Mitch_on math failures John Baez,John Stillwell,Terry Tao,Andrew Wiles, Thomas Hales is the 2nd derivative in Feynman's Electric field equation E = (-q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')] if that 2nd derivative is the same as C' in AP's EM equations?
5m views
If the 2nd derivative in Feynman's Electric field equation E = (-q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')] if that 2nd derivative is the same as C' in AP's EM equations (modern day replacement of Maxwell Equations) E' = V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2 = V'/CB - VC'/C^2B - VB'/CB^2. Now in the Schrodinger equation we also run into a 2nd derivative but there are only 1st derivatives in AP's EM equations. So we have to ask if the C' is a 2nd derivative.



AP now thinks the second term - VC'B/(CB)^2 is the Schrodinger Equation in EM theory, would you agree?

MitchR why waste your time, for Andrew Wiles, John Stillwell, Terence Tao are so retarded in mathematics, they cannot even admit slant cut of cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. And to press them with a question in calculus when they fail simple geometry--- why bother???

CHEM ONE authors gives us a clue in their Schrodinger formula of E_n = - (2*pi^2*m*Z^2*e^4) / (n^2*h^2* alpha^2) with a footnote: alpha = 1.113*10^-10 C^2J^-1 m^-1 which is Coulomb force.

Kibo failure of math, yet he spams and stalks 30 years nonstop
On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon..
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.

Force of gravity = G*(m_1*m_2)/ distance^2 (Newton's law by 1687)

Force of electrostatics = C(q_1*q_2)/ distance^2 (Coulomb law by 1785)

So let us state the Coulomb-gravity law of Physics. From one of the permutations of V= CBE we have E = (V/(CB)) and when we differentiate that by the calculus we have E' = (V/(CB))'. Now we use the quotient rule of calculus, which is (f/gh)' = (f'gh - fg'h - fgh')/(gh)^2 and as we reduce that we get 3 terms of f'/gh -fg'/g^2h - fh'/gh^2. And using the quotient rule renders (V/(CB))' as that of V'/CB - VC'/C^2B - VB'/CB^2.

E' = (V/(CB))' = V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2 = V'/CB - VC'/C^2B - VB'/CB^2.

Harry, which term looks like the CHEM ONE equation--E_n = - (2*pi^2*m*Z^2*e^4) / (n^2*h^2* alpha^2)

So our Coulomb-gravity law has 3 terms and we can break down each of those 3 terms into statements.

So which of the AP-EM Equations is the Schrodinger Equation as given by CHEM ONE.
> And I easily flip open some pages in CHEM ONE, 2nd edition, 1980 Waser, Trueblood, Knobler to page 311 for a sample of the Schrodinger equation as given by E_n = - (2*pi^2*m*Z^2*e^4) / (n^2*h^2* alpha^2).
>
> This is the question before me. Which term in which equation of the AP-EM laws is the Schrodinger Equation?
>
>
>
> Those 6 laws are these.
>
> 1) Magnetic monopole telling us what magnetism and electric current and magnetic field and electric field are.
>
> 2) New Ohm's law Voltage = capacitor-battery = quantity of current C times magnetic field times electric field. V= CBE. The equation of New Ohm's law is a math equation of volume Volume = length x width x height so we can expect that New Ohm's law is a measuring of volume in physics, volume of energy.
>
> The next 4 laws are derivatives of all the possible 4 permutations of C, B, E, and V.
>
> 3) Rate of change of C, quantity current, C' = (V/(BE))' Faraday law.
>
> 4) Rate of change of B, magnetic field, B' = (V/(CE))' Ampere-Maxwell law.
>
> 5) Rate of change of E, electric field, E' = (V/(CB))' Coulomb law & gravity.
>
> 6) The rate of change of V= CBE as V' = (CBE)' as AC transformer law.
>
> C' = (V/(BE))' = V'BE/(BE)^2 - VB'E/(BE)^2 - VBE'/(BE)^2 which is Faraday's law.
> 1st term as current production -- 2nd term as Lenz law -- 3rd term as DC, AC direction
>
> B' = (V/(CE))' = V'CE/(CE)^2 - VC'E/(CE)^2 - VCE')/(CE)^2 which is Ampere-Maxwell law.
> 1st term as B production -- 2nd term as Displacement current -- 3rd term as parallel attract
>
> E' = (V/(CB))' = V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2 which is Coulomb-gravity law.
> 1st term as E production -- 2nd term as inverse square of distance -- 3rd term as spin and orbit synchronicity
>
> V' = (CBE)' = C'BE + CB'E + CBE' which is Transformer law
> 1st term as V production in a transformer -- 2nd term as inverse square root -- 3rd term as DC, AC synchronicity
>
>
> Review all of this, the EM equations of physics and mathematics.
>
> Faraday Law is (V/(B*L))' = i' from the AP-Maxwell Equations you learned in 1st year College.
>
> 1) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
> 2) V = i*B*L New Ohm's law, law of electricity
> 3) V' = (i*B*L)' Capacitor Law of Physics
> 4) (V/i*L)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
> 5) (V/(B*L))' = i' Faraday law
> 6) (V/(i*B))' = L' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
>
>
> PHYSICS LAWS
>
> 1) all the facts of chemistry and physics
> 2) Voltage V = kg*m^2/A*s^3
> 3) Current i = A = magnetic monopoles
> 4) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
> 5) angular momentum L = m^2/(A*s)
> 6) V = i*B*L New Ohm's law, law of electricity
> 7) V' = (i*B*L)' Capacitor Law of Physics
> 8) (V/i*L)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
> 9) (V/(B*L))' = i' Faraday law
> 10) (V/(i*B))' = L' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
>
>
>
> Algebra of 3D Calculus, for remember we did the algebra of
>
> V' = (iBL)'
> i' = (V/BL)'
> B' = (V/iL)'
> L' = (V/iB)'
>
> --- quoting 1st year calculus from Teaching True ---
> Using the Product Rule which is (fgh)' = (f'gh + fg'h + fgh')
>
> Capacitor Law (i*B*L)' = i'*B*L + i*B'L + i*B*L'
>
> V' = (iBL)' = i'*B*L + i*B'*L + i*B*L' here we have three terms explaining capacitors
>
> Ampere-Maxwell Law
>
> Using the Quotient Rule, which is (f/gh)' = (f'gh - fg'h - fgh')/(gh)^2
>
> (V/i*L)' = B' = (V'*i*L - V*i' *L - V*i*L') / (i*L)^2
>
> Maxwell had two terms in the Ampere-Maxwell law-- the produced magnetic field and a displacement current, but above we see we have also a third new term.
>
> Faraday Law
>
> (V/B*L)' = i' = (V'*B*L - V*B' *L - V*B*L') / (B*L)^2
>
> ------------
> V' = (iBL)' = i'*B*L + i*B'*L + i*B*L' reduces to
> = iBL + iVL + iBL'
>
> i' = V'*B*L/ (B*L)^2 - V*B' *L/ (B*L)^2 - V*B*L' / (B*L)^2 reduces to
> i' = B^2*L/ (B*L)^2 - V^2 *L/ (B*L)^2 - V*B*L' / (B*L)^2 further reduces
> = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - VL'/BL^2
>
> B' = V'*i*L/ (i*L)^2 - V*i' *L/ (i*L)^2 - V*i*L' / (i*L)^2 reduces to
> B' = B*i*L/ (i*L)^2 - V*i *L/ (i*L)^2 - V*i*L' / (i*L)^2 further reduces to
> = B/iL - V/iL - VL'/iL^2
>
>
> L' = (V/i*B)' = (V'*i*B - V*i' *B - V*i*B') / (i*B)^2 reduces to
> L' = i*B^2 / (i*B)^2 - V*i *B / (i*B)^2 - V^2*i / (i*B)^2 further reduces to
> = 1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2
>
> --------
>
>
> (1) V' = iBL + iVL + iBL'
>
> (2) i' = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - VL'/BL^2
>
> (3) B' = B/iL - V/iL - VL'/iL^2
>
> (4) L' = 1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2
>
> Alright, so I replace L' in (1) with 1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2
>
> I get V' = iBL + iVL + iB*(1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2 )
> = iBL + iVL + B - V - V^2/ B
>
>
> Doing the replacement in (2)
>
> i' = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - VL'/BL^2
> = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - V*(1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2) /BL^2
> = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - (V/iBL^2) - (V^2/iB^2L^2) - (V^3/(iB^3L^2))
>
> Doing the replacement in (3)
>
> B' = B/iL - V/iL - VL'/iL^2
> = B/iL - V/iL - V(1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2)/iL^2
> = B/iL - V/iL - (V/i^2L^2) - (V^2/i^2*B*L^2) - (V^3/( i^2B^2L^2))
>
> Is there any geometrical significance I can ascribe to this? There are some cubes involved.
>

Mitch_on_John Baez,John Stillwell,math failures and cowards in admitting math truthes Terry Tao,Andrew Wiles, Thomas Hales immoral in admitting slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse. Is the 2nd derivative in Feynman's Electric field equation E = (-q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')] if that 2nd derivative is the same as C' in AP's EM equations?
> 5m views
> If the 2nd derivative in Feynman's Electric field equation E = (-q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')] if that 2nd derivative is the same as C' in AP's EM equations (modern day replacement of Maxwell Equations) E' = V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2 = V'/CB - VC'/C^2B - VB'/CB^2. Now in the Schrodinger equation we also run into a 2nd derivative but there are only 1st derivatives in AP's EM equations. So we have to ask if the C' is a 2nd derivative.

MitchR babbling on spam...
mitchr...@gmail.com's profile photo
mitchr...@gmail.com
variable speed of light
instead light has a constant speed that gravity does not slow down in space by escape velocity.
3:12 PM


> AP now thinks the second term - VC'B/(CB)^2 is the Schrodinger Equation in EM theory, would you agree?
>
> MitchR why waste your time, for Andrew Wiles, John Stillwell, Terence Tao are so retarded in mathematics, they cannot even admit slant cut of cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. And to press them with a question in calculus when they fail simple geometry--- why bother???
>
> CHEM ONE authors gives us a clue in their Schrodinger formula of E_n = - (2*pi^2*m*Z^2*e^4) / (n^2*h^2* alpha^2) with a footnote: alpha = 1.113*10^-10 C^2J^-1 m^-1 which is Coulomb force.
>
>
> Kibo failure of math, yet he spams and stalks 30 years nonstop
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> > Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
> Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> > of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
>
>
> Force of gravity = G*(m_1*m_2)/ distance^2 (Newton's law by 1687)
>
> Force of electrostatics = C(q_1*q_2)/ distance^2 (Coulomb law by 1785)
>
> So let us state the Coulomb-gravity law of Physics. From one of the permutations of V= CBE we have E = (V/(CB)) and when we differentiate that by the calculus we have E' = (V/(CB))'. Now we use the quotient rule of calculus, which is (f/gh)' = (f'gh - fg'h - fgh')/(gh)^2 and as we reduce that we get 3 terms of f'/gh -fg'/g^2h - fh'/gh^2. And using the quotient rule renders (V/(CB))' as that of V'/CB - VC'/C^2B - VB'/CB^2.
>
> E' = (V/(CB))' = V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2 = V'/CB - VC'/C^2B - VB'/CB^2.
>
> Harry, which term looks like the CHEM ONE equation--E_n = - (2*pi^2*m*Z^2*e^4) / (n^2*h^2* alpha^2)
>
>
>
> So our Coulomb-gravity law has 3 terms and we can break down each of those 3 terms into statements.
>
>
> So which of the AP-EM Equations is the Schrodinger Equation as given by CHEM ONE.
> > And I easily flip open some pages in CHEM ONE, 2nd edition, 1980 Waser, Trueblood, Knobler to page 311 for a sample of the Schrodinger equation as given by E_n = - (2*pi^2*m*Z^2*e^4) / (n^2*h^2* alpha^2).
> >
> > This is the question before me. Which term in which equation of the AP-EM laws is the Schrodinger Equation?
> >
> >
> >
> > Those 6 laws are these.
> >
> > 1) Magnetic monopole telling us what magnetism and electric current and magnetic field and electric field are.
> >
> > 2) New Ohm's law Voltage = capacitor-battery = quantity of current C times magnetic field times electric field. V= CBE. The equation of New Ohm's law is a math equation of volume Volume = length x width x height so we can expect that New Ohm's law is a measuring of volume in physics, volume of energy.
> >
> > The next 4 laws are derivatives of all the possible 4 permutations of C, B, E, and V.
> >
> > 3) Rate of change of C, quantity current, C' = (V/(BE))' Faraday law.
> >
> > 4) Rate of change of B, magnetic field, B' = (V/(CE))' Ampere-Maxwell law.
> >
> > 5) Rate of change of E, electric field, E' = (V/(CB))' Coulomb law & gravity.
> >
> > 6) The rate of change of V= CBE as V' = (CBE)' as AC transformer law.
> >
> > C' = (V/(BE))' = V'BE/(BE)^2 - VB'E/(BE)^2 - VBE'/(BE)^2 which is Faraday's law.
> > 1st term as current production -- 2nd term as Lenz law -- 3rd term as DC, AC direction
> >
> > B' = (V/(CE))' = V'CE/(CE)^2 - VC'E/(CE)^2 - VCE')/(CE)^2 which is Ampere-Maxwell law.
> > 1st term as B production -- 2nd term as Displacement current -- 3rd term as parallel attract
> >
> > E' = (V/(CB))' = V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2 which is Coulomb-gravity law.
> > 1st term as E production -- 2nd term as inverse square of distance -- 3rd term as spin and orbit synchronicity
> >
> > V' = (CBE)' = C'BE + CB'E + CBE' which is Transformer law
> > 1st term as V production in a transformer -- 2nd term as inverse square root -- 3rd term as DC, AC synchronicity
> >
> >
> > Review all of this, the EM equations of physics and mathematics.
> >
> > Faraday Law is (V/(B*L))' = i' from the AP-Maxwell Equations you learned in 1st year College.
> >
> > 1) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
> > 2) V = i*B*L New Ohm's law, law of electricity
> > 3) V' = (i*B*L)' Capacitor Law of Physics
> > 4) (V/i*L)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
> > 5) (V/(B*L))' = i' Faraday law
> > 6) (V/(i*B))' = L' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
> >
> >
> > PHYSICS LAWS
> >
> > 1) all the facts of chemistry and physics
> > 2) Voltage V = kg*m^2/A*s^3
> > 3) Current i = A = magnetic monopoles
> > 4) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
> > 5) angular momentum L = m^2/(A*s)
> > 6) V = i*B*L New Ohm's law, law of electricity
> > 7) V' = (i*B*L)' Capacitor Law of Physics
> > 8) (V/i*L)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
> > 9) (V/(B*L))' = i' Faraday law
> > 10) (V/(i*B))' = L' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
> >
> >
> >
> > Algebra of 3D Calculus, for remember we did the algebra of
> >
> > V' = (iBL)'
> > i' = (V/BL)'
> > B' = (V/iL)'
> > L' = (V/iB)'
> >
> > --- quoting 1st year calculus from Teaching True ---
> > Using the Product Rule which is (fgh)' = (f'gh + fg'h + fgh')
> >
> > Capacitor Law (i*B*L)' = i'*B*L + i*B'L + i*B*L'
> >
> > V' = (iBL)' = i'*B*L + i*B'*L + i*B*L' here we have three terms explaining capacitors
> >
> > Ampere-Maxwell Law
> >
> > Using the Quotient Rule, which is (f/gh)' = (f'gh - fg'h - fgh')/(gh)^2
> >
> > (V/i*L)' = B' = (V'*i*L - V*i' *L - V*i*L') / (i*L)^2
> >
> > Maxwell had two terms in the Ampere-Maxwell law-- the produced magnetic field and a displacement current, but above we see we have also a third new term.
> >
> > Faraday Law
> >
> > (V/B*L)' = i' = (V'*B*L - V*B' *L - V*B*L') / (B*L)^2
> >
> > ------------
> > V' = (iBL)' = i'*B*L + i*B'*L + i*B*L' reduces to
> > = iBL + iVL + iBL'
> >
> > i' = V'*B*L/ (B*L)^2 - V*B' *L/ (B*L)^2 - V*B*L' / (B*L)^2 reduces to
> > i' = B^2*L/ (B*L)^2 - V^2 *L/ (B*L)^2 - V*B*L' / (B*L)^2 further reduces
> > = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - VL'/BL^2
> >
> > B' = V'*i*L/ (i*L)^2 - V*i' *L/ (i*L)^2 - V*i*L' / (i*L)^2 reduces to
> > B' = B*i*L/ (i*L)^2 - V*i *L/ (i*L)^2 - V*i*L' / (i*L)^2 further reduces to
> > = B/iL - V/iL - VL'/iL^2
> >
> >
> > L' = (V/i*B)' = (V'*i*B - V*i' *B - V*i*B') / (i*B)^2 reduces to
> > L' = i*B^2 / (i*B)^2 - V*i *B / (i*B)^2 - V^2*i / (i*B)^2 further reduces to
> > = 1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2
> >
> > --------
> >
> >
> > (1) V' = iBL + iVL + iBL'
> >
> > (2) i' = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - VL'/BL^2
> >
> > (3) B' = B/iL - V/iL - VL'/iL^2
> >
> > (4) L' = 1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2
> >
> > Alright, so I replace L' in (1) with 1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2
> >
> > I get V' = iBL + iVL + iB*(1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2 )
> > = iBL + iVL + B - V - V^2/ B
> >
> >
> > Doing the replacement in (2)
> >
> > i' = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - VL'/BL^2
> > = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - V*(1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2) /BL^2
> > = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - (V/iBL^2) - (V^2/iB^2L^2) - (V^3/(iB^3L^2))
> >
> > Doing the replacement in (3)
> >
> > B' = B/iL - V/iL - VL'/iL^2
> > = B/iL - V/iL - V(1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2)/iL^2
> > = B/iL - V/iL - (V/i^2L^2) - (V^2/i^2*B*L^2) - (V^3/( i^2B^2L^2))
> >
> > Is there any geometrical significance I can ascribe to this? There are some cubes involved.
> >
> > > > > Whereas the truth be known the real electron of a hydrogen atom is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus of 8 rings, where the muon and proton are doing the Faraday Law of producing more new electricity and storaging that electricity in what are known as neutrons. Because the muon is inside the proton it can fly around the torus inside at nearly the speed of light.
> > > > >
> > > > > Old Physics which Harry Cliff as a member, never took Logic, never learned how to think straight, think clear, and thus his physics knowledge is just hand down memorization. So stupid he never understood what the hell is angular momentum for no hydrogen atom can exist with a 0.5MeV particle flying around at 99% speed of light and stay put on a proton of 938MeV.
> > > > >
> > > > > AP says the 0.5MeV particle is Dirac's Magnetic Monopole. Now Dirac was a real physicist, but not Harry Cliff and everyone at CERN with their electron = 0.5MeV are fools of physics
>
> Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> Archimedes Plutonium
> AP
> 
> My_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)

Mitch_on_John Stillwell,John Baez math failures and cowards in admitting math truthes Terry Tao,Andrew Wiles, Thomas Hales immoral in admitting slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse. Is the 2nd derivative in Feynman's Electric field equation E = (-q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')] if that 2nd derivative is the same as C' in AP's EM equations?
> 5m views
> If the 2nd derivative in Feynman's Electric field equation E = (-q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')] if that 2nd derivative is the same as C' in AP's EM equations (modern day replacement of Maxwell Equations) E' = V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2 = V'/CB - VC'/C^2B - VB'/CB^2. Now in the Schrodinger equation we also run into a 2nd derivative but there are only 1st derivatives in AP's EM equations. So we have to ask if the C' is a 2nd derivative.

MitchR babbling on spam...
mitchr...@gmail.com's profile photo
mitchr...@gmail.com
variable speed of light
instead light has a constant speed that gravity does not slow down in space by escape velocity.
3:12 PM



> AP now thinks the second term - VC'B/(CB)^2 is the Schrodinger Equation in EM theory, would you agree?
>
> MitchR why waste your time, for Andrew Wiles, John Stillwell, Terence Tao are so retarded in mathematics, they cannot even admit slant cut of cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. And to press them with a question in calculus when they fail simple geometry--- why bother???
>
> CHEM ONE authors gives us a clue in their Schrodinger formula of E_n = - (2*pi^2*m*Z^2*e^4) / (n^2*h^2* alpha^2) with a footnote: alpha = 1.113*10^-10 C^2J^-1 m^-1 which is Coulomb force.
>
>
> Kibo failure of math, yet he spams and stalks 30 years nonstop
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> > Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
> Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> > of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
>
>
> Force of gravity = G*(m_1*m_2)/ distance^2 (Newton's law by 1687)
>
> Force of electrostatics = C(q_1*q_2)/ distance^2 (Coulomb law by 1785)
>
> So let us state the Coulomb-gravity law of Physics. From one of the permutations of V= CBE we have E = (V/(CB)) and when we differentiate that by the calculus we have E' = (V/(CB))'. Now we use the quotient rule of calculus, which is (f/gh)' = (f'gh - fg'h - fgh')/(gh)^2 and as we reduce that we get 3 terms of f'/gh -fg'/g^2h - fh'/gh^2. And using the quotient rule renders (V/(CB))' as that of V'/CB - VC'/C^2B - VB'/CB^2.
>
> E' = (V/(CB))' = V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2 = V'/CB - VC'/C^2B - VB'/CB^2.
>
> Harry, which term looks like the CHEM ONE equation--E_n = - (2*pi^2*m*Z^2*e^4) / (n^2*h^2* alpha^2)
>
>
>
> So our Coulomb-gravity law has 3 terms and we can break down each of those 3 terms into statements.
>
>
> So which of the AP-EM Equations is the Schrodinger Equation as given by CHEM ONE.
> > And I easily flip open some pages in CHEM ONE, 2nd edition, 1980 Waser, Trueblood, Knobler to page 311 for a sample of the Schrodinger equation as given by E_n = - (2*pi^2*m*Z^2*e^4) / (n^2*h^2* alpha^2).
> >
> > This is the question before me. Which term in which equation of the AP-EM laws is the Schrodinger Equation?
> >
> >
> >
> > Those 6 laws are these.
> >
> > 1) Magnetic monopole telling us what magnetism and electric current and magnetic field and electric field are.
> >
> > 2) New Ohm's law Voltage = capacitor-battery = quantity of current C times magnetic field times electric field. V= CBE. The equation of New Ohm's law is a math equation of volume Volume = length x width x height so we can expect that New Ohm's law is a measuring of volume in physics, volume of energy.
> >
> > The next 4 laws are derivatives of all the possible 4 permutations of C, B, E, and V.
> >
> > 3) Rate of change of C, quantity current, C' = (V/(BE))' Faraday law.
> >
> > 4) Rate of change of B, magnetic field, B' = (V/(CE))' Ampere-Maxwell law.
> >
> > 5) Rate of change of E, electric field, E' = (V/(CB))' Coulomb law & gravity.
> >
> > 6) The rate of change of V= CBE as V' = (CBE)' as AC transformer law.
> >
> > C' = (V/(BE))' = V'BE/(BE)^2 - VB'E/(BE)^2 - VBE'/(BE)^2 which is Faraday's law.
> > 1st term as current production -- 2nd term as Lenz law -- 3rd term as DC, AC direction
> >
> > B' = (V/(CE))' = V'CE/(CE)^2 - VC'E/(CE)^2 - VCE')/(CE)^2 which is Ampere-Maxwell law.
> > 1st term as B production -- 2nd term as Displacement current -- 3rd term as parallel attract
> >
> > E' = (V/(CB))' = V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2 which is Coulomb-gravity law.
> > 1st term as E production -- 2nd term as inverse square of distance -- 3rd term as spin and orbit synchronicity
> >
> > V' = (CBE)' = C'BE + CB'E + CBE' which is Transformer law
> > 1st term as V production in a transformer -- 2nd term as inverse square root -- 3rd term as DC, AC synchronicity
> >
> >
> > Review all of this, the EM equations of physics and mathematics.
> >
> > Faraday Law is (V/(B*L))' = i' from the AP-Maxwell Equations you learned in 1st year College.
> >
> > 1) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
> > 2) V = i*B*L New Ohm's law, law of electricity
> > 3) V' = (i*B*L)' Capacitor Law of Physics
> > 4) (V/i*L)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
> > 5) (V/(B*L))' = i' Faraday law
> > 6) (V/(i*B))' = L' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
> >
> >
> > PHYSICS LAWS
> >
> > 1) all the facts of chemistry and physics
> > 2) Voltage V = kg*m^2/A*s^3
> > 3) Current i = A = magnetic monopoles
> > 4) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
> > 5) angular momentum L = m^2/(A*s)
> > 6) V = i*B*L New Ohm's law, law of electricity
> > 7) V' = (i*B*L)' Capacitor Law of Physics
> > 8) (V/i*L)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
> > 9) (V/(B*L))' = i' Faraday law
> > 10) (V/(i*B))' = L' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
> >
> >
> >
> > Algebra of 3D Calculus, for remember we did the algebra of
> >
> > V' = (iBL)'
> > i' = (V/BL)'
> > B' = (V/iL)'
> > L' = (V/iB)'
> >
> > --- quoting 1st year calculus from Teaching True ---
> > Using the Product Rule which is (fgh)' = (f'gh + fg'h + fgh')
> >
> > Capacitor Law (i*B*L)' = i'*B*L + i*B'L + i*B*L'
> >
> > V' = (iBL)' = i'*B*L + i*B'*L + i*B*L' here we have three terms explaining capacitors
> >
> > Ampere-Maxwell Law
> >
> > Using the Quotient Rule, which is (f/gh)' = (f'gh - fg'h - fgh')/(gh)^2
> >
> > (V/i*L)' = B' = (V'*i*L - V*i' *L - V*i*L') / (i*L)^2
> >
> > Maxwell had two terms in the Ampere-Maxwell law-- the produced magnetic field and a displacement current, but above we see we have also a third new term.
> >
> > Faraday Law
> >
> > (V/B*L)' = i' = (V'*B*L - V*B' *L - V*B*L') / (B*L)^2
> >
> > ------------
> > V' = (iBL)' = i'*B*L + i*B'*L + i*B*L' reduces to
> > = iBL + iVL + iBL'
> >
> > i' = V'*B*L/ (B*L)^2 - V*B' *L/ (B*L)^2 - V*B*L' / (B*L)^2 reduces to
> > i' = B^2*L/ (B*L)^2 - V^2 *L/ (B*L)^2 - V*B*L' / (B*L)^2 further reduces
> > = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - VL'/BL^2
> >
> > B' = V'*i*L/ (i*L)^2 - V*i' *L/ (i*L)^2 - V*i*L' / (i*L)^2 reduces to
> > B' = B*i*L/ (i*L)^2 - V*i *L/ (i*L)^2 - V*i*L' / (i*L)^2 further reduces to
> > = B/iL - V/iL - VL'/iL^2
> >
> >
> > L' = (V/i*B)' = (V'*i*B - V*i' *B - V*i*B') / (i*B)^2 reduces to
> > L' = i*B^2 / (i*B)^2 - V*i *B / (i*B)^2 - V^2*i / (i*B)^2 further reduces to
> > = 1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2
> >
> > --------
> >
> >
> > (1) V' = iBL + iVL + iBL'
> >
> > (2) i' = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - VL'/BL^2
> >
> > (3) B' = B/iL - V/iL - VL'/iL^2
> >
> > (4) L' = 1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2
> >
> > Alright, so I replace L' in (1) with 1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2
> >
> > I get V' = iBL + iVL + iB*(1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2 )
> > = iBL + iVL + B - V - V^2/ B
> >
> >
> > Doing the replacement in (2)
> >
> > i' = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - VL'/BL^2
> > = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - V*(1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2) /BL^2
> > = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - (V/iBL^2) - (V^2/iB^2L^2) - (V^3/(iB^3L^2))
> >
> > Doing the replacement in (3)
> >
> > B' = B/iL - V/iL - VL'/iL^2
> > = B/iL - V/iL - V(1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2)/iL^2
> > = B/iL - V/iL - (V/i^2L^2) - (V^2/i^2*B*L^2) - (V^3/( i^2B^2L^2))
> >
> > Is there any geometrical significance I can ascribe to this? There are some cubes involved.
> >
> > > > > Whereas the truth be known the real electron of a hydrogen atom is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus of 8 rings, where the muon and proton are doing the Faraday Law of producing more new electricity and storaging that electricity in what are known as neutrons. Because the muon is inside the proton it can fly around the torus inside at nearly the speed of light.
> > > > >
> > > > > Old Physics which Harry Cliff as a member, never took Logic, never learned how to think straight, think clear, and thus his physics knowledge is just hand down memorization. So stupid he never understood what the hell is angular momentum for no hydrogen atom can exist with a 0.5MeV particle flying around at 99% speed of light and stay put on a proton of 938MeV.
> > > > >
> > > > > AP says the 0.5MeV particle is Dirac's Magnetic Monopole. Now Dirac was a real physicist, but not Harry Cliff and everyone at CERN with their electron = 0.5MeV are fools of physics
>
> Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> Archimedes Plutonium
> AP
> 
> My_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)

2Mitch_on_John Stillwell,and China's Outer Manchuria,John Baez math failures and cowards in admitting math truthes Terry Tao,Andrew Wiles, Thomas Hales immoral in admitting slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse. Is the 2nd derivative in Feynman's Electric field equation E = (-q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')] if that 2nd derivative is the same as C' in AP's EM equations?
> > 5m views
> > If the 2nd derivative in Feynman's Electric field equation E = (-q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')] if that 2nd derivative is the same as C' in AP's EM equations (modern day replacement of Maxwell Equations) E' = V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2 = V'/CB - VC'/C^2B - VB'/CB^2. Now in the Schrodinger equation we also run into a 2nd derivative but there are only 1st derivatives in AP's EM equations. So we have to ask if the C' is a 2nd derivative.
> MitchR babbling on spam...
> mitchr...@gmail.com's profile photo
> mitchr...@gmail.com
> variable speed of light
> instead light has a constant speed that gravity does not slow down in space by escape velocity.
> 3:12 PM
> 

On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 1:03:45 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 10:32:55 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Xi masses troops on Russian border to take back Outer Manchuria. If you do not know the history, Russia stole Outer Manchuria and Vladivostok from China.
> >
> > MitchR, is this the same Baby Xi, surrounded by concubines in the reeds and meadows of Haishenwai?
> >
> > ███۞███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▃
> > Radio Wave & Laser Rifle to shoot down GLONASS and BeiDou satellites
> >
> > Xi masses troops on Russian border to take back Outer Manchuria. If you do not know the history, Russia stole Outer Manchuria and Vladivostok from China.
> >
> > While Putin is too busy with his personal war, Xi thinks time is ripe to get back what belongs to China in the first place. OUTER MANCHURIA and especially Vladivostok.
> >
> > Xi gives the Chinese people a Christmas gift--- Outer Manchuria-- the beloved Old China
> >
> > I am not positive we can take out GLONASS and BeiDou from ground based radio and microwaves and laser waves, even jamming.
> >
> > But I am certain that we can put a satellite in orbit that is a wrecking ramming satellite that does take out GLONASS and BeiDou. I am certain of this because several countries have robotic satellites that maintenance their fleet of satellites. And to this end, we need such a wrecking ball satellite immediately up there.
> >
> > [Note, graphics found in sci.physics when Nomen Nescio used to spam sci..physics with a fake FAQ.]
> >
> >
> >
> > ███۞███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▃
> > ▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂
> > I███████████████████].
> > ◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤...
> > Satellite RIFLE to shoot down GLONASS, Iran,and BeiDou satellites.
> > Hooray
> >
> > Hooray!! End the Ukraine war
> >
> > Easiest way to end the Ukraine invasion by Russia, start felling GLONASS satellites, fell them directly with radar laser pulses or jam them to fall.
> >
> > Now I thought GLONASS Russian satellites numbered in the thousands, for the Internet is lousy on this question of how many satellites, for recently BBC was vague with a estimate of 600 satellites, yet another web site said 42,000. But apparently only 24 are operational for GLONASS. And my take on this is that satellites are precarious vessels and easily for something to go wrong and be inoperative. All the better to look for flaws in engineering to down all 24 GLONASS Russian satellites.
> >
> > So, easy easy Achilles tendon in all of the Russian ICBM military strategy, for knock out the 24 and you in a sense, knock out the entire Russian ICBM arsenal, for they no longer have any navigation.
> >
> > And if the West is on its top shape and form in technology, we want the West Scientists to figure out how to intercept the Russian ICBM and cause it to fall upon Russia and explode upon Russia.
> >
> > Get the best electronics and electrical engineers of the West to figure out how to cause all Russian launched and Chinese launched ICBMs to explode on home territory.
> >
> > Caveat: if the West can do it, mind you, the Chinese and Russians will want to steal those secrets from the West and that should never be allowed--Ultimate Top Secret classification that not even a punk weirdo president like Trump cannot see, nor mention to him for he would likely sell it for a golf course in some foreign enemy country.
> >
> > Google search reveals
> > 24+
> > GLONASS (Globalnaya Navigazionnaya Sputnikovaya Sistema, or Global Navigation Satellite System) is a global GNSS owned and operated by the Russian Federation. The fully operational system consists of 24+ satellites.Oct 19, 2021
> >
> > Other Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) - GPS.govhttps://www.gps.gov › systems › gnss
> > About featured snippets
> > •
> > Feedback
> > People also ask
> > How many satellites are in the GLONASS?
> > As of 15 October 2022, 143 GLONASS navigation satellites have been launched, of which 131 reached the correct orbit and 24 are currently operational.
> >
> > List of GLONASS satellites - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › List_of_GLONASS_sa...
> > Search for: How many satellites are in the GLONASS?
> > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > Archimedes Plutonium
> > Nov 5, 2022, 11:02:21 PM
> > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > ███۞███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▃
> > Radio Wave--Laser Rifle felling BeiDou satellites
> >
> > From what I gather on internet, Russia has 24 satellites in operation while BeiDou China has 35.
> > > ▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂
> > > I███████████████████].
> > > ◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤...
> > Radio Wave-- LASER RIFLE to shoot down the premier BeiDou satellite.
> > Ending the dumb and stupid petty dictators launching rockets from North Korea.
> >
> > It is respectfully request help from engineers in Japan to help fell the BeiDou satellites that navigate the illegal North Korea launches.
> >
> >
> > --- quoting Wikipedia ---
> > The BeiDou Navigation Satellite System (BDS; Chinese: 北斗卫星导航系统; pinyin: Běidǒu Wèixīng Dǎoháng Xìtǒng) is a Chinese satellite navigation system. It consists of two separate satellite constellations. The first BeiDou system, officially called the BeiDou Satellite Navigation Experimental System and also known as BeiDou-1, consisted of three satellites which, beginning in 2000, offered limited coverage and navigation services, mainly for users in China and neighboring regions. BeiDou-1 was decommissioned at the end of 2012. The second generation of the system, officially called the BeiDou Navigation Satellite System (BDS) and also known as COMPASS or BeiDou-2, became operational in China in December 2011 with a partial constellation of 10 satellites in orbit. Since December 2012, it has been offering services to customers in the Asia-Pacific region.
> >
> > In 2015, China launched the third generation BeiDou system (BeiDou-3) for global coverage. The first BDS-3 satellite was launched on 30 March 2015.. On 27 December 2018, BeiDou Navigation Satellite System started providing global services. The 35th and the final satellite of BDS-3 was launched into orbit on 23 June 2020. It was said in 2016 that BeiDou-3 will reach millimeter-level accuracy (with post-processing). On 23 June 2020, the final BeiDou satellite was successfully launched, the launch of the 55th satellite in the Beidou family. The third iteration of the Beidou Navigation Satellite System provides full global coverage for timing and navigation, offering an alternative to Russia's GLONASS, the European Galileo positioning system, and the US's GPS.
> >
> > According to China Daily, in 2015, fifteen years after the satellite system was launched, it was generating a turnover of $31.5 billion per annum for major companies such as China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation, AutoNavi Holdings Ltd., and China North Industries Group Corp. The industry has grown an average of over 20% in value annually to reach $64 billion in 2020 according to Xinhua citing data.
> >
> > Domestic industry reports forecast the satellite navigation service market output value, directly generated and driven by the Beidou system, will be worth 1 trillion yuan ($156.22 billion) by 2025, and $467 billion by 2035.
> >
> > Archimedes Plutonium
> > Nov 5, 2022, 11:20:20 PM
> > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > ███۞███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▃
> > Radio Wave--Laser Rifle felling Iran satellites
> > >
> > > From what I gather on internet, Russia has 24 satellites in operation while BeiDou China has 35, that would indicate Iran has but a few satellites.
> > > > ▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂
> > > > I███████████████████].
> > > > ◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤...
> > > Radio Wave-- LASER RIFLE to shoot down the premier BeiDou satellite.
> > > Ending the dumb and stupid petty dictator sending drones to Russia to down Ukraine power utility electric lines.
> >
> > How many of the Iran satellites are used in drones destroying Ukraine electric grid. We should immediately fell those satellites.
> >
> > --- quoting Wikipedia on Iran satellites ---
> > On 22 April 2020, Iran successfully launched "Noor" (Farsi for "Light"), a military satellite, into a 426 x 444 km / 59.8° orbit.
> >
> > On 8 March 2022, Iran reportedly sent its second “Nour-2” military satellite into 500 km orbit.[55][56]
> > The Khayyam, a high resolution imaging satellite, was successfully launched into orbit by a Russian Soyuz rocket on 9 August 2022
> > Unlaunched satellites
> > Nahid (1), satellite with folding solar panels.
> > Toloo, is the first of a new generation of reconnaissance satellites being built by Iran Electronics Industries with SIGINT capabilities. It will be launched by a Simorgh.
> > Nasir 1, Iran's indigenously designed satellite navigation system (SAT NAV) has been manufactured to find the precise locations of satellites moving in orbit.
> >
> > Zohreh, is a geosynchronous communication satellite which was originally proposed before the Revolution in the 1970s as part of a joint Indian-Iranian project of four Iranian satellites to be launched by the then upcoming NASA Space Shuttles. Iran had also negotiated with France to build and launch the satellites but the project never materialized. In 2005, Iran negotiated with Russia to build and launch the first Zohreh satellite under an agreement worth $132 million with the satellite launch date stipulated as 2007–2008. The new agreement had followed the earlier failed negotiations with Russia in 2003 when Russia cancelled the project under US pressures.
> > Ekvator, a geosynchronous communications satellite built by ISS Reshetnev for Iran in a continuation of previous Russia-Iran space cooperation efforts. As of October 2022, Ekvator is expected to be launched on a Proton-M rocket in early 2024.
> >
> >
> > Archimedes Plutonium
> > Nov 5, 2022, 11:38:31 PM
> > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > ███۞███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▃
> > Radio Wave--Laser Rifle felling North Korean satellites
> > >
> > > From what I gather on internet, Russia has 24 satellites in operation while BeiDou China has 35, that would indicate Iran has but a few satellites. And North Korea fewer yet.
> >
> >
> > > > ▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂
> > > > I███████████████████].
> > > > ◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤...
> >
> > Radio Wave-- LASER RIFLE to shoot down the 3 North Korean satellites.
> >
> >
> > Ending the dumb and stupid petty dictator with his endless illegal missile launches. Launches that do nothing of good for anyone. Not even the idiot petty dictator.
> >
> > Internet search reveals 3 satellites for North Korea. I suspect though, that North Korea launches Chinese missiles and uses BeiDou satellites.
> >
> > Kwangmyongsong -4
> >
> > Kwangmyongsong -3
> >
> > Kwangmyongsong -2
> >
> > Knock all 3 satellites out with the radio-Laser Wave gun. And that will put an end to the petty dictators toys.
> >
> > Asking for help from Japan in assistance.
>
> Two Ellipses are eternal. cylinder and conic...
> hyperbola does not manifest as a real world curve.

2-Mitch_on_John Stillwell,John Baez math failures and cowards in admitting math truthes Terry Tao,Andrew Wiles, Thomas Hales immoral in admitting slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse. Is the 2nd derivative in Feynman's Electric field equation E = (-q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')] if that 2nd derivative is the same as C' in AP's EM equations?

mitchr...@gmail.com's profile photo
mitchr...@gmail.com
,
Timothy Golden
2 unread,
In physics there is a history of math before man's mind
On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 3:55:53 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > There was a
5:29 PM


> > If the 2nd derivative in Feynman's Electric field equation E = (-q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')] if that 2nd derivative is the same as C' in AP's EM equations (modern day replacement of Maxwell Equations) E' = V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2 = V'/CB - VC'/C^2B - VB'/CB^2. Now in the Schrodinger equation we also run into a 2nd derivative but there are only 1st derivatives in AP's EM equations. So we have to ask if the C' is a 2nd derivative.
> MitchR babbling on spam...
> mitchr...@gmail.com's profile photo
> mitchr...@gmail.com
> variable speed of light
> instead light has a constant speed that gravity does not slow down in space by escape velocity.
> 3:12 PM
> 
> 
>
>
>
> > AP now thinks the second term - VC'B/(CB)^2 is the Schrodinger Equation in EM theory, would you agree?
> >
> > MitchR why waste your time, for Andrew Wiles, John Stillwell, Terence Tao are so retarded in mathematics, they cannot even admit slant cut of cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. And to press them with a question in calculus when they fail simple geometry--- why bother???
> >
> > CHEM ONE authors gives us a clue in their Schrodinger formula of E_n = - (2*pi^2*m*Z^2*e^4) / (n^2*h^2* alpha^2) with a footnote: alpha = 1.113*10^-10 C^2J^-1 m^-1 which is Coulomb force.
> >
> >
> > Kibo failure of math, yet he spams and stalks 30 years nonstop
> > On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> > > Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
> > Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> > > of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
> >
> >
> > Force of gravity = G*(m_1*m_2)/ distance^2 (Newton's law by 1687)
> >
> > Force of electrostatics = C(q_1*q_2)/ distance^2 (Coulomb law by 1785)
> >
> > So let us state the Coulomb-gravity law of Physics. From one of the permutations of V= CBE we have E = (V/(CB)) and when we differentiate that by the calculus we have E' = (V/(CB))'. Now we use the quotient rule of calculus, which is (f/gh)' = (f'gh - fg'h - fgh')/(gh)^2 and as we reduce that we get 3 terms of f'/gh -fg'/g^2h - fh'/gh^2. And using the quotient rule renders (V/(CB))' as that of V'/CB - VC'/C^2B - VB'/CB^2.
> >
> > E' = (V/(CB))' = V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2 = V'/CB - VC'/C^2B - VB'/CB^2.
> >
> > Harry, which term looks like the CHEM ONE equation--E_n = - (2*pi^2*m*Z^2*e^4) / (n^2*h^2* alpha^2)
> >
> >
> >
> > So our Coulomb-gravity law has 3 terms and we can break down each of those 3 terms into statements.
> >
> >
> > So which of the AP-EM Equations is the Schrodinger Equation as given by CHEM ONE.
> > > And I easily flip open some pages in CHEM ONE, 2nd edition, 1980 Waser, Trueblood, Knobler to page 311 for a sample of the Schrodinger equation as given by E_n = - (2*pi^2*m*Z^2*e^4) / (n^2*h^2* alpha^2).
> > >
> > > This is the question before me. Which term in which equation of the AP-EM laws is the Schrodinger Equation?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Those 6 laws are these.
> > >
> > > 1) Magnetic monopole telling us what magnetism and electric current and magnetic field and electric field are.
> > >
> > > 2) New Ohm's law Voltage = capacitor-battery = quantity of current C times magnetic field times electric field. V= CBE. The equation of New Ohm's law is a math equation of volume Volume = length x width x height so we can expect that New Ohm's law is a measuring of volume in physics, volume of energy.
> > >
> > > The next 4 laws are derivatives of all the possible 4 permutations of C, B, E, and V.
> > >
> > > 3) Rate of change of C, quantity current, C' = (V/(BE))' Faraday law.
> > >
> > > 4) Rate of change of B, magnetic field, B' = (V/(CE))' Ampere-Maxwell law.
> > >
> > > 5) Rate of change of E, electric field, E' = (V/(CB))' Coulomb law & gravity.
> > >
> > > 6) The rate of change of V= CBE as V' = (CBE)' as AC transformer law.
> > >
> > > C' = (V/(BE))' = V'BE/(BE)^2 - VB'E/(BE)^2 - VBE'/(BE)^2 which is Faraday's law.
> > > 1st term as current production -- 2nd term as Lenz law -- 3rd term as DC, AC direction
> > >
> > > B' = (V/(CE))' = V'CE/(CE)^2 - VC'E/(CE)^2 - VCE')/(CE)^2 which is Ampere-Maxwell law.
> > > 1st term as B production -- 2nd term as Displacement current -- 3rd term as parallel attract
> > >
> > > E' = (V/(CB))' = V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2 which is Coulomb-gravity law.
> > > 1st term as E production -- 2nd term as inverse square of distance -- 3rd term as spin and orbit synchronicity
> > >
> > > V' = (CBE)' = C'BE + CB'E + CBE' which is Transformer law
> > > 1st term as V production in a transformer -- 2nd term as inverse square root -- 3rd term as DC, AC synchronicity
> > >
> > >
> > > Review all of this, the EM equations of physics and mathematics.
> > >
> > > Faraday Law is (V/(B*L))' = i' from the AP-Maxwell Equations you learned in 1st year College.
> > >
> > > 1) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
> > > 2) V = i*B*L New Ohm's law, law of electricity
> > > 3) V' = (i*B*L)' Capacitor Law of Physics
> > > 4) (V/i*L)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
> > > 5) (V/(B*L))' = i' Faraday law
> > > 6) (V/(i*B))' = L' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
> > >
> > >
> > > PHYSICS LAWS
> > >
> > > 1) all the facts of chemistry and physics
> > > 2) Voltage V = kg*m^2/A*s^3
> > > 3) Current i = A = magnetic monopoles
> > > 4) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
> > > 5) angular momentum L = m^2/(A*s)
> > > 6) V = i*B*L New Ohm's law, law of electricity
> > > 7) V' = (i*B*L)' Capacitor Law of Physics
> > > 8) (V/i*L)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
> > > 9) (V/(B*L))' = i' Faraday law
> > > 10) (V/(i*B))' = L' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Algebra of 3D Calculus, for remember we did the algebra of
> > >
> > > V' = (iBL)'
> > > i' = (V/BL)'
> > > B' = (V/iL)'
> > > L' = (V/iB)'
> > >
> > > --- quoting 1st year calculus from Teaching True ---
> > > Using the Product Rule which is (fgh)' = (f'gh + fg'h + fgh')
> > >
> > > Capacitor Law (i*B*L)' = i'*B*L + i*B'L + i*B*L'
> > >
> > > V' = (iBL)' = i'*B*L + i*B'*L + i*B*L' here we have three terms explaining capacitors
> > >
> > > Ampere-Maxwell Law
> > >
> > > Using the Quotient Rule, which is (f/gh)' = (f'gh - fg'h - fgh')/(gh)^2
> > >
> > > (V/i*L)' = B' = (V'*i*L - V*i' *L - V*i*L') / (i*L)^2
> > >
> > > Maxwell had two terms in the Ampere-Maxwell law-- the produced magnetic field and a displacement current, but above we see we have also a third new term.
> > >
> > > Faraday Law
> > >
> > > (V/B*L)' = i' = (V'*B*L - V*B' *L - V*B*L') / (B*L)^2
> > >
> > > ------------
> > > V' = (iBL)' = i'*B*L + i*B'*L + i*B*L' reduces to
> > > = iBL + iVL + iBL'
> > >
> > > i' = V'*B*L/ (B*L)^2 - V*B' *L/ (B*L)^2 - V*B*L' / (B*L)^2 reduces to
> > > i' = B^2*L/ (B*L)^2 - V^2 *L/ (B*L)^2 - V*B*L' / (B*L)^2 further reduces
> > > = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - VL'/BL^2
> > >
> > > B' = V'*i*L/ (i*L)^2 - V*i' *L/ (i*L)^2 - V*i*L' / (i*L)^2 reduces to
> > > B' = B*i*L/ (i*L)^2 - V*i *L/ (i*L)^2 - V*i*L' / (i*L)^2 further reduces to
> > > = B/iL - V/iL - VL'/iL^2
> > >
> > >
> > > L' = (V/i*B)' = (V'*i*B - V*i' *B - V*i*B') / (i*B)^2 reduces to
> > > L' = i*B^2 / (i*B)^2 - V*i *B / (i*B)^2 - V^2*i / (i*B)^2 further reduces to
> > > = 1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2
> > >
> > > --------
> > >
> > >
> > > (1) V' = iBL + iVL + iBL'
> > >
> > > (2) i' = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - VL'/BL^2
> > >
> > > (3) B' = B/iL - V/iL - VL'/iL^2
> > >
> > > (4) L' = 1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2
> > >
> > > Alright, so I replace L' in (1) with 1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2
> > >
> > > I get V' = iBL + iVL + iB*(1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2 )
> > > = iBL + iVL + B - V - V^2/ B
> > >
> > >
> > > Doing the replacement in (2)
> > >
> > > i' = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - VL'/BL^2
> > > = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - V*(1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2) /BL^2
> > > = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - (V/iBL^2) - (V^2/iB^2L^2) - (V^3/(iB^3L^2))
> > >
> > > Doing the replacement in (3)
> > >
> > > B' = B/iL - V/iL - VL'/iL^2
> > > = B/iL - V/iL - V(1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2)/iL^2
> > > = B/iL - V/iL - (V/i^2L^2) - (V^2/i^2*B*L^2) - (V^3/( i^2B^2L^2))
> > >
> > > Is there any geometrical significance I can ascribe to this? There are some cubes involved.
> > >
> > > > > > Whereas the truth be known the real electron of a hydrogen atom is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus of 8 rings, where the muon and proton are doing the Faraday Law of producing more new electricity and storaging that electricity in what are known as neutrons. Because the muon is inside the proton it can fly around the torus inside at nearly the speed of light.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Old Physics which Harry Cliff as a member, never took Logic, never learned how to think straight, think clear, and thus his physics knowledge is just hand down memorization. So stupid he never understood what the hell is angular momentum for no hydrogen atom can exist with a 0.5MeV particle flying around at 99% speed of light and stay put on a proton of 938MeV.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > AP says the 0.5MeV particle is Dirac's Magnetic Monopole. Now Dirac was a real physicist, but not Harry Cliff and everyone at CERN with their electron = 0.5MeV are fools of physics
> >
> > Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > Archimedes Plutonium
> > AP
> > 
> > My_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)

3-Mitch_on_John Stillwell,John Baez math failures and cowards in admitting math truthes Terry Tao,Andrew Wiles, Thomas Hales immoral in admitting slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse. Is the 2nd derivative in Feynman's Electric field equation E = (-q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')] if that 2nd derivative is the same as C' in AP's EM equations?

unread,
Draw an infinite sqiare lattice without lifting the pencil.
On 6/8/2023 1:44 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 6/8/2023 1:40 PM, Dan joyce wrote: >> On
3:48 PM

mitchr...@gmail.com's profile photo
mitchr...@gmail.com
, …
FromTheRafters
3 unread,
Limits are real
Chris M. Thomasson submitted this idea : > On 6/8/2023 10:42 AM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: >
3:48 PM

Mostowski Collapse's profile photo
Mostowski Collapse
, …
Dan Christensen
34
unread,
Is DC Proof a bee logic or a spider logic?
Its not a formalization that has anything to do with the Drinker Paradox. You were going astray with
2:17 PM

William's profile photo
William
, …
Chris M. Thomasson
229
unread,
WM Logic
On 6/8/2023 4:51 AM, WM wrote: > FromTheRafters schrieb am Donnerstag, 8. Juni 2023 um 13:20:31
2:02 PM

Chris M. Thomasson's profile photo
Chris M. Thomasson
, …
Dan joyce
10
unread,
For Dan, a test plot and crude algorithm...
On 6/8/2023 11:00 AM, Dan joyce wrote: > On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 6:38:25 AM UTC-4, Dan joyce
1:52 PM

Eram semper recta's profile photo
Eram semper recta
,
mitchr...@gmail.com
2

> > > AP now thinks the second term - VC'B/(CB)^2 is the Schrodinger Equation in EM theory, would you agree?
> > >
> > > MitchR why waste your time, for Andrew Wiles, John Stillwell, Terence Tao are so retarded in mathematics, they cannot even admit slant cut of cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. And to press them with a question in calculus when they fail simple geometry--- why bother???
> > >
> > > CHEM ONE authors gives us a clue in their Schrodinger formula of E_n = - (2*pi^2*m*Z^2*e^4) / (n^2*h^2* alpha^2) with a footnote: alpha = 1.113*10^-10 C^2J^-1 m^-1 which is Coulomb force.
> > >
> > >
> > > Kibo failure of math, yet he spams and stalks 30 years nonstop
> > > On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> > > > Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
> > > Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> > > > of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
> > >
> > >
> > > Force of gravity = G*(m_1*m_2)/ distance^2 (Newton's law by 1687)
> > >
> > > Force of electrostatics = C(q_1*q_2)/ distance^2 (Coulomb law by 1785)
> > >
> > > So let us state the Coulomb-gravity law of Physics. From one of the permutations of V= CBE we have E = (V/(CB)) and when we differentiate that by the calculus we have E' = (V/(CB))'. Now we use the quotient rule of calculus, which is (f/gh)' = (f'gh - fg'h - fgh')/(gh)^2 and as we reduce that we get 3 terms of f'/gh -fg'/g^2h - fh'/gh^2. And using the quotient rule renders (V/(CB))' as that of V'/CB - VC'/C^2B - VB'/CB^2.
> > >
> > > E' = (V/(CB))' = V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2 = V'/CB - VC'/C^2B - VB'/CB^2.
> > >
> > > Harry, which term looks like the CHEM ONE equation--E_n = - (2*pi^2*m*Z^2*e^4) / (n^2*h^2* alpha^2)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > So our Coulomb-gravity law has 3 terms and we can break down each of those 3 terms into statements.
> > >
> > >
> > > So which of the AP-EM Equations is the Schrodinger Equation as given by CHEM ONE.
> > > > And I easily flip open some pages in CHEM ONE, 2nd edition, 1980 Waser, Trueblood, Knobler to page 311 for a sample of the Schrodinger equation as given by E_n = - (2*pi^2*m*Z^2*e^4) / (n^2*h^2* alpha^2).
> > > >
> > > > This is the question before me. Which term in which equation of the AP-EM laws is the Schrodinger Equation?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Those 6 laws are these.
> > > >
> > > > 1) Magnetic monopole telling us what magnetism and electric current and magnetic field and electric field are.
> > > >
> > > > 2) New Ohm's law Voltage = capacitor-battery = quantity of current C times magnetic field times electric field. V= CBE. The equation of New Ohm's law is a math equation of volume Volume = length x width x height so we can expect that New Ohm's law is a measuring of volume in physics, volume of energy.
> > > >
> > > > The next 4 laws are derivatives of all the possible 4 permutations of C, B, E, and V.
> > > >
> > > > 3) Rate of change of C, quantity current, C' = (V/(BE))' Faraday law.
> > > >
> > > > 4) Rate of change of B, magnetic field, B' = (V/(CE))' Ampere-Maxwell law.
> > > >
> > > > 5) Rate of change of E, electric field, E' = (V/(CB))' Coulomb law & gravity.
> > > >
> > > > 6) The rate of change of V= CBE as V' = (CBE)' as AC transformer law.
> > > >
> > > > C' = (V/(BE))' = V'BE/(BE)^2 - VB'E/(BE)^2 - VBE'/(BE)^2 which is Faraday's law.
> > > > 1st term as current production -- 2nd term as Lenz law -- 3rd term as DC, AC direction
> > > >
> > > > B' = (V/(CE))' = V'CE/(CE)^2 - VC'E/(CE)^2 - VCE')/(CE)^2 which is Ampere-Maxwell law.
> > > > 1st term as B production -- 2nd term as Displacement current -- 3rd term as parallel attract
> > > >
> > > > E' = (V/(CB))' = V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2 which is Coulomb-gravity law.
> > > > 1st term as E production -- 2nd term as inverse square of distance -- 3rd term as spin and orbit synchronicity
> > > >
> > > > V' = (CBE)' = C'BE + CB'E + CBE' which is Transformer law
> > > > 1st term as V production in a transformer -- 2nd term as inverse square root -- 3rd term as DC, AC synchronicity
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Review all of this, the EM equations of physics and mathematics.
> > > >
> > > > Faraday Law is (V/(B*L))' = i' from the AP-Maxwell Equations you learned in 1st year College.
> > > >
> > > > 1) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
> > > > 2) V = i*B*L New Ohm's law, law of electricity
> > > > 3) V' = (i*B*L)' Capacitor Law of Physics
> > > > 4) (V/i*L)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
> > > > 5) (V/(B*L))' = i' Faraday law
> > > > 6) (V/(i*B))' = L' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > PHYSICS LAWS
> > > >
> > > > 1) all the facts of chemistry and physics
> > > > 2) Voltage V = kg*m^2/A*s^3
> > > > 3) Current i = A = magnetic monopoles
> > > > 4) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
> > > > 5) angular momentum L = m^2/(A*s)
> > > > 6) V = i*B*L New Ohm's law, law of electricity
> > > > 7) V' = (i*B*L)' Capacitor Law of Physics
> > > > 8) (V/i*L)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
> > > > 9) (V/(B*L))' = i' Faraday law
> > > > 10) (V/(i*B))' = L' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Algebra of 3D Calculus, for remember we did the algebra of
> > > >
> > > > V' = (iBL)'
> > > > i' = (V/BL)'
> > > > B' = (V/iL)'
> > > > L' = (V/iB)'
> > > >
> > > > --- quoting 1st year calculus from Teaching True ---
> > > > Using the Product Rule which is (fgh)' = (f'gh + fg'h + fgh')
> > > >
> > > > Capacitor Law (i*B*L)' = i'*B*L + i*B'L + i*B*L'
> > > >
> > > > V' = (iBL)' = i'*B*L + i*B'*L + i*B*L' here we have three terms explaining capacitors
> > > >
> > > > Ampere-Maxwell Law
> > > >
> > > > Using the Quotient Rule, which is (f/gh)' = (f'gh - fg'h - fgh')/(gh)^2
> > > >
> > > > (V/i*L)' = B' = (V'*i*L - V*i' *L - V*i*L') / (i*L)^2
> > > >
> > > > Maxwell had two terms in the Ampere-Maxwell law-- the produced magnetic field and a displacement current, but above we see we have also a third new term.
> > > >
> > > > Faraday Law
> > > >
> > > > (V/B*L)' = i' = (V'*B*L - V*B' *L - V*B*L') / (B*L)^2
> > > >
> > > > ------------
> > > > V' = (iBL)' = i'*B*L + i*B'*L + i*B*L' reduces to
> > > > = iBL + iVL + iBL'
> > > >
> > > > i' = V'*B*L/ (B*L)^2 - V*B' *L/ (B*L)^2 - V*B*L' / (B*L)^2 reduces to
> > > > i' = B^2*L/ (B*L)^2 - V^2 *L/ (B*L)^2 - V*B*L' / (B*L)^2 further reduces
> > > > = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - VL'/BL^2
> > > >
> > > > B' = V'*i*L/ (i*L)^2 - V*i' *L/ (i*L)^2 - V*i*L' / (i*L)^2 reduces to
> > > > B' = B*i*L/ (i*L)^2 - V*i *L/ (i*L)^2 - V*i*L' / (i*L)^2 further reduces to
> > > > = B/iL - V/iL - VL'/iL^2
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > L' = (V/i*B)' = (V'*i*B - V*i' *B - V*i*B') / (i*B)^2 reduces to
> > > > L' = i*B^2 / (i*B)^2 - V*i *B / (i*B)^2 - V^2*i / (i*B)^2 further reduces to
> > > > = 1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2
> > > >
> > > > --------
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > (1) V' = iBL + iVL + iBL'
> > > >
> > > > (2) i' = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - VL'/BL^2
> > > >
> > > > (3) B' = B/iL - V/iL - VL'/iL^2
> > > >
> > > > (4) L' = 1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2
> > > >
> > > > Alright, so I replace L' in (1) with 1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2
> > > >
> > > > I get V' = iBL + iVL + iB*(1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2 )
> > > > = iBL + iVL + B - V - V^2/ B
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Doing the replacement in (2)
> > > >
> > > > i' = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - VL'/BL^2
> > > > = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - V*(1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2) /BL^2
> > > > = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - (V/iBL^2) - (V^2/iB^2L^2) - (V^3/(iB^3L^2))
> > > >
> > > > Doing the replacement in (3)
> > > >
> > > > B' = B/iL - V/iL - VL'/iL^2
> > > > = B/iL - V/iL - V(1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2)/iL^2
> > > > = B/iL - V/iL - (V/i^2L^2) - (V^2/i^2*B*L^2) - (V^3/( i^2B^2L^2))
> > > >
> > > > Is there any geometrical significance I can ascribe to this? There are some cubes involved.
> > > >
> > > > > > > Whereas the truth be known the real electron of a hydrogen atom is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus of 8 rings, where the muon and proton are doing the Faraday Law of producing more new electricity and storaging that electricity in what are known as neutrons. Because the muon is inside the proton it can fly around the torus inside at nearly the speed of light.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Old Physics which Harry Cliff as a member, never took Logic, never learned how to think straight, think clear, and thus his physics knowledge is just hand down memorization. So stupid he never understood what the hell is angular momentum for no hydrogen atom can exist with a 0.5MeV particle flying around at 99% speed of light and stay put on a proton of 938MeV.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > AP says the 0.5MeV particle is Dirac's Magnetic Monopole. Now Dirac was a real physicist, but not Harry Cliff and everyone at CERN with their electron = 0.5MeV are fools of physics
> > >
> > > Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
> > > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > AP
> > > 
> > > My_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)

4-Mitch_on_John Stillwell,John Baez math failures and cowards in admitting math truthes Terry Tao,Andrew Wiles, Thomas Hales immoral in admitting slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse. Is the 2nd derivative in Feynman's Electric field equation E = (-q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')] if that 2nd derivative is the same as C' in AP's EM equations?

mitchr...@gmail.com's profile photo
mitchr...@gmail.com
unread,
If the gravity is everywhere how is space flat?
how can gravity be curved space but not the universe it is in?
3:39 PM


mitchr...@gmail.com's profile photo
mitchr...@gmail.com
, …
Chris M. Thomasson
11
unread,
Limits are real
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 10:12:52 AM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 6/8/2023 6:36 PM,
3:28 PM

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
2 Best math textbooks of today, TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS and unlike physics, math has no previous best math textbooks because too many con-artists are at play in math.
3:22 PM


mitchr...@gmail.com's profile photo
mitchr...@gmail.com
unread,
Old math gets replaced .999 repeating is not the same quantity as one
Plot them and they are separate. They share a sameness that is different not by zero but by an
3:18 PM

Chris M. Thomasson's profile photo
Chris M. Thomasson
, …
Dan joyce
12
unread,
For Dan, a test plot and crude algorithm...
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 2:42:32 PM UTC-4, Dan joyce wrote: > On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 2:52:
3:17 PM

Mostowski Collapse's profile photo
Mostowski Collapse (Jan Burse spam)
, …
Dan Christensen
39
unread,
Is DC Proof a bee logic or a spider logic?
What is second order Peano? Well its the same induction schema as in first order Peano, only for the
3:13 PM

mitchr...@gmail.com's profile photo
mitchr...@gmail.com
unread,
I still remember the mathematical chair
He taught that numbers are eternal. Really they are just the names of quantities and the quantities
3:06 PM


> > > > AP now thinks the second term - VC'B/(CB)^2 is the Schrodinger Equation in EM theory, would you agree?
> > > >
> > > > MitchR why waste your time, for Andrew Wiles, John Stillwell, Terence Tao are so retarded in mathematics, they cannot even admit slant cut of cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. And to press them with a question in calculus when they fail simple geometry--- why bother???
> > > >
> > > > CHEM ONE authors gives us a clue in their Schrodinger formula of E_n = - (2*pi^2*m*Z^2*e^4) / (n^2*h^2* alpha^2) with a footnote: alpha = 1.113*10^-10 C^2J^-1 m^-1 which is Coulomb force.
> > > >
> > > > Force of gravity = G*(m_1*m_2)/ distance^2 (Newton's law by 1687)
> > > >
> > > > Force of electrostatics = C(q_1*q_2)/ distance^2 (Coulomb law by 1785)
> > > >
> > > > So let us state the Coulomb-gravity law of Physics. From one of the permutations of V= CBE we have E = (V/(CB)) and when we differentiate that by the calculus we have E' = (V/(CB))'. Now we use the quotient rule of calculus, which is (f/gh)' = (f'gh - fg'h - fgh')/(gh)^2 and as we reduce that we get 3 terms of f'/gh -fg'/g^2h - fh'/gh^2. And using the quotient rule renders (V/(CB))' as that of V'/CB - VC'/C^2B - VB'/CB^2.
> > > >
> > > > E' = (V/(CB))' = V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2 = V'/CB - VC'/C^2B - VB'/CB^2.
> > > >
> > > > Harry, which term looks like the CHEM ONE equation--E_n = - (2*pi^2*m*Z^2*e^4) / (n^2*h^2* alpha^2)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So our Coulomb-gravity law has 3 terms and we can break down each of those 3 terms into statements.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So which of the AP-EM Equations is the Schrodinger Equation as given by CHEM ONE.
> > > > > And I easily flip open some pages in CHEM ONE, 2nd edition, 1980 Waser, Trueblood, Knobler to page 311 for a sample of the Schrodinger equation as given by E_n = - (2*pi^2*m*Z^2*e^4) / (n^2*h^2* alpha^2).
> > > > >
> > > > > This is the question before me. Which term in which equation of the AP-EM laws is the Schrodinger Equation?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Those 6 laws are these.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Magnetic monopole telling us what magnetism and electric current and magnetic field and electric field are.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) New Ohm's law Voltage = capacitor-battery = quantity of current C times magnetic field times electric field. V= CBE. The equation of New Ohm's law is a math equation of volume Volume = length x width x height so we can expect that New Ohm's law is a measuring of volume in physics, volume of energy.
> > > > >
> > > > > The next 4 laws are derivatives of all the possible 4 permutations of C, B, E, and V.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3) Rate of change of C, quantity current, C' = (V/(BE))' Faraday law.
> > > > >
> > > > > 4) Rate of change of B, magnetic field, B' = (V/(CE))' Ampere-Maxwell law.
> > > > >
> > > > > 5) Rate of change of E, electric field, E' = (V/(CB))' Coulomb law & gravity.
> > > > >
> > > > > 6) The rate of change of V= CBE as V' = (CBE)' as AC transformer law.
> > > > >
> > > > > C' = (V/(BE))' = V'BE/(BE)^2 - VB'E/(BE)^2 - VBE'/(BE)^2 which is Faraday's law.
> > > > > 1st term as current production -- 2nd term as Lenz law -- 3rd term as DC, AC direction
> > > > >
> > > > > B' = (V/(CE))' = V'CE/(CE)^2 - VC'E/(CE)^2 - VCE')/(CE)^2 which is Ampere-Maxwell law.
> > > > > 1st term as B production -- 2nd term as Displacement current -- 3rd term as parallel attract
> > > > >
> > > > > E' = (V/(CB))' = V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2 which is Coulomb-gravity law.
> > > > > 1st term as E production -- 2nd term as inverse square of distance -- 3rd term as spin and orbit synchronicity
> > > > >
> > > > > V' = (CBE)' = C'BE + CB'E + CBE' which is Transformer law
> > > > > 1st term as V production in a transformer -- 2nd term as inverse square root -- 3rd term as DC, AC synchronicity
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Review all of this, the EM equations of physics and mathematics.
> > > > >
> > > > > Faraday Law is (V/(B*L))' = i' from the AP-Maxwell Equations you learned in 1st year College.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
> > > > > 2) V = i*B*L New Ohm's law, law of electricity
> > > > > 3) V' = (i*B*L)' Capacitor Law of Physics
> > > > > 4) (V/i*L)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
> > > > > 5) (V/(B*L))' = i' Faraday law
> > > > > 6) (V/(i*B))' = L' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > PHYSICS LAWS
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) all the facts of chemistry and physics
> > > > > 2) Voltage V = kg*m^2/A*s^3
> > > > > 3) Current i = A = magnetic monopoles
> > > > > 4) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
> > > > > 5) angular momentum L = m^2/(A*s)
> > > > > 6) V = i*B*L New Ohm's law, law of electricity
> > > > > 7) V' = (i*B*L)' Capacitor Law of Physics
> > > > > 8) (V/i*L)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
> > > > > 9) (V/(B*L))' = i' Faraday law
> > > > > 10) (V/(i*B))' = L' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Algebra of 3D Calculus, for remember we did the algebra of
> > > > >
> > > > > V' = (iBL)'
> > > > > i' = (V/BL)'
> > > > > B' = (V/iL)'
> > > > > L' = (V/iB)'
> > > > >
> > > > > --- quoting 1st year calculus from Teaching True ---
> > > > > Using the Product Rule which is (fgh)' = (f'gh + fg'h + fgh')
> > > > >
> > > > > Capacitor Law (i*B*L)' = i'*B*L + i*B'L + i*B*L'
> > > > >
> > > > > V' = (iBL)' = i'*B*L + i*B'*L + i*B*L' here we have three terms explaining capacitors
> > > > >
> > > > > Ampere-Maxwell Law
> > > > >
> > > > > Using the Quotient Rule, which is (f/gh)' = (f'gh - fg'h - fgh')/(gh)^2
> > > > >
> > > > > (V/i*L)' = B' = (V'*i*L - V*i' *L - V*i*L') / (i*L)^2
> > > > >
> > > > > Maxwell had two terms in the Ampere-Maxwell law-- the produced magnetic field and a displacement current, but above we see we have also a third new term.
> > > > >
> > > > > Faraday Law
> > > > >
> > > > > (V/B*L)' = i' = (V'*B*L - V*B' *L - V*B*L') / (B*L)^2
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------
> > > > > V' = (iBL)' = i'*B*L + i*B'*L + i*B*L' reduces to
> > > > > = iBL + iVL + iBL'
> > > > >
> > > > > i' = V'*B*L/ (B*L)^2 - V*B' *L/ (B*L)^2 - V*B*L' / (B*L)^2 reduces to
> > > > > i' = B^2*L/ (B*L)^2 - V^2 *L/ (B*L)^2 - V*B*L' / (B*L)^2 further reduces
> > > > > = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - VL'/BL^2
> > > > >
> > > > > B' = V'*i*L/ (i*L)^2 - V*i' *L/ (i*L)^2 - V*i*L' / (i*L)^2 reduces to
> > > > > B' = B*i*L/ (i*L)^2 - V*i *L/ (i*L)^2 - V*i*L' / (i*L)^2 further reduces to
> > > > > = B/iL - V/iL - VL'/iL^2
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > L' = (V/i*B)' = (V'*i*B - V*i' *B - V*i*B') / (i*B)^2 reduces to
> > > > > L' = i*B^2 / (i*B)^2 - V*i *B / (i*B)^2 - V^2*i / (i*B)^2 further reduces to
> > > > > = 1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2
> > > > >
> > > > > --------
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > (1) V' = iBL + iVL + iBL'
> > > > >
> > > > > (2) i' = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - VL'/BL^2
> > > > >
> > > > > (3) B' = B/iL - V/iL - VL'/iL^2
> > > > >
> > > > > (4) L' = 1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2
> > > > >
> > > > > Alright, so I replace L' in (1) with 1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2
> > > > >
> > > > > I get V' = iBL + iVL + iB*(1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2 )
> > > > > = iBL + iVL + B - V - V^2/ B
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Doing the replacement in (2)
> > > > >
> > > > > i' = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - VL'/BL^2
> > > > > = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - V*(1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2) /BL^2
> > > > > = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - (V/iBL^2) - (V^2/iB^2L^2) - (V^3/(iB^3L^2))
> > > > >
> > > > > Doing the replacement in (3)
> > > > >
> > > > > B' = B/iL - V/iL - VL'/iL^2
> > > > > = B/iL - V/iL - V(1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2)/iL^2
> > > > > = B/iL - V/iL - (V/i^2L^2) - (V^2/i^2*B*L^2) - (V^3/( i^2B^2L^2))
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there any geometrical significance I can ascribe to this? There are some cubes involved.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > Whereas the truth be known the real electron of a hydrogen atom is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus of 8 rings, where the muon and proton are doing the Faraday Law of producing more new electricity and storaging that electricity in what are known as neutrons. Because the muon is inside the proton it can fly around the torus inside at nearly the speed of light.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Old Physics which Harry Cliff as a member, never took Logic, never learned how to think straight, think clear, and thus his physics knowledge is just hand down memorization. So stupid he never understood what the hell is angular momentum for no hydrogen atom can exist with a 0.5MeV particle flying around at 99% speed of light and stay put on a proton of 938MeV.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > AP says the 0.5MeV particle is Dirac's Magnetic Monopole. Now Dirac was a real physicist, but not Harry Cliff and everyone at CERN with their electron = 0.5MeV are fools of physics
> > > >
> > > > Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
> > > > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > AP
> > > > 
> > > > My_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)