Freshman-- around the world-- ring out or blare out the good words-- Freshman math is the easiest math you will ever take in your science career, all because it is mostly plug in.

AP



Very crude dot picture of 5f6 magnetosphere of 231Pu Atom Totality

A torus shape doing the Faraday Law inside of each and every atom.
                 __ 
       .-'               `-.      
   .'     ::\ ::|:: /::     `.
 /        ::\::|::/::         \      inside the atom is rings of Faraday Law coil and bar magnet         
;..........  _ _ ............ ;
|.......... (     ).............|     
;             - -             ;
 \         ::/::|::\::        /    neutrons form a atom-skin cover over the torus rings 
   `.     ::/ ::|:: \::     .'             
      `-    _____   .-'
     
One of those dots in the magnetosphere is the Milky Way galaxy. And
each dot represents another galaxy. The O is the Cosmic nucleus and
certainly not as dense as what Old Physics thought, and perhaps it is a void altogether
because in New Physics the interior of atoms has the Faraday law going on.

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]

Runt of Physics and Minnow of Math

AP writes: hypocrite who thinks 938 is 12% short of 945

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Runt of Physics and Minnow of Math

AP writes: hypocrite who thinks 938 is 12% short of 945

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Princeton's_Charles Fefferman, Nicholas Katz, Sergiu Klainerman, Simon Kochen, Joseph Kohn, János Kollár, Elliott Lieb are they dumb as Moroney?? ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938

Autistic

Princeton's_Charles Fefferman, Nicholas Katz, Sergiu Klainerman, Simon Kochen, Joseph Kohn, János Kollár, Elliott Lieb too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938

Physics minnow

AP writes: Unpacking Moroney, suggests Princeton 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 Princeton 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 Princeton to see real proton is 840MeV.
- hide quoted text -

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?

Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

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

Length: 21 pages

- hide quoted text -
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

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

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Michael Moroney wrote:
4:20 PM (38 minutes ago)

Re: Archimedes "just wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test

Autistic

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Princeton's_Charles Fefferman, Nicholas Katz, Sergiu Klainerman, Simon Kochen, Joseph Kohn, János Kollár, Elliott Lieb are they dumb as Moroney?? ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938

Autistic

Princeton's_Charles Fefferman, Nicholas Katz, Sergiu Klainerman, Simon Kochen, Joseph Kohn, János Kollár, Elliott Lieb too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938

Physics minnow

AP writes: Unpacking Moroney, suggests Princeton 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 Princeton 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 Princeton to see real proton is 840MeV.
- hide quoted text -

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

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?

Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
Length: 21 pages
- hide quoted text -
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Mouse of Math and Imp of Physics
Mouse of Math and Imp of Physics
Bozo of Math and Clown of Physics

AP writes: I do not think any of those Princeton people are what you kibo Parry Moroney describe, but rather you are the constant insane ad hominem stalker

Princeton's_Charles Fefferman, Nicholas Katz, Sergiu Klainerman, Simon Kochen, Joseph Kohn, János Kollár, Elliott Lieb are they dumb as Moroney?? ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938

Autistic

Princeton's_Charles Fefferman, Nicholas Katz, Sergiu Klainerman, Simon Kochen, Joseph Kohn, János Kollár, Elliott Lieb too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938

Physics minnow

AP writes: Unpacking Moroney, suggests Princeton 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 Princeton 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 Princeton to see real proton is 840MeV.
- hide quoted text -

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

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?

Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
Length: 21 pages
- hide quoted text -
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Autistic physics failure

sci.physics & sci.math are dead newsgroups due in large part to stalkers such as kibo Parry Moroney & Dan Christensen// read my science research and posts in peace and quiet in plutonium-atom-universe


Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

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

Mosquito of Math and Gnat of Physics
WARNING TO STUDENTS
Mosquito of Math and Gnat of Physics
Mosquito of Math and Gnat of Physics
Alzheimer
Autistic

stalker kibo Parry Moroney

Minnow of Math and Runt of Physics

stalker kibo Parry Moroney

Minnow of Math and Runt of Physics
Autistic
Minnow of Math and Runt of Physics

stalker kibo Parry Moroney

Minnow of Math and Runt of Physics
Mouse of Math and Phlea of Physics

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Yes, I think CalTech where the muon was discovered is the better school, for many at MIT could piss straight even with a pea shooter, considering it is these clowns who built LIGO, the kook gravity waves.

Autistic physics failure

Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 12:35:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
To: Plutonium Atom Universe <plutonium-atom-***@googlegroups.com>
Subject: instead of gold foil, use carbon graphite or diamond-- atoms have
no nucleus //Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden Experiment done over to tell the
real truth about atom geometry Re: Radioactivity facts on alpha particles

instead of gold foil, use carbon graphite or diamond-- atoms have no nucleus //Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden Experiment done over to tell the real truth about atom geometry Re: Radioactivity facts on alpha particles

Alright, in the below it seems at first glance to be a difficult Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden Experiment Do-over. But I think it is an easy do-over. I would hazard to guess that since 1913, there have been thousands of repeat experiments, all using Gold foil. And all assuming of a nucleus in atoms.

Where, if, there was one decent scientist who would go into the lab and use carbon-- graphite or diamond, would find the case that atoms of carbon have no nucleus. And instead, the ricochet or rebound of alpha particles at 180 degree from source, can be only explained as a bouncing off of a carbon atom skin coating. See my 3 possibilities below.

On Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 6:26:13 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
So very much of physics is ultimately down to the skin coating that makes up the outer surface of each and every atom. This is much about Radioactivity.

And a major major change in Physics is the physics of the geometry of atoms.

Old Physics got the idea that atoms were small balls with 99.9% of the mass residing in a dense nuclear center, with electrons as tiny tiny mass and huge space outside the nucleus, as a dot cloud where each dot is a fraction of .5 MeV for a electron, with the proton at 938MeV and the neutron at 940MeV residing in the nucleus. They justified the neutron by saying it allows the protons to stay together and not repel. This was the silly stupid view of Physics of Old Physics.

New Physics says their is no repulsion in EM theory. There is no nucleus in atoms, for the proton is 840 MeV and consists of 8 windings of a coil, while electron is the muon as 1 ring acting as a Faraday law bar magnet thrusting through the proton coil and producing magnetic monopoles, some of which are .5MeV monopoles. These monopoles are stored inside of growing neutrons. Neutrons act as capacitors, growing from the produced monopoles until they grow to 945MeV and then they cause that atom to increase in atomic number, going from say carbon to nitrogen, or fluorine to neon, etc. The neutron and monopoles reside on the surface of atoms, the interior of atoms is a Faraday coil with muon magnet going around and thrusting through proton coil, thus the atom is a torus with neutrons and monopoles as dielectric skin coating. The center of atoms is virtually a void, a donut hole analogy.

What that New Physics picture tells us to do, is recheck the old Rutherford, Geiger Marsden experiment where they conclude that the bounced back alpha particles fired upon a gold leaf foil, they interpreted that bounce back as meaning the atom has a dense nuclear region.

What we must do is repeat that experiment to show that firing alpha particles at gold leaf foil, is either,

1) the alpha particles enter inside the torus ring and naturally follow the torus path and thus are deflected back 180 degrees to the firing site.

Or,

2) the alpha particles are not entering inside the torus ring but rather are circling around the top or bottom circular path of the outside of the torus and thus deflected back 180 degrees to source.

Or,

3) the alpha particles deflected back to source are caused by the outer skin coating of the gold atoms is sufficient enough to bounce back at 180 degrees a few of the alpha particles.


I favor this third one as the likely true answer. I am betting that no physicist since 1913, had the brains to try out carbon, where carbon with its 6 protons and 6 neutrons does not have adequate skin coating cover. Gold you see has 79 protons but has 197- 79 = 118 neutrons. This is the reason atoms have to have more and more neutrons, to make a increasing need of skin coating, because the size of the gold atom torus is so large, that you need so many more neutrons to cover the torus outer surface. In fact the mathematics of how many neutrons a atom has is a logarithmic function-- meaning-- surface area of torus is logarithmic increase.

And, once real physicists, not these present day hacks of physics chasing black holes, chasing Higgs boson, chasing fusion energy, chasing gravity waves. Once the real physicists find that the rebounded alpha particle upon carbon is not what supports a "nuclear atom" but rather, supports the idea that nucleus of atoms is bogus, is fake science.

Now some will quickly think that biology is a culprit of the fake nuclear atom, thinking that by 1800s and especially 1908-1913, that cell biology proved a nuclear cell. And it is easy to think that since most cells, not all, have a nucleus, that surely physics would have the nuclear atom. In fact, biology has Prokaryotic cells-- no nucleus, and the DNA is loose and in the form of geometry of a ring or loop around the cell, much like a torus loop.

So, if in 1913, if Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden had studied or known of Prokaryotic cells more than Eukaryotic cells, then physics perhaps would have taken a better turn to truth.

But looking at the history, it appears biology was not fully aware of cells without a nucleus, and so impossible for Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden to have known of a living cell that has no nucleus-- history-- Stanier, van Niel, 1962, and Chatton's 1937. I do not know if Rutherford in 1908 wanted to know the best science of living cells-- whether a cell can exist without a nucleus, I do not know what the situation was in 1908. But I am certain that all three, Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden knew that biology cells have a well defined nucleus and am certain that swayed their interpretation of their gold leaf experiment.

And what I am saying is that atoms have no nucleus, and the alpha particles are bouncing off the surface of atoms to rebound back to the source.

This would be a major major change in all of physics-- atoms have no nucleus. And just one more result or fallout of the discovery that the real proton is 840 MeV, real electron is the muon at 105 MeV and the .5 MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole.

How one great discovery leads to thousands more, great discoveries.

In our modern day instruments, I believe we can now go through all three of the above scenarios and find out which is the true reason of the Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden experiment of 1908-1913.

Their is nothing wrong with their experiment-- for it is true that a few are deflected back 180 degrees. But there is everything wrong with their interpretation of why some alpha particles are deflected back. The entire view of a nuclear atom is a silly stupid view, for it places no job, no function, no duty, no task of subatomic particles. A stupid silly view of protons neutrons and electrons as do-nothing subatomic particles. Once you place a job or task upon proton and neutron and electron such as Faraday Law, then you cannot have the silly stupid nuclear atom.

I am going to bet that the (3) is true-- that the alpha particle bounces off the skin coating of carbon atoms. Provided, if, any alpha particles reflect back at 180 degrees.

AP


Geometry of the Chemical Bond; metallic, covalent, ionic//Chemistry Series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

This is the second book of the Series -- True Chemistry. I left off of True Chemistry with trying to solve the Chemical bond when the proton and muon inside of each and every atom is doing the Faraday Law. And since that book was already 1154 pages long, I decided to start afresh in a second book devoted to solving the Geometry of the chemical bond of metallic, covalent and ionic.
Cover Picture: PHYSICS: Part 2: Extended Version: Halliday & Resnick, 1986, pages 654, 655 talking about Capacitors and my collection of some capacitors in my lab. The first one is a two prong wall plug taken apart to show what the prongs fasten onto when plugged-in (two parallel plates). The next three are spade and socket connectors (two parallel plates). Next is circular or hook plates, and last is a cylinder plate and socket.

Length: 124 pages



Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

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

[Archimedes Plutonium]

AP writes: I agree for MIT are only fostering more fake physics, where those nutters teach 10 OR 4 = 14 with ellipse a conic when it never was.

WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't become a victim of
Minnow of Math and Runt of Physics

AP writes: I agree for MIT isd only fostering more fake physics, where those nutters teach 10 OR 4 = 14 with ellipse a conic when it never was.

Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 23:16:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
To: Plutonium Atom Universe <plutonium-atom-***@googlegroups.com>
Subject: a bit of trouble here Re: instead of gold foil, use carbon graphite
or diamond-- atoms have no nucleus //Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden Experiment
done over to tell the real truth about atom geometry

a bit of trouble here Re: instead of gold foil, use carbon graphite or diamond-- atoms have no nucleus //Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden Experiment done over to tell the real truth about atom geometry

Just when I thought I was going to treat myself to a 6 month vacation from this subject, I run across my old High School physics textbook talking about the Rutherford Geiger Marsden Experiment.

3rd edition, 1971 (actually I used a earlier edition in High School for I graduated 1968) PSSC PHYSICS, Haber-Schaim, Cross, Dodge, Walter on pages 554-555.

Quoting PSSC PHYSICS
"The first thing we learn with this apparatus is that most of the alpha particles pass through the 400 layers of atoms without appreciable change in their direction of motion. We can conclude that most of the inside of the atom has no hard, massive objects from which the alpha particles would bounce off at an angle."

Alright, I seemed to have ignored this fact and focused only on the alpha bullets deflected back to the radioactive source.

Can I account for that fact with my model of the atom as a large torus that has no nucleus but has a skin coating composed of neutrons windings and the proton is winding of rings for a Faraday Law. The muon is inside the proton coil torus as a Faraday Law bar magnet.

For the gold atom the protons are 79 would be 79x8 = 632 windings torus and 197-79 = 118 neutrons with 118x9 = 1062 windings to make a skin coating surface for the 632 windings of protons.

The alpha particle is 2x8 = 16 windings of a proton coil torus with 2x9 = 18 windings of a skin cover.

I think I can get by on this problem if I consider the size of a atom radius is directly proportional to atomic number. So for helium at 2 would be a radius 2 compared to a radius of 79. And so Circumference of torus with diameter 158, is roughly 496, and the circumference of a alpha particle is 3.14..x 4 = 12.5 roughly.

So now, for a gold atom with circumference 496 I have a ring winding of 632.

So, the picture that is emerging here, is like this graphic

| | | | as proton ring windings

and size of a alpha particle as O

And apparently then, what happens is that the O alpha particle can ram right into a few of these proton windings and not be affected, and 400 gold atoms and not be affected.

Now I need to explain the 180 degree rebound alpha particles.

I am in trouble here unless I can explain it away.

AP


Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 00:35:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
To: Plutonium Atom Universe <plutonium-atom-***@googlegroups.com>
Subject: perhaps a resolution Re: instead of gold foil, use carbon graphite
or diamond-- atoms have no nucleus //Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden Experiment
done over to tell the real truth about atom geometry

perhaps a resolution Re: instead of gold foil, use carbon graphite or diamond-- atoms have no nucleus //Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden Experiment done over to tell the real truth about atom geometry


I am pretty sure I know what the answer is here, my perplexing problem. If I look at volume of the gold atom versus volume of the alpha particle I have for radius 79 as 1,972,156 cubic volume and for alpha particle with radius 2 of volume 32 cubic volume. So that when the alpha particle slams into the gold atom torus, the material of the torus is so vastly spread around that it does encounter matter of the protons and neutrons, but the small amount of matter does not affect its travel through.

But now, how to explain those rare alpha rebounds at 180 degrees?

Here I am thinking that the 400 gold atoms bonded by metallic bond as this picture

[][][][][] 400 such gold atoms

And if a alpha particle enters the gold leaf such that those particles are perpendicular to the metallic bond capacitors --->[][][][][][]

That it is going to rebound back at 180degrees.

Now to prove my above, we need to do this experiment on 400 carbon atoms leaf thick in graphite.

Since the volume of carbon atom is 4*6^3 = 864 cubic volume and alpha particle is volume 32. That such numbers should yield a greater number of deflections, but of those deflections fewer 180 degree rebounds as in gold, provided there is any 180 degree rebound. When you have particles in collision of nearly the same size, you get more deflections rather than passing straight through.

AP

1.1- Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
1.1-
1.1- https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
1.1- Archimedes Plutonium

[Archimedes Plutonium]

why does MIT endorse insane stalkers kibo Parry Moroney when MIT should be focused on confirming real proton is 840MeV, real electron is the muon and .5 MeV was the Dirac monopole


27 year long shithead stalker kibo Parry Moroney decided to share with us On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 5:49:00 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Minnow of Math and Runt of Physics

Math Failure

27 year long shithead stalker kibo Parry Moroney decided to share with us

Minnow of Math and Runt of Physics
WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't become a victim of

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
why does MIT endorse insane stalkers kibo Parry Moroney when MIT should be focused on confirming real proton is 840MeV, real electron is the muon and .5 MeV was the Dirac monopole

27 year long shithead stalker kibo Parry Moroney decided to share with us On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 5:49:00 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Minnow of Math and Runt of Physics

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Runt of Math and Phlea of Physics
Math Failure

27 year long shithead stalker kibo Parry Moroney decided to share with us

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Minnow of Math and Runt of Physics

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Mouse of Math
Math Failure
Runt of Math and Phlea of Physics
Math Failure
Minnow of Math and Runt of Physics

1.2- Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
1.2- https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe  
1.2- Archimedes Plutonium

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Mouse of Math and Runt of Physics

Mouse of Math
Math Failure
Runt of Math and Phlea of Physics
Math Failure
Minnow of Math and Runt of Physics

1.2- Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
1.2- https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe  
1.2- Archimedes Plutonium

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Autistic physics failure

Michael Moroney wrote:
unread,
11:49 PM (6 minutes ago)



to
Snail of Math and Green-banded Broodsac Worm of Physics

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Autistic physics failure...
...needs his meds adjusted.

Michael Moroney wrote
unread,
11:49 PM (6 minutes ago)



to sci.physics
Snail of Math and Green-banded Broodsac Worm of Physics

[Archimedes Plutonium]

3---Moon Jae-in,,, kibo Parry Moroney, Barry Shein, a photo of you inside a Moon Bear cage , Hollywood acting with your bile gall bladder extracted, a picture for Nicholas Thompson Wired magazine??

Is Wired magazine's Nicholas Thompson going to cover the story this time around?


Michael Moroney wrote:
5:08 PM (16 minutes ago)

Ant of Math and Termite of Physics

Michael Moroney wrote:
5:17 PM (7 minutes ago)

Piñata of sci.math and Punching Bag of sci.physics
"struggling for relevance"
"Oh Mum, I dine Rectal Pus".

Kibo Parry Moroney stalker of 27 years of scientists, or, paid for stalker? The 27 year long stalking of AP by kibo Parry Moroney make one think that the NSF, National Science Foundation is paying for kibo Parry to stalk, paying him and World std perhaps $100 of taxpayer dollars for every stalking post that Kibo emits. So yes, if you are paid such easy money just to post ad hominem spam, then you too would probably want some of that almost free money.

---quoting Wikipedia ---
Controversy
Many government and university installations blocked, threatened to block, or attempted to shut-down The World's Internet connection until Software Tool & Die was eventually granted permission by the National Science Foundation to provide public Internet access on "an experimental basis."
--- end quote ---

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Kelvin Droegemeier , present day
France Anne Cordova
Subra Suresh
Arden Lee Bement Jr.
Rita R. Colwell
Neal Francis Lane
John Howard Gibbons 1993

Barry Shein, kibo parry std world
Jim Frost, Joe "Spike" Ilacqua



\\ ("`****/").
\\ `0_ 0 ) `-.
\\ (_&_.)' ._ )
\\ `--' / /
\\ ==(li)===========
\\
\\

[Archimedes Plutonium]

MIT fails science as Kibo Parry Moroney with 938 is 12% short of 945, their ellipse a conic when it never was, their never a geometry proof of calculus and their 10 OR 4 = 14, worst of all their 938MeV proton, 0.5MeV electron

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.

#8-1, 3rd published book

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

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

Length: 21 pages

File Size: 1620 KB
Print Length: 21 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled


#8-2, 11th published book

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

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

Product details
File Size: 1225 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: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

#6-1, 5th published book

Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

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

File Size: 764 KB
Print Length: 65 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5


Read my recent posts in peace and quiet in my own newsgroup-- nothing but science there. No spammers, no paid for by USA govt. paid stalkers, no off-topic misfits, no police drag net spam. Only pure and simple science.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Dan says when MIT lies, they cannot be left alone// Kibo Parry Moroney blames autism for MIT lies

Autistic physics failure

Dan says when MIT lies, they cannot be left alone// Kibo Parry Moroney blames autism for MIT lies

Dan Christensen stalked :
11:34 AM (6 minutes ago)

When you lie and spread malicious misinformation as you do,


#6-1, 5th published book

Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

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

File Size: 764 KB
Print Length: 65 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5


#1-3, 74th published book

HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

In 2016-2017, AP discovered that the real proton has a mass of 840 MeV, not 938. The real electron was actually the muon and the muon stays inside the proton that forms a proton torus of 8 rings and with the muon as bar magnet is a Faraday Law producing magnetic monopoles. So this book is all about why researchers of physics and engineers keep getting the number 938MeV when they should be getting the number 840 MeV + 105 MeV = 945 MeV.

Cover Picture is a proton torus of 8 rings with a muon of 1 ring inside the proton torus, doing the Faraday Law and producing magnetic monopoles.
Length: 16 pages

Product details
File Size: 699 KB
Print Length: 16 pages
Publication Date: December 18, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B082WYGVNG
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Enabled

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Autistic physics failure
autistic meltdown is worse than I thought,
needs his meds adjusted.

Kibo Parry Moroney stalks "Mouse of Math and Shrimp of Physics" Caltech Thomas F Rosenbaum, MIT's L. Rafael Reif with his 10 OR 6 = 16; his ellipse a conic when it never was; his proton to electron at 938 to 0.5 MeV when in truth it is 840 to 105 MeV, kibo says "Cult of Failure."


Michael Moroney stalked:
Aug 13, 2020, 12:26 AM

Tunicate of Math and Sea Squirt of Physics
"I ate my brain"
"Rum Demon, Eat Pus Chili".

Michael Moroney wrote:
Aug 13, 2020, 11:10 PM

Mouse of Math and Shrimp of Physics
"signifying nothing."
Wow! I didn't know you enjoyed my anagrams that much! As I told you that if >you attacked me I strike back, and lawsuite threats are certainly attacks! So I
will have to crank up the anagram generators!!
then I walk into the courtroom with box after box marked with labels such as
"AnalButtfuckManure Attacks"

Michael Moroney stalked:
Aug 13, 2020, 4:10 PM

spell "Cane him! Lime Turd Soup!".

Michael Moroney stalked:
Aug 10, 2020, 5:42 PM

Math Failure
spell "Maul Hot Penis Cum Ride".

Michael Moroney stalked:
2:43 PM

Still the army of diseased cats?
WARNING TO STUDENTS, PARENTS and TEACHERS
He will corrupt the minds of your children!
Cult of Failure. He is trying to convince
students to worship his evil
"wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place"
flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test

Aug 10, 2020, 10:13 PM

rearranged, spell "Oh Mum! Ride-A-Penis Cult!".
Autistic
Hahahahahaha!!!!! Not only did Stupid
get his butt kicked big time,
he doesn't even realize he got his butt kicked!
Juno has been supplying excellent science for years! Hardly "crippled"!

AP writes: Dr. Panchanathan, please review the NSF funds, and see if NSF is paying for a crazy insane Kibo to stalk real scientists on Usenet for 27 years. A gross abuse of taxpayer dollars. Juno was crippled in mission at the outset because NASA never realized the full magnetic field of Jupiter.
And to have Kibo Parry Moroney a clown of science with his 938 is 12% short of 945, posting in sci.physics is a joke on whatever the science topic is.

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.

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

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

Michael Moroney stalked:
1:42 PM

Well, nymshifter, it's quite easy to know if it's a nutjob posting, and that
it's guaranteed wrong. Same
as for a few others,
Also, if it's your current
nymshift of the week, guaranteed nutjob

Michael Moroney stalked:
1:08 AM

annoys himself with anagrams. He knows perfectly well that if he attacks
me he gets anagrams in response. Since he continues to attack me, I can only
conclude he actually enjoys the anagrams.

Michael Moroney stalked:
7:30 AM 

Autistic
"figures out" anything is
he'll pull an idea from his butt, then he sniffs it and admires it, then he
sniffs it and admires it some more, before he finally has a Megatard Moment
when he declares his idea, no matter how loony, to be The Truth. Science and
Math content: 0%. Evidence: 0%.

Kibo Parry Moroney stalker of 27 years of scientists, or, paid for stalker? The 27 year long stalking of AP by kibo Parry Moroney make one think that the NSF, National Science Foundation is paying for kibo Parry to stalk, paying him and World std perhaps $100 of taxpayer dollars for every stalking post that Kibo emits. So yes, if you are paid such easy money just to post ad hominem spam, then you too would probably want some of that almost free money.

---quoting Wikipedia ---
Controversy
Many government and university installations blocked, threatened to block, or attempted to shut-down The World's Internet connection until Software Tool & Die was eventually granted permission by the National Science Foundation to provide public Internet access on "an experimental basis."
--- end quote ---

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Dr. Panchanathan
France Anne Cordova
Subra Suresh
Arden Lee Bement Jr.
Rita R. Colwell
Neal Francis Lane
John Howard Gibbons 1993

Barry Shein, kibo parry std world
Jim Frost, Joe "Spike" Ilacqua



Michael Moroney stalked:
Aug 3, 2020, 10:42:29 PM 

Mouse of Math and Shrimp of Physics
"signifying nothing."
rearranged, spell "Erica: Nude mom, hip slut".

Michael Moroney stalked:
Aug 3, 2020, 10:42:29 PM 

Mouse of Math and Shrimp of Physics
"signifying nothing."
rearranged, spell "Erica: Nude mom, hip slut".

Michael Moroney stalked:
unread,
1:34 AM 
to sci.physics

Physics Failure
"fruitcake of physics"
For it's the latest Megatard Moment
Even more megatatded than
his covid "cure" he pulled from his butt, sniffed it, admired its aroma
rearranged, spell "Mom: Epic hair, nude slut"

14-Nicholas Thompson, Wired magazine// Kibo Parry Moroney, stalker sickfuck gets published in Wired for his 938 is 12% short of 945, Yoo, Nick, why not publish John Baez or Steven Weinberg with his 938MeV proton, 0.5MeV electron which a hydrogen atom ceases to exist

Quoting Wikipedia—
In the early 1990s, as public awareness grew of the Internet and Usenet, Parry received publicity, including a cover story in Wired magazine..
Nicholas Thompson, editor in chief, Wired magazine

LIST of Failed Physicists because they still believe electron is 0.5MeV, in no order, and so very stupid are they in physics, for they could not even understand the physics of angular momentum of two particles 938 to 0.5 rather than 840 to 105 MeV so that a hydrogen atom can exist in a 840 to 105 ratio, never a 938 to 0.5 ratio

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
.
Max Tegmark
.
.
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
Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
None at all - he was a raving nutter.
Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley
Edward Witten

.
.



AP writes: Nicholas, so you give front cover to a 27 year long stalker like James Kibo Parry? Yoo, Nick, why not give front page coverage to John Baez, Steven Weinberg with his proton 938 MeV, electron 0.5 MeV which hydrogen atom would fall apart.


#1-3, 74th published book

HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

In 2016-2017, AP discovered that the real proton has a mass of 840 MeV, not 938. The real electron was actually the muon and the muon stays inside the proton that forms a proton torus of 8 rings and with the muon as bar magnet is a Faraday Law producing magnetic monopoles. So this book is all about why researchers of physics and engineers keep getting the number 938MeV when they should be getting the number 840 MeV + 105 MeV = 945 MeV.

Cover Picture is a proton torus of 8 rings with a muon of 1 ring inside the proton torus, doing the Faraday Law and producing magnetic monopoles.
Length: 16 pages

Product details
File Size: 699 KB
Print Length: 16 pages
Publication Date: December 18, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B082WYGVNG
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

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


#8-1, 3rd published book

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

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

Length: 21 pages

File Size: 1620 KB
Print Length: 21 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled


#8-2, 11th published book

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

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

Product details
File Size: 1225 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: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Michael Moroney
unread,
11:20 PM (1 hour ago)



to

Subject: 1-22 List of Physics fakeries// 130th book// Introduction to AP's

The letters in "Archimedes Plutonium", rearranged, spell "Cute Rhino mauls me, Dip!".

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

<snip autistically reposted spam>
Wow, Archie's autistic meltdown is worse than I thought, with two more
autistic reposts of his bizarre nonsense posts directed to some uninvolved
professors, and including the famous 12 Failures of Plutonium.
Time for someone to call Archie's doc and tell him Archie needs his
meds adjusted.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Autistic physics failure

Dan says when MIT lies, they cannot be left alone// Kibo Parry Moroney blames autism for MIT lies

Dan Christensen stalked :
11:34 AM (6 minutes ago)

When you lie and spread malicious misinformation as you do,


#6-1, 5th published book

Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

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

File Size: 764 KB
Print Length: 65 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5


#1-3, 74th published book

HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

In 2016-2017, AP discovered that the real proton has a mass of 840 MeV, not 938. The real electron was actually the muon and the muon stays inside the proton that forms a proton torus of 8 rings and with the muon as bar magnet is a Faraday Law producing magnetic monopoles. So this book is all about why researchers of physics and engineers keep getting the number 938MeV when they should be getting the number 840 MeV + 105 MeV = 945 MeV.

Cover Picture is a proton torus of 8 rings with a muon of 1 ring inside the proton torus, doing the Faraday Law and producing magnetic monopoles.
Length: 16 pages

Product details
File Size: 699 KB
Print Length: 16 pages
Publication Date: December 18, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B082WYGVNG
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Enabled

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Kibo Parry Moroney says Demon cult MIT, Dr. Tobias Colding, Laurent Demanet
never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac magnetic monopole. Cannot even tell the difference between ellipse and oval, see proofs below.
Michael Moroney wrote:
Aug 19, 2020, 9:55 PM
"Demon cult Raise him Up".

#8-1, 3rd published book

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

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

Length: 21 pages

File Size: 1620 KB
Print Length: 21 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled


#8-2, 11th published book

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

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

Product details
File Size: 1225 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: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

#6-1, 5th published book

Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

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

File Size: 764 KB
Print Length: 65 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5


#1-3, 74th published book

HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

In 2016-2017, AP discovered that the real proton has a mass of 840 MeV, not 938. The real electron was actually the muon and the muon stays inside the proton that forms a proton torus of 8 rings and with the muon as bar magnet is a Faraday Law producing magnetic monopoles. So this book is all about why researchers of physics and engineers keep getting the number 938MeV when they should be getting the number 840 MeV + 105 MeV = 945 MeV.

Cover Picture is a proton torus of 8 rings with a muon of 1 ring inside the proton torus, doing the Faraday Law and producing magnetic monopoles.
Length: 16 pages

Product details
File Size: 699 KB
Print Length: 16 pages
Publication Date: December 18, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B082WYGVNG
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

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

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Nude Hitler Mosaic, Ump

Math Failure
"Nude Hitler Mosaic, Ump!"
Autistic physics failure

[Michael Moroney]

Subject: 1.3 List of 65 fakes and mistakes in Physics// 130th book//

[snip the 65 Failures of Plutonium]

The letters in "Archimedes Plutonium", rearranged, spell "Is Hitler a Nude Cop, Mum?".

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Kibo Parry Moroney says MIT a shit rump, but who cares what a paid stalker of 27 years says about anything with his 938 is 12% short of 945.

Shit! Rump Enema!".

#4-10, 83rd published book

Airfoil Lift solved, true theory of how flight is possible///Physics series for High School book 10 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

When I was in High School, in the Cincinnati, Ohio region, I remember reading in "General Science" classrooms of what was the explanation of why planes flew in the sky. Of course, so young of age we never questioned the truth or veracity of such, we accepted it, especially since we are graded on ideas like that. And the picture we saw of how a airplane flies, is a picture of a wing with the air having many lines of pressure under the wing and few lines of pressure over the top of the wing. And then a arrow of lift upwards because the high pressure below the wing lifted the wing and airplane upwards. I do not think it was given the name Bernoulli's law, and I am certain that Newton's law of every action has equal and opposite reaction was not mentioned back then circa 1965 in Ohio classrooms.

But now, fast forward to January 23, 2020 some 55 years later, and to my pleasant surprise, in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN (SA) magazine, their FEB2020 issue starting page 44 is an article titled "The Enigma of Aerodynamic Lift" "No one can completely explain why planes stay in the air" by Ed Regis.

And I had just published a few days earlier in January, two books talking about the fact that the chemistry molecule of O2 that composes 21% of the air, is a polar molecular. Polar molecule just like water, H2O is a polar molecule. A polar molecule is filled with electricity and magnetism, just ready to go into action. And so, reading this SA article, and fresh in mind that O2 is brimming with electricity and magnetism, made me realize-- there is a new and third and better explanation for why airplanes fly. Thus was born the true theory of why planes fly, as you read the text below.

Cover Picture: Is my photo of a Google Search on Bumblebees.
Length: 22 pages

Product details
File Size: 961 KB
Print Length: 22 pages
Publication Date: January 24, 2020
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B0846F1JKP
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

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






#4-11, 85th published book

Proof Stars shine from Faraday Law, not from fusion // (Physics series for High School book 11) Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium

On 30JAN2020, while watching the BBC on TV, was news and video images of the Sun's surface, showing what looks like golden chips, with white flowing magnetism or electricity as the white flowing in between the golden chips. This was exciting, extremely exciting because with this "observational data" I could use it to prove that the Sun and stars shine not from fusion but from Faraday Law of each and every atom inside the Sun having its muons thrust through its attendant proton coil and producing electricity and magnetism via the Faraday and Ampere laws. This is what gives stars their shining outbursts of energy, their starshine or for the sun, sunshine. If star energy was due to fusion, there would be very little light in the universe. There would be no life on Earth. So with the 30 JAN2020 report, I can use those video imagines to actually prove our Sun is a Faraday Law machine, not a fusion machine.

Cover Picture is my photograph of the BBC video image. A BBC quote: "The Daniel K Inouye Solar Telescope on Hawaii has released pictures that show features as small as 30km across."

Length: 20 pages

Product details
File Size: 963 KB
Print Length: 20 pages
Publication Date: January 30, 2020
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B084D54TH8
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

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



#4-12, 87th published book

Photosynthesis // Physics series for High School book 12 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Photosynthesis is big important science, it is the food foundation source for animal life on Earth. It is the science of how plants turn sunlight plus carbon dioxide CO2 gas plus water H2O into carbohydrates (sugar) for which is the basis of the food chain for animals. So here we study and learn how Photosynthesis works. How sunlight energy plus CO2 plus H2O are turned into a sugar carbohydrate of CH2O.

Cover Picture: Is a photo of a Google search for chlorophyll, magnesium, capacitor. The key to understanding how Photosynthesis works is the capacitor of physics, and the magnesium metal atom in chlorophyll forms a capacitor. Do you see that picture of all those balls in a planar sheet? That is a capacitor with the magnesium metal being the ball, and the tail hanging down from the ball are formed-sugars.

Length: 30 pages

Product details
File Size: 1132 KB
Print Length: 30 pages
Publication Date: February 13, 2020
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B084T8NHXP
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

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


#4-13, 116th published book

Rewrite of all Wave theory of Old Physics // Physics series for High School book 13 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium



#1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory

For decades I have experimented with generating waves on strings, and never found a sinusoid wave on strings. I could not generate a down pulse, but only up pulses. And so I decided that Waves of Old Physics were fake and needs to be trashcanned. This topic affects not only physics and the hard sciences but also mathematics for they too, still believe in the fakery of sine, cosine and sinusoid waves. What replaces this fakery is the true waves of physics and mathematics, the Periodic Polynomials which are a sequence of parabolas.

Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of a set of experiments using a high speed motion camera of waves generated on a coil spring in the High School Physics textbook of PSSC, 1971, page 96.


Product details
File Size: 636 KB
Print Length: 21 pages
Publication Date: April 28, 2020
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B087TKZ3T9
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #261,678 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#17 in Electromagnetic Theory
#36 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
#9 in 30-Minute Science & Math Short Reads




#5-1, 61st published book

Raw Research into ANGULAR-MOMENTUM DYNAMICS// Physics focus series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)


Warning to any reader. This research book is advanced and unless you know a lot of physics and math, you be advised that much is difficult to read.

No-one in the 20th century of physics understood what Angular Momentum truly was. Two of the best and finest mathematical physicists Dirac and Feynman missed understanding what Angular Momentum was. I say that because both believed you could have a electron at .5 MeV with proton at 938 MeV and have a hydrogen atom. When you fail at knowing what Angular Momentum is and what it is all about, then you will fail in realizing the true electron of atoms is the muon at 105 MeV and the true proton of atoms is 840 MeV, so that the muon and proton conduct Faraday's law inside of a hydrogen atom, or any atom for that sake.

Cover Picture is my handwritten like blackboard writing of the AP-EM Equations. Those equations get at the heart of what Angular Momentum means. And if you have no idea of what that math is, you be advised that this book is too difficult for you.
Length: 126 pages

Product details
File Size: 859 KB
Print Length: 126 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publication Date: August 30, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07XB9BLX2

[Michael Moroney]

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Airfoil Lift solved, true theory of how flight is possible///Physics serie

The letters in "Archimedes Plutonium", rearranged, spell "Trump laid his emu once".

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Atom Totality Universe: Atom Totality Series book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)


Physics book that explains what the universe is, and how it works. This is a continuation of the Atomic Theory by Democritus in Ancient Greek times. It adds one more fact to the Atomic Theory. That the Universe itself is one gigantic big atom. It completes the logic of science that Dr. Feynman wrote-- all things are made up of atoms -- and so, to complete that idea -- all things and the universe itself is an atom.

Also, I revise the entire Maxwell Equations, and electrodynamics theory.

Cover Picture is my photograph of one of my earliest copyright title of this idea of Plutonium Atom Totality. It was on my cover for the copyrights to the Library of Congress in early 1990s. The discovery was made in November 7, 1990, and several articles published in Dartmouth College newspaper. I jam-packed full one picture as my earliest cover, trying to explain to people how the electron-dot-cloud of an atom is the stars and galaxies and astronomy all packed into one electron, in trying to get people to understand how all we see in the night sky is actually just one electron of a huge atom of plutonium. Very difficult to explain to people with no science training. And in this picture of early 1990s, I still had the name "Ludwig Plutonium" before legally changing it to "Archimedes Plutonium".
Length: 616 pages


Product details
File Size: 1089 KB
Print Length: 616 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLP9NDR
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
 Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #578,229 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
                #1610 in Physics (Kindle Store)
                #8526 in Physics (Books)
                #18851 in Biological Sciences (Books)

#1-2, 48th published book

Plutonium Atom Totality Universe, Atom Totality Series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)


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 represents 11 protons for each proton consists of 8 rings, in a Faraday Law magnetic induction coil and the smaller ring inside the 88 rings is a muon as a bar magnet thrusting through the proton coil, thereby, producing electricity. If I were to place 11 smaller rings inside the 88 torus ring, I would have a atom of sodium, since 11 protons and 11 muons. Every atom of the chemical periodic-table of elements, is shaped like one big torus of all its protons, and all its muons are inside at a perpendicular and connected together, and thrusting through the proton torus coil, doing a Faraday law producing magnetic monopoles, those particles such as 0.5MeV. The neutrons of every atom are skin coatings onto the proton torus coil, and the neutrons act as capacitors, storing the monopoles produced by the protons and muons in Faraday Law. This is how atoms grow, and this is how stars shine, for the Faraday law produces sunshine.

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: 130 pages

Product details
File Size: 2366 KB
Print Length: 130 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)


#1-3, 74th published book

HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

In 2016-2017, AP discovered that the real proton has a mass of 840 MeV, not 938. The real electron was actually the muon and the muon stays inside the proton that forms a proton torus of 8 rings and with the muon as bar magnet is a Faraday Law producing magnetic monopoles. So this book is all about why researchers of physics and engineers keep getting the number 938MeV when they should be getting the number 840 MeV + 105 MeV = 945 MeV.

Cover Picture is a proton torus of 8 rings with a muon of 1 ring inside the proton torus, doing the Faraday Law and producing magnetic monopoles.
Length: 16 pages

Product details
File Size: 699 KB
Print Length: 16 pages
Publication Date: December 18, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B082WYGVNG
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

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


#1-4, 105th published book

Atom Geometry is Torus Geometry // Atom Totality series, book 4 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Since all atoms are doing the Faraday Law inside them, of their thrusting muon into a proton coil in the shape of a geometry torus, then the torus is the geometry of each and every atom. But then we must explain the neutrons since the muon and proton are doing Faraday's Law, then the neutron needs to be explained in terms of this proton torus with muon inside, all three shaped as rings. The muon is a single ring and each proton is 8 rings. The neutron is shaped like a plate and is solid not hollow. The explanation of a neutron is that of a capacitor storing what the proton-muon rings produce in electricity. Where would the neutron parallel plates be located? I argue in this text that the neutron plates when fully grown from 1 eV until 945MeV are like two parallel plate capacitors where each neutron is part of one plate, like two pieces of bread with the proton-muon torus being a hamburger patty.

Cover Picture: I assembled two atoms in this picture where the proton torus with a band of muons inside traveling around and around the proton torus producing electricity. And the pie-plates represent neutrons as parallel-plate capacitors.
Length: 39 pages


Product details
File Size: 935 KB
Print Length: 39 pages
Publication Date: March 24, 2020
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B086BGSNXN
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,656,820 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#6413 in Mathematics (Kindle Store)
#315 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
#4953 in Physics (Kindle Store)




#1-5, 112th published book

New Perspective on Psi^2 in the Schrodinger Equation in a Atom Totality Universe// Atom Totality series, book 5
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

I first heard of the Schrodinger equation in college chemistry class. We never actually did any problem solving with the equation, and we were only told about it. Then taking physics my next year in college and after I bought the Feynman Lectures on Physics, just for fun for side reading, three volume set did I learn what this Schrodinger equation and the Psi^2 wavefunction was about. I am not going to teach the mathematics of the Schrodinger equation and the math calculations of the Psi or Psi^2 in this book, but leave that up to the reader or student to do that from Feynman's Lectures on Physics. The purpose of this book is to give a new and different interpretation of what Psi^2 is, what Psi^2 means. Interpretation of physics experiments and observations turns out to be one of the most difficult tasks in all of physics.

Cover Picture: a photograph taken of me in 1993, after the discovery of Plutonium Atom Totality, and I was 43 years old then, on a wintery hill of New Hampshire. It is nice that Feynman wrote a physics textbook series, for I am very much benefitting from his wisdom. If he had not done that, getting organized in physics by writing textbooks, I would not be writing this book. And I would not have discovered the true meaning of the Fine Structure Constant, for it was Feynman who showed us that FSC is really 0.0854, not that of 0.0072. All because 0.0854 is Psi, and Psi^2 is 0.0072.
Length: 20 pages

Product details
File Size: 1134 KB
Print Length: 20 pages
Publication Date: April 15, 2020
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B0875SVDC7
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,852,340 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#1297 in General Chemistry & Reference
#488 in 30-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#9574 in Physics (Kindle Store)







#2-1, 2nd published book

True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)



Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of .5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere.

Cover picture: shows two of my chemical models, one of CO and the other CO2


Length: 1150 pages

File Size: 1456 KB
Print Length: 1150 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLVMMSZ
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
                Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
                #181 in General Chemistry & Reference
                #1324 in General Chemistry
                #1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)

[Michael Moroney]

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calcu

The letters in "Archimedes Plutonium", rearranged, spell "Dim Menu: Rat Chili Soup!"

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Geometry of the Chemical Bond; metallic, covalent, ionic//Chemistry Series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)


This is the second book of the Series -- True Chemistry. I left off of True Chemistry with trying to solve the Chemical bond when the proton and muon inside of each and every atom is doing the Faraday Law. And since that book was already 1154 pages long, I decided to start afresh in a second book devoted to solving the Geometry of the chemical bond of metallic, covalent and ionic.
Cover Picture: PHYSICS: Part 2: Extended Version: Halliday & Resnick, 1986, pages 654, 655 talking about Capacitors and my collection of some capacitors in my lab. The first one is a two prong wall plug taken apart to show what the prongs fasten onto when plugged-in (two parallel plates). The next three are spade and socket connectors (two parallel plates). Next is circular or hook plates, and last is a cylinder plate and socket.

Length: 131 pages




Product details
File Size: 1304 KB
Print Length: 131 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publication Date: June 21, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07TCVBD93
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

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




#2-3, 81st published book

Animal-CO2 of the 3 CO2 isomers// Chemistry Series, book 3
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)


CO2 molecule has 3 isomers. An isomer means same chemical formula but different geometries. The 3 isomers of CO2 come from fire-CO2 and animal-CO2. The fire-CO2 has the carbon atom as central in the molecule and one of the oxygen atoms has a unshared dipole. The animal-CO2 has the carbon atom on the periphery with an unshared dipole.
This is very important chemistry science for it impacts Global Warming but also hugely impacts biology because plants can only live on animal-CO2 and the fire-CO2 is a toxic poison to plants, much like CO is a toxic poison to animals.

Here we learn new facts about the molecules CO, N2, CO2, O2 and even H2O, new facts we never understood before, all because the real electron is the muon stuck inside a proton doing the Faraday Law and that chemical bonding is governed not by electrons but by Dirac magnetic monopoles, and that makes the Lewis structure be based on 6 not 8.

New concepts in chemistry: Lewis structure based on 6, not 8, and the unshared dipole. For a Lewis Structure based on 6, not 8, is the only logical way that the strongest bonded molecules end up being CO and N2. With a Lewis 8 Structure, the strongest bonded molecules, by logic, note, by logic would have to be O2 and FH or possibly FB. However, the proof is that bond dissociation energy of CO is the highest, proving Lewis 6 Structure is the true structure of Chemistry.

source: chem.ucsb.edu

in kJ/mol

CO 1076
N2  946
CO2 532
O2  498
C2 as in diamond is 602 kJ/mol
H2O = 492
OH = 425
H2 = 432

Cover Picture is a winter stored potted clover that I am experimenting with and shows a animal-CO2 molecule going in, and going out is a O2 molecule that animals need to breathe.
Length: 15 pages


Product details
File Size: 1042 KB
Print Length: 15 pages
Publication Date: January 19, 2020
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B084217LB9
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

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


#2-4, 38th published book

Hypothesis that Tar restores the Iron in Rust, back to the iron metal object// Chemistry series, book 4 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Back in 2003 I noticed that while working on my roof, that when I pulled off tar on steel, that the steel was shiny bright iron with no rust while all around where no tar was, was much rust. So that started me to think whether tar acts as a chemical reaction in which it takes the iron atoms out of rust and places those iron-atoms-back-into-the-iron-object. Now that was 2003, and I have not had much time to really dive into experiments on this topic. For one reason-- I have to wait years for the tar to dissolve the rust and perhaps return the iron from iron oxide back into the original iron object. No, I do not have years and I was far too busy with other items of science. But now I plan to do more on this subject. Especially since in 2017 I discovered the real electron of atoms is the muon at 105MeV and real proton is 840MeV, casting brand new light on chemistry and chemical reactions. The iron rust molecule Fe2O3 in New Chemistry where the .5MeV particle is not the electron but is Dirac's magnetic monopole, has to be reviewed in terms of this new found knowledge, and whether or not, tar can return the Fe2 back to the original metal object.

Picture cover: About 5 years ago this hammer and trowel were both iron rusted surfaces, both had iron rust, the trowel worse than the hammer. I put tar on the trowel rusty surface and today with a chisel removed some tar and see the shiny bright iron surface. I suppose if I had coated the hammer back then when I coated the trowel, the hammer would also be bright shiny iron. So the tar must have done something to not only remove the rust but restore the trowel to "more iron bright shiny surface", some claim (see below in text) that the tar only lifted the rust off the iron surface. I think there is more to it than just adhesion lift, and am thinking the tar takes the iron atoms out of iron oxide and puts the iron atoms back into the original iron object. So this is not a proof by any means, but a hypothesis, and a request for more research.
Length: 32 pages

File Size: 2655 KB
Print Length: 32 pages
Publication Date: April 9, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07QK428KN

#2-5, 119th published book

Research Notebook of AP on True Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements based on 6, not the error-filled table of Old Chemistry, Chemistry Series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

In 2016-2017, AP discovered that the real true electron of atoms was the muon and this muon is stuck inside its attendant proton. The muon is of 105MeV while the proton is 840 MeV. The particle that JJ Thomson in 1897 discovered was not the electron of atoms but instead was the Dirac magnetic monopole. Such a huge huge mistake throughout all of chemistry and physics, to think the electron was 0.5MeV orbiting around a proton of 938MeV breaks even the angular momentum concept of physics, for no hydrogen atom can exist with a 0.5 MeV particle traveling almost the speed of light around a 938MeV particle just will not stay together. And besides, in that Bohr-Rutherford model of the atom, their subatomic particles have no function, no job, no task, nothing. In that viewpoint of the atom, there is little wonder that their Table of Elements would be mostly error after error after mistake.
Length: 108 pages

Product details
File Size: 1083 KB
Print Length: 108 pages
Publication Date: May 21, 2020
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B0891TTP29
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 



#2-6, 123rd published book

World's first logical teaching of 6.02*10^23, Avogadro's number and "mole"; refurbished with "hyasys" and 5.98*10^23 // Chemistry series, book 6
Kindle Edition

by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

I was worried I did not reach the target audience on this topic of mole and Avogadro's number. The cover picture is a High School physics textbook, a later edition of PSSC that I took when I was in High School circa 1967. It teaches mole and Avogadro's number. So I needed to write this textbook starting High School, because it is shameful to teach wrong science in either High School or University.

Cover Picture is page 448-9 of PSSC Physics, 3rd ed., 1971, Haber-Schaim, Cross, Dodge, Walter, explaining how Rutherford in 1919 weighed the mass of the proton in a experiment. It is disheartening to find I cannot see that experiment in a Google search because of another famous experiment of Rutherford of the gold leaf. And lucky for me that I retrieved this PSSC book I used in High School circa 1967-8 that explains how the proton mass was weighed in physics history. The mass of the proton is vital to understand the mole and Avogadro's number concept. Sad of course that every Old Chemistry and Old Physics textbooks that teaches the concept mole and Avogadro number never mentions the proton mass as crucial to understanding.

Table of Contents
------------------------

1) I am irate over the lack of logic that goes into teaching the concepts of mole and of Avogadro's number.

2) Explaining the mole and Avogadro's number using nucleon as unit basis, with 8 lessons.

3) Survey of several textbooks to see if any teacher of chemistry or physics had the concept of mole and Avogadro's number correct.

4) Explaining the mole and Avogadro's number using the Hydrogen Atom, not the nucleon, as unit basis, with 8 lessons.

5) Replacing the word "nucleon" with hyasys and refurbishing the inaccurate number 6.02*10^23 with the more precise true number 5.98*10^23.

Length: 67 pages

Product details
File Size: 796 KB
Print Length: 67 pages
Publication Date: June 10, 2020
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B08B1GCRDH
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

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






#3-1, 45th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; textbook math series, book 1 Kindle Edition

by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)




#1 New Releasein General Geometry


Volume 1 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education.

This is the one textbook series in several volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education starting age 5 up to age 26. Volume 1 is for age 5 year old to that of senior in High School, that is needed to do both science and math. Every other math book is incidental to this series of Teaching True Mathematics.

I call it a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost on a daily basis. A unique first in education textbooks-- almost a continual overnight editing. Adding new text, correcting text. Volume 1 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education. Volume 2 carries the Freshperson in College for their math calculus education.

Cover Picture: The Numbers as Integers from 0 to 100, and 10 Grid when dividing by 10, and part of the 100 Grid when dividing by 100. Decimal Grid Numbers are the true numbers of mathematics. The Reals, the rationals & irrationals, the algebraic & transcendentals, the imaginary & Complex, and the negative-numbers are all fake numbers. For, to be a true number, you have to "be counted" by mathematical induction. The smallest Grid system is the Decimal 10 Grid.

Length: 375 pages






Product details
File Size: 2013 KB
Print Length: 375 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)

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.  And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.

There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe  
Archimedes Plutonium

[Michael Moroney]

Subject: List of 70 fakes and mistakes in Physics// 130th book// Introduction

The letters in "Archimedes Plutonium", rearranged, spell "Um, Hitler and Mice Soup!"

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Animal-CO2 of the 3 CO2 isomers// Chemistry Series, book 3
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)


CO2 molecule has 3 isomers. An isomer means same chemical formula but different geometries. The 3 isomers of CO2 come from fire-CO2 and animal-CO2. The fire-CO2 has the carbon atom as central in the molecule and one of the oxygen atoms has a unshared dipole. The animal-CO2 has the carbon atom on the periphery with an unshared dipole.
This is very important chemistry science for it impacts Global Warming but also hugely impacts biology because plants can only live on animal-CO2 and the fire-CO2 is a toxic poison to plants, much like CO is a toxic poison to animals.

Here we learn new facts about the molecules CO, N2, CO2, O2 and even H2O, new facts we never understood before, all because the real electron is the muon stuck inside a proton doing the Faraday Law and that chemical bonding is governed not by electrons but by Dirac magnetic monopoles, and that makes the Lewis structure be based on 6 not 8.

New concepts in chemistry: Lewis structure based on 6, not 8, and the unshared dipole. For a Lewis Structure based on 6, not 8, is the only logical way that the strongest bonded molecules end up being CO and N2. With a Lewis 8 Structure, the strongest bonded molecules, by logic, note, by logic would have to be O2 and FH or possibly FB. However, the proof is that bond dissociation energy of CO is the highest, proving Lewis 6 Structure is the true structure of Chemistry.

source: chem.ucsb.edu

in kJ/mol

CO 1076
N2  946
CO2 532
O2  498
C2 as in diamond is 602 kJ/mol
H2O = 492
OH = 425
H2 = 432

Cover Picture is a winter stored potted clover that I am experimenting with and shows a animal-CO2 molecule going in, and going out is a O2 molecule that animals need to breathe.
Length: 15 pages


Product details
File Size: 1042 KB
Print Length: 15 pages
Publication Date: January 19, 2020
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B084217LB9
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

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


#2-4, 38th published book

Hypothesis that Tar restores the Iron in Rust, back to the iron metal object// Chemistry series, book 4 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Back in 2003 I noticed that while working on my roof, that when I pulled off tar on steel, that the steel was shiny bright iron with no rust while all around where no tar was, was much rust. So that started me to think whether tar acts as a chemical reaction in which it takes the iron atoms out of rust and places those iron-atoms-back-into-the-iron-object. Now that was 2003, and I have not had much time to really dive into experiments on this topic. For one reason-- I have to wait years for the tar to dissolve the rust and perhaps return the iron from iron oxide back into the original iron object. No, I do not have years and I was far too busy with other items of science. But now I plan to do more on this subject. Especially since in 2017 I discovered the real electron of atoms is the muon at 105MeV and real proton is 840MeV, casting brand new light on chemistry and chemical reactions. The iron rust molecule Fe2O3 in New Chemistry where the .5MeV particle is not the electron but is Dirac's magnetic monopole, has to be reviewed in terms of this new found knowledge, and whether or not, tar can return the Fe2 back to the original metal object.

Picture cover: About 5 years ago this hammer and trowel were both iron rusted surfaces, both had iron rust, the trowel worse than the hammer. I put tar on the trowel rusty surface and today with a chisel removed some tar and see the shiny bright iron surface. I suppose if I had coated the hammer back then when I coated the trowel, the hammer would also be bright shiny iron. So the tar must have done something to not only remove the rust but restore the trowel to "more iron bright shiny surface", some claim (see below in text) that the tar only lifted the rust off the iron surface. I think there is more to it than just adhesion lift, and am thinking the tar takes the iron atoms out of iron oxide and puts the iron atoms back into the original iron object. So this is not a proof by any means, but a hypothesis, and a request for more research.
Length: 32 pages

File Size: 2655 KB
Print Length: 32 pages
Publication Date: April 9, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07QK428KN

#2-5, 119th published book

Research Notebook of AP on True Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements based on 6, not the error-filled table of Old Chemistry, Chemistry Series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

In 2016-2017, AP discovered that the real true electron of atoms was the muon and this muon is stuck inside its attendant proton. The muon is of 105MeV while the proton is 840 MeV. The particle that JJ Thomson in 1897 discovered was not the electron of atoms but instead was the Dirac magnetic monopole. Such a huge huge mistake throughout all of chemistry and physics, to think the electron was 0.5MeV orbiting around a proton of 938MeV breaks even the angular momentum concept of physics, for no hydrogen atom can exist with a 0.5 MeV particle traveling almost the speed of light around a 938MeV particle just will not stay together. And besides, in that Bohr-Rutherford model of the atom, their subatomic particles have no function, no job, no task, nothing. In that viewpoint of the atom, there is little wonder that their Table of Elements would be mostly error after error after mistake.
Length: 108 pages

Product details
File Size: 1083 KB
Print Length: 108 pages
Publication Date: May 21, 2020
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B0891TTP29
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 



#2-6, 123rd published book

World's first logical teaching of 6.02*10^23, Avogadro's number and "mole"; refurbished with "hyasys" and 5.98*10^23 // Chemistry series, book 6
Kindle Edition

by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

I was worried I did not reach the target audience on this topic of mole and Avogadro's number. The cover picture is a High School physics textbook, a later edition of PSSC that I took when I was in High School circa 1967. It teaches mole and Avogadro's number. So I needed to write this textbook starting High School, because it is shameful to teach wrong science in either High School or University.

Cover Picture is page 448-9 of PSSC Physics, 3rd ed., 1971, Haber-Schaim, Cross, Dodge, Walter, explaining how Rutherford in 1919 weighed the mass of the proton in a experiment. It is disheartening to find I cannot see that experiment in a Google search because of another famous experiment of Rutherford of the gold leaf. And lucky for me that I retrieved this PSSC book I used in High School circa 1967-8 that explains how the proton mass was weighed in physics history. The mass of the proton is vital to understand the mole and Avogadro's number concept. Sad of course that every Old Chemistry and Old Physics textbooks that teaches the concept mole and Avogadro number never mentions the proton mass as crucial to understanding.

Table of Contents
------------------------

1) I am irate over the lack of logic that goes into teaching the concepts of mole and of Avogadro's number.

2) Explaining the mole and Avogadro's number using nucleon as unit basis, with 8 lessons.

3) Survey of several textbooks to see if any teacher of chemistry or physics had the concept of mole and Avogadro's number correct.

4) Explaining the mole and Avogadro's number using the Hydrogen Atom, not the nucleon, as unit basis, with 8 lessons.

5) Replacing the word "nucleon" with hyasys and refurbishing the inaccurate number 6.02*10^23 with the more precise true number 5.98*10^23.

Length: 67 pages

Product details
File Size: 796 KB
Print Length: 67 pages
Publication Date: June 10, 2020
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B08B1GCRDH
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

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






#3-1, 45th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; textbook math series, book 1 Kindle Edition

by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)




#1 New Releasein General Geometry


Volume 1 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education.

This is the one textbook series in several volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education starting age 5 up to age 26. Volume 1 is for age 5 year old to that of senior in High School, that is needed to do both science and math. Every other math book is incidental to this series of Teaching True Mathematics.

I call it a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost on a daily basis. A unique first in education textbooks-- almost a continual overnight editing. Adding new text, correcting text. Volume 1 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education. Volume 2 carries the Freshperson in College for their math calculus education.

Cover Picture: The Numbers as Integers from 0 to 100, and 10 Grid when dividing by 10, and part of the 100 Grid when dividing by 100. Decimal Grid Numbers are the true numbers of mathematics. The Reals, the rationals & irrationals, the algebraic & transcendentals, the imaginary & Complex, and the negative-numbers are all fake numbers. For, to be a true number, you have to "be counted" by mathematical induction. The smallest Grid system is the Decimal 10 Grid.

Length: 375 pages






Product details
File Size: 2013 KB
Print Length: 375 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)




#3-2, 55th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 2 for age 18-19, 1st year College Calculus, math textbook series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)


This is volume 2, series 2 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Freshperson of age 18-19. This is 1st year college calculus math. It is the continuation of volume 1 for ages 5 through 18 years old. The main major topic is the AP-EM equations of electricity and magnetism. The end goal of this textbook is to teach all math, physics, chemistry, biology and hard sciences the mathematics they need to continue in science. This textbook at the end teaches students the mathematics of electricity and magnetism. In Old Math, they devoted about 1/3 of their textbook content to reach the Maxwell Equations at the end, but sadly, no Old Math textbook was ever able to cover the Maxwell Equations with any comprehension, and left the students with headaches, nightmares and nervous breakdowns of the mathematics needed to do electricity and magnetism. This textbook resolves all those problems. And this textbook asks the students and parents of students to equip their daughter or son with a tool kit of instruments to do electricity and magnetism.
Cover Picture is my EM instruments to gain numbers for the laws of EM theory: a multimeter, galvanometer attached to a coil with a strong bar magnet inside. Three electromagnets and a transformer to step down 120 volts to 12 volts to run the electromagnets. A case of iron powder to measure the strength of magnets and a battery case. I urge students who can afford these instruments to use them as you take this course in calculus.
Length: 140 pages

Product details
File Size: 1322 KB
Print Length: 140 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publication Date: August 16, 2019
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07WN9RVXD
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,212,707 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2719 in Calculus (Books)
#417 in Calculus (Kindle Store)



[Michael Moroney]

Subject: COLLEGE CALCULUS GUIDE to help students reco

The letters in "Archimedes Plutonium", rearranged, spell "Hail Cutie Demon's Rump".

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Archimedes Plutonium<***@gmail.com>
Apr 8, 2021, 9:07:17 PM (yesterday)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright it has to be one of the greatest gaffe's of physics thinking that if electron structure determines characteristics of the atoms and yet in the GSI experiment where they strip away +50 electrons (what they thought were electrons= 0.5MeV) of Pr59 and Pm61, praseodymium and promethium, to strip away at GSI of more than 50 of the so called electrons and still have remaining the elements praseodymium and promethium intact and looking ever so much like the praseodymium and promethium before the experiment even was started.

So, well, what I want to mention here is how loose of marbles physicists have and how so inconsistent in logic they have. The claim all of chemistry is about the behavior of electrons, and yet they remove +50 of their so called electrons from Pr and Pm, yet, after all this removal, there are the Pr and Pm atoms, looking non the different from before the GSI researchers removed their 0.5MeV particles.

So, what is going on here? What is going on is that the real electrons were muons and stuck inside proton toruses of Pr and Pm, and what the GSI researchers had removed were Dirac magnetic monopoles produced by the protons+muons and storaged inside neutrons as capacitors.

So, we have to look at radioactivity far different, in that Beta decay is not electrons but is Dirac magnetic monopoles and that gamma decay is another emission from storaged electricity by the action of muons thrusting through proton toruses.

AP
King of Science


Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<***@gmail.com>
Apr 8, 2021, 10:07:47 PM (yesterday)



to Plutonium Atom Universe


On to sample problem 5 in H&R page 648

So that H&R on page 644 have the current density J = i/A. The cross sectional area A of the aluminum wire is
A = 1/4 pi d^2 = (pi/4)(2.5*10^-3m)^2 = 4.91*10^-6m^2.

Continuing.

So that J = 1.3A / 4.91*10^-6m^2
= 2.6*10^5 A/m^2 = 26 A/cm^2 for aluminum

The cross-sectional area for copper wire is 2.54*10^-6m^2
J= 1.3A / 2.54*10^-6m^2
= 5.1*10^5 A/m^2 = 51 A/cm^2 for copper

H&R says the fact that the wires are of different material does not affect the answers.

So, Sample Problem 5 (a) What is the strength of the electric field E, present in the copper conductor of Sample Problem 2?

In Problem 2 the current density J was 5.1*10^5 A/m^2.

From tables of resistivity for copper is 1.69*10^-8 ohm*m

So from equation E = resistivity x current density .

We have E = (1.69*10^-8 ohm*m)(5.1*10^5 A/m^2) = 8.6*10^-3 V/m (copper)

(b) What is the magnitude of the electric field E in the n-type silicon semiconductor of Sample Problem 4?

In Problem 4 the J= 6500 A/m^2 and from table of resistivity of semiconductor to be 8.7*10^-4 ohm*m.
So from equation E= resisitivityx current density

E = (8.7*10^-4 ohm*m)(6500 A/m^2) = 5.7 V/m (n-type silicon)

H&R write: "We see that the electric field in the silicon semiconductor (5.7 V/m) is considerably higher than that in the copper conductor (8.7*10^-3 V/m). We can understand this in terms of the much lower concentration of charge carriers in silicon than in copper. From the relation J = nev_d, we see that for a given current density, the charge carriers in silicon (because there are so few of them) must drift faster, which means that the electric field acting on them must be stronger."

AP writes: horrible explanation, for AP Voltage = i*B*E, rather than Old Physics of H&R with their Voltage = i*Resistance. We all know copper is a great conductor and so the Electric field is a direct relation with resistance, and so the higher E field value of silicon semiconductor is directly proportional to being a larger resistor.

AP
King of Science

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<***@gmail.com>
Apr 9, 2021, 1:42:39 AM (yesterday)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
From H&R, Fundamentals of Physics, 3rd edition, 1988, page 648
Sample Problem 6
A rectangular block of iron has dimensions 1.2 x 1.2 x 15 cm. (a) What is the resistance of the block measured between the two square ends? The resistivity of iron at room temperature is 9.68 *10^-8 ohm*m

Area of square end is 1.44*10^-4 m^2 (remember meter= 100 cm)
From the equation Resistance = (resistivity x length of wire) / cross section area
= (9.68*10^-8 ohm*m)(0.15m)/ 1.44*10^-4 m^2 = 1.0*10^-4 ohm

(Here is a flaw of H&R, in confusing symbols and not enough repeat explanation, for example A is cross section area in some places and charge flow in others.)

(b) What is the resistance between two opposing rectangular faces?
The area of a rectangular face is (1.2*10^-2m) (0.15m) or 1.80 * 10^-3 m^2
From the equation Resistance = (resistivity x length of wire) / cross section area
= (9.68*10^-8 ohm*m)(1.2*10^-2 m)/ 1.80*10^-3 m^2 = 6.5*10^-7 ohm

Of course the above is Old Physics, which had resistivity different from resistance. In New Physics with the correct Ohm's law formula of Voltage = i *B*E the Resistance is B*E, magnetic field times electric field. Old Physics was oblivious to the idea that resistance is a fight between magnetic field with electric field.

And for that reason, Old Physics Ohm's law as V = i*R was not a universal law but broke down in high electric fields.

In New Physics, since we include magnetic field with electric field in V= i*B*E, it is a universal law.

In Old Physics, Ohm's law as V= iR did not work universally if the voltage was too large, if the current was too large, or if the electric field was too large. In New Physics, New Ohm's Law works universally because we have another term to interplay with voltage, current and electric field. The new term is magnetic field and it makes New Ohm's law a universal law.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<***@gmail.com>
Apr 9, 2021, 3:50:39 PM (8 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright I am going to have to review with intensity this statement of H&R on page 646, in the chapter of Resistance and Resistivity.

--- Quoting H&R ---
Instead of dealing with the current i through the resistor, we deal with the current density J at the point in question. Instead of the resistance R we define a new quantity, the resistivity from resistivity = Electric field/ J.
--- end quote --

H&R as many others over use the Greek letters, and students are hurt from this.

So here, according to AP was a grand screw-up of true physics by making unnecessary and foolish definitions.

In Old Physics with their Ohm's law as Voltage = current times Resistance, when compared to New Physics of Voltage = current times Magnetic field times Electric field

I suspect we can dispense with Resistivity along with Resistance. And the reason Old Physics needed this resistivity was due to the fact that the real true Ohm's law was V= iBE and not the V= iR.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics


Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<***@gmail.com>
12:01 AM (8 minutes ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, I need to wrap it up on the chapter of New Ohm's Law. We start 1st year college physics not with the traditional thoroughfare of Old Math with their Kepler's laws then Newton laws and gravity. No, we start Physic immediately to the core and heart of Physics, All is Atom and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism and that means New Ohm's law as foundation of the math of all of physics. A math of form A = B*C*D, or, specifically Voltage = i * magnetic field * electric field.

As taught in High School physics, New Ohm's law math form is a volume form of Volume = length*width*height.

Basically there are 4 great laws of Physics, starting with New Ohm's law V= iBE. Then the 3 other great laws of physics are permutations of New Ohm's law, and those three are divisions of i= V/BE and of B = V/iE and of E = V/iB.

Now math is super super easy in New Physics because the only functions that exist are Polynomial functions. No, we do not drag in or muddy the house with all these various ugly and confusing functions of trigonometry, exponential, logarithmic, you name it, none are functions and have to be converted to a polynomial if not already a polynomial. Once the function is a polynomial, we can bring it into the house of physics and where we easily, easily solve any and all math problems, especially the EM Equations listed above as differential equation of V' = (iBE)' and i' = (V/BE)' and B' = (V/iE)' and E' = (V/iB)'.

So math is super easy in New Physics.

We skip Kepler's laws and Newton's laws and gravity for those are minor aspects of these four EM laws of V' = (iBE)' and i' = (V/BE)' and B' = (V/iE)' and E' = (V/iB)'. For example, gravity is under the E' = (V/iB)'.

Now it was mentioned that Ohm's law in Old Physics of V = iR was not a universal law of physics due to it breaking down when (1) high voltage (2) high current (3) high electric field. But in New Physics New Ohm's law is Universal, simply because Old Physics forgot the missing terms of magnetic and electric field in place of resistance; V= iBE.

So a true Ohm's law graph involves V = iBE and that is in 3rd dimension with a axes for current, for B and for E.

The reason that we see in Old Physics a Ohm's law that is linear for current to Voltage as seen in H&R page 649. Is due to a restriction of the range on V=iBE. But if we drew graphs of V=iBE rather than V = iResistance we see the linearity be universally upheld.

The same can be said of the Rectangular Box of Volume = length*width*height. So in that case, if we drew a graph of Rectangular boxes as a function of V=lwh we have a linearity that was universal. But say we were a magician and clouded "wh" width and height in fog, and only was clear on volume and length, then here, also, most graphs are not linear, due to the simple fact we made obscure what "wh" was.

So, in this textbook for 1st year college students we dive straight into the EM equations and the New Ohms law for that law is the foundation of EM equations. The differential equation of V=iBE is governed by the simple and easy Power Rule of Calculus, and since our functions are all polynomials, they are a breeze in calculating.

Before I leave this chapter I like to give students a long math lesson on the differential equation of V' = (iBE)' where I use linear polynomial functions for each of i, B, and E. Say I use Y= x for i and use Y=2x+1 for B and use Y= 3x+2 for E. In the true world, the B and E would likely be quadratic equation such as Y = x^2 for B and Y= x^2/3 for E. But, no matter, so long as all functions are polynomials and all the equations of importance in all of physics are just these 4 equations of EM theory, then physics, all of a sudden has become a trillion times easier, both for students and teachers alike.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Kibo Parry Moroney (Nick Thompson & Barry Shein) with his 938 is 12% short of 945 deriding Penn State on their physics.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
"little fish of science"

#2-1, 137th published book

Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)



#1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory

This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so I can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me.

Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics community updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast, as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to.

Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory.
And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
Length: 64 pages

Product details
• File Size : 790 KB
• Publication Date : October 5, 2020
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 64 pages
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Language: : English
• ASIN : B08KS4YGWY
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory
◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads

#2-2, 145th published book


TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and errors and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the halls and corridors of education.

Product details
• ASIN : B08PC99JJB
• Publication date : November 29, 2020
• Language: : English
• File size : 682 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 78 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #344 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books)

#2-3, 146th published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Books in this series are.
Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS High School junior year, book 2
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS High School senior year, book 3
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS Freshperson college, book 4
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS Sophomore college, book 5
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS Junior college, book 6
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS Senior college, book 7

Preface: I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science, you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the science. I further believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later years of physics courses, we can always pick up on details. So I devote this senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this textbook.

Product details
• ASIN : B08RK33T8V
• Publication date : December 28, 2020
• Language: : English
• File size : 917 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 114 pages
• Lending : Enabled





#3-1, 2nd published book

True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere.

Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule.

Length: 1150 pages


Product details
• File Size : 2167 KB
• ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ
• Publication Date : March 11, 2019
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 1150 pages
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#181 in General Chemistry & Reference
#1324 in General Chemistry
#1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Kibo wants the world to accept Gay Homosexual Logic with his 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction 2 AND 1 = 1. Kibo wants physics to be his image of Gay Physics for he failed science with his 938 is 12% short of 945.

Boole was gay and made a gay mistake in the truth tables of AND, for it is not TFFF but truly is TTTF. And now some 140 years later we have other Gays like Dan Christensen and so many of his creepy allies of Jan Burse, Franz, Kibo Parry Moroney defending Gay Logic and attacking those who want SCIENCE as truth, not some sex orientation phony baloney.

I am not suggesting that the 12 stalkers are 12 homosexuals.

(Franz) > I am not suggesting that the 12 stalkers are 12 [male --me] homosexuals.
(Franz)> I'm sure they are. That's why they are called /12 Angry Men/!

#6-1, 5th published book

Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
Preface:
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 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. 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: 72 pages

File Size: 773 KB
Print Length: 72 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 




#6-2, 27th published book

Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum// Teaching True Logic series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)


Last revision was 9NOV2020. This is AP's 27th published book.

Preface:
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 unknown, undefined 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.
Length: 86 pages

Product details
• File size : 1178 KB
• Print length : 86 pages
• Publication date : March 23, 2019
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Language: : English
• ASIN : B07Q18GQ7S
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #3,263,298 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #648 in Logic (Kindle Store)
◦ #1,885 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #3,314 in Mathematical Logic


#6-3, 143rd published book

DeMorgan's Laws are fantasies, not laws// Teaching True Logic series, book 3 Kindle Edition
By Archimedes Plutonium

The Logic community never had the correct truth table of the primitive 4 connectors of Logic, (1) Equal compounded with NOT, (2) AND, (3) OR, (4) IF->THEN. In 1800s, the founders of Logic messed up in terrible error all 4 of the primitive logic connectors. And since the 1900s, AP was wanted an explanation why Old Logic got all 4 connectors in total error? What was the reason for the mess up? And in the past few years, I finally pinned the reason to starting Logic with DeMorgan's fake laws, from which Boole, a close friend of DeMorgan, was going to keep his friendship and accept the DeMorgan Laws. That meant that DeMorgan, Boole, Jevons accepted OR as being that of Either..Or..Or..Both, what is called the inclusive OR. But the inclusive OR is a contradiction in terms, for there never can exist a combo of OR with AND simultaneously. This book goes into detail why the DeMorgan laws are fake and fantasy.

Product details
• File Size : 620 KB
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 38 pages
• ASIN : B08M4BY4XM
• Publication Date : October 27, 2020
• Language: : English
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Lending : Enabled
•
•



#6-4, 100th published book

Pragmatism, the only Philosophy I loved // Teaching True Logic series, book 4 Kindle Edition
By Archimedes Plutonium

I need to give credit to the philosophy of Pragmatism, the only philosophy that I know of that is based on science. Credit for my discovery of the Plutonium Atom Totality in 1990, came in part, partially due to a passage of the Pragmatist Charles Sanders Peirce in Peirce's Cosmology:

Peirce's The Architecture of Theories...
...would be a Cosmogonic Philosophy. It would suppose that in the beginning - infinitely remote - there was a chaos of unpersonalized feeling, which being without connection or regularity would properly be without existence. This feeling, sporting here and there in pure arbitrariness, would have
started the germ of a generalizing tendency. Its other sportings would be evanescent, but this would have a growing virtue. Thus, the tendency to habit would be started; and from this, with the other principles of evolution, all the regularities of the universe would be evolved. At any time, however, an element of pure chance survives and will remain until the world becomes an absolutely perfect, rational, and symmetrical system, in which mind is at last crystallized in the infinitely distant future.
--- end quoting Peirce's Cosmology ---

But also I must give credit to Pragmatism for making it a philosophy one can actually live their lives by, for living a life of pragmatic solutions to everyday problems that occur in my life. A case in point example is now in March 2020, being the pragmatist that I am, and enduring the 2020 corona virus pandemic. No other philosophy that I know of is so keenly in tune with a person, the surrounding environment and how to live.
Length: 123 pages

Product details
• File size : 807 KB
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 123 pages
• Publication date : March 14, 2020
• ASIN : B085X863QW
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #4,160,707 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #61,471 in Philosophy (Kindle Store)
◦ #193,599 in Science & Math (Kindle Store)
◦ #240,849 in Philosophy (Books)




y z
| /
| /
|/______ x

More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.

In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.

There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Why is MIT so pitifully dumb and stupid in logical reasoning? Because it is a simple question to ask oneself-- did Thomson in 1897 mistakenly think he found the atom's electron, when in reality he found the Dirac magnetic monopole which would be invented by 1930s? And that when Rabi asked the question of the muon-- "who ordered that?" because it was totally out of place, unless, unless, you have a logical brain, a logical mind to see that Thomson's electron was not the electron but Dirac's monopole and that the muon was actually the real true electron of atoms.

So, well, in this entire world of Earth, we can ask every 1st year college student, whether in science or not in science ask them to entertain the idea, that the real electron of atoms is the muon and that Thompson mistakenly found something that was not the electron of atoms. Every 1st year college student can think about that as a mistake. But not a single college professor of science can even entertain that possibility of a mistake for not even a minute. It is as if every, every college professor of science is cold empty headed of "asking a logical question". It is as if the invasion of the body snatchers movie has come true and started with the college professors of science and turned what "little of a mind there was, into a miniscule mind".

Hard to imagine any University, not just Cornell where Feynman spent time there. And things have gone nothing but downhill, downhill, downhill since Feynman departed.

But imagine for one minute that Cornell prides itself on science yet they trained their computers to read "Either .. or.. or.. Both" so that the computers would do addition in Boole Logic as 2 OR 1 = 3, and subtraction as 2 AND 1 = 1.

You see, no-one at Cornell has a microgram brain of Logic, to say, Boole got his logic wrong and that 2 AND 1 = 3 because Boole screwed up on the truth table of AND has to be TTTF and not Boole's TFFF.

So, what does Cornell Univ do? You guessed it, no-one there has a microgram brain of logic, and probably Feynman's departure from Cornell was in recognition that no-one at Cornell has a logical thinking mind.

Sad sad sad story of Cornell university and Dan Christensen the filthy stalker is right in saying-- pink slip the entire lot. Because who can stomach a University that can never question its own idiocy, where Martha E. Pollack, Cornell Univ continues to preach and teach Cornell Students that 2 OR 1 = 3 that AND truth table is TFFF when in reality it is TTTF, and Martha goes so far as to train all Cornell Computers to run on Boole Logic of addition is OR with AND as subtraction.

Does Martha have "loose marbles?" because all she really needs to do is just accept the truth-- Boole screwed up and that the true truth tables of Logic has AND as addition with TTTF. That is all she has to do, make the switcherooo to truth.

No-one at Princeton Univ nor at UCLA can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, but can anyone at Penn State do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus or are they "in the weeds" as Princeton and UCLA.

Dan Christensen on why Terence Tao is nothing but a nuisance to mathematics-- a empty headed con-artist out for prizes and money but no math results. And the time that Tao and Green alleged they proved something about primes, well, it is laughable that Terry is so dumb in mathematics, he never realized that "primes do not exist" for Naturals, because there is no division well defined upon them. So, take 1 and divide it by 3 and you get 0.333... occurs because a well defined prime concept has all its division returned as one of those numbers. Multiplication is well defined upon Naturals because you take any two of them, multiply and it returns you a Natural. But then, Tao was never a mathematician, but just a playful goofball of math.

WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of

Please do not be a victim of Terry Tao propaganda campaign, for he knows calculus is geometry, yet the imbecile imp never realized that calculus being geometry, meant that he had to do a geometry proof of calculus, not a mindless limit-analysis. No, is Terry waiting for some bonehead organization to pay him 10 million in another prize money thrown out the window before imp Tao tries to do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

11th published book

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

Last revision was 4Apr2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had (1) a ill-defined infinity; (2) they had the fakery of Limit concept; and (3) they had the fakery of a continuum; and (4) perhaps most important of all as long as Old Math had the wrong numbers that compose mathematics that no geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus was ever possible. Sad that starting 1900, Planck showed that Space is discrete in physics, not continuous, leading to the rise of Quantum Mechanics. But the fools of mathematics went the opposite direction in wanting ever more a continuum in mathematics. They spent the entire 20th century riding high on Cohen's depraved continuum. You could almost say that starting 1900, the people in mathematics compared to those in physics would become more and more ignorant and further estranged, and that a widening schism rift separated math from physics, from the realities of the actual world as the future decades and centuries rolled by. And who knows where this rift would leave math as a science decreasing in vim and vigor. Will it end in math becoming a third or fourth tier science, ranking it above say economics but far below even psychology, because much of math proof is kook psychology acceptance divorced of reality. In this view, physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, even geology ranked far higher in power and wisdom than math.

By the 19th and 20th and 21st centuries, the single number one important topic and subject in all of mathematics was Calculus, and the reason being, is that Physics is mostly calculus, the science of motion and change. And everyone in math knows that calculus is geometry. So, then, to not have a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is a failure and failing of being a mathematician.

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.

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

---------------------------
Table of Contents
---------------------------

1) Preliminary mathematics needed to do the Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

2) How the dumb limit concept was borne, that is a con-artist job.

3) When you know the true numbers of mathematics, Decimal Grid Numbers, you need no limit concept.

4) Mathematics has two houses, one is numbers, one is geometry.

5) All numbers come from physics because the Universe is just one big atom of 231Pu.

6) History of my discovery of Decimal Grid Numbers.

7) The error of having a proper Coordinate System to do the Calculus as 1st Quadrant Only with all positive Decimal Grid Numbers.

8) Concept of Infinity versus Finite for Calculus.

9) Brief proofs of the Infinity borderline, especially Huygens tractrix.

10) World's first picture diagram proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus by 2015.

11) Calculus the very most important math to date.

12) Everyone in mathematics knows that Calculus is geometry.

Length: 39 pages

Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1236 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 39 pages
Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)





If Dr. Tao had studied and read AP textbooks Teaching True Math, he would not have failed math and calculus so miserably, and at least learned a Geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus as well as the true numbers of mathematics = Decimal Grid Numbers. And then Kibo Parry Moroney will stop his 28 year stalking streak and be placed into a insane asylum.

"irrelevant"
flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
Stooge"

#4-1, 134th published book
Introduction to TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 1 for ages 5 through 26, math textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
The 134th book of AP, and belatedly late, for I had already written the series of TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS in a 7 volume, 8 book set. This would be the first book in that 8 book set (one of the books is a companion book to 1st year college). But I suppose that I needed to write the full series before I could write the Introduction and know what I had to talk about and talk about in a logical progression order. Sounds paradoxical in a sense, that I needed to write the full series first and then go back and write the Introduction. But in another sense, hard to write an introduction on something you have not really fully done and completed. For example to know what is error filled Old Math and to list those errors in a logical order requires me to write the full 7 volumes in order to list in order the mistakes.
Cover Picture: Mathematics begins with counting, with numbers, with quantity. But counting numbers needs geometry for something to count in the first place. So here in this picture of the generalized Hydrogen atom of chemistry and physics is a torus geometry of 8 rings of a proton torus and one ring where my fingers are, is a equator ring that is the muon and thrusting through the proton torus at the equator of the torus. So we count 9 rings in all. So math is created by atoms and math numbers exist because atoms have many geometry figures to count. And geometry exists because atoms have shapes and different figures.
Product details
• ASIN : B08K2XQB4M
• Publication date : September 24, 2020
• Language : English
• File size : 576 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 23 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #4,307,085 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #1,241 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #1,345 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #10,634 in Calculus (Books)
•
#4-2, 45th published book
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 2 for ages 5 to 18, math textbook series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
#1 New Releasein General Geometry
Last revision was 2NOV2020.
Preface: Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education.
This is a textbook series in several volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education starting age 5 up to age 26. Volume 2 is for age 5 year old to that of senior in High School, that is needed to do both science and math. Every other math book is incidental to this series of Teaching True Mathematics.
It is a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost on a daily basis. A unique first in education textbooks-- almost a continual overnight editing. Adding new text, correcting text. Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education. Volume 3 carries the Freshperson in College for their math calculus education.
Cover Picture: The Numbers as Integers from 0 to 100, and 10 Grid when dividing by 10, and part of the 100 Grid when dividing by 100. Decimal Grid Numbers are the true numbers of mathematics. The Reals, the rationals & irrationals, the algebraic & transcendentals, the imaginary & Complex, and the negative-numbers are all fake numbers. For, to be a true number, you have to "be counted" by mathematical induction. The smallest Grid system is the Decimal 10 Grid.
Length: 375 pages
Product details
File Size: 2013 KB
Print Length: 375 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)
#4-3, 55th published book
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 18-19, 1st year College Calculus, math textbook series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Preface: This is volume 3, book 3 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Freshperson students, students of age 18-19. It is the continuation of volume 2 for ages 5 through 18 years old.
The main major topic is the AP-EM equations of electricity and magnetism, the mathematics for the laws of electricity and magnetism; what used to be called the Maxwell Equations of Physics. The 1st Year College Math has to prepare all students with the math for all the sciences. So 1st year college Math is like a huge intersection station that has to prepare students with the math they need to do the hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etc. What this means is, 1st year college is calculus that allows the student to work with electricity and magnetism. All the math that is needed to enable students to do electricity and magnetism. In Old Math before this textbook, those Old Math textbooks would end in 1/3 of the text about Arclength, vector space, div, curl, Line Integral, Green's, Stokes, Divergence theorem trying to reach and be able to teach Maxwell Equations. But sadly, barely any Old Math classroom reached that 1/3 ending of the textbook, and left all those college students without any math to tackle electricity and magnetism. And most of Old Math was just muddle headed wrong even if they covered the last 1/3 of the textbook. And that is totally unacceptable in science. This textbook fixes that huge hole and gap in Old Math education.
And there is no way around it, that a course in 1st year College Calculus is going to do a lot of hands on experiment with electricity and magnetism, and is required of the students to buy a list of physics apparatus-- multimeter, galvanometer, coil, bar magnet, alligator clip wires, electromagnet, iron filing case, and possibly even a 12 volt transformer, all shown in the cover picture. The beginning of this textbook and the middle section all leads into the ending of this textbook-- we learn the AP-EM Equations and how to use those equations. And there is no escaping the fact that it has to be hands on physics experiments in the classroom of mathematics.
But, do not be scared, for this is all easy easy easy. For if you passed and enjoyed Volume 1 TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, then I promise you, you will not be stressed with Volume 2, for I go out of my way to make it clear and understandable.
Warning: this is a Journal Textbook, meaning that I am constantly adding new material, constantly revising, constantly fixing mistakes or making things more clear. So if you read this book in August of 2019, chances are it is different when you read it in September 2019. Ebooks allow authors the freedom to improve their textbooks on a ongoing basis.
The 1st year college math should be about the math that prepares any and all students for science, whether they branch out into physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, or math, they should have all the math in 1st year college that will carry them through those science studies. I make every attempt possible to make math easy to understand, easy to learn and hopefully fun.
Cover picture of this textbook are instruments that I used to get numbers for EM theory, the Faraday law, the Ampere law etc. If the student has the money to buy these instruments, I recommend it, only, be careful, because you can electrocute yourself if you are a youngster at heart and more playful than wise, and putting things into wall plugs. I never put any thing in a wall plug at home, other than a electric cord. The cost of these instruments can be rather cheap, and a old train transformer can be obtained to step down the voltage of 120 V to 12V for the electromagnets. Most people that take 1st year college calculus, are generally likely to have these instruments already at home from their parents-- like a multimeter or a old train transformer. Then, the college can always make these tools available for the last chapters where we plug-into the EM equations for Faraday's law and Ampere's law. I firmly am a pragmatist teacher-- meaning-- learning is in the "doing", "doing" and "more doing", not just sitting around and taking notes. I remember hands on experiments and demonstrations in my High School and College classes when I went to school, and can vouch for the fact that long after all other things of those classes faded away, but not the visual hands on experiments.
Length: 140 pages
Product details
File Size: 1322 KB
Print Length: 140 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publication Date: August 16, 2019
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07WN9RVXD
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,212,707 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2719 in Calculus (Books)
#417 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
#4-4, 56th published book
COLLEGE CALCULUS GUIDE to help students recognize math professor spam from math truth & reality// math textbook series, book 4 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
#1 New Releasein 15-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
This textbook is the companion guide book to AP's Teaching True Mathematics, 1st year College. It is realized that Old Math will take a long time in removing their fake math, so in the interim period, this Guide book is designed to speed up the process of removing fake Calculus out of the education system, the fewer students we punish with forcing them with fake Calculus, the better we are.
Cover Picture: This book is part comedy, for when you cannot reason with math professors that they have many errors to fix, that 90% of their Calculus is in error, you end up resorting to comedy, making fun of them, to prod them to fix their errors. To prod them to "do right by the students of the world" not their entrenched propaganda.
Length: 54 pages
Product details
File Size: 1035 KB
Print Length: 64 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publication Date: August 18, 2019
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07WNGLQ85
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #253,425 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#38 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#318 in Calculus (Books)
#48 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
#4-5, 72nd published book
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 4 for age 19-20 Sophomore-year College, math textbook series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Preface: This is volume 4, book 5 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Sophomore-year students, students of age 19-20. It is the continuation of volume 3 in the end-goal of learning how to do the mathematics of electricity and magnetism, because everything in physics is nothing but atoms and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. To know math, you have to know physics. We learned the Calculus of 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. But we did not learn the calculus of those equations for 3rd dimension. So, you can say that Sophomore year College math is devoted to 3D Calculus. This sophomore year college we fill in all the calculus, and we start over on all of Geometry, for geometry needs a modern day revision. And pardon me for this book is mostly reading, and the students doing less calculations. The classroom of this textbook has the teacher go through page by page to get the students comprehending and understanding of what is being taught. There are many hands on experiments also.
Cover Picture shows some toruses, some round some square, torus of rings, thin strips of rings or squares and shows them laid flat. That is Calculus of 3rd dimension that lays a ring in a torus to be flat in 2nd dimension.
Length: 103 pages
Product details
File Size: 949 KB
Print Length: 103 pages
Publication Date: December 2, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B0828M34VL
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
#4-6, 75th published book
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 5 for age 20-21 Junior-year of College, math textbook series, book 6 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2019
Preface: This is volume 5, book 6 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Junior-year students, students of age 20-21. In first year college Calculus we learned calculus of the 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. And in sophomore year we learned calculus of 3rd dimension to complete our study of the mathematics needed to do the physics of electricity and magnetism. Now, junior year college, we move onto something different, for we focus mostly on logic now and especially the logic of what is called the "mathematical proof". Much of what the student has learned about mathematics so far has been given to her or him as stated knowledge, accept it as true because I say so. But now we are going to do math proofs. Oh, yes, we did prove a few items here and there, such as why the Decimal Grid Number system is so special, such as the Pythagorean Theorem, such as the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus with its right-triangle hinged up or down. But many ideas we did not prove, we just stated them and expected all students to believe them true. And you are now juniors in college and we are going to start to prove many of those ideas and teach you "what is a math proof". Personally, I myself feel that the math proof is overrated, over hyped. But the math proof is important for one reason-- it makes you better scientists of knowing what is true and what is a shaky idea. A math proof is the same as "thinking straight and thinking clearly". And all scientists need to think straight and think clearly. But before we get to the Mathematics Proof, we have to do Probability and Statistics. What you learned in Grade School, then High School, then College, called Sigma Error, now becomes Probability and Statistics. It is important because all sciences including mathematics needs and uses Probability and Statistics. So, our job for junior-year of college mathematics is all cut out and ahead for us, no time to waste, let is get going.
Cover Picture: is a sample of the Array Proof, a proof the ellipse is not a conic but rather a cylinder cut wherein the oval is the slant cut of a cone, not the ellipse.
Length: 160 pages
Product details
ASIN : B0836F1YF6
Publication date : December 26, 2019
Language : English
File size : 740 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 160 pages
Lending : Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #3,768,255 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #3,591 in Probability & Statistics (Kindle Store)
◦ #19,091 in Probability & Statistics (Books)
#4-7, 89th published book
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 6 for age 21-22 Senior-year of College, math textbook series, book 7 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2020
Last revision was 30OCT2020.
Preface: This is the last year of College for mathematics and we have to mostly summarize all of mathematics as best we can. And set a new pattern to prepare students going on to math graduate school. A new pattern of work habits, because graduate school is more of research and explore on your own. So in this final year, I am going to eliminate tests, and have it mostly done as homework assignments.
Cover Picture: Again and again, many times in math, the mind is not good enough alone to think straight and clear, and you need tools to hands-on see how it works. Here is a collection of tools for this senior year college classes. There is a pencil, clipboard, graph paper, compass, divider, protractor, slide-ruler. And for this year we spend a lot of time on the parallelepiped, showing my wood model, and showing my erector set model held together by wire loops in the corners. The plastic square is there only to hold up the erector set model.
Length: 109 pages
Product details
File Size: 822 KB
Print Length: 109 pages
Publication Date: February 15, 2020
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B084V11BGY
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
#4-8, 90th published book
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 7 for age 22-26 Graduate school, math textbook series, book 8 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2020
Last revised 1NOV2020.
Preface: This is College Graduate School mathematics. Congratulations, you made it this far. To me, graduate school is mostly research, research mathematics and that means also physics. So it is going to be difficult to do math without physics. Of course, we focus on the mathematics of these research projects.
My textbook for Graduate school is just a template and the professors teaching the graduate students are free of course to follow their own projects, but in terms of being physics and math combined. What I list below is a template for possible projects.
So, in the below projects, I list 36 possible research projects that a graduate student my like to undertake, or partake. I list those 36 projects with a set of parentheses like this (1), (2), (3), etc. Not to be confused with the chapters listing as 1), 2), 3), etc. I list 36 projects but the professor can offer his/her own list, and I expect students with their professor, to pick a project and to monitor the student as to his/her progresses through the research. I have listed each project then cited some of my own research into these projects, below each project is an entry. Those entries are just a help or helper in getting started or acquainted with the project. The entry has a date time group and a newsgroup that I posted to such as sci.math or plutonium-atom-universe Google newsgroups. Again the entry is just a help or helper in getting started.
Now instead of picking one or two projects for your Graduate years of study, some may select all 36 projects where you write a short paper on each project. Some may be bored with just one or two projects and opt for all 36.
Cover Picture: A photo by my iphone of a page on Permutations of the Jacobs book Mathematics: A Human Endeavor, 1970. One of the best textbooks ever written in Old Math, not for its contents because there are many errors, but for its teaching style. It is extremely rare to find a math textbook written for the student to learn. Probably because math professors rarely learned how to teach in the first place; only learned how to unintentionally obfuscate. The page I photographed is important because it is the interface between geometry's perimeter or surface area versus geometry's area or volume, respectively. Or, an interface of pure numbers with that of geometry. But I have more to say on this below.
Length: 174 pages
Product details
File Size: 741 KB
Print Length: 174 pages
Publication Date: March 1, 2020
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B085DF8R7V
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
y z
| /
| /
|/______ x
More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.
In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.
I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.
There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium

y z
| /
| /
|/______ x

More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.

In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.

There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.


Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall
12 PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon
by Archimedes Plutonium
Proofs that the Real Electron=muon and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall
PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon
1st proof is chemical bonding cannot exist with momentum of 938 versus .5MeV
Chemical Bonds are covalent, ionic, metallic. You simply cannot get atoms to bond if the electron is thought of as the .5MeV particle, only with a muon at 105 MeV and the proton at 840 MeV with neutron at 945 MeV do you have the physics of angular momentum that allows bonding in Chemistry. The .5MeV particle was, all along a magnetic monopole of a photon with .5 MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy.
2nd proof with the direct observance some years back in Poland of a 840 Mev particle along with 105 MeV particle of the hydrogen atom.
Hello, well i found the below on the internet. I need a 840MeV particle that is the Real Proton. I have asked to look for it in the production of Muons. Is the below a production of muons along with 840 MeV particles?
Quoting
Indication For A Broad J(pc) = 2++ Meson At 840-mev Produced In The Reaction Pi- P ---> Pi+ Pi- N At High |t|
K. Rybicki, I. Sakrejda (Cracow, INP)
1985 - 10 pages
Z.Phys. C28 (1985) 65-74
DOI: 10.1007/BF01550250
Abstract (Springer)
The reaction π−p→π+π−n has been studied at 17.2 GeV/c and 63 GeV/c. A partial wave analysis shows a fairly broad (∼250 MeV) resonance at about 840 MeV. This object, already visible in moments of the angular distribution, is produced in theD wave with helicitym=2 via unnatural exchange. The cross section for the reaction π−p→D2U(840)n is only by an order of magnitude lower than that of ϱ(770) and falls likepLAB−2.1±0.3. We have not been able to explain this object by systematic experimental effects like acceptance and/orN* reflections; neither is the nature of the resonance (if real) clear to us.
--- end quote ---
3rd proof-- pull plug out of electrical socket and notice light flash. That flash of light was the magnetic monopoles as photons with charge energy of .5MeV, for the monopoles compose all electric currents.
4th proof is that the radius of the hydrogen proton shrinks too much when a muon is injected and that contradicts Standard Model. The reason is obvious-- the proton is 840 MeV electron is muon and then you add a second muon.
--- Quoting from www, Ars Technica, Researchers orbit a muon around an atom, confirm physics is broken ---
So, the proton radius puzzle remains a puzzle. The team behind this new work point to a number of measurements that could potentially help clarify it. Some of them involve better measurements with normal electrons; others involve scattering muons off protons themselves to see if there's an unknown force at work. The latter would tell us whether anything beyond the Standard Model will be needed to explain this puzzle.
--- end Quote ---
5th proof electrochemical battery is not explainable as Faraday law unless you concede the battery is a thrusting bar magnet, and thus, the battery is explained as a dipole magnet of the anode and cathode and the electrolyte solution is the ferromagnetism of spins all lined up. And thus a current in the circuit is because the battery as a thrusting magnet forces monopoles down the circuit wire.
6th proof, spin is charge, and charge is spin and the only particle for that is a ratio of permittivity to permeability as that of 10^-6/ 10^-12 is a charge energy of 10^6 or 1 MeV for photon charge energy, and that leaves the proton, electron=muon, monopole with .5MeV charge energy.
7th proof the Maxwell Equations are not symmetrical without current being the flow of magnetic monopoles.
8th proof, now, a straightforward proof that the muon is the real-electron can come from ion theory. The trouble is that weeding out a proof of electron = muon, is that we get entangled with the magnetic monopole. So, the proof is simple for ion theory, to prove the muon = real electron. Take for example iron Fe atoms, they are 26 protons, 26 electrons=muons
Now iron has ion states of -4, -2, -1, +1, +2, +3, +4, +5 +6, +7
So, suppose the electron = .5MeV particle and not the 105 MeV particle
That would mean Iron can exist as iron with 26 protons and only 19 electrons at one extreme and 26 protons and 30 electrons at the other extreme.
Now in Maxwell theory, there is a law that enforces Conservation of Energy, called the Lenz law in Faraday law. Otherwise, you have unlimited energy and Nature does not have unlimited energy.
So that in atoms, the protons become a thrusting bar magnet and the electrons= real-electrons are the closed loop of wire (inert gases are closed loop wires and why bonding exists is to close the loop of real-electron structure).
So, the proof that .5MeV are not electrons, is that iron bonds readily with other iron forming a compound of iron, the metal iron and metallic bond is due to iron atoms wanting to close the loop of their 26 Real Electrons. They close that loop by the metallic bond. That means, the existence of ions from -4 to +7 is unrelated altogether from Electron configuration. That ions are some other particle behavior but not the electron nor proton behavior.
The reason iron exists as iron from Fe-4 to Fe+7 is that the particle .5MeV is a surface interloper particle of atoms, it is a add-on particle not the integral electron of atoms. If the monopole were the electron we break conservation of energy by all these interlopers. The reason the chemical table is all built around the inert gases, is because Faraday's law must be obeyed and thus atoms with a closed loop of their electrons seek no bonding of electrons= muons. But atoms that have no closed loop of their muons, seek that closed loop structure and thus, they form covalent, ionic, metallic bonds with other muons of other atoms.
9th Proof. In Chemistry, it is rare, that a atom loses or gains any Real-Electron=muon.
And that is a 9th proof that Real Electron=muon, that beta decay in Old Physics, was not the electron of atoms but the transfer of Magnetic Monopoles.
The only real radioactive decay mode is the helium nucleus-- alpha decay
But there is never a Real Electron decay for that would mean muons spewed out of atoms. Nor do we see protons spewed out of atoms, Real Proton = 840 MeV. The so called hydrogen nucleus of a 938 MeV is not radioactive decay, for it is still a 840 proton + 105 muon = hydrogen atom.
10th Proof. Well, I spoke of the internal heart or core of the concept of Chemistry, that the proton/s and electron/s are two parts of the Faraday Law. The protons are the thrusting bar magnet and the electrons= muons forms the closed loop of wire. Essentially that is the heart and core of atomic physics, a replay of Faraday's law with protons and electrons.
But, however, the electrons= muons only forms a closed loop wire for Faraday's law in the inert gases, the helium, neon, argon, etc and all other atoms want to have that closed loop configuration. Thus, is borne the Chemistry of bonding. Chemistry is borne. So that one atom without a closed loop configuration bonds with another atom to achieve that goal. So chemistry bonding is that of muons bonded to other muons in different atoms.
Now, can these .5 MeV particles fulfill the atoms need to make their muons a closed loop? Obviously not, because ions of atoms such as Fe, iron, swing from -4 to +7 in ions, so that proves ions cannot solve a atom's problem of its electron structure being less than closed loop. Only muons of other atoms can fulfill a atom's need to be closed loop.
11th Proof. Solving the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly, alongside proton radius shrunk
--- Quoting from www, Ars Technica, Researchers orbit a muon around an atom, confirm physics is broken ---
So, the proton radius puzzle remains a puzzle. The team behind this new work point to a number of measurements that could potentially help clarify it. Some of them involve better measurements with normal electrons; others involve scattering muons off protons themselves to see if there's an unknown force at work. The latter would tell us whether anything beyond the Standard Model will be needed to explain this puzzle.
--- end Quote ---
Now in re-reading that Ars article on proton radius shrinking when a hydrogen atom of 840 MeV proton with electron = 105 MeV and then a second muon is tried to be compounded-- will of course, shrink the proton radius for the two muons with 1 proton all three are centered at the center of the proton.
But in re-reading was mentioned an anomaly I was not familiar with-- Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly.
And reading some results of that, I find surprizing for it was Feynman who claimed Electrodynamics was the supreme physics theory in accuracy of prediction.
But the anomaly is off by a mere .1%, which seems very very small to be not even an anomaly. Trouble is, the electron of Old Physics was found to be so accurate as to be described as physic's most precise finding ever, and that makes the .1% discrepancy ever so much larger.
Now, I was able to explain away the proton radius anomaly because the proton is not 938 MeV but is 840 MeV and the electron is not the .5MeV particle but rather is 105 MeV.
So, can I explain away the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly. I believe I can easily. For if you consider that what Old Physics measured as the electron magnetic moment was none other than the monopole as a dressed up photon magnetic moment. And it is easily seen that in EM theory the permeability constant is "exact" no uncertainty at 1.26*10^-6 H/m.
So, it is no wonder that Old Physics thought their electron magnetic moment in Quantum Electrodynamics was so ultra ultra precise-- for, they never measured the magnetic moment of the electron, but instead a magnetic monopole of the dressed up .5 MeV particle.
Then, when it came time to measure the magnetic moment of the muon, the real-true-electron, there is this .1% discrepancy, but there are discrepancies in the proton and neutron etc.
So, once we realized the Real Electron is the muon, afterall, there is no magnetic moment anomaly.
12th proof -- Static Electricity Re: Proofs that the Real Electron=muon
Alright, I need a 12th proof, for I do not want to neglect what is probably our first encounter with electricity-- static electricity. As we walk across a carpet and touch something we experience a spark. Trouble with static electricity, is that the concept makes out the atom as a flimsy structure, really really flimsy structure that electrons of atoms can be picked off so easily, and from very many diverse materials. One would think the structure of atoms was built of stronger stuff. And that is what the Electron = Muon concept is about, that it is so very very hard to separate a electron from its atom, just like separating a proton out of a nucleus. So the subject of static electricity is this interloper particle, this surface superficial particle that is easily "whipped up" as the magnetic monopole, just as easy as producing electricity in a Faraday Law demonstration of a thrusting bar magnet in closed loop of wire. For, we can easily imagine that our walk across a carpet is similar to a thrusting bar magnet and then the closed loop wire is when we touch something, having built up some monopoles in our body.
Old Physics would say that we picked up electrons on the carpet, and as we touch something, remit that imbalance of electrons.
New Physics would say that we picked up magnetic monopoles.
Now let us look at other static electric experiments. For when we rub a glass rod (+1) with silk, or rub a plastic rod (-1) with wool. Here again, Old Physics would say we pick off electrons of atoms.
New Physics would say, no, the atoms are still composed of all their electrons and protons. The only thing changed with the rubbing is that energy of the rub transfers to the magnetic monopole energy-- packets of .5MeV monopoles of charge energy. And the energy of rubbing becomes monopoles. These are those closed Lines of Force of a magnet, and the moment we touch something these stored up monopoles, flow from our body to that of the touched object.
How is that a proof the electron = muon?
Simple, in that the carpet, or plastic rod (-1) with wool or glass rod (+1) with silk, are materials that are electrically neutral substances, for the rubbing action was transformed not into free electrons, but was formed into monopoles. These substances remain electrically neutral, and the only change is that the rub created magnetic monopoles-- some + charged monopoles, some - charged monopoles, and these monopoles are superficial to the atoms where they formed.
Static Electricity is merely stored monopoles. Monopoles are conservation of energy, for the rubbing had to be transformed into some energy packets and that is-- monopoles of charge energy.
In the experiment of where we pick up bits of paper from either the glass rod or the plastic rod due to static electricity. What is happening here, is that the rod is not involved with the Real Electrons of atoms, but is involved with the superficial surface charged particle that is the magnetic monopole.
Now the electroscope is explained much much easier with magnetic monopoles rather than the silly electrons on one leaf pushing away the electrons on the second leaf.
For consider instead a closed loop line of force between the two leafs
/\
O
Where the leafs start out as ||
Then comes the charged rod of monopoles sending down a monopole closed loop O that pushes apart the two leafs.
Now i have two gold leafs and if true should leave the push apart looking more like this () rather than this /\. And that is what i have ()
by Archimedes Plutonium
------------------
-------------------

Don't forget to include a chapter on Failure. Its truth table is FFFF.
Stalking failure
Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.

Now, unlike Moroney, I do not believe for a moment that Harvard math professors cannot properly do a percentage, I don't believe that for a minute.
Moroney says he weighed the electron in High School, and then got a engineering degree, but how is that possible when he cannot even do math percentage correctly. Either Moroney is a liar or the world is nothing but fools.
Michael Moroney is not only a failure of math, --must have have been burnt out at school-- but also an insane crank on sci.math for 23 years now. I have often asked Google to please engineer a delete key so original authors of a thread can develop their own thread without these insane stalking poopers pooping up (Moroney a 23 year stalker). Let original authors delete any post in their thread which is unfit. Let insane stalkers make their own threads so they can crap all they wish without interrupting those doing serious science.
MAKE sci.math a Level Playing field, and stop tilting sci.math in favor of moron stalkers.
Drs. John Bush, Herman Chernoff of MIT are you as stupid as Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = monopole
MIT math dept.
Artin, Michael
Emeritus Professor of Mathematics
Algebraic Geometry, Non-Commutative Algebra
Bazant, Martin
Professor of Chemical Engineering and Applied Mathematics
Applied Mathematics, Electrokinetics, Microfluidics and Electrochemistry
Berger, Bonnie
Simons Professor of Mathematics
Theoretical Computer Science, Computational Biological Modeling
Bezrukavnikov, Roman
Professor of Mathematics
Representation Theory, Algebraic Geometry
Borodin, Alexei
Professor of Mathematics
Integrable Probability
Bush, John
Associate Department Head
Professor of Applied Mathematics
Academic Officer
Fluid Dynamics
Chernoff, Herman
Emeritus Professor of Applied Mathematics
Statistics, Probability
Cohn, Henry
Adjunct Professor
Discrete Mathematics
Colding, Tobias Holck
Cecil and Ida Green Distinguished Professor of Mathematics
Pure Mathematics Committee Chair
Differential Geometry, Partial Differential Equations
*On Leave Fall and Spring semesters*
Demanet, Laurent
Associate Professor of Applied Mathematics
Applied analysis, Scientific Computing
Dudley, Richard
Emeritus Professor of Mathematics
Probability, Statistics
Dunkel, Jörn
Assistant Professor of Applied Mathematics
Physical Applied Mathematics
Edelman, Alan
Professor of Applied Mathematics
Parallel Computing, Numerical Linear Algebra, Random Matrices
Etingof, Pavel
Professor of Mathematics
Representation Theory, Quantum Groups, Noncommutative Algebra
Freedman, Daniel
Emeritus Professor of Applied Mathematics
Theoretical Physics, Supergravity, Supersymmetry
Goemans, Michel
Interim Department Head
Professor of Mathematics
Theoretical Computer Science, Combinatorial Optimization
Gorin, Vadim
Assistant Professor of Mathematics
Probability, Representation Theory
Greenspan, Harvey
Emeritus Professor of Applied Mathematics
Fluid Mechanics
Guillemin, Victor
Professor of Mathematics
Differential Geometry
Guth, Larry
Professor of Mathematics
Metric geometry, harmonic analysis, extremal combinatorics
Helgason, Sigurdur
Emeritus Professor of Mathematics
Geometric Analysis
Hosoi, Anette
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
MacVicar Faculty Fellow
Fluid Dynamics, Numerical Analysis
Jerison, David
Professor of Mathematics
Partial Differential Equations, Fourier Analysis
Johnson, Steven
Professor of Applied Mathematics
Waves, PDEs, Scientific Computing
Kac, Victor
Professor of Mathematics
Algebra, Mathematical Physics
Mark Hyman, Jr. Career Development Associate Professor of Applied Mathematics
Theoretical Computer Science
Kleiman, Steven
Emeritus Professor of Mathematics
Algebraic Geometry, Commutative Algebra
Kleitman, Daniel
Emeritus Professor of Applied Mathematics
Combinatorics, Operations Research
Lawrie, Andrew
Assistant Professor of Mathematics
Analysis, Geometric PDEs
Leighton, Tom
Professor of Applied Mathematics
Theoretical Computer Science, Combinatorics
Lusztig, George
Abdun-Nur Professor of Mathematics
Group Representations, Algebraic Groups
Mattuck, Arthur
Emeritus Professor of Mathematics
Algebraic Geometry
Maulik, Davesh
Professor of Mathematics
Algebraic Geometry
Melrose, Richard
Professor of Mathematics
Partial Differential Equations, Differential Geometry
Miller, Haynes
Professor of Mathematics
Algebraic Topology
Minicozzi, William
Singer Professor of Mathematics
Geometric Analysis, PDEs
Moitra, Ankur
Rockwell International Career Development Associate Professor of Mathematics
Theoretical Computer Science, Machine Learning
Mossel, Elchanan
Professor of Mathematics
Probability, Algorithms and Inference
Mrowka, Tomasz
Professor of Mathematics
Gauge Theory, Differential Geometry
On Leave Fall and Spring semesters
Munkres, James
Emeritus Professor of Mathematics
Differential Topology
Neguț, Andrei
Assistant Professor of Mathematics
Algebraic Geometry, Representation Theory
On Leave Spring semester
Pixton, Aaron
Class of 1957 Career Development Assistant Professor
Algebraic Geometry
On Leave Spring semester
Poonen, Bjorn
Claude Shannon Professor of Mathematics
Algebraic Geometry, Number Theory
Postnikov, Alexander
Professor of Applied Mathematics
Algebraic Combinatorics
Rigollet, Philippe
Associate Professor of Mathematics
Statistics, Machine Learning
Rosales, Rodolfo
Professor of Applied Mathematics
Nonlinear Waves, Fluid Mechanics, Material Sciences, Numerical pde
Saccà, Giulia
Assistant Professor of Mathematics
Sacks, Gerald
Emeritus Professor of Mathematical Logic
Mathematical Logic, Recursion Theory, Computational Set Theory
Seidel, Paul
Levinson Professor of Mathematics
Mirror Symmetry
On Leave Fall and Spring semesters
Sheffield, Scott
Leighton Family Professor of Mathematics
Probability and Mathematical Physics
Shor, Peter
Morss Professor of Applied Mathematics
Applied Mathematics Committee Chair
Quantum Computation, Quantum Information
Singer, Isadore
Emeritus Institute Professor
Differential Geometry, Partial Differential Equations, Mathematical Physics
Sipser, Michael
Dean of School of Science
Donner Professor of Mathematics
MacVicar Faculty Fellow
Algorithms, Complexity Theory
Speck, Jared
Cecil and Ida B. Green Career Development Associate Professor of Mathematics
Analysis related to Mathematical Physics, General Relativity, PDEs
Staffilani, Gigliola
Abby Rockefeller Mauze Professor of Mathematics
Analysis: Dispersive Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations
On Leave Fall and Spring semesters
Stanley, Richard
Professor of Mathematics
Algebraic Combinatorics
Stark, Harold
Emeritus Professor of Mathematics
Number Theory
Strang, Gilbert
MathWorks Professor of Mathematics
Stroock, Daniel
Emeritus Professor of Mathematics
Probability, Stochastic Analysis
Tabuada, Goncalo
Associate Professor of Mathematics
Algebraic Topology, Noncommutative Algebraic Geometry
Toomre, Alar
Emeritus Professor of Applied Mathematics
Astrophysics, Stellar Dynamics, Fluid Mechanics
Vogan, David
Norbert Wiener Professor of Mathematics
Group Representations, Lie Theory
/\-------/\
\::O:::O::/
(::_ ^ _::)
\_`-----'_/
You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in MIT?
And, even though you-- professors of math, want to remain stupid in Calculus and Physics, your students deserve better.

In 1999 i had no ego I EXPLAIN: in 1999 the stars were talking to me so i rose to my very best highest to speak at the rockstars level I WAS THEIR MIRROR TO TALK TO THEM I HAD TO HAVE AN EGO AS GOOD AS THEM IF THEY HTOUGHT IT WAS LOVBE ITS THEIR PROBLEM THEY HAVE TO PAY->I HAD NO EGO (1)
By ***@__.__ 1 post 1 view updated 10:39 AM




She turn the machines on in 1998 i did nothing and ten axl rose is the only one who tells the truth-->what can i do when there so may liars..what will you offer in a way of a healing...-->Axl ROse teold me you are liars and monsters rapists and robbers in america->what can a 19 year old boy in 1998 do to stop the american machine->I WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO GAVE THE ASS NOW THEY HAVE TO BLEED (1)
By ***@__.__ 1 post 1 view updated 10:34 AM




they stole my girlfriends my life apparently because i had an ego->apparently its a crime in america and the rest of the world to have an ego pfft yeah because they said i wasnt s star and i was a nobody what the fuck did they care about if i had an ego or not pfft (1)
By ***@__.__ 1 post 1 view updated 10:09 AM




they said they didnt sell me taht they sold my ego->og obviously first they said they sold love and now its the ego that they sold->what did they sell->britney spears hit me baby one more time was the ego?!??!?pffft (1)
By ***@__.__ 1 post 1 view updated 10:00 AM




she wasnt virgin she was closed but she managed 20plus years to stay opened and be virginlike at my expense->thats her just like america niggers who sold me MONKEYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (1)
By ***@__.__ 1 post 1 view updated 9:25 AM




Buy Winstrol, Sustanon 250 (Raw Powders), Bunex (Buprenorphine) 0.20mg, 5-IAI, 4-ACO-DMT, Ephedrine HCL, Opana (1)
By ***@gmail.com 1 post 1 view updated 8:56 AM




'Cold Steam' Controversy: six things to recognize (1)
By James McGinn 1 post 5 views updated 8:39 AM




I owe $411 for the $6,000 I made last year. (1)
By Jeff-Relf.Me 11 posts 10 views updated 7:31 AM
+ 6 others




Why we must suck the blood of the jews? AMerican jewish supremacy (2)
By ***@__.__ 2 posts 1 view updated 5:51 AM




place your order and get a free Pentobarbital Nembutal Sodium, Darvocet-A500 (Acetaminophen & Propoxyphene) 100/500 mg, Actiq (Fentanyl Citrate) 400mcg OTFC Lozenges, Avinza (Morphine Sulfate) 120mg capsule, AMBIEN ( Zolpidem, Stilnox) 10 mg, (1)
By order now 1 post 1 view updated 5:48 AM

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Kibo Parry Moroney says Brian Greene is a stir crazy bobbing loon on physics that does not need another TV spot-- failure of angular momentum because no hydrogen atom can form from proton=938MeV & electron = 0.5MeV

Kibo Parry Moroney on a good day in science-- his 938 is 12% of 945

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.

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

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

Jul 26, 2020, 2:50:34 PM
to
Math Failure
WARNING TO STUDENTS, PARENTS and TEACHERS
Kibo Parry Moroney says Dr. John Baez, Univ California Riverside bigtime failure of math and physics// with his ignorance of angular momentum for no hydrogen atom can exist with a proton 938MeV, electron 0.5MeV// And John is too stupid to tell apart a ellipse from oval
AP writes: It is certainly unclear from the tone of Kibo Parry Moroney's post that whether he thinks Lisa should have been a hairdresser rather than physics, given her recent gaffes of saying dinosaur extinction was a nearby black hole-- all to sell and promote her idiotic books to make money, not do true science.
Jul 26, 2020, 6:09 PM
to
Autistic
WARNING TO STUDENTS, PARENTS
#1-3, 74th published book
HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
In 2016-2017, AP discovered that the real proton has a mass of 840 MeV, not 938. The real electron was actually the muon and the muon stays inside the proton that forms a proton torus of 8 rings and with the muon as bar magnet is a Faraday Law producing magnetic monopoles. So this book is all about why researchers of physics and engineers keep getting the number 938MeV when they should be getting the number 840 MeV + 105 MeV = 945 MeV.
Cover Picture is a proton torus of 8 rings with a muon of 1 ring inside the proton torus, doing the Faraday Law and producing magnetic monopoles.
Length: 16 pages
Product details
File Size: 699 KB
Print Length: 16 pages
Publication Date: December 18, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B082WYGVNG
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
#1-4, 105th published book
Atom Geometry is Torus Geometry // Atom Totality series, book 4 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Since all atoms are doing the Faraday Law inside them, of their thrusting muon into a proton coil in the shape of a geometry torus, then the torus is the geometry of each and every atom. But then we must explain the neutrons since the muon and proton are doing Faraday's Law, then the neutron needs to be explained in terms of this proton torus with muon inside, all three shaped as rings. The muon is a single ring and each proton is 8 rings. The neutron is shaped like a plate and is solid not hollow. The explanation of a neutron is that of a capacitor storing what the proton-muon rings produce in electricity. Where would the neutron parallel plates be located? I argue in this text that the neutron plates when fully grown from 1 eV until 945MeV are like two parallel plate capacitors where each neutron is part of one plate, like two pieces of bread with the proton-muon torus being a hamburger patty.
Cover Picture: I assembled two atoms in this picture where the proton torus with a band of muons inside traveling around and around the proton torus producing electricity. And the pie-plates represent neutrons as parallel-plate capacitors.
Length: 39 pages
Product details
File Size: 935 KB
Print Length: 39 pages
Publication Date: March 24, 2020
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B086BGSNXN
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,656,820 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#6413 in Mathematics (Kindle Store)
#315 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
#4953 in Physics (Kindle Store)
#1-5, 112th published book
New Perspective on Psi^2 in the Schrodinger Equation in a Atom Totality Universe// Atom Totality series, book 5
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
I first heard of the Schrodinger equation in college chemistry class. We never actually did any problem solving with the equation, and we were only told about it. Then taking physics my next year in college and after I bought the Feynman Lectures on Physics, just for fun for side reading, three volume set did I learn what this Schrodinger equation and the Psi^2 wavefunction was about. I am not going to teach the mathematics of the Schrodinger equation and the math calculations of the Psi or Psi^2 in this book, but leave that up to the reader or student to do that from Feynman's Lectures on Physics. The purpose of this book is to give a new and different interpretation of what Psi^2 is, what Psi^2 means. Interpretation of physics experiments and observations turns out to be one of the most difficult tasks in all of physics.
Cover Picture: a photograph taken of me in 1993, after the discovery of Plutonium Atom Totality, and I was 43 years old then, on a wintery hill of New Hampshire. It is nice that Feynman wrote a physics textbook series, for I am very much benefitting from his wisdom. If he had not done that, getting organized in physics by writing textbooks, I would not be writing this book. And I would not have discovered the true meaning of the Fine Structure Constant, for it was Feynman who showed us that FSC is really 0.0854, not that of 0.0072. All because 0.0854 is Psi, and Psi^2 is 0.0072.
Length: 20 pages
Product details
File Size: 1134 KB
Print Length: 20 pages
Publication Date: April 15, 2020
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B0875SVDC7
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,852,340 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#1297 in General Chemistry & Reference
#488 in 30-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#9574 in Physics (Kindle Store)
#2-1, 2nd published book
True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of .5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere.
Cover picture: shows two of my chemical models, one of CO and the other CO2
Length: 1150 pages
File Size: 1456 KB
Print Length: 1150 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLVMMSZ
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#181 in General Chemistry & Reference
#1324 in General Chemistry
#1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)
#2-2, 50th published book
Geometry of the Chemical Bond; metallic, covalent, ionic//Chemistry Series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
This is the second book of the Series -- True Chemistry. I left off of True Chemistry with trying to solve the Chemical bond when the proton and muon inside of each and every atom is doing the Faraday Law. And since that book was already 1154 pages long, I decided to start afresh in a second book devoted to solving the Geometry of the chemical bond of metallic, covalent and ionic.
Cover Picture: PHYSICS: Part 2: Extended Version: Halliday & Resnick, 1986, pages 654, 655 talking about Capacitors and my collection of some capacitors in my lab. The first one is a two prong wall plug taken apart to show what the prongs fasten onto when plugged-in (two parallel plates). The next three are spade and socket connectors (two parallel plates). Next is circular or hook plates, and last is a cylinder plate and socket.
Length: 131 pages
Product details
File Size: 1304 KB
Print Length: 131 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publication Date: June 21, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07TCVBD93
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

[Michael Moroney]

Subject: True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition by Archimedes

The letters in "Archimedes Plutonium", rearranged, spell "Um, Hitler and Mice Soup!"