Dan Christensen, why cannot MIT Dr. Strang admit slant cut in cone is Oval, never ellipse, is he some sort of kook of geometry? MIT is supposed to be prestigious, is it kook prestigious?

Even though Gilbert cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, if I had the choice of spending a hour talking math with Strang or Chris. I would pick Strang any day over Chris.
>
> For Chris is a total imp and flop and waste of time. For 30 years this imp has spammed sci.math, to the detriment of everyone wasting time reading the imp. Did he even take freshman calculus? Did he even go to college?
>
> On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 12:39:30 AM UTC-5, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > Wow! Unhinged. Do you think a circle is a special case of an ellipse
> > where the x and y radii are equal to one another?

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

> Dan Christensen, why cannot MIT Dr. Strang admit slant cut in cone is Oval, never ellipse, is he some sort of kook of geometry?

Only kooks of geometry would ever believe something as dumb and stoopid
as the ellipse not being a conic section.

> MIT is supposed to be prestigious, is it kook prestigious?

MIT is prestigious because nobody there believes kooky geometry like a
cone not being a conic section.

Michael Moroney wrote:

> 🕷 of Math and 🦂 of Physics Archimedes "CCP's lackey" Plutonium
> <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> tarded:
>
>> Dan Christensen, why cannot MIT Dr. Strang admit slant cut in cone is
>> Oval, never ellipse, is he some sort of kook of geometry?
>
> Only kooks of geometry would ever believe something as dumb and stoopid
> as the ellipse not being a conic section.

I fart for fun.

Is that why MIT Strang cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, Chris the UK spammer galore
On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 5:23:26 PM UTC-5, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> You seem to be obsessed with hind ends and doing strange things to them.
>
> Humm... You are a strange one!

Dan,Chris does MIT Dr. Strang have a blind spot for geometry, for he cannot admit slant cut in cone is Oval, never ellipse, is that why he cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? MIT is supposed to be prestigious, is it kook prestigious?
> Even though Gilbert cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, if I had the choice of spending a hour talking math with Strang or Chris. I would pick Strang any day over Chris.
> >
> > For Chris is a total imp and flop and waste of time. For 30 years this imp has spammed sci.math, to the detriment of everyone wasting time reading the imp. Did he even take freshman calculus? Did he even go to college?
> >
> > On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 12:39:30 AM UTC-5, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > Wow! Unhinged. Do you think a circle is a special case of an ellipse
> > > where the x and y radii are equal to one another?

Dan,Chris does MIT Dr. Strang have a blind spot for geometry, for he cannot admit slant cut in cone is Oval, never ellipse, is that why he cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? MIT is supposed to be prestigious, is it kook prestigious?

> Even though Gilbert cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, if I had the choice of spending a hour talking math with Strang or Chris. I would pick Strang any day over Chris.
> >
> > For Chris is a total imp and flop and waste of time. For 30 years this imp has spammed sci.math, to the detriment of everyone wasting time reading the imp. Did he even take freshman calculus? Did he even go to college?
> >
> > On Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 12:39:30 AM UTC-5, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > Wow! Unhinged. Do you think a circle is a special case of an ellipse
> > > where the x and y radii are equal to one another?

why Gus Gassman spam sci.math- Dan Christensen on failed math MIT Gilbert Strang, with his scatterbrained Calculus books, no geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Gilbert never knew Calculus was geometry, and the time he wrote the definition of complex number on page 360, but never defined what the hell the numbers were that he used all along. Gilbert is a product of a math community that never used logic in thinking for Gilbert accepts Boole Logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 when people with logic know the AND truth table is TTTF, not the ignorant Boole's TFFF. So, Dan feels the need to stalk Gilbert Strang as the failure of math that he is.
> >
> >
> > On Friday, June 25, 2021 at 1:36:48 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
> >
> > AP writes: So, Dan, your warning means stay clear of MIT as a school that does propaganda, not the truth of science.
> >
> >
> > 1- Dan Christensen on failed physicist Donna Strickland, so stupid in physics cannot even ask the simple question of which is the true real electron of atoms, is it the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law or the 0.5MeV particle that AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole.
> >
> > On Friday, June 25, 2021 at 1:36:48 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
> >
> > On Friday, June 25, 2021 at 1:45:28 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> "Drag Queen of Science"
> >> fails at math and science:
> >
> > AP writes: Then what about Univ of Waterloo, subjected to the ignorance of Donna with her moron electron, does that not make Waterloo a education wasteland, Kibo Parry M.??
> >
> >
> > Re: 135,568 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron of
> > #2-1, 137th published book Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series,
> > May 10, 2021
> > by Professor Wordsmith
> >
> > On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 1:56:06 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
> >
> > Re: 135,566 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron o
> > #2-1, 137th published book Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series,
> > May 10, 2021
> > by Michael Moroney
> >
> >
> > Kibo Parry M. on Dartmouth College with his 28 year nonstop stalking.
> >
> >
> > Michael Moroney wrote
> >> Jun 20, 2021, 11:11:48 PM
> >> 
> >> 💀 of Math and ☠️ of Physics Stooge"
> >> Michael Moroney's profile photo
> >> Michael Moroney wrote
> >> 11:29 AM
> > Kibo Parry M. on Dartmouth💀 of Math and ☠️ of Physics Stooge" Joseph D. Harris, Walter E. Lawrence, David C. Montgomery, Gary Alan Wegner, Philip J. Hanlon, Joseph Helble,
> >> Michael Moroney's profile photo and is he a paid stalker by NSF paid to stalk 24-7-365
> > On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 8:24:00 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> fails at math and science:
> >
> >
> > On Sunday, June 13, 2021 at 12:55:53 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> "FireD your ass"
> >>>
> > Dartmouth College: Philip J. Hanlon, Joseph Helble, Asher Auel, Peter Doyle, Anne Gelb, Marcia Groszek, Ethan Levien, Peter J Mucha, Rosa C. Orellana, Scott D. Pauls, Daniel N. Rockmore, Thomas R. Shemanske, John, D Trout, Erik van Erp, John Voight, Dorothy I. Wallace, David L. Webb, Dana P. Williams, Peter Winkler
> > Miles P. Blencowe, Robert R. Caldwell, Brian Charles Chabover, Richard Denton, Robert A. Fesen, Marcelo Gleiser, Ryan Hickox, Mary K. Hudson, James William LaBelle, Kristina Anne Lynch, Robyn Millan, Hans Mueller, Elisabeth Newton, Roberto Onofrio, Alex Rimberg, Barrett N. Rogers, John R. Thorstensen, Lorenza Viola, Martin N. Wybourne, Joseph D. Harris, Walter E. Lawrence, David C. Montgomery, Gary Alan Wegner
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday, June 23, 2021 at 1:14:40 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> "Drag Queen of Science"
> >> fails at math and scienc
> >
> > On Saturday, September 5, 2020 at 5:10:28 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> Piñata of sci.math and Punching Bag of sci.physics
> >
> > No Dartmouth math or physics professor can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, nor even ask the simple question, which is the real true electron of atoms, is it the muon stuck inside a proton of 840MeV doing the Faraday law inside the proton, or the 0.5MeV particle is it the electron or the Dirac magnetic monopole. With this blight over Dartmouth College, it is a wonder that they even open their doors for a education. Considering they cannot even think straight and clear with their Boole Logic of AND truth table of TFFF when in reality it is TTTF to have 2 AND 1 = 3 and not Dartmouth teaching 2 OR 1 = 3. So is Dartmouth even a school or more like a propaganda camp?[...]
>
> You should create your own calculator program where 2 OR 1 is not 3.
>
> Also, your calculator would not show that 2 AND 1 is actually 0. lol. ;^)

Chris Thomasson on MIT and Gilbert Strang, both ignorant failures of Logic. Cannot understand Boole screwed up and mistook OR for AND with his reckless table of TFFF when it is TTTF. This maybe over the head of Gilbert Strang, but that it is over the head of all those at MIT is a vast disappointment

On Thursday, October 20, 2022 at 12:19:53 AM UTC-5, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> Dan's? Well, be prepared to call up all the people who create
> calculators because 2 OR 1 does actually equal 3. You should really
> create your own calculator program

Chris asks, is every professor at MIT, especially Strang a stupid jackarse of Logic-- seeing that computers are summoned to have Addition with logic connector OR, instead of AND, all because Boole screwed up, Boole was a fuck-up of logic who got the truth table of AND turned around with OR.

MIT prides itself as being a school of science, top science, yet, noone, not a single person at MIT has a single marble of Logic, the same goes for ellipse as conic at MIT, where the jackarses of MIT cannot understand-- that is a Oval, not a ellipse.

Strang is not a scientist, and MIT has not a single scientist with 1 marble of logic.

> Chris Thomasson on MIT and Gilbert Strang, both ignorant failures of Logic. Cannot understand Boole screwed up and mistook OR for AND with his reckless table of TFFF when it is TTTF. This maybe over the head of Gilbert Strang, but that it is over the head of all those at MIT is a vast disappointment
>
> On Thursday, October 20, 2022 at 12:19:53 AM UTC-5, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > Dan's? Well, be prepared to call up all the people who create
> > calculators because 2 OR 1 does actually equal 3. You should really
> > create your own calculator program

On 10/20/2022 11:31 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Chris asks, is every professor at MIT, especially Strang a stupid jackarse of Logic-- seeing that computers are summoned to have Addition with logic connector OR, instead of AND, all because Boole screwed up, Boole was a fuck-up of logic who got the truth table of AND turned around with OR.
[...]

You should really create your own calculator program. You can make it
behave as you wish. Call it apTruth or something. apCalc?

It will have a fart button, to generate a random
number, bit it will only generate rational numbers on

an oval, not on an ellipse. Also the sin function
will produce half circles and not a sine wave.

Chris M. Thomasson schrieb am Donnerstag, 20. Oktober 2022 um 22:40:23 UTC+2:
> On 10/20/2022 11:31 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Chris asks, is every professor at MIT, especially Strang a stupid jackarse of Logic-- seeing that computers are summoned to have Addition with logic connector OR, instead of AND, all because Boole screwed up, Boole was a fuck-up of logic who got the truth table of AND turned around with OR.
> [...]
>
> You should really create your own calculator program. You can make it
> behave as you wish. Call it apTruth or something. apCalc?

As a bonus it will also find rational points on
this conic section here:

2*x^2 + 3*y^2=1

The rational points on the oval will be found by using
the geniune grid paper (trademark Archimedes

Plutonium) with infinity horizont 10^603.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 21. Oktober 2022 um 13:54:15 UTC+2:
> It will have a fart button, to generate a random
> number, bit it will only generate rational numbers on
>
> an oval, not on an ellipse. Also the sin function
> will produce half circles and not a sine wave.
> Chris M. Thomasson schrieb am Donnerstag, 20. Oktober 2022 um 22:40:23 UTC+2:
> > On 10/20/2022 11:31 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > Chris asks, is every professor at MIT, especially Strang a stupid jackarse of Logic-- seeing that computers are summoned to have Addition with logic connector OR, instead of AND, all because Boole screwed up, Boole was a fuck-up of logic who got the truth table of AND turned around with OR.
> > [...]
> >
> > You should really create your own calculator program. You can make it
> > behave as you wish. Call it apTruth or something. apCalc?

Chris asks, is every professor at MIT, especially Strang a stupid jackarse of Logic-- seeing that computers are summoned to have Addition with logic connector OR, instead of AND, all because Boole screwed up, Boole was a fuck-up of logic who got the truth table of AND turned around with OR.

MIT prides itself as being a school of science, top science, yet, noone, not a single person at MIT has a single marble of Logic, the same goes for ellipse as conic at MIT, where the jackarses of MIT cannot understand-- that is a Oval, not a ellipse.

Strang is not a scientist, and MIT has not a single scientist with 1 marble of logic.


> Chris Thomasson on MIT and Gilbert Strang, both ignorant failures of Logic. Cannot understand Boole screwed up and mistook OR for AND with his reckless table of TFFF when it is TTTF. This maybe over the head of Gilbert Strang, but that it is over the head of all those at MIT is a vast disappointment
>
> On Thursday, October 20, 2022 at 12:19:53 AM UTC-5, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > Dan's? Well, be prepared to call up all the people who create
> > calculators because 2 OR 1 does actually equal 3. You should really
> > create your own calculator program

On 10/23/2022 7:13 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Chris asks, is every professor at MIT, especially Strang a stupid jackarse of Logic-- seeing that computers are summoned to have Addition with logic connector OR, instead of AND, all because Boole screwed up, Boole was a fuck-up of logic who got the truth table of AND turned around with OR.
>
> MIT prides itself as being a school of science, top science, yet, noone, not a single person at MIT has a single marble of Logic, the same goes for ellipse as conic at MIT, where the jackarses of MIT cannot understand-- that is a Oval, not a ellipse.
>
> Strang is not a scientist, and MIT has not a single scientist with 1 marble of logic.
> 

AP... Please, create your own calculator logic. Give it a user interface
so its easy for others to use. You can make it act any way you want it
to. apCalc?

>> Chris Thomasson on MIT and Gilbert Strang, both ignorant failures of Logic. Cannot understand Boole screwed up and mistook OR for AND with his reckless table of TFFF when it is TTTF. This maybe over the head of Gilbert Strang, but that it is over the head of all those at MIT is a vast disappointment
>>
>> On Thursday, October 20, 2022 at 12:19:53 AM UTC-5, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> Dan's? Well, be prepared to call up all the people who create
>>> calculators because 2 OR 1 does actually equal 3. You should really
>>> create your own calculator program

>Harry Cliff,Cole,Cooper 🤡 of Math Cambridge Univ and Ahnert, Alai, Alexander, Allison 🃏 of Physics "Bozo of Math"
On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 3:10:02 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> fails at math and science:

Why Kibo Parry and Chris Thomasson, because they are like you-- failures of math with your ellipse a conic when that is a oval in slant cut, or is it the whole Logical brain of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, unable to see Boole messed up AND for OR. Or is it the fact that no professor at Cambridge Univ has the science intelligence to ask what is the actual true electron of atoms-- Muon or 0.5MeV particle???

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.

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

> > 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

On 11/25/2022 1:12 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
>> Harry Cliff,Cole,Cooper 🤡 of Math Cambridge Univ and Ahnert, Alai, Alexander, Allison 🃏 of Physics "Bozo of Math"
> On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 3:10:02 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> fails at math and science:
>
> Why Kibo Parry and Chris Thomasson, because they are like you-- failures of math with your ellipse a conic when that is a oval in slant cut, or is it the whole Logical brain of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, unable to see Boole messed up AND for OR. Or is it the fact that no professor at Cambridge Univ has the science intelligence to ask what is the actual true electron of atoms-- Muon or 0.5MeV particle???
[...]

Are you my first stalker? ;^)

On 11/25/2022 2:54 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 11/25/2022 1:12 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>
>>> Harry Cliff,Cole,Cooper 🤡 of Math Cambridge Univ and Ahnert, Alai,
>>> Alexander, Allison 🃏 of Physics  "Bozo of Math"
>> On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 3:10:02 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> fails at math and science:
>>
>> Why Kibo Parry and Chris Thomasson, because they are like you--
>> failures of math with your ellipse a conic when that is a oval in
>> slant cut, or is it the whole Logical brain of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as
>> subtraction, unable to see Boole messed up AND for OR. Or is it the
>> fact that no professor at Cambridge Univ has the science intelligence
>> to ask what is the actual true electron of atoms-- Muon or 0.5MeV
>> particle???
> [...]
>
>
> Are you my first stalker? ;^)
>

Don't feel you're special or anything. Plutonium stalks lots of people,
you, me, university math and physics professors etc. etc.

On 11/25/2022 3:30 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 11/25/2022 2:54 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 11/25/2022 1:12 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>>
>>>> Harry Cliff,Cole,Cooper 🤡 of Math Cambridge Univ and Ahnert, Alai,
>>>> Alexander, Allison 🃏 of Physics  "Bozo of Math"
>>> On Sunday, January 23, 2022 at 3:10:02 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> fails at math and science:
>>>
>>> Why Kibo Parry and Chris Thomasson, because they are like you--
>>> failures of math with your ellipse a conic when that is a oval in
>>> slant cut, or is it the whole Logical brain of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as
>>> subtraction, unable to see Boole messed up AND for OR. Or is it the
>>> fact that no professor at Cambridge Univ has the science intelligence
>>> to ask what is the actual true electron of atoms-- Muon or 0.5MeV
>>> particle???
>> [...]
>>
>>
>> Are you my first stalker? ;^)
>>
>
> Don't feel you're special or anything.

ROFL! :^D

> Plutonium stalks lots of people,
> you, me, university math and physics professors etc. etc.

Now, AP is a special person, indeed? Humm... ;^)

Kibo,could Gilbert Strang even tie his shoes correctly?

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 12:36:39 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> Wood louse of Math and Bathynomus giganteus of Physics
>"not one single marble of commonsense in my entire brain" flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test

> On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 2:13:36 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > Blowfly of Math and Botfly of Physics highly illogical
> >"psychoceramic"
> > On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 8:17:23 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > > Blowfly of Math and highly illogical
> >
> > Kibo did Dr.Wiles get something correct in life, or like his math-- everything was wrong in your eyes? Of course he can never admit the truth of math slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse, you need a cylinder slant cut to get a ellipse, but did he even fail in tying his shoelaces, Kibo???
> > > >
> > > > Stalker Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney:
> > > > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 12:22:26 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > > > >"shithead oaf of math"
> > > > >"antiscience"
> > > > > fails at math and science:
> > > >
> > > > > Certifiably insane??Dr.Wiles,Dr.Tao,Dr.Stillwell,Dr.Hales,Dr.Charney
> > >
> > >
> > > On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 7:34:12 AM UTC-5, Angel wrote:
> > > >upload
> > >
> > > Kibo Parry Moroney- Volney - Angel
> > > new costume Kibo Parry Moron stalker???
> > > 
> > >
> > > > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 1:32:35 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > > > > >"certifiably insane"
> > > > > > "Court Jester of Physics"
> > > > > > fails at math and science:
> > > > > Kibo & NSF Dr.Panchanathan on Dr.Wiles,Dr.Tao,Dr.Stillwell,Dr.Hales,Dr.Charney ever do anything correct in mathematics or are they complete failures forevermore as your posts imply. Certainly they cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not the ellipse and they fail to ever do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, or are they like arthritis of the brain--forever failures of math???
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 8:29:19 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > > > > > >"not one single marble of commonsense in my entire brain"
> > > > > > >"Drag Queen of Math"
> > > > > > > fails at math and science:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Beal, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Gerald Edgar, AMS, no-one there can do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, all they can offer is a limit analysis, so shoddy in logic they never realized that "analyzing" is not the same as "proving" for analyzing is much in the same as "measuring but not proving". And yet, none can do a geometry proof and the reason is quite clear for none can even see that the slant cut in single right-circular cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So they could never do a geometry proof of FTC even if they wanted to. For they have no logical geometry brain to begin to do anything geometrical. Is it that Andrew Wiles and Terence Tao cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Not having a Logical brain to do math, for any rational person would be upset by Wiles, Tao saying truth table of AND is TFFF when it actually is TTTF. Is that why neither Terence Tao or Andrew Wiles can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Maybe they need to take up Earle Jones offer to wash dishes or pots at Stanford Univ or where ever, for they sure cannot do mathematics.
> > > > > > > Why are these people failures of Math?? For none can even contemplate these 4 questions.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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 sap-heads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is Jim Holt, Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
> > > > > > > John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason, more of propagandists and belong in "Abnormal Psychology" dept than in the department of logic, like Dan Christensen a laugh a minute logician? Probably because none can admit slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, due to axes of symmetry for cone and oval have 1 while ellipse has 2. Why they cannot even count beyond 1. Yet their minds were never good enough to see the error nor admit to their mistakes. They failed logic so badly they accept Boole's insane AND truth table of TFFF when it is TTTF avoiding the painful 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Or is it because none of these logicians has a single marble of logic in their entire brain to realize calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not a "limit analysis" for analysis is like a measurement, not a proving exercise. Analysis does not prove, only adds data and facts, but never is a proof of itself. I analyze things daily, and none of which is a proof. So are all these logicians like what Clutterfreak the propaganda stooge says they are.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > >
> > > 
> > 
> > > > > > > 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)

Re: Kibo on > I want to fuck her corpse > AMS Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Harvard's Dr.Lisa Randall, Dr.Hau,CIA Kate Heinzelman, MIT's Anette Hosoi,Cynthia Barnhart
> by Augǝl Jan 1, 2023, 7:41:27 AM

Kibo_I want to fuck her corpse-Andrea Ghez,Dr.Lisa Randall, Dr.Hau,CIA Kate Heinzelman, MIT's Anette Hosoi,Cynthia Barnhart
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 12:36:39 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> Wood louse of Math and Bathynomus giganteus of Physics
> On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 10:55:02 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >"certifiably insane"
> > fails at math and science:
> > > "I want to fuck her corpse"
> > "I want to fuck her corpse"
> > Not again!
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> >
> > You sicko! Why do you keep saying that?
> >
> > wanting to fuck her corpse
> >
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> >
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> >
> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 2:26:54 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > Wood louse of Math and Bathynomus giganteus of Physics
> > tarded:
>
> NSF Dr.Panchanathan, Harvard's Sheldon Glashow, Peter Higgs ever 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) Too stupid to question if Thomson found Dirac's magnetic monopole and not the electron of atoms.
> 2) Too stupid to realize that in the Rutherford,Geiger, Marsden Experiment when you have increase in velocity of bounce back alpha particles means head on collision with a larger proton torus, hence, the interior of gold atoms are toruses, no nucleus.
> 3) Too stupid in logic to understand subatomic particles have jobs and tasks to do, not sit around on beaches sipping lemonade what Old Physics says.. The proton is a 8 ring torus with muon as electron inside doing the Faraday law producing new electricity.
> 4) Too stupid to understand stars and our Sun shine not from fusion but from Faraday law of each and every atom inside that star.
>
> 5) 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.
> 6) 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
> 7) 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"
> 8) 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.


> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 3:21:37 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > fails at math and science:
> Kibo Parry M the 30 year stalker joined by his friends Chris Thomasson and Dan Christensen
> Why Kibo, because Ruth Charney, Jill Pipher, Harvard's Dr.Hau cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse???
>

>
> Kibo Parry M on CIA Kate Heinzelman,Harvard's Dr. Hau.
> Kibo on > I want to fuck her corpse
> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> Why Kibo??? Because she refuses to finish her experiment and see all the light vanishes simultaneously, or is it because she can not admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse???
>
> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 12:21:30 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >"Imp of Math"
> On Monday, January 18, 2021 at 2:06:24 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > fails at math and science:
> Re: Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly??-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole (1)
> By Michael Moroney 1/23/18, 44 posts 461 views
>
>
> Kibo on Kate Heinzelman
> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> Kibo Parry Moroney in 1997 blows his CIA cover-- to the entire world, mind you---
> Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
> >> In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes:
> > >
>
> On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 9:13:14 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >"Court Jester of Math"
>
> Kibo,is Ruth Charney of AMS the model in your book, for she cannot admit the slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse as proven by AP in 2016? I know it falls on deaf ears of Kibo with his 938 is 12% short of 945. And Ruth, would the AMS publish Kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945, because the AMS certainly will not publish AP's conic proof? Maybe that is all the AMS publishes-- fake math.
>
> Kibo on wanting to fuck her corpse/Kate Heinzelman, question, do you not think CIA is going overboard on stalking-- I mean 30 years for the insane Kibo Parry M??
>
> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 3:21:37 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > fails at math and science:
> Kibo's "I want to fuck her corpse" rubbing off on Canada's Dan Christensen with his 20 year stalking of Univ Toronto's Rose M. Patten, Univ Western Ontario's Linda Hasenfratz, when Dan is a failure of math and logic with his 2 OR 1=3, and his ellipse
>
> Kibo Parry M the 30 year stalker joined by his friends Chris Thomasson and Dan Christensen
> Why Kibo, because Ruth Charney, Jill Pipher, Harvard's Dr.Hau cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse???
>
> On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 10:55:02 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >"certifiably insane"
> > fails at math and science:
> > > "I want to fuck her corpse"
> > "I want to fuck her corpse"
> > Not again!
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> >
> > You sicko! Why do you keep saying that?
> >
> > wanting to fuck her corpse
> >
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> >
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> >
>
> Re: Kibo on > I want to fuck her corpse > AMS Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Harvard's Dr.Lisa Randall, Dr.Hau,CIA Kate Heinzelman, MIT's Anette Hosoi,Cynthia Barnhart
> by Augǝl Jan 1, 2023, 7:41:27 AM

Re: Kibo on > I want to fuck her corpse > AMS Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Harvard's Dr.Lisa Randall, Dr.Hau,CIA Kate Heinzelman, MIT's Anette Hosoi,Cynthia Barnhart
by Augǝl Jan 1, 2023, 7:41:27 AM

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 12:36:39 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> Wood louse of Math and Bathynomus giganteus of Physics
> On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 10:55:02 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >"certifiably insane"
> > fails at math and science:
> > > "I want to fuck her corpse"
> > "I want to fuck her corpse"
> > Not again!
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> >
> > You sicko! Why do you keep saying that?
> >
> > wanting to fuck her corpse
> >
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> >
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> >
> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 2:26:54 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > Wood louse of Math and Bathynomus giganteus of Physics
> > tarded:
>
> NSF Dr.Panchanathan, Harvard's Sheldon Glashow, Peter Higgs ever 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) Too stupid to question if Thomson found Dirac's magnetic monopole and not the electron of atoms.
> 2) Too stupid to realize that in the Rutherford,Geiger, Marsden Experiment when you have increase in velocity of bounce back alpha particles means head on collision with a larger proton torus, hence, the interior of gold atoms are toruses, no nucleus.
> 3) Too stupid in logic to understand subatomic particles have jobs and tasks to do, not sit around on beaches sipping lemonade what Old Physics says.. The proton is a 8 ring torus with muon as electron inside doing the Faraday law producing new electricity.
> 4) Too stupid to understand stars and our Sun shine not from fusion but from Faraday law of each and every atom inside that star.
>
> 5) 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.
> 6) 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
> 7) 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"
> 8) 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.


> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 3:21:37 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > fails at math and science:
> Kibo Parry M the 30 year stalker joined by his friends Chris Thomasson and Dan Christensen
> Why Kibo, because Ruth Charney, Jill Pipher, Harvard's Dr.Hau cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse???
>

>
> Kibo Parry M on CIA Kate Heinzelman,Harvard's Dr. Hau.
> Kibo on > I want to fuck her corpse
> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> Why Kibo??? Because she refuses to finish her experiment and see all the light vanishes simultaneously, or is it because she can not admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse???
>
> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 12:21:30 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >"Imp of Math"
> On Monday, January 18, 2021 at 2:06:24 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > fails at math and science:
> Re: Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly??-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole (1)
> By Michael Moroney 1/23/18, 44 posts 461 views
>
>
> Kibo on Kate Heinzelman
> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> Kibo Parry Moroney in 1997 blows his CIA cover-- to the entire world, mind you---
> Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
> >> In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes:
> > >
>
> On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 9:13:14 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >"Court Jester of Math"
>
> Kibo,is Ruth Charney of AMS the model in your book, for she cannot admit the slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse as proven by AP in 2016? I know it falls on deaf ears of Kibo with his 938 is 12% short of 945. And Ruth, would the AMS publish Kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945, because the AMS certainly will not publish AP's conic proof? Maybe that is all the AMS publishes-- fake math.
>
> Kibo on wanting to fuck her corpse/Kate Heinzelman, question, do you not think CIA is going overboard on stalking-- I mean 30 years for the insane Kibo Parry M??
>
> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 3:21:37 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > fails at math and science:
> Kibo's "I want to fuck her corpse" rubbing off on Canada's Dan Christensen with his 20 year stalking of Univ Toronto's Rose M. Patten, Univ Western Ontario's Linda Hasenfratz, when Dan is a failure of math and logic with his 2 OR 1=3, and his ellipse
>
> Kibo Parry M the 30 year stalker joined by his friends Chris Thomasson and Dan Christensen
> Why Kibo, because Ruth Charney, Jill Pipher, Harvard's Dr.Hau cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse???
>
> On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 10:55:02 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >"certifiably insane"
> > fails at math and science:
> > > "I want to fuck her corpse"
> > "I want to fuck her corpse"
> > Not again!
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> >
> > You sicko! Why do you keep saying that?
> >
> > wanting to fuck her corpse
> >
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> >
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> >
>
> Re: Kibo on > I want to fuck her corpse > AMS Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Harvard's Dr.Lisa Randall, Dr.Hau,CIA Kate Heinzelman, MIT's Anette Hosoi,Cynthia Barnhart
> by Augǝl Jan 1, 2023, 7:41:27 AM

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science

On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 2:18:15 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> [snip] Dan Christensen

[snip]

Time for another spanking, Archie Poo! When will you learn? Once again...

From his antics here at sci.math, it is obvious that AP has abandoned all hope of being recognized as a credible personality. He is a malicious internet troll who now wants only to mislead and confuse students. He may not be all there, but his fake math and science can only be meant to promote failure in schools. One can only guess at his motives. Is it revenge for his endless string of personal failures in life? Who knows?

In AP's OWN WORDS here that, over the years, he has NEVER renounced or withdrawn:

"Negative numbers are the witches and hobgoblins of insane kook mathematicians. "
--Dec. 7, 2022

“Primes do not exist, because the set they were borne from has no division.”
--June 29, 2020

“The last and largest finite number is 10^604.”
--June 3, 2015

“0 appears to be the last and largest finite number”
--June 9, 2015

“0/0 must be equal to 1.”
-- June 9, 2015

“0 is an infinite irrational number.”
--June 28, 2015

“No negative numbers exist.”
--December 22, 2018

“Rationals are not numbers.”
--May 18, 2019

According to AP's “chess board math,” an equilateral triangle is a right-triangle.
--December 11, 2019

Which could explain...

“The value of sin(45 degrees) = 1.” (Actually 0.707)
--May 31, 2019

AP deliberately and repeatedly presented the truth table for OR as the truth table for AND:

“New Logic
AND
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F”
--November 9, 2019

AP seeks aid of Russian agents to promote failure in schools:

"Please--Asking for help from Russia-- russian robots-- to create a new, true mathematics [sic]. What I like for the robots to do, is list every day, about 4 Colleges ( of the West) math dept, and ask why that math department is teaching false and fake math, and if unable to change to the correct true math, well, simply fire that math department until they can find professors who recognize truth in math from fakery...."
--November 9, 2017

And if that wasn't weird enough...

“The totality, everything that there is [the universe], is only 1 atom of plutonium [Pu]. There is nothing outside or beyond this one atom of plutonium.”
--April 4, 1994

“The Universe itself is one gigantic big atom.”
--November 14, 2019

AP's sinister Atom God Cult of Failure???

“Since God-Pu is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Atom Plutonium!
Its truth is marching on.
It has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
It is sifting out the hearts of people before its judgment seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer it; be jubilant, my feet!
Our God-Pu is marching on.”
--December 15, 2018 (Note: Pu is the atomic symbol for plutonium)

Updated version (repetion removed):

"Oh Atom Plutonium, as great as you are
How great thou are, are, are, are.
Oh Atom Plutonium, the God that you are
How beautiful is your world of science
Your science is the world
How beautiful is your world of science
Your science is the world
Oh Atom Plutonium, Great God of Atoms
Atom of Atoms
Oh Atom Plutonium, as great as thou art"
--March 24, 2023

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 12:58:36 AM UTC-5, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 5/9/2023 8:57 PM, Volney wrote:
> > Woodlouse of Math and Bathynomus giganteus of Physics
> > "Pope of Failure"
> > highly illogical
> > humiliated himself by writing:

On Friday, June 25, 2021 at 6:09:27 PM UTC-5, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>
> You should create your own calculator program where 2 OR 1 is not 3.
>
> Also, your calculator would not show that 2 AND 1 is actually 0. lol. ;^)

Kibo why is Chris so dirt stupid to not see that Boole screwed up the OR with the AND, it is 2 AND 1 = 3 not 2 OR 1 = 3.

> > You'll need to explain this very clearly if you *ever* want anyone to
> > believe it, since your "syllogism" states the exact opposite of what
> > logic dictates. Maybe you should rewrite it as if you were trying to
> > explain it to a 10 year old.
> >

Yes, even a 10 year old can understand AP's TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS for it was written for ages 5 to 26. See below.

> > Explain the difference between this and this "syllogism":
> >
> > All humans are made of cells.
> > is a single human cell?
> >
> > Shouldn't the last line be:
> >

> a single human brain made up of many highly damaged neurons? Fair
> enough? ;^o

Add fractal neuron for Kibo's brain is fractal

Chris, ask me if I think you are gay.

> >
> > Will you answer this or simply ignore the answer and insult me in some
> > other random topic? I already know that answer.

Kibo why you think 938 is 12% short of 945? You know that answer, eh.

My 134th published book

Introduction to TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 1 for ages 5 through 26, math textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

The 134th book of AP, and belatedly late, for I had already written the series of TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS in a 7 volume, 8 book set. This would be the first book in that 8 book set (one of the books is a companion book to 1st year college). But I suppose that I needed to write the full series before I could write the Introduction and know what I had to talk about and talk about in a logical progression order. Sounds paradoxical in a sense, that I needed to write the full series first and then go back and write the Introduction. But in another sense, hard to write an introduction on something you have not really fully done and completed. For example to know what is error filled Old Math and to list those errors in a logical order requires me to write the full 7 volumes in order to list in order the mistakes.

Cover Picture: Mathematics begins with counting, with numbers, with quantity. But counting numbers needs geometry for something to count in the first place. So here in this picture of the generalized Hydrogen atom of chemistry and physics is a torus geometry of 8 rings of a proton torus and one ring where my fingers are, is a equator ring that is the muon and thrusting through the proton torus at the equator of the torus. So we count 9 rings in all. So math is created by atoms and math numbers exist because atoms have many geometry figures to count. And geometry exists because atoms have shapes and different figures.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08K2XQB4M
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ September 24, 2020
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 576 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 23 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #224,974 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #3 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #23 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #182 in Calculus (Books)

#5-2, 45th published

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 2 for ages 5 to 18, math textbook series, book 2
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon Kindle edition)

Last revision was 2NOV2020. And this is AP's 45th published book of science..

Preface: Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education.

This is a textbook series in several volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education starting age 5 up to age 26. Volume 2 is for age 5 year old to that of senior in High School, that is needed to do both science and math. Every other math book is incidental to this series of Teaching True Mathematics.

It is a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost on a daily basis. A unique first in education textbooks-- almost a continual overnight editing. Adding new text, correcting text. Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education. Volume 3 carries the Freshperson in College for their math calculus education.

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

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07RG7BVZW
Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 2, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 2024 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 423 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #235,426 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
#15 in General Geometry
#223 in Geometry & Topology (Books)

#5-3, 55th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 18-19, 1st year College Calculus, math textbook series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 25Jun2021. And this is AP's 55th published book of science.

Teaching True Mathematics, by Archimedes Plutonium 2019

Preface: This is volume 3, book 3 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Freshperson students, 1st year college students of age 18-19. It is the continuation of volume 2 for ages 5 through 18 years old.

The main major topic is the AP-EM equations of electricity and magnetism, the mathematics for the laws of electricity and magnetism; what used to be called the Maxwell Equations of Physics. The 1st Year College Math has to prepare all students with the math for all the sciences. So 1st year college Math is like a huge intersection station that has to prepare students with the math they need to do the hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etc. What this means is, 1st year college is calculus that allows the student to work with electricity and magnetism. All the math that is needed to enable students to do electricity and magnetism. In Old Math before this textbook, those Old Math textbooks would end in 1/3 of the text about Arclength, vector space, div, curl, Line Integral, Green's, Stokes, Divergence theorem trying to reach and be able to teach Maxwell Equations. But sadly, barely any Old Math classroom reached that 1/3 ending of the textbook, and left all those college students without any math to tackle electricity and magnetism. And most of Old Math was just muddle headed wrong even if they covered the last 1/3 of the textbook. And that is totally unacceptable in science. This textbook fixes that huge hole and gap in Old Math education.

And there is no way around it, that a course in 1st year College Calculus is going to do a lot of hands on experiment with electricity and magnetism, and is required of the students to buy a list of physics apparatus-- multimeter, galvanometer, coil, bar magnet, alligator clip wires, electromagnet, iron filing case, and possibly even a 12 volt transformer, all shown in the cover picture. The beginning of this textbook and the middle section all leads into the ending of this textbook-- we learn the AP-EM Equations and how to use those equations. And there is no escaping the fact that it has to be hands on physics experiments in the classroom of mathematics.

But, do not be scared, for this is all easy easy easy. For if you passed and enjoyed Volume 2 TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, then I promise you, you will not be stressed with Volume 3, for I go out of my way to make it clear and understandable.

Warning: this is a Journal Textbook, meaning that I am constantly adding new material, constantly revising, constantly fixing mistakes or making things more clear. So if you read this book in August of 2019, chances are it is different when you read it in September 2019. Ebooks allow authors the freedom to improve their textbooks on a ongoing basis.

The 1st year college math should be about the math that prepares any and all students for science, whether they branch out into physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, or math, they should have all the math in 1st year college that will carry them through those science studies. I make every attempt possible to make math easy to understand, easy to learn and hopefully fun.

On 5/9/2023 11:20 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
[...]

Oh man. You need to get into an argument with an ai. It would be fun to
read a transcript.

Can_Dr.James Young,Dr.Andrea Ghez,Dr.K. Barry Sharpless,Dr.Carolyn Bertozzi,Dr.Frank Wilczek,Dr.Rainer Weiss, MIT Univ --Please- please-step into the MIT Univ physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. Once weighed the hydrogen test tube should be 1/4 the weight of the oxygen test tube for H4O but if mainstream chemistry is correct then 1/8 atomic mass units. My weighing scales do not go up to 0.00001 gram, and sure that MIT has far better precision.

President: Sally Kornbluth
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
Andrea Ghez, K. Barry Sharpless(chem), Carolyn Bertozzi(chem), Frank Wilczek, Rainer Weiss

Spam mill echo chamber, that is Chris Thomasson,Markus and John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet they fail math and logic and science.
The endless and worthless Spam Mill Echo Chamber of Chris M. Thomasson, Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney, Dan Christensen-Jan Burse, John Gabriel with Markus barking every day-- play act spamming to keep their pollution on front page.
>
> >
> > +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within
> > +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within
> >
> > 3m views Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium
> >
> >
> > Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.
> >
> >
> > Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium
> >
> > In Old Chemistry and Old Physics, their subatomic particles were do nothing and no function and no job particles that sit around as balls or whiz around the outside of balls doing nothing but pointless circling.
> >
> > In New Physics and New Chemistry-- All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. Every subatomic particle has a job a function a purpose as to the Laws of Electromagnetism--- Faraday law, Coulomb law, Ampere law, Capacitor law.
> >
> > A proton is a torus of 840MeV with 840 windings, while the muon is the true electron of Atoms and is encased inside the proton torus thrusting through and producing electricity-- magnetic monopoles.
> >
> > The neutron of Atoms is a parallel plate capacitor storing the electricity of proton+muon and is skin cover on the outside of the proton torus in the form of parallel plates.
> >
> > Can hydrogen be a Atom if it is just a proton+muon? No, all atoms require to have a capacitor such as at least one neutron. Thus the Hydrogen Atom is H2 where you have 2 proton+muon where 1 of the 2 proton+muon acts like a neutron to the other proton+muon. Thus, water molecule is not H2O but rather is H4O.
> >
> > AP is waiting for experimental chemists and physicists to prove him correct that Water is H4O.
> >
> > In the meantime we have Hydroxyl which in Old Chemistry, especially Biology is OH, while AP says that is wrong and that is really H2O.
> >
> > Now glycerine is a hydroxyl with formula C3H8O3. And what I am thinking at this moment, is that hydroxyls will be an easier proof that Water is truly H4O, rather than wait for experimentalists to actually "weigh the electrolysis test tubes of oxygen and hydrogen".
> >
> > You see, with H4O as water, glycerine is C3(2 waters)O with an extra oxygen. If Water is H2O then glycerine is C3(4 waters) deficit O. It is missing an oxygen if water is H2O.
> >
> > The reason glycerine is so effective as a skin ointment is because it has glycerine, the extra O oxygen. If water were H2O, then glycerine would be a missing oxygen and not a skin lotion that works, but makes skin even more dry.
> >
> > Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium
> >
> > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > 12:24 AM (13 hours ago)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> >
> > --- quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---
> > Perhaps there is only two Faraday laws on Electrolysis. I am looking at the one that states: Faraday's first law of electrolysis relates the mass of a substance liberated (or deposited) at an electrode to the electric charge used (Q). A proportionality constant Z can be used:
> >
> > m = ZQ = (E/96485)(Q)
> >
> > m = mass, Q = total charge rewritten as Q = I*t amperes x time in seconds.
> >
> > This website gives an example: 5amps passed through molten Sodium Chloride for 3 hours. Calculate the mass of Sodium. E=23/1.
> >
> > m = (23/96485) (5) (3*60*60) approx 12.87 grams.
> >
> > --- end quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---
> >
> > Now has such a experiment been performed on Water to see how much atomic mass of hydrogen and of oxygen results??? If AP is correct, the formula of water is H4O, if Old Physics, Old Chemistry is correct the formula is H2O.. So which is it???
> >
> > AP
> >
> >
> > No, sorry no, Faraday's Law of Electrolysis is not going to tell the correct mass of hydrogen.
> >
> > Reading Wikipedia on Faraday's Electrolysis law.
> >
> > --- quoting Wikipedia ---
> > A monovalent ion requires 1 electron for discharge, a divalent ion requires 2 electrons for discharge and so on. Thus, if x electrons flow,
> > x/v atoms are discharged.
> >
> > So the mass m discharged is
> >
> > m= (xM)/vN_A) = (QM)/(eN_A *v) = (QM) / (vF)
> > where
> > N_A is the Avogadro constant;
> > Q = xe is the total charge, equal to the number of electrons (x) times the elementary charge e;
> > F is the Faraday constant.
> > --- end quoting Wikipedia ---
> >
> > No, the Faraday law of Electrolysis will not work on water with a correct answer, because H is not an atom but H2 is an Atom. And where one of the proton+muon converts to being a neutron to the other proton+muon.
> >
> > So if Faraday's law of Electrolysis was applied to water, thinking it would deliver a true answer is mistaken because the one H converts to neutron.
> >
> > So it appears that we need to directly measure the test tube of oxygen and the test tube of hydrogen by a direct mass measurement.
> >
> > AP
> > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > 1:14 AM (12 hours ago)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > I doubt we can measure a test tube of hydrogen or test tube of oxygen, too small to determine the mass on some sort of weight scale.
> >
> > But here is a possible lucrative idea. We should be able to get pure deuterium water. Then run the electrolysis. Collect the test tubes.
> >
> > Now have some sort of balancing beam weight scale. Place the regular water of hydrogen test tube on one side, and place the deuterium water hydrogen test tube on other side. If they stay balanced, then AP is correct and Water is really H4O.
> >
> > AP
> > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > 1:48 AM (11 hours ago)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > Cosmic Rays from Sun
> >
> > 90% of Sun's cosmic rays are 840MeV proton+muon inside = H. The hydrogen Atom is H2 where one of the H proton+muon converts to being a neutron.
> >
> > When these proton+muon hit Earth atmosphere, they can turn into pions and muons.
> >
> > I commented that H alone is a subatomic particle and that makes sense in the idea that Sun's cosmic rays are 90% these proton+muon.
> >
> > Now is interstellar hydrogen H2 and intergalactic hydrogen H2 formed when one H cosmic ray joins up with another H cosmic ray to form H2 atom?
> >
> > Is this how we get H2 in outer space? From the splitting apart of H2 into H cosmic rays?
> >
> > So how much of the Sun's hydrogen is H2 and how much is H ready to join with another H and reform back into H2. Probably little of the Sun's H is H alone, and the vast majority of the Sun's hydrogen is H2.
> >
> > How much deuterium in the Sun? And it is a higher percentage than the deuterium in water on Earth?
> >
> > AP
> > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > 3:11 AM (10 hours ago)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > Water is the only known non-metallic substance that expands when if freezes; its density decreases and it expands approximately 9% by volume. (Source: web Lunar and Planetary Institute)
> >
> > I have to wait for experimental chemists and physicists to weigh the mass of test tubes from electrolysis, as to the verdict-- water is H4O.
> >
> > But until that news comes in, I will look for other means of proof.
> >
> > So AP says that the H2 is not a molecule but is the hydrogen Atom itself, where one proton+muon converts to a neutron and capacitates the other proton+muon which undergo the Faraday law.
> >
> > There are subatomic particles of H in the form of Cosmic Rays from the Sun, but most of the Sun's hydrogen is H2, and flips back and forth from H to rejoining to form H2. Some gets away from the Sun and is cosmic rays.
> >
> > But H2 is an Atom and H is a fleeting subatomic particle.
> >
> > So can I prove Water is H4O from the data of Spectral lines of H2 is the same as deuterium, only slight difference is that the deuterium is a full fledged neutron not a makeshift proton+muon of H.
> >
> > I suspect that special trait of water freezing is a proof that Water is H4O. Because the 840MeV proton torus with muon inside doing the Faraday law acting as a makeshift neutron capacitor for the other 840MeV proton torus with muon inside, is where H2 gets that expansion characteristic.
> >
> > A neutron is a parallel plate capacitor and those plates can expand when frozen temperature occurs. As the temperature gets colder, those plates move further apart.
> >
> > Now does deuterium which truly has a full neutron, does it expand also when frozen?? If so, does it expand as much as H2 which is 2 protons with 2 muons inside?
> >
> > So comparing the freezing and expansion of the parallel plates of a neutron in deuterium with the freezing and expansion of one of the proton+muon that is acting as a makeshift neutron in H2.
> >
> > If I can numbers correlate the H2 expansion with the Deuterium expansion would be a alternative proof that Water is really H4O and not H2O.
> >
> > AP
> > to
> > So now on Blankenship's book "Molecular Mechanisms of Photosynthesis", 2014, page 134, shows The structure of ATP, ADP, AMP. And within that structure are OH hydroxyls.
> >
> > In New Chemistry, water is truly H4O, and where hydroxyls are now H2O. And we have first proof of this in the Figure 8.1 of Blankenship's "Chemical structure of ATP".
> >
> > For in the lower left corner of the diagram, Blankenship has a H+ all alone, (really a mindless error) and has P surrounded by O-, O-, O and OH. The OH is really H2O for hydroxyls are H2O and water itself is H4O, and that would leave that mindless H+ as being hydrogen Atom of H2.
> >
> > The world of physics and chemistry should drop what they are doing and weigh the electrolysis test tube of hydrogen and oxygen to discover the correct true formula of water is H4O.
> >
> > AP is total confident, becuase an Atom cannot exist if it has no capacitor structure such as a neutron, or one of the H in H2 acting as a neutron. I am totally confident that Water formula is truly H4O. And I need look only to methane of H4C, to realize that there is no HC, no H2C, no H3C, but starts with H4C, and that tells me water starts with H4O. Totally confident that Old Chemistry, Old Physics did electrolysis experiments and the moment they saw hydrogen test tube be 2x volume of oxygen test tube, they dropped their work and went out for a Danish and coffee break, rather than finish their work--- actual physics weighing of atomic mass units (not the Faraday electrolysis law for it does not apply to water).
> >
> > When water electrolysis is physics weighed, AP is confident that there are 4H per every one oxygen O. And that Water is truly H4O.
> >
> > AP, King of Science
> > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > Archimedes Plutonium
> > 9:34 AM (15 minutes ago)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > to
> > On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 8:56:57 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.
> >
> > Now modern day physics and chemist experimenters can really do a marvelous job if they wanted to. For they could freeze the test tubes of oxygen and hydrogen to where they are liquid and compare liquids from water electrolysis.
> > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > Archimedes Plutonium
> > 10:01 AM (5 hours ago)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > to
> > So, what AP is saying here is that we do electrolysis of water. We collect the two test tubes, one with oxygen the other with hydrogen.
> >
> > To prove Water is truly the formula H4O and not H2O we must weigh the masses of the two tubes to find that the ratio is 1 x 16amu to 4 x 1amu.
> >
> > The silly grotesque science error of the past was to look at volumes in the two test tubes-- "Hey-- the hydrogen is twice the volume of oxygen so the formula of water is H2O".
> >
> > No, way was that science good practice. For the correct formula of water needs to be measured by mass, by atomic mass units where Oxygen is 16amu and hydrogen is 1amu.
> >
> > I suspect a balance beam scale is good enough to see the hydrogen test tube will be 1/4 as massive as the oxygen test tube. To get within precision of electronic weighing scale of 0.00001 gram we just have to make a larger test tube of electrolysis of water.
> >
> > AP is betting that the readings will be hydrogen test tube 1/4 the mass of oxygen test tube proving Water formula is truly H4O.
> >
> > Old Physics and Old Chemistry is betting that the mass experiment will have the hydrogen test tube be 1/8 the mass of the oxygen test tube, proving Water formula is H2O.
> >
> > AP does not have these precision equipment to conduct an at-home experiment of this nature.
> >
> > AP
> > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > Archimedes Plutonium
> > 12:38 PM (4 hours ago)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > to
> > So, once Water is found to actually be H4O, not H2O, we move on to methane, and ask the same question of its hydrogen bonds. Is Methane really that of H8C and not H4C.
> >
> > Well, looking in the literature for anomalies to methane, I come across a arXiv "Low and high-temperature anomalies in the physical properties of solid methane "The anomalous behavior of thermodynamic, spectral, plastic, elastic and some other properties of solid methane is discussed near 20.48K and...
> >
> > AP wonders: if they can get methane to solid form, well, I am then hopeful that the mass of the molecule can be determined. Because if methane is truly H8C, that difference of H4 in atomic mass units would be very much noticeable difference.
> >
> > Chemistry Europe--
> > "The Anomalous Deuterium Isotope Effect in the NMR Spectrum of Methane....
> >
> > P Vermeeren, 2023
> > "The abnormally long and weak methylidyne C-H bond.."
> > "The C-H bond of the methylidyne radical, CH*, is abnormally long and weak, even longer and..."
> >
> > AP asks, are these anomalies solved if we consider methane is actually H8C and not H4C?
> >
> > AP
My 250th published book.