Steve of Science Blogs
Science Blogs
GAPS in a doctor's reasoning about vaccines and autism ...
And now back to ignoring RI's weak substitute for an Archimedes Plutonium. (They just don't make cranks like they used to...) -- Steve.
..Jul 31, 2011

Why Zelos, because Steve is a science failure and idiot, cannot ask the simple question which is the Atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle, so stupid in math was Steve, he still thinks ellipse is slant cut of cone?

Save whales

 
                                 Our Whale Animals

Can a Trump tariff fine,
Like the tariff of a Macron French wine,
Show us how crazy is the world sign,
When you have a crazy USA president time,
Who pines about his hair line,
More than he cares about 1,500 whales slaughtered by Japan crime.

                              b
                            .  $  .
        ....             d  *  *  $    .
   .ze$$$$$$$$be..       ^b ^L 4F $    $
  e$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$e      "L $  b $   J%
..$$$$$$$$$$$$$P**""**      3r'L $ $  4F
 "*$$$$$$$$*"               *.$ 3 $  $
   *$$$$$"                  ^$'r'$P d"
   ^$$$"                     ^$$ $F4F
    $$$                       "$r*bP
    $$$F                        "4$"
    $$$$                         ^"
    $$$$b              ..eeeed$$$$$$$$eeee...
    *$$$$b.       .ze$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$be..
    '$$$$$$bee..e$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$bc
     3$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$c
      "*$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$r
        ^""""$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$e..        P
             "$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$bee.z@"
              ^*$$$$$$$$*"""     """"**$$$$$$$$$$$$$"
                ^"*$$$"                 ""*$$$$$$*"
                    ""**eeec............eee@**""  Gilo94'
                           """"""""""""""
               z$
             z$$F
            d$$$
           $$$$$
          J$$$$$
          $$$$$$
         .$$$$$$
         $$$$$$$b
        $$$$$$$$$c
       J$$$$$$$$$$$c
       $$$$ "$$$$$$$$$.
      $$$$P    "*$$$$$"                     .ze$$$$$bc
     .$$$$F                              z$$$$$$$$$$$$$b
     $$$$$                           .e$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
     $$$$$                         z$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$""$$$$
    4$$$$$F                     .$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  $$$$r
    $$$$$$$                   z$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    $$$$$$$c                e$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    '$$$$$$$c            .d$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
     $$$$$$$$b          d$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
      *$$$$$$$$r      d$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Gilo94'

    .-------------'```'----......,,__                        _,
   |                                 `'`'`'`'-.,.__        .'(
   |                                               `'--._.'   )
   |                                                     `'-.<
   \               .-'`'-.                              -.    `\
    \               -.o_.     _                       _,-'`\    |
     ``````''--.._.-=-._    .'  \              _,,--'`      `-._(
       (^^^^^^^^`___    '-. |    \  __,,,...--'                 `
        `````````   `'--..___\    |`
                jgs           `-.,'

Newsgroups: sci.physics and sci.math
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2019 07:32:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: why we especially need whales to exist //SCIENCE COUNCIL RULES EARTH,
 series 2, 2019
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2019 14:32:55 +0000

why the whales are so important for the oceans-- isomers of CO2 //SCIENCE COUNCIL RULES EARTH, series 2, 2019

Chemistry of carbon dioxide in Old Chemistry thought that CO2 from fossil fuel burning is the same CO2 that animals and plants breathe in and breathe out.

Old Chemistry is wrong, for the CO2 that living organisms need to stay alive is a different isomer (the bonding of carbon with two oxygen atoms have different geometries) from the CO2 that is produced through burning.

The fossil fuel CO2 is a toxic poison to plants and animals.

So the best CO2 source in the oceans is the large animals. If you remove animals from ocean, and remove enough of them, you kill off the plants of the ocean also. This idea applies on land also. The plants of terrestrial life, need their large animals for Animal-CO2.

AP

Cranial-rectally inverted. Eric Francis, George Witte, St. Martin's Press Depriving a village somewhere, of an idiot. jfderry , JF Derry Telanthropus brains plugged into Africanthropus body James Kibo Parry James Kibo Parry James Kibo Parry

On Tuesday, December 17, 2019 at 2:27:06 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"..as smart as the average tunicate"

why Jason Herrmann and Dartmouth College (Hanover High School math is brighter than the College math) physics departments has lights turned off, but Harvard's Dr.Hau needs to turn the light off-- Quantum Entanglement verified

1- Kibo Parry Moroney, is it your opinion that Dr. John Baez is a math jackarse that cannot tell the difference from a ellipse and oval as proven by AP (see proofs below) ?? And when confronted with the fact that the ellipse is only a cylinder cut, not a conic cut, the imbecile Baez tries to go out and redefine the ellipse-- I mean, Baez spends more time in making up fake names for himself than actually getting a paper cone and putting a Kerr lid into the cone and see for himself that it is a oval

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 00:28:31 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <421c6f56-7355-4ec6...@googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=192.208.232.34;
posting-account=jPnQ2goAAAA461y3QD0lbyw0oKeThma1
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.208.232.34
Message-ID: <69d8bde6-bcb6-472f...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: asshole
From: noTthaTguY <abu.ku...@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 08:28:33 +0000

On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 3:28:35 AM UTC-5, noTthaTguY wrote:
> ellipses are ovals, but not all ovals are elipses, of course;
> just grab a dictionary, asshole
>

On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 7:17:05 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> Agreed.
>

So, kibo Parry Moroney, you agree, but which is worse a idiot like you who thinks 938 is 12% short of 945 which even Dr. John Baez would Agree is wrong.

why Jason Herrmann and Dartmouth College (Hanover High School math is brighter than the College math) physics departments has lights turned off, but Harvard's Dr.Hau needs to turn the light off-- Quantum Entanglement verified

1- Kibo Parry Moroney, is it your opinion that Ken Ribet is a math jackarse that cannot tell the difference from a ellipse and oval as proven by AP (see proofs below) ??

On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 7:17:05 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> Agreed.
>

1-AMS, Jill Pipher, Ken Ribet, Robert L. Bryant, David Vogan, Eric M. Friedlander, they all love money more than the truth of math and science-- ellipse is never a conic section

why Jason Herrmann and Dartmouth College (Hanover High School math is brighter than the College math) physics departments has lights turned off, but Harvard's Dr.Hau needs to turn the light off-- Quantum Entanglement verified

I mean think of it, down the street from Dartmouth College is Hanover High School and anyone of the many bright students at Hanover High School can take a Euclid plane geometry proof that the ellipse is never a conic but is the oval, and walk into a Dartmouth College math classroom where the nitwit math professor is teaching the conic slant cut is a ellipse, when it never was. Yet here the Hanover High School student has more brains in math than the nitwit Dartmouth College math professor.

#21
Quantum Entanglement, Physics series for High School, book 7 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Quantum Entanglement was shown on NOVA in January 2019 with Austrian physicists at a mountain telescope gathering data. NOVA tried to explain Quantum Entanglement, but the below probably does a better job of explaining. Especially explaining to High School students what is going on, and why.

A much easier and nicer experiment proving Quantum Entanglement and explaining why it exists; the mechanism behind it; is Harvard's Dr. Hau slow light experiments, once the laser light is turned off.

German Anja Karliczek head of Germany Federal Ministry of Education, why does Germany keep flooding sci.math with WM math bullshit of dark numbers that fill up the front pages of sci.math with his insane bullshit going on for 3 decades now????

WM is a insane poster who cannot even admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, so insane is WM that he floods sci.math with his mindless dark numbers bullshit.

He cannot admit the truth of math, so he should not be posting in sci.math.

Why, Anja, WM is so insane, the fruitcake cannot even understand Boole logic is wrong with 2 OR 1 = 3 and WM has AND as subtraction.

So mindless is WM, he cannot even ask the question,-- is the muon the true electron of atoms and the 0.5MeV particle the Dirac magnetic monopole.

Yet this German shitturd WM floods the front page of sci.math every day for 3 decades with his never ending insane bullshit of dark numbers.

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)

My 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.

Product details
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 



On 9/30/2022 7:07 PM, Blaide Alesiooal@oasaella.oe Blaide Alesio wrote:
> Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>> 💩 for 🧠 Archimedes "Putin's Stooge" Plutonium
>> <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> tarded:
>>
>>> Jim Burns and WM-Germany's analfuckdog-
>>
>> ArchiePoo, now you want to fuck a dog anally? You are getting sicker and
>> sicker. First you want to fuck the queen's corpse, then fuck a lion, now
>> a dog anally, plus you want to do homosexual acts with Mueckenheim and
>> others?
>
> wonderful people, I love it so much. Made me 20 years younger already.
> Spasiba. Why don't you have something like this in america, you
> capitalists.
>
> Putin speaks at concert to celebrate 'annexation' of Ukrainian regions
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSNkv8b-mIQ
>
> Russian National Anthem (HD) | Victory Day 2022
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnxfdkbwHNs
>
> In full: Russia holds pop concert to mark annexation of four Ukrainian
> regions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKlC_oiFrd4

https://youtu.be/xcHhuFN2CO0

Anja Karliczek head of Germany Federal Ministry of Education & Research, why does Germany keep flooding sci.math with WM math bullshit of dark numbers that fill up the front pages of sci.math with his insane bullshit going on for 3 decades now????

WM is a insane poster who cannot even admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, so insane is WM that he floods sci.math with his mindless dark numbers bullshit.

He cannot admit the truth of math, so he should not be posting in sci.math.

Why, Anja, WM is so insane, the fruitcake cannot even understand Boole logic is wrong with 2 OR 1 = 3 and WM has AND as subtraction.

So mindless is WM, he cannot even ask the question,-- is the muon the true electron of atoms and the 0.5MeV particle the Dirac magnetic monopole.

Yet this German shitturd WM floods the front page of sci.math every day for 3 decades with his never ending insane bullshit of dark numbers.

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)

My 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.

Product details
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 



Anja Karliczek head of Germany Federal Ministry of Education & Research, why does Germany keep flooding sci.math with WM math bullshit of dark numbers that fill up the front pages of sci.math with his insane bullshit going on for 3 decades now????

WM is a insane poster who cannot even admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, so insane is WM that he floods sci.math with his mindless dark numbers bullshit.

He cannot admit the truth of math, so he should not be posting in sci.math.

Why, Anja, WM is so insane, the fruitcake cannot even understand Boole logic is wrong with 2 OR 1 = 3 and WM has AND as subtraction.

So mindless is WM, he cannot even ask the question,-- is the muon the true electron of atoms and the 0.5MeV particle the Dirac magnetic monopole.

Yet this German shitturd WM floods the front page of sci.math every day for 3 decades with his never ending insane bullshit of dark numbers.

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)

My 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.

Product details
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

On 10/4/2022 4:15 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 9/30/2022 7:07 PM, Blaide Alesiooal@oasaella.oe Blaide Alesio wrote:
>> Michael Moroney wrote:
>>
>>> 💩 for 🧠 Archimedes "Putin's Stooge" Plutonium
>>> <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> tarded:
>>>
>>>> Jim Burns and WM-Germany's analfuckdog-
>>>
>>> ArchiePoo, now you want to fuck a dog anally? You are getting sicker and
>>> sicker. First you want to fuck the queen's corpse, then fuck a lion, now
>>> a dog anally, plus you want to do homosexual acts with Mueckenheim and
>>> others?
>>
>> wonderful people, I love it so much. Made me 20 years younger already.
>> Spasiba. Why don't you have something like this in america, you
>> capitalists.
>>
>> Putin speaks at concert to celebrate 'annexation' of Ukrainian regions
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSNkv8b-mIQ
>>
>> Russian National Anthem (HD) | Victory Day 2022
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnxfdkbwHNs
>>
>> In full: Russia holds pop concert to mark annexation of four Ukrainian
>> regions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKlC_oiFrd4
>
>
> https://youtu.be/xcHhuFN2CO0
>

Polyushko-Polye (Field-field)
Versions: #1#2
Field1-field, field, wide field
Heroes are riding by the field
Ah, [they're] heroes of Red Army

Girls are crying
It is sad for girls today
Darling has left for a long time
Ah, darling has left to the Army

Girls, look!
Look at our road
Endless road winds [curving]
Ah, this is a very merry road

{Riding, we riding,}2
{Riding, and [there're] kolkhozes around}
{[it's] our kolkhozes, girls}
{Ah, [it's] young our villages}

Just we are seeing
[we are] seeing grey storm-cloud
Enemy's hate from behind a forest
Ah, enemy's hate like a storm-cloud

Girls, look!
We are ready to meet enemy
Our horses are fastlegged
Ah, our tanks are fastmotored

{Rampant pilots are watching}
{for the storm-cloud in the sky}
{Submarines are floating quickly}
{Ah, Voroshilov is watching vigilantly}

Let it's boiling 3 on in our kolkhoz4
An amicable work
We are watchers today
Ah, we are sentinels today

{Girls, look!}
{Girls, wipe up your tears}
{Let our song sounds louder}
{Ah, our battle song}

{Field-field}
{Field-field, field, wide field}
{Heroes are riding by the field}
{Ah, [they're] heroes of Red Army}
https://lyricstranslate.com

On 10/4/2022 4:36 PM, Sergi o wrote:
> On 10/4/2022 4:15 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 9/30/2022 7:07 PM, Blaide Alesiooal@oasaella.oe Blaide Alesio wrote:
>>> Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>
>>>> 💩 for 🧠 Archimedes "Putin's Stooge" Plutonium
>>>> <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> tarded:
>>>>
>>>>> Jim Burns and WM-Germany's analfuckdog-
>>>>
>>>> ArchiePoo, now you want to fuck a dog anally? You are getting sicker and
>>>> sicker. First you want to fuck the queen's corpse, then fuck a lion, now
>>>> a dog anally, plus you want to do homosexual acts with Mueckenheim and
>>>> others?
>>>
>>> wonderful people, I love it so much. Made me 20 years younger already.
>>> Spasiba. Why don't you have something like this in america, you
>>> capitalists.
>>>
>>> Putin speaks at concert to celebrate 'annexation' of Ukrainian regions
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSNkv8b-mIQ
>>>
>>> Russian National Anthem (HD) | Victory Day 2022
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnxfdkbwHNs
>>>
>>> In full: Russia holds pop concert to mark annexation of four Ukrainian
>>> regions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKlC_oiFrd4
>>
>>
>> https://youtu.be/xcHhuFN2CO0
>>

A better? translation;

Field, my field,
My wide field.
The heroes ride over the field,
Heroes of the past.

The wind scatters your brave songs
Across the green field.
Songs of the past,
Leaving them alone with your glory,
And right at the end, on a dusty road…

Field, my field,
My wide field,
The heroes ride over the field,
Heroes of the past.

Field, my field, has seen so much misfortune.
It was drenched in blood,
The blood of the past.

Field, my field,
My wide field.
The heroes ride over the field,
Heroes of the past.

The wind disperses your brave songs
Across the green field.
Songs of the past,
Leaving them alone with your glory
And right at the end, on a dusty road…

Field, my field, has seen so much misfortune.
It was drenched in blood,
The blood of the past.
Field, my field,
My wide field…

.......................................
another one;

Prairie, O prairie,
Prairie, open and wide,
Heroes are riding across the prairie,
Oh, Red Army heroes.

Lassies are crying,
Lassies are forlorn today,
Their laddies are leaving for a long time,
Oh, their laddies are leaving for the army.

Lassies, pay attention,
Look at the road we ride on,
The road is long and windy,
Oh, what a merry road.

We only see
We only see the gray clouds,
The hate of the enemy from the forest,
Oh, the enemy's hate is like a dark cloud.

Oh, lassies, pay attention,
We are ready to fight the foes,
Our horses are fleet-footed,
Our tanks are swiftly rolling.

Oh, let our farmers,
Work with peace of mind,
Today we are the guards,
Today we are guarding them.

...................................
another one;

Anja Karliczek head of Germany Federal Ministry of Education & Research, why does Germany keep flooding sci.math with WM math bullshit of dark numbers that fill up the front pages of sci.math with his insane bullshit going on for 3 decades now????

WM is a insane poster who cannot even admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, so insane is WM that he floods sci.math with his mindless dark numbers bullshit.

He cannot admit the truth of math, so he should not be posting in sci.math.

Why, Anja, WM is so insane, the fruitcake cannot even understand Boole logic is wrong with 2 OR 1 = 3 and WM has AND as subtraction.

So mindless is WM, he cannot even ask the question,-- is the muon the true electron of atoms and the 0.5MeV particle the Dirac magnetic monopole.

Yet this German shitturd WM floods the front page of sci.math every day for 3 decades with his never ending insane bullshit of dark numbers.

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)

My 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.

Product details
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

FromTheRafters, Anja Karliczek head of Germany Federal Ministry of Education & Research, why does Germany keep flooding sci.math with WM math bullshit of dark numbers that fill up the front pages of sci.math with his insane bullshit going on for 3 decades now????
>
> WM is a insane poster who cannot even admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, so insane is WM that he floods sci.math with his mindless dark numbers bullshit.
>
> He cannot admit the truth of math, so he should not be posting in sci.math.
>
> Why, Anja, WM is so insane, the fruitcake cannot even understand Boole logic is wrong with 2 OR 1 = 3 and WM has AND as subtraction.
>
> So mindless is WM, he cannot even ask the question,-- is the muon the true electron of atoms and the 0.5MeV particle the Dirac magnetic monopole.
>
> Yet this German shitturd WM floods the front page of sci.math every day for 3 decades with his never ending insane bullshit of dark numbers.
>
> 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)
> My 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.
>
> Product details
> 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

onsdag 5 oktober 2022 kl. 01:13:09 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> FromTheRafters, Anja Karliczek head of Germany Federal Ministry of Education & Research, why does Germany keep flooding sci.math with WM math bullshit of dark numbers that fill up the front pages of sci.math with his insane bullshit going on for 3 decades now????
> >
> > WM is a insane poster who cannot even admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, so insane is WM that he floods sci.math with his mindless dark numbers bullshit.
> >
> > He cannot admit the truth of math, so he should not be posting in sci.math.
> >
> > Why, Anja, WM is so insane, the fruitcake cannot even understand Boole logic is wrong with 2 OR 1 = 3 and WM has AND as subtraction.
> >
> > So mindless is WM, he cannot even ask the question,-- is the muon the true electron of atoms and the 0.5MeV particle the Dirac magnetic monopole.
> >
> > Yet this German shitturd WM floods the front page of sci.math every day for 3 decades with his never ending insane bullshit of dark numbers.
> >
> > 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)
> > My 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.
> >
> > Product details
> > 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
why are you so gay?

Brigitta Wolff,Jurgen Habermass, Anja Karliczek head of Germany Federal Ministry of Education & Research, why does Germany keep flooding sci.math with WM math bullshit of dark numbers that fill up the front pages of sci.math with his insane bullshit going on for 3 decades now????

Brigitta Wolff, is this some type of German comedy show, WM daily spamming sci.math and have a team of comedians-- Chris Thomasson, Jim Burns, TheRafters, Sergi_o, day after day after day keep this WM imbecile with dark numbers as the first 5 post threads on the top of the leader board.

Is there a German word for this Spamming behavior-- Shitligkeitzitter

> >
> > WM is a insane poster who cannot even admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, so insane is WM that he floods sci.math with his mindless dark numbers bullshit.
> >
> > He cannot admit the truth of math, so he should not be posting in sci.math.
> >
> > Why, Anja, WM is so insane, the fruitcake cannot even understand Boole logic is wrong with 2 OR 1 = 3 and WM has AND as subtraction.
> >
> > So mindless is WM, he cannot even ask the question,-- is the muon the true electron of atoms and the 0.5MeV particle the Dirac magnetic monopole.
> >
> > Yet this German shitturd WM floods the front page of sci.math every day for 3 decades with his never ending insane bullshit of dark numbers.

Gus Gassmann,Thorsten Theobald,Yury Person, Wolfgang Mueckenheim ever admit slant cut of cone is oval, never the ellipse, ever do a geometry proof of FTC, no all failures of mathematics, and idling away.

Germany's Muck the Puke taking up oxygen out of sci.math with his endless and mindless dark numbers, ellipse a conic when that is an oval, and the failure of all of Germany-- never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

siren Sergio,Laura Covi,Andreas Dillmann,Gottingen no one in Gottingen Germany can admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, all they seem to do is play with WM dark numbers KuhscheiBe. Nor can anyone do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Germany spends its time on Muck the Puck "dark numbers" please, need your help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.

> > > > >
> > > > > B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > stir-crazy-W.Mueckenheim-the fool still thinks slant cut of cone is ellipse when in truth it is an oval, and the failure of logic WM believes in Boole's AND as TFFF when in truth it is TTTF to avoid what the nitwit WM has as 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. WM is a math failure for the idiot never knew calculus was geometry and therefore never sought a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
> > > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > > > Augsburg- Friedrich Pukelsheim-Gottingen,Metin Tolin,Ariane Frey, Wolfgang Glatzel why does Wolfgang Mueckenheim the idiot with "dark numbers" & Dr. Tao fail geometry so so badly,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The idiots of math never knew calculus was geometry, erst, they would provide a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, why they are so banal stupid in math, they still believe slant cut in cone is an ellipse, when in reality it is a oval.
> > > > > > > They are not mathematicians but mindless fuckdogs of math.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Maybe they wear glasses and cannot see properly. Maybe WM & Tao were never good in math, for they cannot even tell apart a ellipse from oval. They cannot even ask the question which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Univ Augsburg Germany math-- Hello-- Wolfgang Mueckenheim the fool of math wasting everybodies time -- for WM is a math failure with his slant cut in cone as ellipse when in truth it is a Oval. And now, that fool of math with his "dark numbers". Can you whisk him off to a "shrink in Germany and put him on medications"??
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Kai Cieliebak, Urs Frauenfelder, Jennifer Gruber, Yannis Bahni, Zhen Gao, Sungho Kim, Shuaipeng Liu, Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr, Kevin Ruck, Evgeny Volkov, Frederic Wagner
> > > > >
> > > > > Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > > 
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > 3) arsehole WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > >
> > > > > Metin Tolin,Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt, please, need you help to get WM and his mindless "dark numbers bullshit" moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > 3) fool WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yet, every day the fool WM pollutes sci.math with his dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> 
> > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > >
> > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > Gottingen Univ math
> > >
> > > Dorothea Bahns, Laurent Bartholdi, Valentin Blomer, Jorg Brüdern, Stefan Halverscheid, Harald Andres Helfgott, Madeleine Jotz Lean, Ralf Meyer, Preda Mihailescu, Walther Dietrich Paravicini, Viktor Pidstrygach, Thomas Schick, Evelina Viada, Ingo Frank Witt, Chenchang Zhu
> > >
> > > Eternal-September.org
> > > Wolfgang M. Weyand
> > > Berliner Strasse
> > > Bad Homburg
> > >
> > > Goethe Universitat Physics dept
> > >
> > > Brigitta Wolff president
> > >
> > > Jurgen Habermass
> > > Horst Stocker
> > > Gerd Binnig
> > > Horst Ludwig Stormer
> > > Peter Grunberg
> > >
> > > math
> > > Alex Kuronya
> > > Martin Moller
> > > Jakob Stix
> > > Annette Werner
> > > Andreas Bernig
> > > Esther Cabezas-Rivas
> > > Hans Crauel
> > > Thomas Gerstner
> > > Bastian von Harrach
> > > Thomas Mettler
> > > Tobias Weth
> > > Amin Coja-Oghlan
> > > Raman Sanyal
> > > Thorsten Theobald
> > > Yury Person
> > >
> > >
> > > Gottingen Univ physics
> > > Prof. Dr. Karsten Bahr
> > > Prof. Dr. Peter Bloechl
> > > Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bodenschatz
> > > Prof. Laura Covi, PhD
> > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Dillmann
> > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Dreizler
> > > Prof. Dr. Jörg Enderlein
> > > Prof. Dr. Laurent Gizon
> > > Prof. Dr. Ariane Frey
> > > apl. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Glatzel
> > > Prof. Dr. Fabian Heidrich-Meisner
> > > Prof. Dr. Hans Christian Hofsäss
> > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Janshoff
> > > Prof. Dr. Christian Jooß
> > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Kehrein
> > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Klumpp
> > > Prof. Dr. Sarah Köster
> > > Prof. Dr. Reiner Kree
> > > Prof. Dr. Matthias Krüger
> > > Prof. Dr. Stanley Lai
> > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Mathias
> > > apl. Prof. Dr. Vasile Mosneaga
> > > Prof. Dr. Marcus Müller
> > > Prof. Dr. Jens Niemeyer
> > > apl. Prof. Dr. Astrid Pundt
> > > Prof. Dr. Arnulf Quadt
> > > apl. Prof. Dr. Karl-Henning Rehren
> > > Prof. Dr. Ansgar Reiners
> > > Prof. Dr. Angela Rizzi
> > > Prof. Dr. Claus Ropers
> > > Prof. Dr. Tim Salditt
> > > Prof. Dr. Konrad Samwer
> > > Prof. Dr. Christoph Schmidt
> > > apl. Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider
> > > Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann
> > > Prof. Dr. Simone Techert
> > > apl. Prof. Dr. Michael Seibt
> > > Prof. Dr. Peter Sollich
> > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Tilgner
> > > Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert
> > > Prof. Dr. Florentin Wörgötter
> > > Prof. Dr. Annette Zippelius

Sergi_o,Anja Karliczek head of Germany Federal Ministry of Education & Research, why does Germany keep flooding sci.math with WM math bullshit of dark numbers that fill up the front pages of sci.math with his insane bullshit going on for 3 decades now????
>
>
> Brigitta Wolff, is this some type of German comedy show, WM daily spamming sci.math and have a team of comedians-- Chris Thomasson, Jim Burns, TheRafters, Sergi_o, day after day after day keep this WM imbecile with dark numbers as the first 5 post threads on the top of the leader board.
>
> Is there a German word for this Spamming behavior-- Shitligkeitzitter
> > >
> > > WM is a insane poster who cannot even admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, so insane is WM that he floods sci.math with his mindless dark numbers bullshit.
> > >
> > > He cannot admit the truth of math, so he should not be posting in sci..math.
> > >
> > > Why, Anja, WM is so insane, the fruitcake cannot even understand Boole logic is wrong with 2 OR 1 = 3 and WM has AND as subtraction.
> > >
> > > So mindless is WM, he cannot even ask the question,-- is the muon the true electron of atoms and the 0.5MeV particle the Dirac magnetic monopole..
> > >
> > > Yet this German shitturd WM floods the front page of sci.math every day for 3 decades with his never ending insane bullshit of dark numbers.
> Gus Gassmann,Thorsten Theobald,Yury Person, Wolfgang Mueckenheim ever admit slant cut of cone is oval, never the ellipse, ever do a geometry proof of FTC, no all failures of mathematics, and idling away.
> Germany's Muck the Puke taking up oxygen out of sci.math with his endless and mindless dark numbers, ellipse a conic when that is an oval, and the failure of all of Germany-- never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
>
> siren Sergio,Laura Covi,Andreas Dillmann,Gottingen no one in Gottingen Germany can admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, all they seem to do is play with WM dark numbers KuhscheiBe. Nor can anyone do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Germany spends its time on Muck the Puck "dark numbers" please, need your help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers.. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > stir-crazy-W.Mueckenheim-the fool still thinks slant cut of cone is ellipse when in truth it is an oval, and the failure of logic WM believes in Boole's AND as TFFF when in truth it is TTTF to avoid what the nitwit WM has as 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. WM is a math failure for the idiot never knew calculus was geometry and therefore never sought a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
> > > > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > > > > Augsburg- Friedrich Pukelsheim-Gottingen,Metin Tolin,Ariane Frey, Wolfgang Glatzel why does Wolfgang Mueckenheim the idiot with "dark numbers" & Dr. Tao fail geometry so so badly,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The idiots of math never knew calculus was geometry, erst, they would provide a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, why they are so banal stupid in math, they still believe slant cut in cone is an ellipse, when in reality it is a oval.
> > > > > > > > They are not mathematicians but mindless fuckdogs of math.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Maybe they wear glasses and cannot see properly. Maybe WM & Tao were never good in math, for they cannot even tell apart a ellipse from oval. They cannot even ask the question which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Univ Augsburg Germany math-- Hello-- Wolfgang Mueckenheim the fool of math wasting everybodies time -- for WM is a math failure with his slant cut in cone as ellipse when in truth it is a Oval. And now, that fool of math with his "dark numbers". Can you whisk him off to a "shrink in Germany and put him on medications"??
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Kai Cieliebak, Urs Frauenfelder, Jennifer Gruber, Yannis Bahni, Zhen Gao, Sungho Kim, Shuaipeng Liu, Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr, Kevin Ruck, Evgeny Volkov, Frederic Wagner
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > 3) arsehole WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Metin Tolin,Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt, please, need you help to get WM and his mindless "dark numbers bullshit" moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > 3) fool WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yet, every day the fool WM pollutes sci.math with his dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > 
> > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > >
> > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > Gottingen Univ math
> > > >
> > > > Dorothea Bahns, Laurent Bartholdi, Valentin Blomer, Jorg Brüdern, Stefan Halverscheid, Harald Andres Helfgott, Madeleine Jotz Lean, Ralf Meyer, Preda Mihailescu, Walther Dietrich Paravicini, Viktor Pidstrygach, Thomas Schick, Evelina Viada, Ingo Frank Witt, Chenchang Zhu
> > > >
> > > > Eternal-September.org
> > > > Wolfgang M. Weyand
> > > > Berliner Strasse
> > > > Bad Homburg
> > > >
> > > > Goethe Universitat Physics dept
> > > >
> > > > Brigitta Wolff president
> > > >
> > > > Jurgen Habermass
> > > > Horst Stocker
> > > > Gerd Binnig
> > > > Horst Ludwig Stormer
> > > > Peter Grunberg
> > > >
> > > > math
> > > > Alex Kuronya
> > > > Martin Moller
> > > > Jakob Stix
> > > > Annette Werner
> > > > Andreas Bernig
> > > > Esther Cabezas-Rivas
> > > > Hans Crauel
> > > > Thomas Gerstner
> > > > Bastian von Harrach
> > > > Thomas Mettler
> > > > Tobias Weth
> > > > Amin Coja-Oghlan
> > > > Raman Sanyal
> > > > Thorsten Theobald
> > > > Yury Person
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Gottingen Univ physics
> > > > Prof. Dr. Karsten Bahr
> > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Bloechl
> > > > Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bodenschatz
> > > > Prof. Laura Covi, PhD
> > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Dillmann
> > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Dreizler
> > > > Prof. Dr. Jörg Enderlein
> > > > Prof. Dr. Laurent Gizon
> > > > Prof. Dr. Ariane Frey
> > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Glatzel
> > > > Prof. Dr. Fabian Heidrich-Meisner
> > > > Prof. Dr. Hans Christian Hofsäss
> > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Janshoff
> > > > Prof. Dr. Christian Jooß
> > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Kehrein
> > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Klumpp
> > > > Prof. Dr. Sarah Köster
> > > > Prof. Dr. Reiner Kree
> > > > Prof. Dr. Matthias Krüger
> > > > Prof. Dr. Stanley Lai
> > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Mathias
> > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Vasile Mosneaga
> > > > Prof. Dr. Marcus Müller
> > > > Prof. Dr. Jens Niemeyer
> > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Astrid Pundt
> > > > Prof. Dr. Arnulf Quadt
> > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Karl-Henning Rehren
> > > > Prof. Dr. Ansgar Reiners
> > > > Prof. Dr. Angela Rizzi
> > > > Prof. Dr. Claus Ropers
> > > > Prof. Dr. Tim Salditt
> > > > Prof. Dr. Konrad Samwer
> > > > Prof. Dr. Christoph Schmidt
> > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider
> > > > Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann
> > > > Prof. Dr. Simone Techert
> > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Michael Seibt
> > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Sollich
> > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Tilgner
> > > > Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert
> > > > Prof. Dr. Florentin Wörgötter
> > > > Prof. Dr. Annette Zippelius
> 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)

Jim Burns,Anja Karliczek head of Germany Federal Ministry of Education & Research, why does Germany keep flooding sci.math with WM math bullshit of dark numbers that fill up the front pages of sci.math with his insane bullshit going on for 3 decades now????

Why is Jim Burns and Anja Karliczek to dumb to ever ask the question which is the atom's true electron, muon or 0.5MeV particle or even do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, instead they relish being science failures???

> >
> >
> > Brigitta Wolff, is this some type of German comedy show, WM daily spamming sci.math and have a team of comedians-- Chris Thomasson, Jim Burns, TheRafters, Sergi_o, day after day after day keep this WM imbecile with dark numbers as the first 5 post threads on the top of the leader board.
> >
> > Is there a German word for this Spamming behavior-- Shitligkeitzitter
> > > >
> > > > WM is a insane poster who cannot even admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, so insane is WM that he floods sci.math with his mindless dark numbers bullshit.
> > > >
> > > > He cannot admit the truth of math, so he should not be posting in sci.math.
> > > >
> > > > Why, Anja, WM is so insane, the fruitcake cannot even understand Boole logic is wrong with 2 OR 1 = 3 and WM has AND as subtraction.
> > > >
> > > > So mindless is WM, he cannot even ask the question,-- is the muon the true electron of atoms and the 0.5MeV particle the Dirac magnetic monopole.
> > > >
> > > > Yet this German shitturd WM floods the front page of sci.math every day for 3 decades with his never ending insane bullshit of dark numbers.
> > Gus Gassmann,Thorsten Theobald,Yury Person, Wolfgang Mueckenheim ever admit slant cut of cone is oval, never the ellipse, ever do a geometry proof of FTC, no all failures of mathematics, and idling away.
> > Germany's Muck the Puke taking up oxygen out of sci.math with his endless and mindless dark numbers, ellipse a conic when that is an oval, and the failure of all of Germany-- never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> >
> > siren Sergio,Laura Covi,Andreas Dillmann,Gottingen no one in Gottingen Germany can admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, all they seem to do is play with WM dark numbers KuhscheiBe. Nor can anyone do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Germany spends its time on Muck the Puck "dark numbers" please, need your help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > stir-crazy-W.Mueckenheim-the fool still thinks slant cut of cone is ellipse when in truth it is an oval, and the failure of logic WM believes in Boole's AND as TFFF when in truth it is TTTF to avoid what the nitwit WM has as 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. WM is a math failure for the idiot never knew calculus was geometry and therefore never sought a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
> > > > > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > > > > > Augsburg- Friedrich Pukelsheim-Gottingen,Metin Tolin,Ariane Frey, Wolfgang Glatzel why does Wolfgang Mueckenheim the idiot with "dark numbers" & Dr. Tao fail geometry so so badly,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The idiots of math never knew calculus was geometry, erst, they would provide a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, why they are so banal stupid in math, they still believe slant cut in cone is an ellipse, when in reality it is a oval.
> > > > > > > > > They are not mathematicians but mindless fuckdogs of math..
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Maybe they wear glasses and cannot see properly. Maybe WM & Tao were never good in math, for they cannot even tell apart a ellipse from oval. They cannot even ask the question which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Univ Augsburg Germany math-- Hello-- Wolfgang Mueckenheim the fool of math wasting everybodies time -- for WM is a math failure with his slant cut in cone as ellipse when in truth it is a Oval. And now, that fool of math with his "dark numbers". Can you whisk him off to a "shrink in Germany and put him on medications"??
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Kai Cieliebak, Urs Frauenfelder, Jennifer Gruber, Yannis Bahni, Zhen Gao, Sungho Kim, Shuaipeng Liu, Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr, Kevin Ruck, Evgeny Volkov, Frederic Wagner
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > 3) arsehole WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Metin Tolin,Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt, please, need you help to get WM and his mindless "dark numbers bullshit" moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > > 3) fool WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yet, every day the fool WM pollutes sci.math with his dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > 
> > > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > > Gottingen Univ math
> > > > >
> > > > > Dorothea Bahns, Laurent Bartholdi, Valentin Blomer, Jorg Brüdern, Stefan Halverscheid, Harald Andres Helfgott, Madeleine Jotz Lean, Ralf Meyer, Preda Mihailescu, Walther Dietrich Paravicini, Viktor Pidstrygach, Thomas Schick, Evelina Viada, Ingo Frank Witt, Chenchang Zhu
> > > > >
> > > > > Eternal-September.org
> > > > > Wolfgang M. Weyand
> > > > > Berliner Strasse
> > > > > Bad Homburg
> > > > >
> > > > > Goethe Universitat Physics dept
> > > > >
> > > > > Brigitta Wolff president
> > > > >
> > > > > Jurgen Habermass
> > > > > Horst Stocker
> > > > > Gerd Binnig
> > > > > Horst Ludwig Stormer
> > > > > Peter Grunberg
> > > > >
> > > > > math
> > > > > Alex Kuronya
> > > > > Martin Moller
> > > > > Jakob Stix
> > > > > Annette Werner
> > > > > Andreas Bernig
> > > > > Esther Cabezas-Rivas
> > > > > Hans Crauel
> > > > > Thomas Gerstner
> > > > > Bastian von Harrach
> > > > > Thomas Mettler
> > > > > Tobias Weth
> > > > > Amin Coja-Oghlan
> > > > > Raman Sanyal
> > > > > Thorsten Theobald
> > > > > Yury Person
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Gottingen Univ physics
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Karsten Bahr
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Bloechl
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bodenschatz
> > > > > Prof. Laura Covi, PhD
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Dillmann
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Dreizler
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Jörg Enderlein
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Laurent Gizon
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Ariane Frey
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Glatzel
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Fabian Heidrich-Meisner
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Hans Christian Hofsäss
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Janshoff
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Christian Jooß
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Kehrein
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Klumpp
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Sarah Köster
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Reiner Kree
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Matthias Krüger
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Stanley Lai
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Mathias
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Vasile Mosneaga
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Marcus Müller
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Jens Niemeyer
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Astrid Pundt
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Arnulf Quadt
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Karl-Henning Rehren
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Ansgar Reiners
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Angela Rizzi
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Claus Ropers
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Tim Salditt
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Konrad Samwer
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Christoph Schmidt
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Simone Techert
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Michael Seibt
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Sollich
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Tilgner
> > > > > Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Florentin Wörgötter
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Annette Zippelius
> > 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)

Jim Burns,Anja Karliczek head of Germany Federal Ministry of Education & Research, why does Germany keep flooding sci.math with WM math bullshit of dark numbers that fill up the front pages of sci.math with his insane bullshit going on for 3 decades now????

Anja why does WM and Jim Burns keep flooding in spam sci.math, never doing a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, both too stupid to ask which is the Atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle. Instead, every day making a sentence spam to sci.math to fill the 1st page with Muck the Puke spam.

> >
> >
> > Brigitta Wolff, is this some type of German comedy show, WM daily spamming sci.math and have a team of comedians-- Chris Thomasson, Jim Burns, TheRafters, Sergi_o, day after day after day keep this WM imbecile with dark numbers as the first 5 post threads on the top of the leader board.
> >
> > Is there a German word for this Spamming behavior-- Shitligkeitzitter
> > > >
> > > > WM is a insane poster who cannot even admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, so insane is WM that he floods sci.math with his mindless dark numbers bullshit.
> > > >
> > > > He cannot admit the truth of math, so he should not be posting in sci.math.
> > > >
> > > > Why, Anja, WM is so insane, the fruitcake cannot even understand Boole logic is wrong with 2 OR 1 = 3 and WM has AND as subtraction.
> > > >
> > > > So mindless is WM, he cannot even ask the question,-- is the muon the true electron of atoms and the 0.5MeV particle the Dirac magnetic monopole.
> > > >
> > > > Yet this German shitturd WM floods the front page of sci.math every day for 3 decades with his never ending insane bullshit of dark numbers.
> > Gus Gassmann,Thorsten Theobald,Yury Person, Wolfgang Mueckenheim ever admit slant cut of cone is oval, never the ellipse, ever do a geometry proof of FTC, no all failures of mathematics, and idling away.
> > Germany's Muck the Puke taking up oxygen out of sci.math with his endless and mindless dark numbers, ellipse a conic when that is an oval, and the failure of all of Germany-- never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> >
> > siren Sergio,Laura Covi,Andreas Dillmann,Gottingen no one in Gottingen Germany can admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, all they seem to do is play with WM dark numbers KuhscheiBe. Nor can anyone do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Germany spends its time on Muck the Puck "dark numbers" please, need your help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > stir-crazy-W.Mueckenheim-the fool still thinks slant cut of cone is ellipse when in truth it is an oval, and the failure of logic WM believes in Boole's AND as TFFF when in truth it is TTTF to avoid what the nitwit WM has as 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. WM is a math failure for the idiot never knew calculus was geometry and therefore never sought a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
> > > > > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > > > > > Augsburg- Friedrich Pukelsheim-Gottingen,Metin Tolin,Ariane Frey, Wolfgang Glatzel why does Wolfgang Mueckenheim the idiot with "dark numbers" & Dr. Tao fail geometry so so badly,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The idiots of math never knew calculus was geometry, erst, they would provide a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, why they are so banal stupid in math, they still believe slant cut in cone is an ellipse, when in reality it is a oval.
> > > > > > > > > They are not mathematicians but mindless fuckdogs of math..
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Maybe they wear glasses and cannot see properly. Maybe WM & Tao were never good in math, for they cannot even tell apart a ellipse from oval. They cannot even ask the question which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Univ Augsburg Germany math-- Hello-- Wolfgang Mueckenheim the fool of math wasting everybodies time -- for WM is a math failure with his slant cut in cone as ellipse when in truth it is a Oval. And now, that fool of math with his "dark numbers". Can you whisk him off to a "shrink in Germany and put him on medications"??
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Kai Cieliebak, Urs Frauenfelder, Jennifer Gruber, Yannis Bahni, Zhen Gao, Sungho Kim, Shuaipeng Liu, Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr, Kevin Ruck, Evgeny Volkov, Frederic Wagner
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > 3) arsehole WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Metin Tolin,Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt, please, need you help to get WM and his mindless "dark numbers bullshit" moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > > 3) fool WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yet, every day the fool WM pollutes sci.math with his dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > 
> > > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > > Gottingen Univ math
> > > > >
> > > > > Dorothea Bahns, Laurent Bartholdi, Valentin Blomer, Jorg Brüdern, Stefan Halverscheid, Harald Andres Helfgott, Madeleine Jotz Lean, Ralf Meyer, Preda Mihailescu, Walther Dietrich Paravicini, Viktor Pidstrygach, Thomas Schick, Evelina Viada, Ingo Frank Witt, Chenchang Zhu
> > > > >
> > > > > Eternal-September.org
> > > > > Wolfgang M. Weyand
> > > > > Berliner Strasse
> > > > > Bad Homburg
> > > > >
> > > > > Goethe Universitat Physics dept
> > > > >
> > > > > Brigitta Wolff president
> > > > >
> > > > > Jurgen Habermass
> > > > > Horst Stocker
> > > > > Gerd Binnig
> > > > > Horst Ludwig Stormer
> > > > > Peter Grunberg
> > > > >
> > > > > math
> > > > > Alex Kuronya
> > > > > Martin Moller
> > > > > Jakob Stix
> > > > > Annette Werner
> > > > > Andreas Bernig
> > > > > Esther Cabezas-Rivas
> > > > > Hans Crauel
> > > > > Thomas Gerstner
> > > > > Bastian von Harrach
> > > > > Thomas Mettler
> > > > > Tobias Weth
> > > > > Amin Coja-Oghlan
> > > > > Raman Sanyal
> > > > > Thorsten Theobald
> > > > > Yury Person
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Gottingen Univ physics
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Karsten Bahr
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Bloechl
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bodenschatz
> > > > > Prof. Laura Covi, PhD
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Dillmann
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Dreizler
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Jörg Enderlein
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Laurent Gizon
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Ariane Frey
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Glatzel
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Fabian Heidrich-Meisner
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Hans Christian Hofsäss
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Janshoff
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Christian Jooß
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Kehrein
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Klumpp
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Sarah Köster
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Reiner Kree
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Matthias Krüger
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Stanley Lai
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Mathias
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Vasile Mosneaga
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Marcus Müller
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Jens Niemeyer
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Astrid Pundt
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Arnulf Quadt
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Karl-Henning Rehren
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Ansgar Reiners
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Angela Rizzi
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Claus Ropers
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Tim Salditt
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Konrad Samwer
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Christoph Schmidt
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Simone Techert
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Michael Seibt
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Sollich
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Tilgner
> > > > > Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Florentin Wörgötter
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Annette Zippelius
> > 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)

Jim Burns,Anja Karliczek head of Germany Federal Ministry of Education & Research, why does Germany keep flooding sci.math with WM math bullshit of dark numbers that fill up the front pages of sci.math with his insane bullshit going on for 3 decades now????

Anja why does WM and Jim Burns keep flooding in spam sci.math, never doing a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, both too stupid to ask which is the Atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle. Instead, every day making a sentence spam to sci.math to fill the 1st page with Muck the Puke spam.


> >
> >
> > Brigitta Wolff, is this some type of German comedy show, WM daily spamming sci.math and have a team of comedians-- Chris Thomasson, Jim Burns, TheRafters, Sergi_o, day after day after day keep this WM imbecile with dark numbers as the first 5 post threads on the top of the leader board.
> >
> > Is there a German word for this Spamming behavior-- Shitligkeitzitter
> > > >
> > > > WM is a insane poster who cannot even admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, so insane is WM that he floods sci.math with his mindless dark numbers bullshit.
> > > >
> > > > He cannot admit the truth of math, so he should not be posting in sci.math.
> > > >
> > > > Why, Anja, WM is so insane, the fruitcake cannot even understand Boole logic is wrong with 2 OR 1 = 3 and WM has AND as subtraction.
> > > >
> > > > So mindless is WM, he cannot even ask the question,-- is the muon the true electron of atoms and the 0.5MeV particle the Dirac magnetic monopole.
> > > >
> > > > Yet this German shitturd WM floods the front page of sci.math every day for 3 decades with his never ending insane bullshit of dark numbers.
> > Gus Gassmann,Thorsten Theobald,Yury Person, Wolfgang Mueckenheim ever admit slant cut of cone is oval, never the ellipse, ever do a geometry proof of FTC, no all failures of mathematics, and idling away.
> > Germany's Muck the Puke taking up oxygen out of sci.math with his endless and mindless dark numbers, ellipse a conic when that is an oval, and the failure of all of Germany-- never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> >
> > siren Sergio,Laura Covi,Andreas Dillmann,Gottingen no one in Gottingen Germany can admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, all they seem to do is play with WM dark numbers KuhscheiBe. Nor can anyone do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Germany spends its time on Muck the Puck "dark numbers" please, need your help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > stir-crazy-W.Mueckenheim-the fool still thinks slant cut of cone is ellipse when in truth it is an oval, and the failure of logic WM believes in Boole's AND as TFFF when in truth it is TTTF to avoid what the nitwit WM has as 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. WM is a math failure for the idiot never knew calculus was geometry and therefore never sought a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
> > > > > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > > > > > Augsburg- Friedrich Pukelsheim-Gottingen,Metin Tolin,Ariane Frey, Wolfgang Glatzel why does Wolfgang Mueckenheim the idiot with "dark numbers" & Dr. Tao fail geometry so so badly,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The idiots of math never knew calculus was geometry, erst, they would provide a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, why they are so banal stupid in math, they still believe slant cut in cone is an ellipse, when in reality it is a oval.
> > > > > > > > > They are not mathematicians but mindless fuckdogs of math..
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Maybe they wear glasses and cannot see properly. Maybe WM & Tao were never good in math, for they cannot even tell apart a ellipse from oval. They cannot even ask the question which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Univ Augsburg Germany math-- Hello-- Wolfgang Mueckenheim the fool of math wasting everybodies time -- for WM is a math failure with his slant cut in cone as ellipse when in truth it is a Oval. And now, that fool of math with his "dark numbers". Can you whisk him off to a "shrink in Germany and put him on medications"??
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Kai Cieliebak, Urs Frauenfelder, Jennifer Gruber, Yannis Bahni, Zhen Gao, Sungho Kim, Shuaipeng Liu, Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr, Kevin Ruck, Evgeny Volkov, Frederic Wagner
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > 3) arsehole WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Metin Tolin,Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt, please, need you help to get WM and his mindless "dark numbers bullshit" moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > > 3) fool WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yet, every day the fool WM pollutes sci.math with his dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > 
> > > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > > Gottingen Univ math
> > > > >
> > > > > Dorothea Bahns, Laurent Bartholdi, Valentin Blomer, Jorg Brüdern, Stefan Halverscheid, Harald Andres Helfgott, Madeleine Jotz Lean, Ralf Meyer, Preda Mihailescu, Walther Dietrich Paravicini, Viktor Pidstrygach, Thomas Schick, Evelina Viada, Ingo Frank Witt, Chenchang Zhu
> > > > >
> > > > > Eternal-September.org
> > > > > Wolfgang M. Weyand
> > > > > Berliner Strasse
> > > > > Bad Homburg
> > > > >
> > > > > Goethe Universitat Physics dept
> > > > >
> > > > > Brigitta Wolff president
> > > > >
> > > > > Jurgen Habermass
> > > > > Horst Stocker
> > > > > Gerd Binnig
> > > > > Horst Ludwig Stormer
> > > > > Peter Grunberg
> > > > >
> > > > > math
> > > > > Alex Kuronya
> > > > > Martin Moller
> > > > > Jakob Stix
> > > > > Annette Werner
> > > > > Andreas Bernig
> > > > > Esther Cabezas-Rivas
> > > > > Hans Crauel
> > > > > Thomas Gerstner
> > > > > Bastian von Harrach
> > > > > Thomas Mettler
> > > > > Tobias Weth
> > > > > Amin Coja-Oghlan
> > > > > Raman Sanyal
> > > > > Thorsten Theobald
> > > > > Yury Person
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Gottingen Univ physics
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Karsten Bahr
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Bloechl
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bodenschatz
> > > > > Prof. Laura Covi, PhD
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Dillmann
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Dreizler
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Jörg Enderlein
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Laurent Gizon
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Ariane Frey
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Glatzel
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Fabian Heidrich-Meisner
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Hans Christian Hofsäss
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Janshoff
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Christian Jooß
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Kehrein
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Klumpp
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Sarah Köster
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Reiner Kree
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Matthias Krüger
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Stanley Lai
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Mathias
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Vasile Mosneaga
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Marcus Müller
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Jens Niemeyer
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Astrid Pundt
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Arnulf Quadt
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Karl-Henning Rehren
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Ansgar Reiners
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Angela Rizzi
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Claus Ropers
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Tim Salditt
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Konrad Samwer
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Christoph Schmidt
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Simone Techert
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Michael Seibt
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Sollich
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Tilgner
> > > > > Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Florentin Wörgötter
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Annette Zippelius
> > 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)

Chris Thomasson, Harry Cliff, Cambridge Univ, Chris what is the reason Cambridge Univ has never asked the question which is the Atom's true electron???

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
> > | /
> > | /
> > |/______ 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

Chris Thomasson, Harry Cliff, Cambridge Univ, Chris what is the reason Cambridge Univ has never asked the question which is the Atom's true electron???

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
> > | /
> > | /
> > |/______ 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.

ChrisThomasson,Anja Karliczek head of Germany Federal Ministry of Education & Research Chris what is the reason Cambridge Univ has never asked the question which is the Atom's true electron???
>
> 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
> > > | /
> > > | /
> > > |/______ 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.

Anja Karliczek,ChrisThomasson, Anja head of Germany Federal Ministry of Education & Research, why does Germany keep flooding sci.math with WM math bullshit of dark numbers that fill up the front pages of sci.math with his insane bullshit going on for 3 decades now????
> >
> >
> > Brigitta Wolff, is this some type of German comedy show, WM daily spamming sci.math and have a team of comedians-- Chris Thomasson, Jim Burns, TheRafters, Sergi_o, day after day after day keep this WM imbecile with dark numbers as the first 5 post threads on the top of the leader board.
> >
> > Is there a German word for this Spamming behavior-- Shitligkeitzitter
> > > >
> > > > WM is a insane poster who cannot even admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, so insane is WM that he floods sci.math with his mindless dark numbers bullshit.
> > > >
> > > > He cannot admit the truth of math, so he should not be posting in sci.math.
> > > >
> > > > Why, Anja, WM is so insane, the fruitcake cannot even understand Boole logic is wrong with 2 OR 1 = 3 and WM has AND as subtraction.
> > > >
> > > > So mindless is WM, he cannot even ask the question,-- is the muon the true electron of atoms and the 0.5MeV particle the Dirac magnetic monopole.
> > > >
> > > > Yet this German shitturd WM floods the front page of sci.math every day for 3 decades with his never ending insane bullshit of dark numbers.
> > Gus Gassmann,Thorsten Theobald,Yury Person, Wolfgang Mueckenheim ever admit slant cut of cone is oval, never the ellipse, ever do a geometry proof of FTC, no all failures of mathematics, and idling away.
> > Germany's Muck the Puke taking up oxygen out of sci.math with his endless and mindless dark numbers, ellipse a conic when that is an oval, and the failure of all of Germany-- never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> >
> > siren Sergio,Laura Covi,Andreas Dillmann,Gottingen no one in Gottingen Germany can admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, all they seem to do is play with WM dark numbers KuhscheiBe. Nor can anyone do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Germany spends its time on Muck the Puck "dark numbers" please, need your help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > stir-crazy-W.Mueckenheim-the fool still thinks slant cut of cone is ellipse when in truth it is an oval, and the failure of logic WM believes in Boole's AND as TFFF when in truth it is TTTF to avoid what the nitwit WM has as 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. WM is a math failure for the idiot never knew calculus was geometry and therefore never sought a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
> > > > > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > > > > > Augsburg- Friedrich Pukelsheim-Gottingen,Metin Tolin,Ariane Frey, Wolfgang Glatzel why does Wolfgang Mueckenheim the idiot with "dark numbers" & Dr. Tao fail geometry so so badly,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The idiots of math never knew calculus was geometry, erst, they would provide a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, why they are so banal stupid in math, they still believe slant cut in cone is an ellipse, when in reality it is a oval.
> > > > > > > > > They are not mathematicians but mindless fuckdogs of math..
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Maybe they wear glasses and cannot see properly. Maybe WM & Tao were never good in math, for they cannot even tell apart a ellipse from oval. They cannot even ask the question which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Univ Augsburg Germany math-- Hello-- Wolfgang Mueckenheim the fool of math wasting everybodies time -- for WM is a math failure with his slant cut in cone as ellipse when in truth it is a Oval. And now, that fool of math with his "dark numbers". Can you whisk him off to a "shrink in Germany and put him on medications"??
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Kai Cieliebak, Urs Frauenfelder, Jennifer Gruber, Yannis Bahni, Zhen Gao, Sungho Kim, Shuaipeng Liu, Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr, Kevin Ruck, Evgeny Volkov, Frederic Wagner
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > 3) arsehole WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Metin Tolin,Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt, please, need you help to get WM and his mindless "dark numbers bullshit" moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > > 3) fool WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yet, every day the fool WM pollutes sci.math with his dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > 
> > > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > > Gottingen Univ math
> > > > >
> > > > > Dorothea Bahns, Laurent Bartholdi, Valentin Blomer, Jorg Brüdern, Stefan Halverscheid, Harald Andres Helfgott, Madeleine Jotz Lean, Ralf Meyer, Preda Mihailescu, Walther Dietrich Paravicini, Viktor Pidstrygach, Thomas Schick, Evelina Viada, Ingo Frank Witt, Chenchang Zhu
> > > > >
> > > > > Eternal-September.org
> > > > > Wolfgang M. Weyand
> > > > > Berliner Strasse
> > > > > Bad Homburg
> > > > >
> > > > > Goethe Universitat Physics dept
> > > > >
> > > > > Brigitta Wolff president
> > > > >
> > > > > Jurgen Habermass
> > > > > Horst Stocker
> > > > > Gerd Binnig
> > > > > Horst Ludwig Stormer
> > > > > Peter Grunberg
> > > > >
> > > > > math
> > > > > Alex Kuronya
> > > > > Martin Moller
> > > > > Jakob Stix
> > > > > Annette Werner
> > > > > Andreas Bernig
> > > > > Esther Cabezas-Rivas
> > > > > Hans Crauel
> > > > > Thomas Gerstner
> > > > > Bastian von Harrach
> > > > > Thomas Mettler
> > > > > Tobias Weth
> > > > > Amin Coja-Oghlan
> > > > > Raman Sanyal
> > > > > Thorsten Theobald
> > > > > Yury Person
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Gottingen Univ physics
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Karsten Bahr
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Bloechl
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bodenschatz
> > > > > Prof. Laura Covi, PhD
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Dillmann
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Dreizler
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Jörg Enderlein
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Laurent Gizon
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Ariane Frey
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Glatzel
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Fabian Heidrich-Meisner
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Hans Christian Hofsäss
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Janshoff
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Christian Jooß
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Kehrein
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Klumpp
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Sarah Köster
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Reiner Kree
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Matthias Krüger
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Stanley Lai
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Mathias
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Vasile Mosneaga
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Marcus Müller
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Jens Niemeyer
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Astrid Pundt
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Arnulf Quadt
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Karl-Henning Rehren
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Ansgar Reiners
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Angela Rizzi
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Claus Ropers
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Tim Salditt
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Konrad Samwer
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Christoph Schmidt
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Simone Techert
> > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Michael Seibt
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Sollich
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Tilgner
> > > > > Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Florentin Wörgötter
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Annette Zippelius
> > 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)

söndag 9 oktober 2022 kl. 23:16:31 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> Anja Karliczek,ChrisThomasson, Anja head of Germany Federal Ministry of Education & Research, why does Germany keep flooding sci.math with WM math bullshit of dark numbers that fill up the front pages of sci.math with his insane bullshit going on for 3 decades now????
> > >
> > >
> > > Brigitta Wolff, is this some type of German comedy show, WM daily spamming sci.math and have a team of comedians-- Chris Thomasson, Jim Burns, TheRafters, Sergi_o, day after day after day keep this WM imbecile with dark numbers as the first 5 post threads on the top of the leader board.
> > >
> > > Is there a German word for this Spamming behavior-- Shitligkeitzitter
> > > > >
> > > > > WM is a insane poster who cannot even admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, so insane is WM that he floods sci.math with his mindless dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > >
> > > > > He cannot admit the truth of math, so he should not be posting in sci.math.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why, Anja, WM is so insane, the fruitcake cannot even understand Boole logic is wrong with 2 OR 1 = 3 and WM has AND as subtraction.
> > > > >
> > > > > So mindless is WM, he cannot even ask the question,-- is the muon the true electron of atoms and the 0.5MeV particle the Dirac magnetic monopole.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yet this German shitturd WM floods the front page of sci.math every day for 3 decades with his never ending insane bullshit of dark numbers.
> > > Gus Gassmann,Thorsten Theobald,Yury Person, Wolfgang Mueckenheim ever admit slant cut of cone is oval, never the ellipse, ever do a geometry proof of FTC, no all failures of mathematics, and idling away.
> > > Germany's Muck the Puke taking up oxygen out of sci.math with his endless and mindless dark numbers, ellipse a conic when that is an oval, and the failure of all of Germany-- never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > >
> > > siren Sergio,Laura Covi,Andreas Dillmann,Gottingen no one in Gottingen Germany can admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, all they seem to do is play with WM dark numbers KuhscheiBe. Nor can anyone do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Germany spends its time on Muck the Puck "dark numbers" please, need your help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > stir-crazy-W.Mueckenheim-the fool still thinks slant cut of cone is ellipse when in truth it is an oval, and the failure of logic WM believes in Boole's AND as TFFF when in truth it is TTTF to avoid what the nitwit WM has as 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. WM is a math failure for the idiot never knew calculus was geometry and therefore never sought a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
> > > > > > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > > > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > > > > > > Augsburg- Friedrich Pukelsheim-Gottingen,Metin Tolin,Ariane Frey, Wolfgang Glatzel why does Wolfgang Mueckenheim the idiot with "dark numbers" & Dr. Tao fail geometry so so badly,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The idiots of math never knew calculus was geometry, erst, they would provide a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, why they are so banal stupid in math, they still believe slant cut in cone is an ellipse, when in reality it is a oval.
> > > > > > > > > > They are not mathematicians but mindless fuckdogs of math.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Maybe they wear glasses and cannot see properly. Maybe WM & Tao were never good in math, for they cannot even tell apart a ellipse from oval. They cannot even ask the question which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Univ Augsburg Germany math-- Hello-- Wolfgang Mueckenheim the fool of math wasting everybodies time -- for WM is a math failure with his slant cut in cone as ellipse when in truth it is a Oval. And now, that fool of math with his "dark numbers". Can you whisk him off to a "shrink in Germany and put him on medications"??
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Kai Cieliebak, Urs Frauenfelder, Jennifer Gruber, Yannis Bahni, Zhen Gao, Sungho Kim, Shuaipeng Liu, Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr, Kevin Ruck, Evgeny Volkov, Frederic Wagner
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > > 3) arsehole WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Metin Tolin,Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt, please, need you help to get WM and his mindless "dark numbers bullshit" moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > > > 3) fool WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yet, every day the fool WM pollutes sci.math with his dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > > > Gottingen Univ math
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dorothea Bahns, Laurent Bartholdi, Valentin Blomer, Jorg Brüdern, Stefan Halverscheid, Harald Andres Helfgott, Madeleine Jotz Lean, Ralf Meyer, Preda Mihailescu, Walther Dietrich Paravicini, Viktor Pidstrygach, Thomas Schick, Evelina Viada, Ingo Frank Witt, Chenchang Zhu
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eternal-September.org
> > > > > > Wolfgang M. Weyand
> > > > > > Berliner Strasse
> > > > > > Bad Homburg
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Goethe Universitat Physics dept
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Brigitta Wolff president
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jurgen Habermass
> > > > > > Horst Stocker
> > > > > > Gerd Binnig
> > > > > > Horst Ludwig Stormer
> > > > > > Peter Grunberg
> > > > > >
> > > > > > math
> > > > > > Alex Kuronya
> > > > > > Martin Moller
> > > > > > Jakob Stix
> > > > > > Annette Werner
> > > > > > Andreas Bernig
> > > > > > Esther Cabezas-Rivas
> > > > > > Hans Crauel
> > > > > > Thomas Gerstner
> > > > > > Bastian von Harrach
> > > > > > Thomas Mettler
> > > > > > Tobias Weth
> > > > > > Amin Coja-Oghlan
> > > > > > Raman Sanyal
> > > > > > Thorsten Theobald
> > > > > > Yury Person
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gottingen Univ physics
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Karsten Bahr
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Bloechl
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bodenschatz
> > > > > > Prof. Laura Covi, PhD
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Dillmann
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Dreizler
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Jörg Enderlein
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Laurent Gizon
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Ariane Frey
> > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Glatzel
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Fabian Heidrich-Meisner
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Hans Christian Hofsäss
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Janshoff
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Christian Jooß
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Kehrein
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Klumpp
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Sarah Köster
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Reiner Kree
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Matthias Krüger
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stanley Lai
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Mathias
> > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Vasile Mosneaga
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Marcus Müller
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Jens Niemeyer
> > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Astrid Pundt
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Arnulf Quadt
> > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Karl-Henning Rehren
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Ansgar Reiners
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Angela Rizzi
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Claus Ropers
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Tim Salditt
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Konrad Samwer
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Christoph Schmidt
> > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Simone Techert
> > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Michael Seibt
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Sollich
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Tilgner
> > > > > > Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Florentin Wörgötter
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Annette Zippelius
> > > 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)
Why do you want WM to fuck you so badly?

ChrisThomasson,Anja Karliczek head of Germany Federal Ministry of Education & Research, why does Germany keep flooding sci.math with WM math bullshit of dark numbers that fill up the front pages of sci.math with his insane bullshit going on for 3 decades now????
> > >
> > >
> > > Brigitta Wolff, is this some type of German comedy show, WM daily spamming sci.math and have a team of comedians-- Chris Thomasson, Jim Burns, TheRafters, Sergi_o, day after day after day keep this WM imbecile with dark numbers as the first 5 post threads on the top of the leader board.
> > >
> > > Is there a German word for this Spamming behavior-- Shitligkeitzitter
> > > > >
> > > > > WM is a insane poster who cannot even admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, so insane is WM that he floods sci.math with his mindless dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > >
> > > > > He cannot admit the truth of math, so he should not be posting in sci.math.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why, Anja, WM is so insane, the fruitcake cannot even understand Boole logic is wrong with 2 OR 1 = 3 and WM has AND as subtraction.
> > > > >
> > > > > So mindless is WM, he cannot even ask the question,-- is the muon the true electron of atoms and the 0.5MeV particle the Dirac magnetic monopole.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yet this German shitturd WM floods the front page of sci.math every day for 3 decades with his never ending insane bullshit of dark numbers.
> > > Gus Gassmann,Thorsten Theobald,Yury Person, Wolfgang Mueckenheim ever admit slant cut of cone is oval, never the ellipse, ever do a geometry proof of FTC, no all failures of mathematics, and idling away.
> > > Germany's Muck the Puke taking up oxygen out of sci.math with his endless and mindless dark numbers, ellipse a conic when that is an oval, and the failure of all of Germany-- never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > >
> > > siren Sergio,Laura Covi,Andreas Dillmann,Gottingen no one in Gottingen Germany can admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, all they seem to do is play with WM dark numbers KuhscheiBe. Nor can anyone do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Germany spends its time on Muck the Puck "dark numbers" please, need your help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > stir-crazy-W.Mueckenheim-the fool still thinks slant cut of cone is ellipse when in truth it is an oval, and the failure of logic WM believes in Boole's AND as TFFF when in truth it is TTTF to avoid what the nitwit WM has as 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. WM is a math failure for the idiot never knew calculus was geometry and therefore never sought a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
> > > > > > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > > > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > > > > > > Augsburg- Friedrich Pukelsheim-Gottingen,Metin Tolin,Ariane Frey, Wolfgang Glatzel why does Wolfgang Mueckenheim the idiot with "dark numbers" & Dr. Tao fail geometry so so badly,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The idiots of math never knew calculus was geometry, erst, they would provide a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, why they are so banal stupid in math, they still believe slant cut in cone is an ellipse, when in reality it is a oval.
> > > > > > > > > > They are not mathematicians but mindless fuckdogs of math.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Maybe they wear glasses and cannot see properly. Maybe WM & Tao were never good in math, for they cannot even tell apart a ellipse from oval. They cannot even ask the question which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Univ Augsburg Germany math-- Hello-- Wolfgang Mueckenheim the fool of math wasting everybodies time -- for WM is a math failure with his slant cut in cone as ellipse when in truth it is a Oval. And now, that fool of math with his "dark numbers". Can you whisk him off to a "shrink in Germany and put him on medications"??
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Kai Cieliebak, Urs Frauenfelder, Jennifer Gruber, Yannis Bahni, Zhen Gao, Sungho Kim, Shuaipeng Liu, Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr, Kevin Ruck, Evgeny Volkov, Frederic Wagner
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > > 3) arsehole WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Metin Tolin,Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt, please, need you help to get WM and his mindless "dark numbers bullshit" moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > > > 3) fool WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yet, every day the fool WM pollutes sci.math with his dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > > > Gottingen Univ math
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dorothea Bahns, Laurent Bartholdi, Valentin Blomer, Jorg Brüdern, Stefan Halverscheid, Harald Andres Helfgott, Madeleine Jotz Lean, Ralf Meyer, Preda Mihailescu, Walther Dietrich Paravicini, Viktor Pidstrygach, Thomas Schick, Evelina Viada, Ingo Frank Witt, Chenchang Zhu
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eternal-September.org
> > > > > > Wolfgang M. Weyand
> > > > > > Berliner Strasse
> > > > > > Bad Homburg
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Goethe Universitat Physics dept
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Brigitta Wolff president
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jurgen Habermass
> > > > > > Horst Stocker
> > > > > > Gerd Binnig
> > > > > > Horst Ludwig Stormer
> > > > > > Peter Grunberg
> > > > > >
> > > > > > math
> > > > > > Alex Kuronya
> > > > > > Martin Moller
> > > > > > Jakob Stix
> > > > > > Annette Werner
> > > > > > Andreas Bernig
> > > > > > Esther Cabezas-Rivas
> > > > > > Hans Crauel
> > > > > > Thomas Gerstner
> > > > > > Bastian von Harrach
> > > > > > Thomas Mettler
> > > > > > Tobias Weth
> > > > > > Amin Coja-Oghlan
> > > > > > Raman Sanyal
> > > > > > Thorsten Theobald
> > > > > > Yury Person
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gottingen Univ physics
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Karsten Bahr
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Bloechl
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bodenschatz
> > > > > > Prof. Laura Covi, PhD
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Dillmann
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Dreizler
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Jörg Enderlein
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Laurent Gizon
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Ariane Frey
> > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Glatzel
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Fabian Heidrich-Meisner
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Hans Christian Hofsäss
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Janshoff
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Christian Jooß
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Kehrein
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Klumpp
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Sarah Köster
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Reiner Kree
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Matthias Krüger
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stanley Lai
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Mathias
> > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Vasile Mosneaga
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Marcus Müller
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Jens Niemeyer
> > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Astrid Pundt
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Arnulf Quadt
> > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Karl-Henning Rehren
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Ansgar Reiners
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Angela Rizzi
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Claus Ropers
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Tim Salditt
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Konrad Samwer
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Christoph Schmidt
> > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Simone Techert
> > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Michael Seibt
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Sollich
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Tilgner
> > > > > > Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Florentin Wörgötter
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Annette Zippelius
> > > 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)

On 10/4/2022 2:36 PM, Sergi o wrote:
> On 10/4/2022 4:15 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 9/30/2022 7:07 PM, Blaide Alesiooal@oasaella.oe Blaide Alesio wrote:
>>> Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>
>>>> 💩 for 🧠 Archimedes "Putin's Stooge" Plutonium
>>>> <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> tarded:
>>>>
>>>>> Jim Burns and WM-Germany's analfuckdog-
>>>>
>>>> ArchiePoo, now you want to fuck a dog anally? You are getting sicker
>>>> and
>>>> sicker. First you want to fuck the queen's corpse, then fuck a lion,
>>>> now
>>>> a dog anally, plus you want to do homosexual acts with Mueckenheim and
>>>> others?
>>>
>>> wonderful people, I love it so much. Made me 20 years younger already.
>>> Spasiba. Why don't you have something like this in america, you
>>> capitalists.
>>>
>>> Putin speaks at concert to celebrate 'annexation' of Ukrainian regions
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSNkv8b-mIQ
>>>
>>> Russian National Anthem (HD) | Victory Day 2022
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnxfdkbwHNs
>>>
>>> In full: Russia holds pop concert to mark annexation of four Ukrainian
>>> regions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKlC_oiFrd4
>>
>>
>> https://youtu.be/xcHhuFN2CO0
>>
>
> Polyushko-Polye (Field-field)
> Versions: #1#2
> Field1-field, field, wide field
> Heroes are riding by the field
> Ah, [they're] heroes of Red Army
>
> Girls are crying
> It is sad for girls today
> Darling has left for a long time
> Ah, darling has left to the Army
>
> Girls, look!
> Look at our road
> Endless road winds [curving]
> Ah, this is a very merry road
>
> {Riding, we riding,}2
> {Riding, and [there're] kolkhozes around}
> {[it's] our kolkhozes, girls}
> {Ah, [it's] young our villages}
>
> Just we are seeing
> [we are] seeing grey storm-cloud
> Enemy's hate from behind a forest
> Ah, enemy's hate like a storm-cloud
>
> Girls, look!
> We are ready to meet enemy
> Our horses are fastlegged
> Ah, our tanks are fastmotored
>
> {Rampant pilots are watching}
> {for the storm-cloud in the sky}
> {Submarines are floating quickly}
> {Ah, Voroshilov is watching vigilantly}
>
> Let it's boiling 3 on in our kolkhoz4
> An amicable work
> We are watchers today
> Ah, we are sentinels today
>
> {Girls, look!}
> {Girls, wipe up your tears}
> {Let our song sounds louder}
> {Ah, our battle song}
>
> {Field-field}
> {Field-field, field, wide field}
> {Heroes are riding by the field}
> {Ah, [they're] heroes of Red Army}
> https://lyricstranslate.com
>

For some reason I am now thinking of the following song, take note of
the lyrics:

https://youtu.be/80-kp6RDl94

On 10/9/2022 11:11 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 10/4/2022 2:36 PM, Sergi o wrote:
>> On 10/4/2022 4:15 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 9/30/2022 7:07 PM, Blaide Alesiooal@oasaella.oe Blaide Alesio wrote:
>>>> Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 💩 for 🧠 Archimedes "Putin's Stooge" Plutonium
>>>>> <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> tarded:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jim Burns and WM-Germany's analfuckdog-
>>>>>
>>>>> ArchiePoo, now you want to fuck a dog anally? You are getting
>>>>> sicker and
>>>>> sicker. First you want to fuck the queen's corpse, then fuck a
>>>>> lion, now
>>>>> a dog anally, plus you want to do homosexual acts with Mueckenheim and
>>>>> others?
>>>>
>>>> wonderful people, I love it so much. Made me 20 years younger already.
>>>> Spasiba. Why don't you have something like this in america, you
>>>> capitalists.
>>>>
>>>> Putin speaks at concert to celebrate 'annexation' of Ukrainian regions
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSNkv8b-mIQ
>>>>
>>>> Russian National Anthem (HD) | Victory Day 2022
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnxfdkbwHNs
>>>>
>>>> In full: Russia holds pop concert to mark annexation of four Ukrainian
>>>> regions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKlC_oiFrd4
>>>
>>>
>>> https://youtu.be/xcHhuFN2CO0
>>>
>>
>> Polyushko-Polye (Field-field)
>> Versions: #1#2
>> Field1-field, field, wide field
>> Heroes are riding by the field
>> Ah, [they're] heroes of Red Army
>>
>> Girls are crying
>> It is sad for girls today
>> Darling has left for a long time
>> Ah, darling has left to the Army
>>
>> Girls, look!
>> Look at our road
>> Endless road winds [curving]
>> Ah, this is a very merry road
>>
>> {Riding, we riding,}2
>> {Riding, and [there're] kolkhozes around}
>> {[it's] our kolkhozes, girls}
>> {Ah, [it's] young our villages}
>>
>> Just we are seeing
>> [we are] seeing grey storm-cloud
>> Enemy's hate from behind a forest
>> Ah, enemy's hate like a storm-cloud
>>
>> Girls, look!
>> We are ready to meet enemy
>> Our horses are fastlegged
>> Ah, our tanks are fastmotored
>>
>> {Rampant pilots are watching}
>> {for the storm-cloud in the sky}
>> {Submarines are floating quickly}
>> {Ah, Voroshilov is watching vigilantly}
>>
>> Let it's boiling 3 on in our kolkhoz4
>> An amicable work
>> We are watchers today
>> Ah, we are sentinels today
>>
>> {Girls, look!}
>> {Girls, wipe up your tears}
>> {Let our song sounds louder}
>> {Ah, our battle song}
>>
>> {Field-field}
>> {Field-field, field, wide field}
>> {Heroes are riding by the field}
>> {Ah, [they're] heroes of Red Army}
>> https://lyricstranslate.com
>>
>
> For some reason I am now thinking of the following song, take note of
> the lyrics:
>
> https://youtu.be/80-kp6RDl94

Also:

https://youtu.be/Ixi4jz0Gn4E

On 10/9/2022 11:21 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 10/9/2022 11:11 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 10/4/2022 2:36 PM, Sergi o wrote:
>>> On 10/4/2022 4:15 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> On 9/30/2022 7:07 PM, Blaide Alesiooal@oasaella.oe Blaide Alesio wrote:
>>>>> Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 💩 for 🧠 Archimedes "Putin's Stooge" Plutonium
>>>>>> <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> tarded:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jim Burns and WM-Germany's analfuckdog-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ArchiePoo, now you want to fuck a dog anally? You are getting
>>>>>> sicker and
>>>>>> sicker. First you want to fuck the queen's corpse, then fuck a
>>>>>> lion, now
>>>>>> a dog anally, plus you want to do homosexual acts with Mueckenheim
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> others?
>>>>>
>>>>> wonderful people, I love it so much. Made me 20 years younger already.
>>>>> Spasiba. Why don't you have something like this in america, you
>>>>> capitalists.
>>>>>
>>>>> Putin speaks at concert to celebrate 'annexation' of Ukrainian regions
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSNkv8b-mIQ
>>>>>
>>>>> Russian National Anthem (HD) | Victory Day 2022
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnxfdkbwHNs
>>>>>
>>>>> In full: Russia holds pop concert to mark annexation of four Ukrainian
>>>>> regions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKlC_oiFrd4
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://youtu.be/xcHhuFN2CO0
>>>>
>>>
>>> Polyushko-Polye (Field-field)
>>> Versions: #1#2
>>> Field1-field, field, wide field
>>> Heroes are riding by the field
>>> Ah, [they're] heroes of Red Army
>>>
>>> Girls are crying
>>> It is sad for girls today
>>> Darling has left for a long time
>>> Ah, darling has left to the Army
>>>
>>> Girls, look!
>>> Look at our road
>>> Endless road winds [curving]
>>> Ah, this is a very merry road
>>>
>>> {Riding, we riding,}2
>>> {Riding, and [there're] kolkhozes around}
>>> {[it's] our kolkhozes, girls}
>>> {Ah, [it's] young our villages}
>>>
>>> Just we are seeing
>>> [we are] seeing grey storm-cloud
>>> Enemy's hate from behind a forest
>>> Ah, enemy's hate like a storm-cloud
>>>
>>> Girls, look!
>>> We are ready to meet enemy
>>> Our horses are fastlegged
>>> Ah, our tanks are fastmotored
>>>
>>> {Rampant pilots are watching}
>>> {for the storm-cloud in the sky}
>>> {Submarines are floating quickly}
>>> {Ah, Voroshilov is watching vigilantly}
>>>
>>> Let it's boiling 3 on in our kolkhoz4
>>> An amicable work
>>> We are watchers today
>>> Ah, we are sentinels today
>>>
>>> {Girls, look!}
>>> {Girls, wipe up your tears}
>>> {Let our song sounds louder}
>>> {Ah, our battle song}
>>>
>>> {Field-field}
>>> {Field-field, field, wide field}
>>> {Heroes are riding by the field}
>>> {Ah, [they're] heroes of Red Army}
>>> https://lyricstranslate.com
>>>
>>
>> For some reason I am now thinking of the following song, take note of
>> the lyrics:
>>
>> https://youtu.be/80-kp6RDl94
>
> Also:
>
> https://youtu.be/Ixi4jz0Gn4E

Putin might go 100% suicidal! We have to prepare for that possibility!

https://youtu.be/aFkcAH-m9W0

ChrisThomasson,Anja Karliczek head of Germany Federal Ministry of Education & Research, why does Germany keep flooding sci.math with WM math bullshit of dark numbers that fill up the front pages of sci.math with his insane bullshit going on for 3 decades now????

> > >
> > >
> > > Brigitta Wolff, is this some type of German comedy show, WM daily spamming sci.math and have a team of comedians-- Chris Thomasson, Jim Burns, TheRafters, Sergi_o, day after day after day keep this WM imbecile with dark numbers as the first 5 post threads on the top of the leader board.
> > >
> > > Is there a German word for this Spamming behavior-- Shitligkeitzitter
> > > > >
> > > > > WM is a insane poster who cannot even admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, so insane is WM that he floods sci.math with his mindless dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > >
> > > > > He cannot admit the truth of math, so he should not be posting in sci.math.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why, Anja, WM is so insane, the fruitcake cannot even understand Boole logic is wrong with 2 OR 1 = 3 and WM has AND as subtraction.
> > > > >
> > > > > So mindless is WM, he cannot even ask the question,-- is the muon the true electron of atoms and the 0.5MeV particle the Dirac magnetic monopole.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yet this German shitturd WM floods the front page of sci.math every day for 3 decades with his never ending insane bullshit of dark numbers.
> > > Gus Gassmann,Thorsten Theobald,Yury Person, Wolfgang Mueckenheim ever admit slant cut of cone is oval, never the ellipse, ever do a geometry proof of FTC, no all failures of mathematics, and idling away.
> > > Germany's Muck the Puke taking up oxygen out of sci.math with his endless and mindless dark numbers, ellipse a conic when that is an oval, and the failure of all of Germany-- never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > >
> > > siren Sergio,Laura Covi,Andreas Dillmann,Gottingen no one in Gottingen Germany can admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, all they seem to do is play with WM dark numbers KuhscheiBe. Nor can anyone do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Germany spends its time on Muck the Puck "dark numbers" please, need your help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > stir-crazy-W.Mueckenheim-the fool still thinks slant cut of cone is ellipse when in truth it is an oval, and the failure of logic WM believes in Boole's AND as TFFF when in truth it is TTTF to avoid what the nitwit WM has as 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. WM is a math failure for the idiot never knew calculus was geometry and therefore never sought a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
> > > > > > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > > > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > > > > > > Augsburg- Friedrich Pukelsheim-Gottingen,Metin Tolin,Ariane Frey, Wolfgang Glatzel why does Wolfgang Mueckenheim the idiot with "dark numbers" & Dr. Tao fail geometry so so badly,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The idiots of math never knew calculus was geometry, erst, they would provide a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, why they are so banal stupid in math, they still believe slant cut in cone is an ellipse, when in reality it is a oval.
> > > > > > > > > > They are not mathematicians but mindless fuckdogs of math.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Maybe they wear glasses and cannot see properly. Maybe WM & Tao were never good in math, for they cannot even tell apart a ellipse from oval. They cannot even ask the question which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Univ Augsburg Germany math-- Hello-- Wolfgang Mueckenheim the fool of math wasting everybodies time -- for WM is a math failure with his slant cut in cone as ellipse when in truth it is a Oval. And now, that fool of math with his "dark numbers". Can you whisk him off to a "shrink in Germany and put him on medications"??
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Kai Cieliebak, Urs Frauenfelder, Jennifer Gruber, Yannis Bahni, Zhen Gao, Sungho Kim, Shuaipeng Liu, Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr, Kevin Ruck, Evgeny Volkov, Frederic Wagner
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > > 3) arsehole WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Metin Tolin,Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt, please, need you help to get WM and his mindless "dark numbers bullshit" moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > > > > 3) fool WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yet, every day the fool WM pollutes sci.math with his dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > > > Gottingen Univ math
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dorothea Bahns, Laurent Bartholdi, Valentin Blomer, Jorg Brüdern, Stefan Halverscheid, Harald Andres Helfgott, Madeleine Jotz Lean, Ralf Meyer, Preda Mihailescu, Walther Dietrich Paravicini, Viktor Pidstrygach, Thomas Schick, Evelina Viada, Ingo Frank Witt, Chenchang Zhu
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eternal-September.org
> > > > > > Wolfgang M. Weyand
> > > > > > Berliner Strasse
> > > > > > Bad Homburg
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Goethe Universitat Physics dept
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Brigitta Wolff president
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jurgen Habermass
> > > > > > Horst Stocker
> > > > > > Gerd Binnig
> > > > > > Horst Ludwig Stormer
> > > > > > Peter Grunberg
> > > > > >
> > > > > > math
> > > > > > Alex Kuronya
> > > > > > Martin Moller
> > > > > > Jakob Stix
> > > > > > Annette Werner
> > > > > > Andreas Bernig
> > > > > > Esther Cabezas-Rivas
> > > > > > Hans Crauel
> > > > > > Thomas Gerstner
> > > > > > Bastian von Harrach
> > > > > > Thomas Mettler
> > > > > > Tobias Weth
> > > > > > Amin Coja-Oghlan
> > > > > > Raman Sanyal
> > > > > > Thorsten Theobald
> > > > > > Yury Person
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gottingen Univ physics
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Karsten Bahr
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Bloechl
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bodenschatz
> > > > > > Prof. Laura Covi, PhD
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Dillmann
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Dreizler
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Jörg Enderlein
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Laurent Gizon
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Ariane Frey
> > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Glatzel
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Fabian Heidrich-Meisner
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Hans Christian Hofsäss
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Janshoff
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Christian Jooß
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Kehrein
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Klumpp
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Sarah Köster
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Reiner Kree
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Matthias Krüger
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stanley Lai
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Mathias
> > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Vasile Mosneaga
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Marcus Müller
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Jens Niemeyer
> > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Astrid Pundt
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Arnulf Quadt
> > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Karl-Henning Rehren
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Ansgar Reiners
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Angela Rizzi
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Claus Ropers
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Tim Salditt
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Konrad Samwer
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Christoph Schmidt
> > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Simone Techert
> > > > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Michael Seibt
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Sollich
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Tilgner
> > > > > > Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Florentin Wörgötter
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Annette Zippelius
> > > 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)