Kibo Parry M 💩 for 🧠 Andrew Wiles. Why Kibo? Because he cannot admit slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse? Or because Wiles is too daft in math to understand he must provide a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not his impish "limit arguement" of 0 width rectangles yet still having interior area. Imp Wiles thinks students are not bright enough to catch his mistakes of reasoning, if one can call Wiles ever reasoned at all. Wiles is a fame and money grub, not a seeker of truth of math.

On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 12:00:38 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 💩 for 🧠 "Putin's Stooge"

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.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
•
•

Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.

Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.

In the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence proof. Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse..

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 827 KB
• Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 51 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#12-2, 11th published book

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

Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.

To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?

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

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

Kibo Parry M ☠️ Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, 🐍 physics >"wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place"

> On Saturday, July 30, 2022 at 8:50:11 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > ☠️ of Math and ☣ of Physics
> Kibo Parry M 🤡 on Mitesh Patel Imperial College London
> On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 1:12:13 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > Spamming 🤡
>
> Kibo on CERN, Harry Cliff, Mitesh Patel Imperial College London,CERN & Cambridge Harry Cliff ever going to grow up about particle physics? By confirming real electron of atoms is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law? CERN's Paula Alvarez Cartelle,Ben Allanach,Harry Cliff, Mitesh Patel, Gino Isidori, Gudrun Hiller, Frank Kruger, physicists with no logical brain to be in physics. Too stupid to ever ask the question, which is the atom's true electron? The muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law or the 0.5MeV particle that AP says is Dirac's magnetic monopole? When you have Harry Cliff absent of logical intelligence you just have more of the same b.s. of henpecking a monterously dumb theory of Standard Model that only quacks like Harry Cliff, Mitesh Patel Imperial College London follow and chip away around the edges with their mindless "new force" and their mindless Standard Model with mindless quarks.
>
> It will take a long time to rid Old Physics of their mindless electron of 0.5MeV orbiting at 99.9% speed of light OUTSIDE a 938MeV proton, mindless mindless Old Physics as if they cooked up physics in a saloon bar.
>
> People in science with no logical brains have a hard time of reasoning that a muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton makes more commonsense than a 938MeV proton with electron of 0.5MeV outside the proton yet flying around at 99.9% speed of light.
>
> Most every physicist today believes in the A grade of memorization learning is more valuable than commonsense
> Re: Kibo Parry Moroney stalks "AnalButtfuckManure Attacks" Dartmouth's Philip J. Hanlon, Stanford's Marc Tessier-Lavigne 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..
> 1481 views
> by Professor Wordsmith Aug 14, 2020, 11:07:05 AM
> 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.
> Harry Cliff, Cole, Cooper,Cambridge far too stupid in physics to ask the question, which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle which AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole while the real electron is a muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. In fact so stupid is this list of so called physicists that they went through life believing the slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, when in reality it is a Oval of 1 axis of symmetry for the cone has 1 axis of symmetry but ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry. The minds of all these so called physicists are not good enough to be doing physics. In fact, so stupid in science and math are all these people that when told in High School or College that a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, they believed it, and believe in it to this day without so much as ever questioning the idea that a single cone and oval have just 1 axis of symmetry while ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, and yet many on this list were awarded science prizes. Maybe for ignorance of science but not for truth of science.
> > > 1) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
> > > 2) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
> > > 3) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
> > > 4) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sapheads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.
> President: Marc Tessier-Lavigne (neuroscience)
> Provost: Persis Drell (physics)
>
> Stanford physics dept.
> Alexander Fetter, John Lipa, William Little, Douglas Osheroff, David Ritson, H. Alan Schwettman, John Turneaure, Robert Wagoner, Stanley Wojcicki, Mason Yearian
> Cambridge Physics Dept
>
> Ahnert, Alai, Alexander, Allison, Ansorge, Atature, Barker, Barnes, Bartlett, Batley, Baumberg, Bohndiek, Bowman, Brown, Buscher, Butler, Campbell Carilli, Carter, Castelnovo, Challis, Chalut, Chaudhri, Chin, Ciccarelli, Cicuta, Harry Cliff, Cole, Cooper, Cowburn, Credgington, Cross, Croze, Deschler, Donald, Duffett-Smith, Dutton, Eiser, Ellis, Euser, Field, Flynn, Ford, Friend, Gibson, Green, Greenham, Gripaios, Grosche, Guck, Gull, Haniff, Heavens-Ward, Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, Hughes, Irvine, Jardine, Jenkins, Jones, Josephson, Keyser, Khmeinitskii, King, Kotlyar, Lamacraft, Lasenby, Lester, Longair, Lonzarich, Maiolino, Marshall, Martin, Mitov, Morris, Mortimer, Moller, Needs, Norman, Nunnenkamp, Padman,Parker, Patel, Payne, Pepper, Phillips, Pramauro, Queloz, Rao, Richer, Riley, Ritchie, Sargent, Saunders, Saxena, Schneider, Scott, Scrivener, Sebastian, Simmons, Simons, Sirringhaus, Smith, Sutherland, Taylor, Teichmann, Terentjev, Thomson, Verrechia, Walker, Ward, Warner, Weale, Webber, Whyles, Withington.
>
> Cambridge Math Dept
>
> Alan Baker
> Bela Bollobas
> Darwin Smith
> John Coates
> Timothy Gowers
> Peter Johnstone
> Imre Leader
> Gabriel Paternain
>
>
>
>
> Caltech Physics Dept
> Barry Barish, Felix Boehm, Steven Frautschi
> Murray Gell-Mann, David Goodstein, Thomas Phillips,
> John Schwarz, Barry Simon, Kip Thorne, Petr Vogel,
> Rochus Vogt, Ward Whaling, Michael E. Brown,
> Konstantin Batygin
>
>
> UCLA chancellor: Gene D. Block (biology)
>
> UCLA Physics dept
> Ernest Abers, Elihu Abrahams, Katsushi Arisaka, Michalis Bachtis
> Eric Becklin, Zvi Bern, Rubin Braunstein, Stuart Brown, Robijn Bruinsma
> Charles Buchanan, Wesley Campbell, Troy Carter, Sudip Chakravarty
> W. Gilbert Clark, John Cornwall, Robert Cousins, Eric D'Hoker
> Robert Finkelstein, Christian Fronsdal, Walter Gekelman, Graciela Gelmini
> George Gruner, Michael Gutperle, Brad Hansen, Jay Hauser, Karoly Holczer
> Huan Huang, Eric Hudson, George Igo, Per Kraus, Alexander Kusenko
> Thomas Mason, George Morales, Warren Mori, Steven Moszkowski
> Christoph Niemann, Kumar Patel, Roberto Peccei, Claudio Pellegrini
> Seth Putterman, B. Regan, James Rosenzweig, Joseph Rudnick
> David Saltzberg, William Slater, Reiner Stenzel, Terry Tomboulis, Jean Turner
> UCSD, Univ Calif San Diego, physics dept
> Henry D.I. Abarbanel, Kam S. Arnold, Daniel P. Arovas, Richard D. Averitt, Julio T. Barreiro, Dimitri N. Basov, Steven Boggs, James G. Branson, Adam J. Burgasser, Leonid V. Butov, Alison Coil, Eva-Maria S. Collins, Max Di Ventra, Patrick H. Diamond, Fred C. Driscoll, Daniel H. Dubin,
> Olga K. Dudko, Raphael M. Flauger, Michael M. Fogler, Alex Frano, George M. Fuller, Daniel R Green, Kim Griest, Benjamin Grinstein, Alexander Groisman, Tarun Grover, Jorge E. Hirsch, Michael Holst, Terence T. Hwa, Kenneth A.. Intriligator, Elizabent Jenkins, Suckjoon Jun, Brian Keating, Dusan Keres, David Kleinfeld, Quinn M. Konopacky, Elena F. Koslover, Julius Kuti, Tongyan Lin, Aneesh V. Manohar, M. Brian Maple, John A. McGreevy, Thomas W. Murphy, Kaixuan Ni, Michael L. Norman, Thomas M O'Neil, Hans P. Paar, Mark Paddock, Jeremie Palacci, Tenio Popmintchev, Wouter-Jan Rappel, Karin M. Sandstrom, Ivan K. Schuller, Lu J. Sham, Vivek Sharma, Tatyana O. Sharpee, Brian Shotwell, Oleg Shpyrko, Elizabeth H Simmons, Sunil K. Sinha, Douglas E. Smith, Harry Suhl
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Physics dept
> Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek, Julian S. Georg, Joel T. Giedt, Yong Sung Kim, Gyorgy Korniss, Toh-Ming Lu, Charles Martin, Joseph Darryl Michael, Heidi Jo Newberg, Moussa N'Gom, Peter Persans, John Schroeder, Michael Shur, Shawn-Yu Lin, Humberto Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang, Morris A Washington, Esther A. Wertz, Christian M. Wetzel, Ingrid Wilke, Shengbai Zhang
> Harvard Physics dept
> Jacob Barandes, Howard Berg, Michael Brenner, Adam Cohen, Eugene Demler, Michael Desai
> Louis Deslauriers, John Doyle, Cora Dvorkin, Gary Feldman, Douglas Finkbeiner, Melissa Franklin, Gerald Gabrielse, Howard Georgi, Sheldon Glashow, Roy Glauber, Jene Golovchenko, Markus Greiner, Roxanne Guenette, Girma Hailu, Bertrand Halperin, Lene Hau
> Thomas Hayes, Eric Heller, Jason Hoffman, Jenny Hoffman, Gerald Holton, Paul Horowitz, John Huth, Arthur Jaffe, Daniel Jafferis, Efthimios Kaxiras, Philip Kim, John Kovac, Erel Levine
> Mikhail Lukin, Logan McCarty, L. Mahadevan, Vinothan Manoharan, Eric Mazur, Masahiro Morii
> David Morin, Julia Mundy, Cherry Murray, David Nelson, Kang Ni, Hongkun Park, William Paul
> Peter Pershan, Mara Prentiss, Lisa Randall, Matthew Reece, Subir Sachdev, Aravinthan Samuel, Matthew Schwartz, Irwin Shapiro, Isaac Silvera, Andrew Strominger, Christopher Stubbs, Cumrun Vafa, Ronald Walsworth, David Weitz, Robert Westervelt, Richard Wilson
> Tai Wu, Amir Yacoby, Susanne Yelin, Xi Yin
>
> Chancellor Cynthia Barnhart
> President: L. Reif (electrical engineer)
>
> MIT physics dept
> William Bertozzi, Robert Birgeneau, Hale Bradt, Bernard Burke, George Clark , Jeffrey Goldstone, Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins , Paul Joss, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon, Irwin Pless, Paul Schechter, James Young
>
> Cornell Univ physics:
> Jim Alexander, Tomas Arias, Ivan Bazarov, Eberhard Bodenschatz, Debanjan Chowdhury, Itai Cohen, Csaba Csaki, Veit Elser, Eanna Flanagan, Carl Franck, Lawrence Gibbons, Paul Ginsparg, Yuval Grossman, Thomas Hartman, Georg Hoffstaetter, Natasha Holmes, Chao-Ming Jian, Eun-Ah Kim, Michael Lawler, Andre Leclair, Peter Lepage, Stephen Levy, Matthias Liepe, Kin Fai Mak, Jared Maxson, Liam McAllister, Paul McEuen, Erich Mueller, Christopher Myers, Michael Niemack, Matthias Neubert, Katja Nowack, Jeevak Parpia, Ritchie Patterson, Maxim Perelstein, Daniel Ralph, Brad Ramshaw, David Rubin, Anders Ryd, James Sethna, Jie Shan, Kyle Shen, Eric Siggia, Saul Teukolsky, Julia Thom-Levy, Robert Thorne, Cyrus Umrigar, Jane Wang, Michelle Wang, Ira Wasserman, Peter Wittich
>
>
> Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker, Henry M. Van Driel, David J. Rowe, John W. Moffat, John F. Martin, Robert K. Logan, Albert E. Litherland, Roland List, Philipp Kronberg, James King, Anthony W. Key, Bob Holdom, Ron M. Farquhar, R. Nigel Edwards, David J. Dunlop, James Drummond, Tom E. Drake, R.Fraser Code, Richard C. Bailey, Robin Armstrong
>
>
>
> Univ. Western Ontario physics dept
> Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang
> > > Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,
> > > Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish
> > > David J. Thouless_, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita
> > > Arthur B. McDonald
> > > Francois Englert
> > > Saul Perlmutter
> > > Brian P. Schmidt
> > > Adam G. Riess
> > > Makoto Kobayashi
> > > Toshihide Maskawa_
> > > Yoichiro Nambu_
> > > John C. Mather
> > > George F. Smoot
> > > Roy J. Glauber_
> > > David J. Gross
> > > Hugh David Politzer
> > > Frank Wilczek
> > > Raymond Davis Jr. _
> > > Masatoshi Koshiba_
> > > Riccardo Giacconi_
> > > Gerardus 't Hooft
> > > Martinus J.G. Veltman_
> > > Jerome I. Friedman
> > > Henry W. Kendall_
> > > Richard E. Taylor_
> > > Carlo Rubbia
> > > Simon van der Meer_
> > > William Alfred Fowler_
> > > Kenneth G. Wilson_
> > > James Watson Cronin_
> > > Val Logsdon Fitch_
> > > Sheldon Lee Glashow
> > > Steven Weinberg_
> > > .
> > > .
> > > little fishes
> > > .
> > > .
> > > Layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = subtraction of either 3 or 2, while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV
> > >
> > > Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass
> > > Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu
> > > more and more layers of error thinking physics
> > > .
> > > .
> > > Edward Witten
> > > 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
> > > Jennifer Kahn, Discover, science hater
> > > Eric Francis Coppolino, newsreporter hatred of science, George Witte, St.Martin's Press science hater
> > > Toby Howard, The Guardian, science hater
> > >
> > >
> > > #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)
> > >
> > > I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science, you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the science. I further believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later years of physics courses, we can always pick up on details. So I devote this senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this textbook. Now Asimov's book is full of error and mistakes, and that is disappointing but all of Old Physics is full of error. On errors and mistakes of Old Physics, the best I can do is warn the students, and the largest warning of all is that whenever someone in Old Physics says "electron" what they are talking about is really the Dirac magnetic monopole. And whenever they talk about the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, they are talking about huge huge grave mistakes, for the true atom is protons as 8 ringed toruses with a muon stuck inside of a proton doing the Faraday law and producing those magnetic monopoles as electricity. I use Asimov's book as a template but in the future, I hope to rewrite this textbook using no template at all, that is if I have time in the future.
> > > Cover Picture: Is the book The History of Physics, by Isaac Asimov, 1966 and on top of the book are 4 cut-outs of bent circles representing magnetic monopoles which revolutionizes modern physics, especially the ElectroMagnetic theory.
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08RK33T8V
> > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 28, 2020
> > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 794 KB
> > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 123 pages
> > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Best Sellers Rank: #4,167,235 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #15,099 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #91,163 in Physics (Books)
> > >
> > >
> > > #2-4, 151st published book
> > >
> > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4
> > > Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > > Preface: This is AP's 151st book of science published. It is one of my most important books of science because 1st year college physics is so impressionable on students, if they should continue with physics, or look elsewhere for a career. And also, physics is a crossroad to all the other hard core sciences, where physics course is mandatory such as in chemistry or even biology. I have endeavored to make physics 1st year college to be as easy and simple to learn. In this endeavor to make physics super easy, I have made the writing such that you will see core ideas in all capital letters as single sentences as a educational tool. And I have made this textbook chapter writing follow a logical pattern of both algebra and geometry concepts, throughout. The utmost importance of logic in physics needs to be seen and understood. For I have never seen a physics book, prior to this one that is logical. Every Old Physics textbook I have seen is scatter-brained in topics and in writing. I use as template book of Halliday & Resnick because a edition of H&R was one I was taught physics at University of Cincinnati in 1969. And in 1969, I had a choice of majors, do I major in geology, or mathematics, or in physics, for I will graduate from UC in 1972. For me, geology was too easy, but physics was too tough, so I ended up majoring in mathematics. If I had been taught in 1969 using this textbook that I have written, I would have ended up majoring in physics, my first love. For physics is not hard, not hard at all, once you clear out the mistakes and the obnoxious worthless mathematics that clutters up Old Physics, and the illogic that smothers much of Old Physics.
> > >
> > > Maybe it was good that I had those impressions of physics education of poor education, which still exists throughout physics today. Because maybe I am forced to write this book, because of that awful experience of learning physics in 1969. Without that awful experience, maybe this textbook would have never been written by me.
> > >
> > > Cover picture is the template book of Halliday & Resnick, 1988, 3rd edition Fundamentals of Physics and sitting on top are cut outs of "half bent circles, bent at 90 degrees" to imitate magnetic monopoles. Magnetic Monopoles revolutionizes physics education, and separates-out, what is Old Physics from what is New Physics.
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09JW5DVYM
> > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 19, 2021
> > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1035 KB
> > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 386 pages
> > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Best Sellers Rank: #4,874,333 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #526 in Electromagnetic Theory
> > > ◦ #1,321 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #9,546 in Electromagnetism (Books)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > #2-5, 174th published book
> > >
> > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 2nd year College
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition
> > >
> > > Preface: At the moment this is a physics book for 2nd year College. But as the months and years go by I intend to convert it into a textbook of about 200 to 300 pages. It is mostly about thermodynamics for in my own college education 1968-1972 at University of Cincinnati, I took physics thermodynamics in the 2nd year (if memory has not failed me).
> > > Cover-Picture: Is a iphone photograph of the Chemistry textbook I used at UC 1968-1972 with my own paper cut-outs of magnetic monopoles. Pictured are 4 bent circles, bent at 90degrees from diameter and each bent circle is a individual magnetic monopole.
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09TKL4HMC
> > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 27, 2022
> > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 675 KB
> > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 41 pages
> > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > #2-6, 177th published book
> > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Atoms, 3rd year College
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition
> > >
> > > Preface: I come to teaching physics for 3rd year College as the Architecture of Atoms. My writing style will be prose-narrative, until I add on exercise problems and convert it into a textbook. The 1st year College, has to be the equations and laws of electricity and magnetism. For the primal-axiom over all of physics is-- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. The 2nd year College is thermodynamics. And now the 3rd year College physics has to teach the Architecture, the geometry of the inside and exterior surface of the atom. One of the greatest faults, misery, and anti-science teaching of Old Physics is their denial that subatomic particles have to be something more than tiny balls tiny spheres that do-nothing, perform nothing, function as nothing. That the proton and neutron and true electron=muon, has to be matter with a function and purpose and design and task and job. This is a year of physics teaching of the architecture of the atom.
> > > Cover Picture: A iphone photograph of my book chemistry book, a long time favorite of mine of CHEM ONE, 2nd edition, Waser, Trueblood, Knobler, 1980, and page 307 of that book. Why this page? Because it was instrumental in my discovery of the true Architecture of Atoms. Not many professors of chemistry or physics dive into the Shrodinger Equation that results in a meaningful teaching of "matter waves". Matter waves are the heart of understanding the geometry of Atomic Architecture.
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09VFH9QST
> > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2022
> > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 823 KB
> > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 74 pages
> > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > #2-7, 178th published book
> > >
> > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Light Waves & Energy, 4th year College
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Kindle edition)
> > >
> > >
> > > Preface: This is 4th year College Physics and the important ideas of physics to learn as last year undergraduate school is the architecture and geometry of the Light Wave & Energy in physics. This is New Physics and not Old Physics. New Physics is defined as physics that knows and uses the true electron of atoms is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus and doing the Faraday law, creating new electrical energy that is storaged in the neutrons of atoms until they grow from 1eV into 945MeV and then create a new higher atomic numbered atom or emitted as radioactivity. Old Physics mistakenly identified the electron of atoms as the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. In 3rd year College we studied the architecture of the interior of atoms. In 4th year College we study the architecture of Light Waves & Energy.
> > >
> > > The template book for 4th year College is Feynman's 1985 book of QED.
> > >
> > > Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of the template book for this book. Feynman's 1985 QED, quantum electrodynamics, showing my plastic toy model of DNA and my cut-outs of 4 bent circles that each bent circle represents one magnetic monopole. I arranged the monopoles into a single strand of a cycloid wave.
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09W58XGDW
> > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 21, 2022
> > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 824 KB
> > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 66 pages
> > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > #2-9, 161st published book
> > >
> > > PHYSICSOPEDIA -- List of 137 fakes and mistakes of Old Physics// Student teaches professor Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > > Last revision was 24Apr2022. This is AP's 161st published book of science.
> > >
> > > Preface:
> > > A Physicsopedia is a book of the overall assessment and evaluation of the state of the art of Physics. It is like a report card. It is a total view of the science and a judgement of the science, both of the past, present and the direction forward into the future. Its greatest use is to alert readers and people in science of what is wrong with their subject, and as a ancillary use, to alert students what to avoid in college as a waste of time.
> > >
> > > It is not in alphabetical order but mostly, rather, has a ordering of what is most important at the start and only at the very very end. For there is no index.
> > >
> > > Physics is the most important hard science for every other science is a specialized part of physics. And Old Physics has three key huge mistakes that this book addresses. The true theory of the Universe is the Atom Totality, not the Big Bang which is a ridiculous theory. The true electron of atoms is not the particle of 0.5MeV which turns out to be Dirac's magnetic monopole, while the true real electron of atoms is the muon of 105MeV which is stuck inside a proton torus of 8 rings of 840MeV. This causes another huge mistake, for a mistake in physics usually has a cascade effect of more and more mistakes. When we take the true electron of atoms is the muon, means the Sun and stars shine not from fusion, but from that muon thrusting through the proton torus in a Faraday law of electricity and magnetism producing electrical energy. So our Sun shines from the Faraday law, not fusion. And this implies the Sun has gone into Red Giant phase with a solar radiation increase of 0.005% yearly increase. That implies all life on Earth is in danger of going extinct as the Sun becomes more and more Red Giant, and unless humanity moves out to Europa, humanity goes extinct.
> > >
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09N18QPP1
> > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 3, 2021
> > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1139 KB
> > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 82 pages
> > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > y z

Far too difficult for Univ Oxford to teach the truth about Logic, Math and Physics, than it was for the USA to send a spaceship to the Moon, land on Moon, and return the astronauts to Earth.

The USSR in April 1961 sent the first human up into Space, in the Space Race, forcing President Kennedy to declare in May 1961 that the USA will send a human to the Moon and back before the "end of the decade". The Moon walk did occur in 1969.

University of Oxford has a tougher time of acknowledging that truth table of AND is TTTF, and not TFFF (Oxford teaches TFFF). For TTTF as AND yields addition, rather than subtraction. And that computers stop spitting out addition as OR, such as 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. For Boole and Jevons in late 1800s simply made the mistake of mixing up truth tables of AND with OR. Boole and Jevons were failures of logic for every one of their 4 main connectors are in error. Yet Oxford upon learning of these errors in AP posts of 1990s from posts to the Internet sci.math and sci.physics by Archimedes Plutonium, Oxford still teaches the profoundly dumbarse logic of a mixed up AND with OR truth table. In fact, so idiotic is Oxford in Logic, that the miserable professors there that teach logic have no qualm in thinking OR logic connector can have two different classes of OR, an exclusive OR and a inclusive OR. For they have no logical marbles at all in their brains at University Oxford.

And the response by Oxford after reading AP's correction ever since 1994, the response by Oxford was for its faculty to sit back and relax and laugh at the goon squad of bad-mouthing creeps like Earle Jones with his anagrams of AP, or MIT Gilbert Strang under a fake name of Port(something) along with Kibo Parry (Moroney) like Dan Christensen and Jan Burse and his gang of idiots with their 938 is 12% short of 945, attack attack attack of AP correcting logic, math and physics. Christopher Patten, Louise Richardson, Andrew Wiles and Oxford faculty want to continue to teach error filled bullshit for not just decades but centuries on.

OTHER MISTAKES that Oxford continues to teach with never a thought that they are wrong and need to correct their mistakes.

(2) By 2015, AP proved a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Yet Oxford math department never knew that calculus was geometry in the first place, and thus, never knew a geometry proof was required.

(3) By 2016, AP proved the slant cut in single right cone was a Oval, never the ellipse, which makes perfect commonsense, since a cone and oval have only 1 axis of symmetry, but an ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry.

(4) By 2016-2017, AP realized there had been a grand great mistake in physics for JJ Thomson in 1897 discovered a 0.5MeV particle, which he and the rest of the physics and chemistry community thought was the atom's electron. For it would not be until the 1930s that Caltech physicists would discover a particle that is 105MeV, the muon, and would truly be the atom's electron, while the 0.5MeV particle is now seen as the Dirac magnetic monopole. This changes all the physical sciences. But there is the dumbarse Oxford faculty, whose minds in science is so stupid, that not a single one of them can even ask or entertain the question,-- which is the true electron of atoms. For AP wrote several books on the idea that the muon is the true electron of atoms and is stuck inside a proton torus of 840MeV doing the Faraday law between muon and proton. And this is why Sun and stars shine-- not from fusion, mind you, they shine because every proton in the Sun and stars is doing the Faraday law.

John Kennedy had a brain of logic. He saw that sputnik was up and USSR with first human in Space. Kennedy had logical brains, and proclaimed, before Decade is Out, USA will land on Moon and come home safely.

It is far far too much to ask of University Oxford, of Christopher Patten, of Louise Richardson, Roger Penrose, to much to ask them to hold a conference and start that Oxford brain dead faculty, to START teaching AND truth table is TTTF, not TFFF, START teaching that slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, START teaching that calculus is geometry and requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not their mindless limit analysis hornswaggle, or, just simply ask the question-- which is the atom's true electron. No, Oxford is not a John Kennedy who had a logical mind, and saw things needed fixing and achievement. No Oxford by 1990s-2022 is mostly a intellectual cesspool of fools running around with their 2 OR 1 = 3, and their slant cut of cone is ellipse.

No, University Oxford is a backwards shithead school, for when Kennedy says we will land on Moon and come home safely before 1970. Oxford in contrast says-- we send out a goon squad of hate mongers like Earle Jones and his logo picture, Chris Thomasson, Dan Christensen, Kibo Parry (Moron), Gilbert Strang undercover as Port--- and his gang of gay haters, and keep teaching falsehoods for the next thousand years. Keep teaching 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction and slant cut in cone is ellipse when in reality it is a oval, and never a geometry proof of calculus, and worst of all-- no brain at Oxford, none at all, to ask if 0.5MeV or 105MeV is the Atom's true electron..

AP