206+x book of Science by AP// The paradoxes of Color explained-- White Light the addition of dark colors & where does brown come from// Physics-Math.

I wrote a book on just that subject matter alone-- paradoxes of science. Such things as why we lose weight when we have cancer, for it seems as though you have a growth that adds on more weight to the body as a whole. Explanation: There are 2 bodies and the cancer is a parasite that eats the first body.

In physics of optics we have white light being the combination of all of red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet. The Roy G Biv teaching aid to help remember the colors in order. But each of those colors is darker than white, so how in the world is the coming together of all those colors going to be white? Should it really be "black"?

And the explanation of the color black as the absence of light, when we would think that "white light" should be the absence of light.

Finally the color "brown" when the primary-colors to make other colors is red, yellow, blue makes orange, green, violet.

This book is an attempt to come to some common-sense explanation for these questions and to lay to rest the paradoxes of light-colors.

AP

I am hoping that the mathematics of wavelengths suffices to explain away all the paradoxes of color.

Did you know that green plants do not like "green wavelength light"? They do not like it because it is reflected off of plants and the reason we see them as "being green". Plants utilize the red light and the blue light but not the green in between red and blue.

So if I take the idea that combining red with blue to get the intermediate color --- green. A math addition of red + blue = green.

Then argue that green is white.

How on Earth could green be white???? Can we say that the human eye turns white into being "green". If I can do that, it would dismiss the paradox.

That leaves brown to explain.

I have a old Brown Cow plain yoghurt container on my table. It has a faded color brown cow on the picture. Brown looks to be a mix of green and yellow..

If I can get the math of wavelengths to work out, then green + yellow = brown and that brown is converging on "black".

So, we have a mathematics that if correct, converges to Green where green is both white and black and brown is a near-black.

This is my prospective attack on the problem of Color. That it is a math addition of wavelength to the right and left of Green.

Only because the human eye is constructed to see Green, when in physics numbers it is "white".

Tough, tough paradox, far more challenging than the Special Relativity paradox that so many waifs of science get scuttled and annoyed and perplexed by..

Why, the color paradox is 1,000 times more challenging than Special Relativity and its time dilation and space length contraction. Why SR is peanuts compared to the challenge of color paradox.

AP

Now I am very excited, very very excited about a experiment I am going to perform to prove any and perhaps if lucky, all these claims so far. The claims that green light is actually white and black light as the red, orange, yellow cancel the violet, indigo, blue of the order Roy G Biv only the Biv is backwards.

You see, in this experiment I seek to show that the wavelength of violet cancels red and indigo cancels orange and yellow cancels blue, by cancels, I mean a vector additive that becomes green. And we already see this in the fact that yellow and blue become green.

So does violet and red become green? Does indigo and orange become green?

And my hypothesis is that the human anatomy eyeball sees a Green when in physics reality, the Green is really White or Black.

In other words, what we see and the brain interprets as a color is not the actual color of physics. There is no color spectrum of Roy G Biv for a different species such as dog or cat or bird.

EXPERIMENT:

So what I need in materials is two prisms and two laser white lights.

I shoot the laser white light through one prism and notice the Roy G Biv.

The second prism I shoot the second laser white light through the prism, but the geometry of the set up is such that the spectrum is reversed from the first white light prism.

So the first prism shows Roy G Biv. The second prism shows a Vib G Yor and the two light spectrums intersect.

At the intersection, the Red intercepts the Violet, the Orange intercepts the Indigo, the Yellow intercepts the Blue. And the Green of 1st laser intercepts the Green of 2nd laser.

If I am lucky and see that the intersection yields all Green light, the two bands becoming totally Green and no more Roy G Biv, then these results tell me I am onto something new, and important discovery.

If in the intersection of both lasers, one reversed of the other, and nothing happens, the two spectrums are the same as before the intersection, well, then I have nothing at this moment in time.

So, well, onward to the experiment. Wish me luck.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics

First, why am I doing a book on colors? And the answer is quick and fast, there is a paradox here, and whenever I run into a paradox, it needs a science solution. In fact, there are several paradoxes of color.

(1) How is it that White light comes from mixing darker colors of red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet. This breaks all commonsense, that white comes from darker colors. The color yellow seems closest or nearest to that of white. Yet all 7 of these colors come from white light.

So a paradox in science, whenever you encounter them, they require a resolution, unless, well, unless you are _not a scientist_, then no resolution is required. No scientist can idle by with a paradox in the house.

Second paradox of colors.

(2) We see plants the majority of them are "green, green, green" and our minds come to think that green is the most important color when it comes to life for plants are green. But it turns out that plants reflect the green light waves, reject them and utilize the red light to the left of green in Roy G Biv, and the blue light to the right of green in Roy G Biv. This is more of a misunderstanding than it is a paradox, but we are not far wrong in categorizing it as a paradox. That plants are 90% green in color, yet plants reject green.

So we notice that Green is in the middle of Roy G Biv. And this begs the question of -- could it be that Green is a human anatomy, a physiology characteristic-- a human mechanism and not something inherent in Nature. If all our eyes were from a bird or a salamander or a fish or a cat or a dog, would we still see the Roy G Biv spectrum that humans see? I seriously doubt it.

What I think is going on here is that Roy G Biv is mostly a biology anatomy phenomenon and not a basic inherent physics of the world.

I would almost bet that if we could wear the eyes of a cat or dog for a day or two, that they see the world in their own spectrum, a different spectrum from Roy G Biv. But a spectrum nonetheless. For, after all, much activity of life is based on color, birds have color, flowers have color, insects are attracted by color.

And I suspect that if we wore cat eyes or dog eyes for a day their electromagnetic spectrum would be identical to humans as they discover through physics, but that their eyes focus on a different part of the spectrum. Humans make green the middle color in Roy G Biv. It could be that dog eyes make red the middle color and have 3 colors to the left of their red and 3 colors to the right of their red, very different from the human Roy G Biv.

So my hunch is that EM spectrum is physics revealed, but the Visible portion of EM spectrum the Roy G Biv of colors is more biology physiology than it is physics.

I was reading the color mixing web sites and found out several things.

blue + orange = brown

all primary colors, the red yellow blue mixed in equal amounts yields grey to black

an imbalance in mixing of red yellow blue results in brown

indigo + yellow = brown to grey to black

I was looking to see if indigo + orange = green? No answer.

Then I saw a website that indicated green in its many shades is a most difficult color to obtain.

AP

Now I have started this experiment already but see that the engineering of it maybe beyond my laboratory needs.

What I want to do is break white light into Roy G Biv from one prism and a second prism reverse the order of Vib G Yor and then have the two spectra intersect to see if they cause only Green light band form. Where the Red intersects the Violet making Green, the Orange intersecting Indigo making Green and Blue & Yellow making green so the entire intersection ends up being All Green patch.

If I find this to be true, what will it prove? This is so much the heart of any science-- clear true interpretation. And is the cause of so much error in modern science-- few scientists can interpret what they find, interpret it correctly. As we saw with Geiger, Marsden, Rutherford, Bohr, interpreting the bombarding of gold foil with alpha particles as Atoms with a nuclear center, and the 0.5MeV particle as electron, with nucleus of protons and neutrons. The true interpretation of Rutherford experiment is protons are 8 rings of 840 windings as a torus with muon inside doing Faraday law. Such an interpretation of the Atom structure gives the same experiment result of bombarding it with alpha particles.

The most difficult thing in physics---- proper correct interpretation of what the experiment gives.

So, what if my experiment yielded a solid green patch? How do I proper interpret that green patch?

AP, King of Science, especially Physics

🕷 of Math and 🦂 of Physics Archimedes "Putin's lackey" Plutonium
<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> tarded:

> Now I am very excited, very very excited about a experiment I am going to perform to prove any and perhaps if lucky, all these claims so far. The claims that green light is actually white and black light as the red, orange, yellow cancel the violet, indigo, blue of the order Roy G Biv only the Biv is backwards.
>
> You see, in this experiment I seek to show that the wavelength of violet cancels red and indigo cancels orange and yellow cancels blue, by cancels, I mean a vector additive that becomes green. And we already see this in the fact that yellow and blue become green.

I think you need to take an elementary school art class. Even little
kids know what happens when mixing paint colors.
>
> So does violet and red become green? Does indigo and orange become green?
>
> And my hypothesis is that the human anatomy eyeball sees a Green when in physics reality, the Green is really White or Black.

Say what? Green is not white or black at all!
Perhaps you are colorblind? I had a college roommate who was colorblind,
and he once told me green traffic lights look white to him.
>
> In other words, what we see and the brain interprets as a color is not the actual color of physics. There is no color spectrum of Roy G Biv for a different species such as dog or cat or bird.
>
> EXPERIMENT:
>
> So what I need in materials is two prisms and two laser white lights.
>
> I shoot the laser white light through one prism and notice the Roy G Biv.
>
> The second prism I shoot the second laser white light through the prism, but the geometry of the set up is such that the spectrum is reversed from the first white light prism.
>
> So the first prism shows Roy G Biv. The second prism shows a Vib G Yor and the two light spectrums intersect.
>
> At the intersection, the Red intercepts the Violet, the Orange intercepts the Indigo, the Yellow intercepts the Blue. And the Green of 1st laser intercepts the Green of 2nd laser.
>
> If I am lucky and see that the intersection yields all Green light, the two bands becoming totally Green and no more Roy G Biv, then these results tell me I am onto something new, and important discovery.
>
> If in the intersection of both lasers, one reversed of the other, and nothing happens, the two spectrums are the same as before the intersection, well, then I have nothing at this moment in time.

At least you know how to think through a proper experiment, this time.
But don't you think someone would have noticed something like that by now?
>
> So, well, onward to the experiment. Wish me luck.

Good luck, and please actually do the experiment, rather than proclaim
from on high what your "truth" is.
>
> AP, Drag Queen of Science, especially Physics

Kibo Parry M on Andrea Ghez, Lisa Randall why Kibo, because they cannot tell the truth about conics-- the slant cut is a Oval, never the ellipse. Or is it because they cannot answer which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle?????
On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> I want to fuck her corpse

On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 10:54:55 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"Putin's lackey"

Re: Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly??-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole
1/23/18
By Michael Moroney

On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 10:54:55 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"Putin's lackey"
>"barking fuckdog"
>Drag Queen of Science, especially Physics

Andrea Ghez,Juan Rojo, Ramona Vogt, Wally Melnitchouk, C.-P. Yuan, Tim Hobbs,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.

My 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)

Michael Moroney wrote:

>> You see, in this experiment I seek to show that the wavelength of
>> violet cancels red and indigo cancels orange and yellow cancels blue,
>> by cancels, I mean a vector additive that becomes green. And we already
>> see this in the fact that yellow and blue become green.
>
> I think you need to take an elementary school art class. Even little
> kids know what happens when mixing paint colors.

no they don't. Neither you do. Both chemical and physical. I give you two
distinct monochrome EM and ask you for the mixed color. You can't. Light
don't interact with light. A FFT will show the two distinct monochrome
separately. Read my lips.

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> First, why am I doing a book on colors? And the answer is quick and
> fast, there is a paradox here, and whenever I run into a paradox, it
> needs a science solution. In fact, there are several paradoxes of color.

so true. The clan of bidena just has made capitalist amerrica a terrorist
state, again. Even the children in kindergarten know now, that capitalist
amerrica is a *_terrorist_union_of_states_*.

what a shame, for a country, which never crashed on the moon.