238th book of science for AP // Proving the Principle of Maximum Electricity Production is done by Atoms
81 views
Subscribe

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Mar 18, 2023, 10:02:09 AM

So many times I have referred to this principle in my work. Yet I never proved it true. I think it is
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Mar 18, 2023, 11:21:39 PM

Alright I need some math data to understand why Maximum Electricity production relates directly to
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Mar 18, 2023, 11:42:18 PM

Now looking at the unique features of the Torus. Source StackExchange: The torus is the only surface
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Mar 19, 2023, 2:38:02 PM

Now the speed of measured Alpha particles from decay is in the range of 5 to 7 percent the speed of
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Mar 19, 2023, 11:51:08 PM

Recently I caught myself writing a trio of books in astronomy, starting with the concept of Stepping
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Mar 20, 2023, 2:27:00 AM

Alright, I think I have the proof that the torus is the geometry figure of Maximum Electricity
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 23, 2023, 2:14:10 PM (12 days ago)

Alright, onto my 238th book of science. I have often mentioned this principle in my physics work.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 23, 2023, 5:06:17 PM (12 days ago)

I suspect the Maximum Electricity Principle is the reverse of Least Action or Least Energy principle,
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 27, 2023, 11:27:21 PM (8 days ago)

I need a full book on Maximum Electricity Production Principle in order to say the S, P, D, F
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 28, 2023, 9:24:25 AM (7 days ago)

I am going to try for 2 different methods of proof of Maximum Electricity Production. One method is
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 28, 2023, 12:06:03 PM (7 days ago)

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:23:19 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > I am going to try for
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 28, 2023, 9:32:30 PM (7 days ago)

Alright, I am not going to have any problems with figuring out the geometry inside of Atoms, for I
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 28, 2023, 11:20:05 PM (7 days ago)

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:30:14 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Alright, I am not
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 29, 2023, 5:57:07 AM (6 days ago)

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 11:19:34 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > On Friday, April 28,
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 29, 2023, 4:09:32 PM (6 days ago)

Now this total overhaul of the geometry of the interior of all Atoms is going to make me say that the
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 29, 2023, 11:57:22 PM (6 days ago)

On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 5:56:34 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Copper is 1s-2, 2s-
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 30, 2023, 1:14:04 AM (6 days ago)

Now here I have to stop for a moment and worry and wonder of a factor in efficiency. The worry is
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 30, 2023, 8:54:33 AM (5 days ago)

So I ask the question again is there a mathematics easy way of computing that 50 for copper, rather
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 30, 2023, 3:25:25 PM (5 days ago)

So I am intrigued here because I am making the case that photons and neutrinos from dipoles. That a
Message has been deleted
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 30, 2023, 8:20:27 PM (5 days ago)

Alright this leads directly into the idea that the composition of the Proton as a 840MeV torus and
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 30, 2023, 11:33:15 PM (5 days ago)

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 8:16:55 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Alright this leads
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
May 1, 2023, 7:39:22 AM (4 days ago)

Alright, this is becoming extremely interesting. I have the world divided between either a Transverse
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
May 1, 2023, 1:07:26 PM (4 days ago)

I am looking on how to recover a Semicircle wave in the manner that a cycloid wave is constructed.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
May 1, 2023, 1:48:32 PM (4 days ago)

Alright, some good signs in all of this mess. I am looking for rolling of closed curves that recovers
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
May 1, 2023, 2:00:38 PM (4 days ago)

Now looking at the Limacon, if we stipulate that the offcenter point has to always be as a
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
May 1, 2023, 7:28:19 PM (4 days ago)

On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 1:02:23 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > I am looking on how to
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
May 1, 2023, 9:53:05 PM (4 days ago)

So, well, Wikipedia has a animation of a Limacon and the Convex Limacon is almost a circle but a part
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
May 1, 2023, 10:57:40 PM (4 days ago)

Now I am going to go contrary to the description of the Dimpled Limacon and say that the Pointer-
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
May 1, 2023, 11:23:28 PM (4 days ago)

Now I am pretty sure this is a flaw in Old Math Geometry of their Limacon pointer marker going around
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
May 2, 2023, 7:45:23 AM (3 days ago)

On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 11:23:28 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote: Now I am pretty sure this is
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
May 2, 2023, 3:23:05 PM (3 days ago)

Alright, good on MathStackExchange for they have something on cycloid rolling. Titled "Cycloid
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
May 2, 2023, 5:59:55 PM (3 days ago)

Major, major Geometry in Motion discovery by Archimedes Plutonium. I discovered this in this writing
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
May 2, 2023, 6:15:44 PM (3 days ago)

Now I have a easy intuitive proof that I am correct the cycloid is actually a ellipse. Some geometers
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
May 2, 2023, 8:04:56 PM (3 days ago)

This makes sense that circle rolled on straightline is ellipse. Ellipse rolled on identical ellipse
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
May 2, 2023, 9:54:19 PM (3 days ago)

This deserves a new separate math book on the massive corrections and changes to Geometry in Motion.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
May 3, 2023, 11:25:59 PM (2 days ago)

Flaws and error in Old Math's Limacon, in Cycloid, and in ellipses rolling on identical ellipse--
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
May 4, 2023, 12:00:08 PM (yesterday)

Alright, I am onto a project I love doing, totally absorbed. So I get out my geometry wood blocks and
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
May 4, 2023, 5:35:17 PM (yesterday)

Alright, working on the 4 by 4 by 4 torus of wood blocks. So the 4 by 4 by 4 Cube is volume of 64
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
May 4, 2023, 8:39:35 PM (yesterday)

On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 5:34:39 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Alright, working on
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
May 4, 2023, 9:53:28 PM (yesterday)

The 5 by 5 by 5 Cube. Volume = 125 SA = 6 x 25 = 150 5 by 5 by 5 torus (by removing 3 by 3 by 5
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
May 5, 2023, 12:36:47 AM (yesterday)

Let me try another even numbered torus, the 6 by 6 by 6 torus. Usually 3 samples are good enough for
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
May 5, 2023, 11:57:56 AM (15 hours ago)

So I am not getting nice results here. So I have a sliding down convergence of a sequence. The 3x3x3
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
May 5, 2023, 12:42:32 PM (14 hours ago)

Let me try removing a 2 by 2 by 6 and see if the ratio fits better with the 2.212... On Friday, May 5
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
May 5, 2023, 1:31:12 PM (13 hours ago)

Let me try the 7 by 7 by 7 Cube and removal for the donut hole of torus of 3 by 3 by 7. Volume of
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
May 5, 2023, 2:23:04 PM (13 hours ago)

Now I am looking for a OEIS sequence 2.666... to 2.5 to 1.4 to 1.333... to 1.285.... that comes close
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
May 5, 2023, 2:38:43 PM (12 hours ago)

Now I should reduce these to fractions to be more precise for the Sequence, and thus I have this to
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
May 5, 2023, 2:46:14 PM (12 hours ago)

Yes, OEIS of A232808 appears to be the formula I am looking for in the sequence-- but perhaps
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
May 5, 2023, 4:18:43 PM (11 hours ago)

Now trying out this formula to see if any of my sequence is matched. (8/3)^(2/3) = 1.922... (5/2)^(2/
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
May 5, 2023, 8:48:46 PM (6 hours ago)

Alright it has been arbitrary up to now as to what the size of the donut hole is. I can chose to
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
May 5, 2023, 9:06:16 PM (6 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright so the first torus of wood blocks starts with 10 by 10 by 2 where the donut hole is 6 by 6 by 2, and then the diameter of torus cross section is 2 while diameter of donut-hole is 6, almost the ratio of 3.14 to 1.

Lose You to listening to this fantastical song:

youtu.be/o8pQLtHTPaI

It is my favourite song right now......

See You.

Fred Jeffries replacing Andrew Wiles Oxford Uni math failure?? For at least Jeffries can ask the question which is slant cut of cone -- oval or ellipse, Run Wiles Hide Wiles

> On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 5:59:58 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 1:49:50 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 7:00:38 PM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:
> > > > *
> > > > Several of you have questioned: Is the ellipse a conic section? The answer depends.
> > > > If you are Archimedes Plutonium, the answer is no. If you are one of the other 398,726 mahematicians living today, the answer is yes.
> > > >
> > > > earle
> > > > *
> > > The failed meathead Earle Jones, looks like you have 398,726 subtract 1, as it appears Fred Jeffries below in this thread is starting to question the second axis of symmetry in the slant cut of cone.
> > > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 5:41:05 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 6:23:18 PM UTC-8, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Disney did a nice animation on it:
> > > > >
> > > > http ----------
> > > > But it also fails to show how to find the second axis of symmetry
>

More of Fred Jeffries-- and his failure to follow through---

On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 5:59:58 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 1:49:50 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 7:00:38 PM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:
> > > *
> > > Several of you have questioned: Is the ellipse a conic section? The answer depends.
> > > If you are Archimedes Plutonium, the answer is no. If you are one of the other 398,726 mahematicians living today, the answer is yes.
> > >
> > > earle
> > > *
> > The failed meathead Earle Jones, looks like you have 398,726 subtract 1, as it appears Fred Jeffries below in this thread is starting to question the second axis of symmetry in the slant cut of cone.
> > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 5:41:05 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 6:23:18 PM UTC-8, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > >
> > > > Disney did a nice animation on it:
> > > >
> > > > https://.....
> > > But it also fails to show how to find the second axis of symmetry
> > But this does not change the scene by much for every math professor across the globe fails simple geometry with their memorized answer-- ellipse a conic section when it never was, for most math professors are lazy couch potatoes unwilling to experiment with paper cone and drop a coin inside and see that it is impossible to have a 2nd axis of symmetry as Fred Jeffries points out.

> He 'points out' no such thing. He does NOT point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a second axis of symmetry. He only points out that the particular video does not find that second axis of symmetry.
>
> And while he has read very few of the messages on that subject, he will point out that none of the detractors have shown how to find the second axis of symmetry, or even understood that it is a problem.

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)