Kibo on mental illness

Andrew Wiles, Prof. Martin Bridson FRS,Prof. Francis Brown,Prof. Helen Byrne For only idiots would think a slant cut of cylinder and cone both produce a ellipse, only a mindless math idiot would think that, such as Andrew Wiles and Roger Penrose. Because a cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, a cylinder and ellipse have 2 axes of symmetry. These are not teachers of math, but goonclods of math propaganda.

On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 4:20:59 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>"mentally ill"
>Re: "imp of math"

On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 4:20:59 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>"mentally ill"

Prof. Ursula Martin CBE FREng FRSE FBCS FIET FIMA

Neither Andrew Wiles nor Roger Penrose do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, much less a valid proof, but that Roger Penrose cannot even tell apart a ellipse from Oval, for the slant cut of Cone is a Oval.



> >
> > 2-Kibo, is Andrew Wiles always wrong as you continually rant? Sure, Andrew cannot tell what a Oval is from ellipse and cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, let alone a valid proof, not the idiotic nonsense of a limit hornswaggle, but surely Andrew can at least tie his shoes without getting that wrong, surely.
> >
> > People list
> > Academic Faculty
> > Prof. Luis Fernando Alday FRS
> > Prof. Konstantin Ardakov
> > Prof. Ruth Baker
> > Prof. Paul Neville Balister
> > Dr Murad Banaji
> > Prof. Christopher Beem
> > Prof. Dmitry Belyaev
> > Prof. Emmanuel Breuillard
> > Prof. Chris Breward
> > Prof. Martin Bridson FRS
> > Prof. Francis Brown
> > Prof. Helen Byrne
> > Prof. José A. Carrillo
> > Prof. Alvaro Cartea
> > Prof. Coralia Cartis
> > Prof. S. Jon Chapman
> > Prof. Gui-Qiang G. Chen
> > Prof. Dan Ciubotaru
> > Prof. Samuel Cohen
> > Prof. Rama Cont
> > Prof. Andrew Dancer
> > Prof. Xenia de la Ossa
> > Prof. Paul J. Dellar
> > Prof. Christopher Douglas
> > Prof. Cornelia Drutu
> > Prof. Marcus Du Sautoy FRS
> > Dr Richard Earl
> > Prof. Artur Ekert FRS
> > Prof. Radek Erban
> > Prof. Alison M Etheridge FRS
> > Prof. Doyne Farmer
> > Prof. Patrick Farrell
> > Prof. Victor Flynn
> > Prof. Eamonn Gaffney
> > Prof. Mike Giles
> > Dr Kathryn Gillow
> > Prof. Alain Goriely FRS
> > Prof. Ben J. Green FRS
> > Prof. Ian Griffiths
> > Prof. Peter Grindrod CBE
> > Prof. Massimiliano Gubinelli
> > Prof. Ben Hambly
> > Prof. Heather Harrington
> > Prof. Raphael Hauser
> > Prof. Andre Henriques
> > Prof. Ian Hewitt
> > Dr Christopher Hollings
> > Prof. Blanka Nora Horvath
> > Prof. Peter Howell
> > Prof. Sam Howison
> > Prof. Ehud Hrushovski FRS
> > Prof. Hanqing Jin
> > Prof. Dominic Joyce FRS
> > Prof. Andras Juhasz
> > Prof. Jon Keating FRS
> > Prof. Peter Keevash
> > Prof. Dawid Kielak
> > Prof. Frances Kirwan FRS
> > Prof. Jochen Koenigsmann
> > Prof. Yakov Kremnitzer
> > Prof. Jan Kristensen
> > Prof. Marc Lackenby
> > Prof. Renaud Lambiotte
> > Prof. Alan Lauder
> > Prof. Jason D Lotay
> > Prof. Terry Lyons FLSW FRSE FRS
> > Prof. Philip K. Maini FRS FMedSci FRSB
> > Prof. Lionel J Mason
> > Prof. James Maynard
> > Prof. Kevin McGerty
> > Prof. Mark Mezei
> > Prof. Andrea Mondino
> > Prof. Michael Monoyios
> > Prof. Irene Moroz
> > Prof. Derek Moulton
> > Prof. Andreas Münch
> > Prof. Yuji Nakatsukasa
> > Prof. Vidit Nanda
> > Dr James Newton
> > Prof. Luc Nguyen
> > Prof. Nikolay Nikolov
> > Prof. Harald Oberhauser
> > Prof. Jan Obloj
> > Prof. James Oliver
> > Prof. Panagiotis Papazoglou
> > Prof. Jonathan Pila FRS
> > Prof. Zhongmin Qian
> > Prof. Christoph Reisinger
> > Prof. Oliver Riordan
> > Prof. Alexander Ritter
> > Prof. Damian Charles Rössler
> > Prof. Melanie Rupflin
> > Prof. Tom Sanders
> > Prof. Sakura Schafer-Nameki
> > Prof. Alex Scott
> > Prof. Justin Sirignano
> > Prof. James Sparks
> > Prof. Endre Suli FRS
> > Prof. Jared Tanner
> > Prof. Ulrike Tillmann FRS
> > Prof. Nick Trefethen FRS
> > Dr Christoph Uhlemann
> > Prof. Dominic Vella
> > Dr Christopher Voyce
> > Prof. Qian Wang
> > Prof. Sarah Waters
> > Prof. Andrew Wathen
> > Prof. Stuart Andrew White
> > Prof. Sir Andrew Wiles FRS
> > Dr Catherine Wilkins
> >
> > Emeritus
> > Dr David John Acheson
> > Prof. John E Allen
> > Dr David Allwright
> > Prof. Sir John Ball FRS
> > Prof. Charles Batty
> > Prof. Bryan Birch FRS
> > Prof. Philip Candelas FRS
> > Prof. Michael Collins
> > Dr Peter Collins
> > Dr William Alan Day
> > Dr Janet Dyson
> > Dr David Edwards
> > Dr Karin Erdmann
> > Dr Chris L. Farmer
> > Prof. Andrew Fowler
> > Prof. Ian Grant FRS
> > Dr Keith Hannabuss
> > Prof. Richard G Haydon
> > Prof. Roger Heath-Brown FRS
> > Prof. Nigel Hitchin FRS
> > Prof. Andrew Hodges
> > Prof. Ioan James FRS
> > Dr Glenys Luke
> > Prof. Ursula Martin CBE FREng FRSE FBCS FIET FIMA
> > Prof. Colin McDiarmid
> > Prof. Bill Morton
> > Prof. James D. Murray FRS, FRSE, FRSB
> > Dr John Norbury
> > Dr Hilary Ockendon
> > Prof. John R. Ockendon FRS
> > Prof. Colin Please
> > Prof. Hilary Priestley
> > Dr Christopher Prior
> > Prof. Subir Sarkar
> > Prof. Dan Segal
> > Dr Graeme Segal FRS
> > Prof. Gregory Seregin
> > Prof. Ian Sobey
> > Dr Brian Steer
> > Dr Brian Stewart
> > Prof. David Stirzaker
> > Sir Martin Taylor FRS
> > Prof. Paul Tod
> > Dr Tsou Sheung Tsun
> > Dr Graham Vincent-Smith
> > Prof. Dominic Welsh
> > Prof. J S Wilson
> > Prof. Nick Woodhouse
> > Prof. J.D. Maitland Wright
> > Prof. Boris Zilber
> > > Kibo-on Andrew Wiles math failure & mentally ill says Kibo while pounding his male rectum (so he says).
> > >
> > > On Friday, December 3, 1993 at 7:36:50 PM UTC-6, Andrew Wiles wrote:
> > > > In view of the speculation on the status of my work on the
> > >


> > > Andrew, will your entire life be that of fake and con-art math, or is there some room for growth and maturity-- slant cut of cone is Oval, not your mindless ellipse. And can you comprehend a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, or is your math all a waste, waste of time, waste of science?
> > >
> > > You are a failure Andrew Wiles of math, a utter low class failure. Why you are so stupid in math logic, you never even saw that Euler had no proof in exponent 3 for Euler forgot that a proof of exp 3 required him to prove all three A,B,C are not even numbers, no, Euler just was too dumb in logic same as you Andrew to realize he had to prove A,B,C were not all three even. And to put a finer point on it-- why you Andrew Wiles is a math failure, is that you are so stupid in geometry as to still think a slant cut of cone is a ellipse when it is a oval. That is probably why you could never do a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for how could you when you cannot tell apart a ellipse from a oval.
> > >
> > > Your FLT fakery of 1990s is just con-art-- not mathematics, for AP proved FLT in 1991, see below.
> > >
> > >
> > > Kibo Parry Moron-ey-Volney, why is this stalker arsewipe allowed to even post in sci.math or sci.physics, instead, he should be flushed down the toilet some 30 years ago.
> > > On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 10:03:19 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > > >Re: Showing the flaws in Stewart,Fisher & Ziebur, Ellis & Gulick, Strang, Apostol of their fake proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus in AP's new book // Overhaul & Revitalization of Calculus// Math-psychology-sociology (Amazon's Kindle)
> > > > Botfly of Math and Blowfly of Physics
> > > >"mentally ill"
> > > > I Pound His Male Rectum
> > > > The Delicious Rump Man
> > >
> > > AP wrote this for his new book: Overhaul & Revitalization of Calculus// Math-psychology-sociology
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium
> > >
> > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > 1:20 PM, July 1, 2023
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > Everytime AP goes over his science and math, some new item comes up that I can elaborate and detail more about.
> > >
> > > In this diagram proof below, the A and B are discrete points of the Function Graph Curve with no numbers existing between A and B, and the midpoint "m" is fetched by hauling in higher Grid systems. Every number in Decimal Grid systems all the way out to infinity borderline 1*10^604 is ending in nothing but 0 digits, which insures a midpoint.
> > >
> > > What is so fantastically different from AP's New Math proof of FTC, which Old Math could never handle, is that the derivative is actually part and parcel the same as the Function Graph Curve.
> > >
> > > In all my proofs of FTC, I never showed the reverse of starting with a rectangular cell and then building the Function Graph Curve from the rectangle. Instead I showed just the trapezoid with the derivative inside as the right-traingle sitting atop the midpoint then swiveling-down the right-triangle to form the integral rectangle.
> > >
> > >
> > > From this:
> > > B
> > > /|
> > > / |
> > > m /----|
> > > / |
> > > |A |
> > > |____|
> > >
> > > To this:
> > >
> > > __m__
> > > | |
> > > | |
> > > | |
> > > ---------
> > >
> > > Now, let me start with a integral rectangle for a specific Grid System. Let me say I chose the Grid System to be 1000, then each cell along the x-axis is a width of 0.001 wide. Now how far out do I need to go to borrow to cover all midpoints? Well, for 0 to 0.001, I need 0.0005 to have a midpoint. Is that as far as I need to go? Will the 10,000 Grid System cover all midpoints?? Suppose I had 1.333, is the 10,000 Grid sufficient in borrowing? That comes to 0.6665 and so far so good.
> > >
> > > So I have these cells all up and down the x-axis, and reaching all the way to 1000 on the y-axis. I do not even have a function yet that is going to criss-cross through all the widths resting on the x-axis. I do not know what the function is that the mathematics-god is going to give me to plot.. Now the math-god hands me the function x^2 --> Y.
> > >
> > > Alright, now I fill each empty cell.
> > >
> > > Each cell is looking like this empty rectangle only very tall and thin as the height is 1000 and the width is 0.001.
> > >
> > > __m__
> > > | |
> > > | |
> > > | |
> > > ---------
> > >
> > >
> > > And I focus on the cell from 1 to 1.001. I could pick any cell, but I chose a cell to avoid a fraction only cell, a cell away from 1. For I am teaching and students have a hard time of numbers that are fractions only-- those numbers between 0 and 1. So I chose a number equal or after 1.
> > >
> > > __m__
> > > | |
> > > | |
> > > | |
> > > ---------
> > > 1 1.001
> > >
> > > Now I apply the function that the math-god gave me. I apply x^2 --> Y..
> > >
> > > For 1 the x^2 is 1.
> > >
> > > For 1.001 the x^2 is 1.002001.
> > >
> > > In other words, I had the integral rectangle before I had the function itself, and now I graph that function.
> > >
> > > Now I draw in that cell the A = 1 and the B = 1.002001. My cell looks like this.
> > >
> > >
> > > B
> > > /|
> > > / |
> > > m /----|
> > > / |
> > > |A |
> > > |____|
> > >
> > >
> > > The midpoint of my cell "m" is 2 divided into 2.001 = 1.0005. I carved into the side wall of the integral rectangle to fetch a right triangle whose vertex points are A, and m, and B was where A is.
> > >
> > > Now I fill in the actual function graph curve that runs through my cell, as a derivative that is a straightline segment that goes from (1,1) to (1,1.002001).
> > >
> > > This is True Calculus, where the derivative and the function graph curve are the same thing.
> > >
> > > In Old Math, their derivative was an alien tangent line to a curve graph at a point.
> > >
> > > In New True Math, the derivative and the function graph curve are one and the same.
> > >
> > > The Reason, the Utter Reason calculus is so Valuable as a math tool is that given A, it predicts what B is going to be. For heaven's sake, that is why calculus is so valuable to physics law, it tells the physics law, given A, the derivative predicts B.
> > >
> > > Old Math professors of math are fools and village idiots that think a tangent to a point on a curved graph predicts anything, only shows us how empty headed they are in logic, Old Math professors have no logical marbles of a brain when it comes to calculus, for a tangent is not going to predict the next point of the Function graph curve.
> > >
> > > AP, King of Science, especially Physics & Logic
> > >
> > > My 245th published book of science
> > >
> > >
> > > Overhaul & Revitalization of Calculus// Math-psychology-sociology
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
> > >
> > >
> > > Preface: The purpose of this book is to move the dial on calculus education to where all of mathematics is easy, simple, clear, and understandable to even High School students. Where calculus is taught in early High School. All of this is possible when mistakes are corrected in Old Math. And when those mistakes are corrected, it is seen that calculus is just a tiny bit harder than learning the 4 operators of math-- add, subtract, multiply, divide. The last two operators of math are derivative and integral and not much harder to learn than add, subtract, multiply, divide. Provided, Old Math mistakes are corrected and or thrown out. We throw out the Reals as numbers of math and replace them with Decimal Grid Numbers. We throw out all functions of math, except polynomial functions. Anything else that looks like a function, we have to convert to a polynomial, first, over a interval, and then we can work with it. When we do this, and a little more, we end up with a mathematics and a calculus that is ultra simple, ultra easy, ultra clear, and fun to work with. But because of the psychology of math professors and the social environment of math careers, we have this ugly mess of math and especially calculus as torture chambers, nightmares and nervous breakdowns. So horrid has math education become, that most students steer clear of mathematics. When in truth, once the errors of Old Math are fixed, that math is really the easiest of the physical sciences. It is the psychology and sociology that has made math the worst science and filled with error.
> > >
> > >
> > > Cover Picture: My cover picture is my iphone photograph of my own handwriting of Decimal Grid Numbers, the numbers that replace the Reals of Old Math, plus the types of polynomials, sitting a-top a sheet of graphing paper. Those three dots after the numbers and polynomials means they continue and I have room to show only three kinds. Calculus is after all, a science of geometry for derivative is rate of change of dy to dx, and integral is after-all the area under the function graph.
> > >
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0C9P5F755
> > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ June 27, 2023
> > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 530 KB
> > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
> > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 116 pages
> > >
> > >
> > > My 6th published book
> > >
> > > World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
> > >
> > > Last revision was 29Apr2021. This is AP's 6th published book.
> > >
> > > Preface: Truthful proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem// including the fake Euler proof in exp3 and Wiles fake proof.
> > >
> > > Recap summary: In 1993 I proved Fermat's Last Theorem with a pure algebra proof, arguing that because of the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4 that this special feature of a unique number 4, allows for there to exist solutions to A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That the number 4 is a basis vector allowing more solutions to exist in exponent 2. But since there is no number with N+N+N = N*N*N that exists, there cannot be a solution in exp3 and the same argument for higher exponents. In 2014, I went and proved Generalized FLT by using "condensed rectangles". Once I had proven Generalized, then Regular FLT comes out of that proof as a simple corollary. So I had two proofs of Regular FLT, pure algebra and a corollary from Generalized FLT. Then recently in 2019, I sought to find a pure algebra proof of Generalized FLT, and I believe I accomplished that also by showing solutions to Generalized FLT also come from the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4. Amazing how so much math comes from the specialness of 4, where I argue that a Vector Space of multiplication provides the Generalized FLT of A^x + B^y = C^z.
> > >
> > > Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem type of equations.
> > >
> > > As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQKGW4M
> > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2019
> > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1503 KB
> > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 156 pages
> > > • Best Sellers Rank: #4,327,817 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #589 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #3,085 in Number Theory (Books)
> > >
> > > AP, King of Science, especially Physics and Logic
> > >
> > > On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 8:03:22 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > > >"Imp of Science"
> > > > "always wrong"
> > >
> > > P.S. AP suspects that someone in the Kibo gang of stalkers has again hacked and disabled AP's music sound, for it was 5 minutes into a reply of Kibo, that my sound went off. The gang needs jail time.
> > >
> > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 3:26:59 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > > >"always wrong"

2-Kibo on mental illness
2-Andrew Wiles,Sir Martin Taylor FRS
> > > Prof. Paul Tod, for only idiots would think a slant cut of cylinder and cone both produce a ellipse, only a mindless math idiot would think that, such as Andrew Wiles and Roger Penrose. Because a cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, a cylinder and ellipse have 2 axes of symmetry. These are not teachers of math, but goonclods of math propaganda.
>
> On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 4:20:59 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> >"mentally ill"
> >Re: "imp of math"
>
>
> On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 4:20:59 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> >"mentally ill"
> Prof. Ursula Martin CBE FREng FRSE FBCS FIET FIMA
> Neither Andrew Wiles nor Roger Penrose do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, much less a valid proof, but that Roger Penrose cannot even tell apart a ellipse from Oval, for the slant cut of Cone is a Oval.
> 
> 
> 
> > >
> > > 2-Kibo, is Andrew Wiles always wrong as you continually rant? Sure, Andrew cannot tell what a Oval is from ellipse and cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, let alone a valid proof, not the idiotic nonsense of a limit hornswaggle, but surely Andrew can at least tie his shoes without getting that wrong, surely.
> > >
> > > People list
> > > Academic Faculty
> > > Prof. Luis Fernando Alday FRS
> > > Prof. Konstantin Ardakov
> > > Prof. Ruth Baker
> > > Prof. Paul Neville Balister
> > > Dr Murad Banaji
> > > Prof. Christopher Beem
> > > Prof. Dmitry Belyaev
> > > Prof. Emmanuel Breuillard
> > > Prof. Chris Breward
> > > Prof. Martin Bridson FRS
> > > Prof. Francis Brown
> > > Prof. Helen Byrne
> > > Prof. José A. Carrillo
> > > Prof. Alvaro Cartea
> > > Prof. Coralia Cartis
> > > Prof. S. Jon Chapman
> > > Prof. Gui-Qiang G. Chen
> > > Prof. Dan Ciubotaru
> > > Prof. Samuel Cohen
> > > Prof. Rama Cont
> > > Prof. Andrew Dancer
> > > Prof. Xenia de la Ossa
> > > Prof. Paul J. Dellar
> > > Prof. Christopher Douglas
> > > Prof. Cornelia Drutu
> > > Prof. Marcus Du Sautoy FRS
> > > Dr Richard Earl
> > > Prof. Artur Ekert FRS
> > > Prof. Radek Erban
> > > Prof. Alison M Etheridge FRS
> > > Prof. Doyne Farmer
> > > Prof. Patrick Farrell
> > > Prof. Victor Flynn
> > > Prof. Eamonn Gaffney
> > > Prof. Mike Giles
> > > Dr Kathryn Gillow
> > > Prof. Alain Goriely FRS
> > > Prof. Ben J. Green FRS
> > > Prof. Ian Griffiths
> > > Prof. Peter Grindrod CBE
> > > Prof. Massimiliano Gubinelli
> > > Prof. Ben Hambly
> > > Prof. Heather Harrington
> > > Prof. Raphael Hauser
> > > Prof. Andre Henriques
> > > Prof. Ian Hewitt
> > > Dr Christopher Hollings
> > > Prof. Blanka Nora Horvath
> > > Prof. Peter Howell
> > > Prof. Sam Howison
> > > Prof. Ehud Hrushovski FRS
> > > Prof. Hanqing Jin
> > > Prof. Dominic Joyce FRS
> > > Prof. Andras Juhasz
> > > Prof. Jon Keating FRS
> > > Prof. Peter Keevash
> > > Prof. Dawid Kielak
> > > Prof. Frances Kirwan FRS
> > > Prof. Jochen Koenigsmann
> > > Prof. Yakov Kremnitzer
> > > Prof. Jan Kristensen
> > > Prof. Marc Lackenby
> > > Prof. Renaud Lambiotte
> > > Prof. Alan Lauder
> > > Prof. Jason D Lotay
> > > Prof. Terry Lyons FLSW FRSE FRS
> > > Prof. Philip K. Maini FRS FMedSci FRSB
> > > Prof. Lionel J Mason
> > > Prof. James Maynard
> > > Prof. Kevin McGerty
> > > Prof. Mark Mezei
> > > Prof. Andrea Mondino
> > > Prof. Michael Monoyios
> > > Prof. Irene Moroz
> > > Prof. Derek Moulton
> > > Prof. Andreas Münch
> > > Prof. Yuji Nakatsukasa
> > > Prof. Vidit Nanda
> > > Dr James Newton
> > > Prof. Luc Nguyen
> > > Prof. Nikolay Nikolov
> > > Prof. Harald Oberhauser
> > > Prof. Jan Obloj
> > > Prof. James Oliver
> > > Prof. Panagiotis Papazoglou
> > > Prof. Jonathan Pila FRS
> > > Prof. Zhongmin Qian
> > > Prof. Christoph Reisinger
> > > Prof. Oliver Riordan
> > > Prof. Alexander Ritter
> > > Prof. Damian Charles Rössler
> > > Prof. Melanie Rupflin
> > > Prof. Tom Sanders
> > > Prof. Sakura Schafer-Nameki
> > > Prof. Alex Scott
> > > Prof. Justin Sirignano
> > > Prof. James Sparks
> > > Prof. Endre Suli FRS
> > > Prof. Jared Tanner
> > > Prof. Ulrike Tillmann FRS
> > > Prof. Nick Trefethen FRS
> > > Dr Christoph Uhlemann
> > > Prof. Dominic Vella
> > > Dr Christopher Voyce
> > > Prof. Qian Wang
> > > Prof. Sarah Waters
> > > Prof. Andrew Wathen
> > > Prof. Stuart Andrew White
> > > Prof. Sir Andrew Wiles FRS
> > > Dr Catherine Wilkins
> > >
> > > Emeritus
> > > Dr David John Acheson
> > > Prof. John E Allen
> > > Dr David Allwright
> > > Prof. Sir John Ball FRS
> > > Prof. Charles Batty
> > > Prof. Bryan Birch FRS
> > > Prof. Philip Candelas FRS
> > > Prof. Michael Collins
> > > Dr Peter Collins
> > > Dr William Alan Day
> > > Dr Janet Dyson
> > > Dr David Edwards
> > > Dr Karin Erdmann
> > > Dr Chris L. Farmer
> > > Prof. Andrew Fowler
> > > Prof. Ian Grant FRS
> > > Dr Keith Hannabuss
> > > Prof. Richard G Haydon
> > > Prof. Roger Heath-Brown FRS
> > > Prof. Nigel Hitchin FRS
> > > Prof. Andrew Hodges
> > > Prof. Ioan James FRS
> > > Dr Glenys Luke
> > > Prof. Ursula Martin CBE FREng FRSE FBCS FIET FIMA
> > > Prof. Colin McDiarmid
> > > Prof. Bill Morton
> > > Prof. James D. Murray FRS, FRSE, FRSB
> > > Dr John Norbury
> > > Dr Hilary Ockendon
> > > Prof. John R. Ockendon FRS
> > > Prof. Colin Please
> > > Prof. Hilary Priestley
> > > Dr Christopher Prior
> > > Prof. Subir Sarkar
> > > Prof. Dan Segal
> > > Dr Graeme Segal FRS
> > > Prof. Gregory Seregin
> > > Prof. Ian Sobey
> > > Dr Brian Steer
> > > Dr Brian Stewart
> > > Prof. David Stirzaker
> > > Sir Martin Taylor FRS
> > > Prof. Paul Tod
> > > Dr Tsou Sheung Tsun
> > > Dr Graham Vincent-Smith
> > > Prof. Dominic Welsh
> > > Prof. J S Wilson
> > > Prof. Nick Woodhouse
> > > Prof. J.D. Maitland Wright
> > > Prof. Boris Zilber
> > > > Kibo-on Andrew Wiles math failure & mentally ill says Kibo while pounding his male rectum (so he says).
> > > >
> > > > On Friday, December 3, 1993 at 7:36:50 PM UTC-6, Andrew Wiles wrote:
> > > > > In view of the speculation on the status of my work on the
> > > >
> 
> 
> > > > Andrew, will your entire life be that of fake and con-art math, or is there some room for growth and maturity-- slant cut of cone is Oval, not your mindless ellipse. And can you comprehend a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, or is your math all a waste, waste of time, waste of science?
> > > >
> > > > You are a failure Andrew Wiles of math, a utter low class failure. Why you are so stupid in math logic, you never even saw that Euler had no proof in exponent 3 for Euler forgot that a proof of exp 3 required him to prove all three A,B,C are not even numbers, no, Euler just was too dumb in logic same as you Andrew to realize he had to prove A,B,C were not all three even. And to put a finer point on it-- why you Andrew Wiles is a math failure, is that you are so stupid in geometry as to still think a slant cut of cone is a ellipse when it is a oval. That is probably why you could never do a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for how could you when you cannot tell apart a ellipse from a oval.
> > > >
> > > > Your FLT fakery of 1990s is just con-art-- not mathematics, for AP proved FLT in 1991, see below.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Kibo Parry Moron-ey-Volney, why is this stalker arsewipe allowed to even post in sci.math or sci.physics, instead, he should be flushed down the toilet some 30 years ago.
> > > > On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 10:03:19 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > > > >Re: Showing the flaws in Stewart,Fisher & Ziebur, Ellis & Gulick, Strang, Apostol of their fake proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus in AP's new book // Overhaul & Revitalization of Calculus// Math-psychology-sociology (Amazon's Kindle)
> > > > > Botfly of Math and Blowfly of Physics
> > > > >"mentally ill"
> > > > > I Pound His Male Rectum
> > > > > The Delicious Rump Man
> > > >
> > > > AP wrote this for his new book: Overhaul & Revitalization of Calculus// Math-psychology-sociology
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium
> > > >
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > > 1:20 PM, July 1, 2023
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > > Everytime AP goes over his science and math, some new item comes up that I can elaborate and detail more about.
> > > >
> > > > In this diagram proof below, the A and B are discrete points of the Function Graph Curve with no numbers existing between A and B, and the midpoint "m" is fetched by hauling in higher Grid systems. Every number in Decimal Grid systems all the way out to infinity borderline 1*10^604 is ending in nothing but 0 digits, which insures a midpoint.
> > > >
> > > > What is so fantastically different from AP's New Math proof of FTC, which Old Math could never handle, is that the derivative is actually part and parcel the same as the Function Graph Curve.
> > > >
> > > > In all my proofs of FTC, I never showed the reverse of starting with a rectangular cell and then building the Function Graph Curve from the rectangle. Instead I showed just the trapezoid with the derivative inside as the right-traingle sitting atop the midpoint then swiveling-down the right-triangle to form the integral rectangle.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From this:
> > > > B
> > > > /|
> > > > / |
> > > > m /----|
> > > > / |
> > > > |A |
> > > > |____|
> > > >
> > > > To this:
> > > >
> > > > __m__
> > > > | |
> > > > | |
> > > > | |
> > > > ---------
> > > >
> > > > Now, let me start with a integral rectangle for a specific Grid System. Let me say I chose the Grid System to be 1000, then each cell along the x-axis is a width of 0.001 wide. Now how far out do I need to go to borrow to cover all midpoints? Well, for 0 to 0.001, I need 0.0005 to have a midpoint. Is that as far as I need to go? Will the 10,000 Grid System cover all midpoints?? Suppose I had 1.333, is the 10,000 Grid sufficient in borrowing? That comes to 0.6665 and so far so good.
> > > >
> > > > So I have these cells all up and down the x-axis, and reaching all the way to 1000 on the y-axis. I do not even have a function yet that is going to criss-cross through all the widths resting on the x-axis. I do not know what the function is that the mathematics-god is going to give me to plot. Now the math-god hands me the function x^2 --> Y.
> > > >
> > > > Alright, now I fill each empty cell.
> > > >
> > > > Each cell is looking like this empty rectangle only very tall and thin as the height is 1000 and the width is 0.001.
> > > >
> > > > __m__
> > > > | |
> > > > | |
> > > > | |
> > > > ---------
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > And I focus on the cell from 1 to 1.001. I could pick any cell, but I chose a cell to avoid a fraction only cell, a cell away from 1. For I am teaching and students have a hard time of numbers that are fractions only-- those numbers between 0 and 1. So I chose a number equal or after 1.
> > > >
> > > > __m__
> > > > | |
> > > > | |
> > > > | |
> > > > ---------
> > > > 1 1.001
> > > >
> > > > Now I apply the function that the math-god gave me. I apply x^2 --> Y.
> > > >
> > > > For 1 the x^2 is 1.
> > > >
> > > > For 1.001 the x^2 is 1.002001.
> > > >
> > > > In other words, I had the integral rectangle before I had the function itself, and now I graph that function.
> > > >
> > > > Now I draw in that cell the A = 1 and the B = 1.002001. My cell looks like this.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > B
> > > > /|
> > > > / |
> > > > m /----|
> > > > / |
> > > > |A |
> > > > |____|
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The midpoint of my cell "m" is 2 divided into 2.001 = 1.0005. I carved into the side wall of the integral rectangle to fetch a right triangle whose vertex points are A, and m, and B was where A is.
> > > >
> > > > Now I fill in the actual function graph curve that runs through my cell, as a derivative that is a straightline segment that goes from (1,1) to (1,1.002001).
> > > >
> > > > This is True Calculus, where the derivative and the function graph curve are the same thing.
> > > >
> > > > In Old Math, their derivative was an alien tangent line to a curve graph at a point.
> > > >
> > > > In New True Math, the derivative and the function graph curve are one and the same.
> > > >
> > > > The Reason, the Utter Reason calculus is so Valuable as a math tool is that given A, it predicts what B is going to be. For heaven's sake, that is why calculus is so valuable to physics law, it tells the physics law, given A, the derivative predicts B.
> > > >
> > > > Old Math professors of math are fools and village idiots that think a tangent to a point on a curved graph predicts anything, only shows us how empty headed they are in logic, Old Math professors have no logical marbles of a brain when it comes to calculus, for a tangent is not going to predict the next point of the Function graph curve.
> > > >
> > > > AP, King of Science, especially Physics & Logic
> > > >
> > > > My 245th published book of science
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Overhaul & Revitalization of Calculus// Math-psychology-sociology
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Preface: The purpose of this book is to move the dial on calculus education to where all of mathematics is easy, simple, clear, and understandable to even High School students. Where calculus is taught in early High School. All of this is possible when mistakes are corrected in Old Math. And when those mistakes are corrected, it is seen that calculus is just a tiny bit harder than learning the 4 operators of math-- add, subtract, multiply, divide. The last two operators of math are derivative and integral and not much harder to learn than add, subtract, multiply, divide. Provided, Old Math mistakes are corrected and or thrown out. We throw out the Reals as numbers of math and replace them with Decimal Grid Numbers. We throw out all functions of math, except polynomial functions. Anything else that looks like a function, we have to convert to a polynomial, first, over a interval, and then we can work with it. When we do this, and a little more, we end up with a mathematics and a calculus that is ultra simple, ultra easy, ultra clear, and fun to work with. But because of the psychology of math professors and the social environment of math careers, we have this ugly mess of math and especially calculus as torture chambers, nightmares and nervous breakdowns. So horrid has math education become, that most students steer clear of mathematics. When in truth, once the errors of Old Math are fixed, that math is really the easiest of the physical sciences. It is the psychology and sociology that has made math the worst science and filled with error.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cover Picture: My cover picture is my iphone photograph of my own handwriting of Decimal Grid Numbers, the numbers that replace the Reals of Old Math, plus the types of polynomials, sitting a-top a sheet of graphing paper. Those three dots after the numbers and polynomials means they continue and I have room to show only three kinds. Calculus is after all, a science of geometry for derivative is rate of change of dy to dx, and integral is after-all the area under the function graph.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Product details
> > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0C9P5F755
> > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ June 27, 2023
> > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 530 KB
> > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > • Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
> > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 116 pages
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My 6th published book
> > > >
> > > > World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
> > > >
> > > > Last revision was 29Apr2021. This is AP's 6th published book.
> > > >
> > > > Preface: Truthful proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem// including the fake Euler proof in exp3 and Wiles fake proof.
> > > >
> > > > Recap summary: In 1993 I proved Fermat's Last Theorem with a pure algebra proof, arguing that because of the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4 that this special feature of a unique number 4, allows for there to exist solutions to A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That the number 4 is a basis vector allowing more solutions to exist in exponent 2. But since there is no number with N+N+N = N*N*N that exists, there cannot be a solution in exp3 and the same argument for higher exponents. In 2014, I went and proved Generalized FLT by using "condensed rectangles". Once I had proven Generalized, then Regular FLT comes out of that proof as a simple corollary. So I had two proofs of Regular FLT, pure algebra and a corollary from Generalized FLT. Then recently in 2019, I sought to find a pure algebra proof of Generalized FLT, and I believe I accomplished that also by showing solutions to Generalized FLT also come from the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4. Amazing how so much math comes from the specialness of 4, where I argue that a Vector Space of multiplication provides the Generalized FLT of A^x + B^y = C^z.
> > > >
> > > > Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem type of equations.
> > > >
> > > > As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).
> > > >
> > > > Product details
> > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQKGW4M
> > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2019
> > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1503 KB
> > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 156 pages
> > > > • Best Sellers Rank: #4,327,817 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > > ◦ #589 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
> > > > ◦ #3,085 in Number Theory (Books)
> > > >
> > > > AP, King of Science, especially Physics and Logic
> > > >
> > > > On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 8:03:22 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > > > >"Imp of Science"
> > > > > "always wrong"
> > > >
> > > > P.S. AP suspects that someone in the Kibo gang of stalkers has again hacked and disabled AP's music sound, for it was 5 minutes into a reply of Kibo, that my sound went off. The gang needs jail time.
> > > >
> > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 3:26:59 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > > > >"always wrong"

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.
>

> #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)

Can_Dr.John Walker,Dr.John Kosterlitz,Dr.John Goodenough (chem), - -PLEASE--step into Univ of Oxford physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. AP's homegrown lab cannot do the fine tuning experiment of weighing a test tube of electrolyzed hydrogen and oxygen from water. If AP is correct Water is really H4O, not H2O. My weighing scale is puny and insufficient for the job at hand, 0.00001 gram or less of hydrogen and oxygen test tubes. If AP is correct the hydrogen is 1/4 the weight of oxygen, if mainstream chemistry, physics is correct the hydrogen is 1/8 in amu to oxygen.

For no-one at Oxford U. especially Andrew Wiles can admit slant cut of cone is Oval not ellipse. And no-one there can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, much less ask the simple physics question,-- which is the Atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle. So maybe Oxford can do a chemistry experiment, seeing they fail at most everything else. As the stalker Kibo Parry Volney points out--

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 9:26:36 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>"Village Idiot of
> Drag Queen of Science

Oxford University physics & chemistry
Dr.John Walker, Dr.John Kosterlitz,Dr.John Goodenough (chem),Dr.Douglas Abraham, Dr.Prateek Agrawal, Dr.Wade Allison, Dr.Arzhang Ardavan, Dr.Adam Baird, Dr.Patrick Baird, Dr. Michael Barnes, Dr. Alan Barr, Dr. Giles Barr, Dr. Tony Bell, Dr. Elliot Bentine, Dr. Steve Biller, Dr. James Binney, Dr. Stephen Blundell, Dr. Andrew Boothroyd, Dr. Nick Bultinck, Dr. Philip Burrows, Dr. Simon Calcutt, Dr. Matthew Capstick, Dr. Roger Cashmore, Dr. Andrea Cavalleri, Dr. John Chalker, Dr. Yulin Chen, Dr. Frank Close, Dr.Radu Coldea, Dr. Joseph Conlon, Dr.Susan Cooper, Dr.Garret Cotter, Dr.Richard D'Arcy, Dr. Roger Davies, Dr.Simon Davila Solano, Dr.Seamus Davis, Dr.Frederic Dreyer,Dr.Artur Ekert,Dr.Rik Elliott,Dr.Paul Ewart
>
> > > > +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within
>
> > > > +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within
> > > >
> > > > 3m views Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium
> > > >
> > > > In Old Chemistry and Old Physics, their subatomic particles were do nothing and no function and no job particles that sit around as balls or whiz around the outside of balls doing nothing but pointless circling.
> > > >
> > > > In New Physics and New Chemistry-- All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. Every subatomic particle has a job a function a purpose as to the Laws of Electromagnetism--- Faraday law, Coulomb law, Ampere law, Capacitor law.
> > > >
> > > > A proton is a torus of 840MeV with 840 windings, while the muon is the true electron of Atoms and is encased inside the proton torus thrusting through and producing electricity-- magnetic monopoles.
> > > >
> > > > The neutron of Atoms is a parallel plate capacitor storing the electricity of proton+muon and is skin cover on the outside of the proton torus in the form of parallel plates.
> > > >
> > > > Can hydrogen be a Atom if it is just a proton+muon? No, all atoms require to have a capacitor such as at least one neutron. Thus the Hydrogen Atom is H2 where you have 2 proton+muon where 1 of the 2 proton+muon acts like a neutron to the other proton+muon. Thus, water molecule is not H2O but rather is H4O.
> > > >
> > > > AP is waiting for experimental chemists and physicists to prove him correct that Water is H4O.
> > > >
> > > > In the meantime we have Hydroxyl which in Old Chemistry, especially Biology is OH, while AP says that is wrong and that is really H2O.
> > > >
> > > > Now glycerine is a hydroxyl with formula C3H8O3. And what I am thinking at this moment, is that hydroxyls will be an easier proof that Water is truly H4O, rather than wait for experimentalists to actually "weigh the electrolysis test tubes of oxygen and hydrogen".
> > > >
> > > > You see, with H4O as water, glycerine is C3(2 waters)O with an extra oxygen. If Water is H2O then glycerine is C3(4 waters) deficit O. It is missing an oxygen if water is H2O.
> > > >
> > > > The reason glycerine is so effective as a skin ointment is because it has glycerine, the extra O oxygen. If water were H2O, then glycerine would be a missing oxygen and not a skin lotion that works, but makes skin even more dry.
> > > >
> > > > Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium
> > > >
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > > 12:24 AM (13 hours ago)
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > >
> > > > --- quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---
> > > > Perhaps there is only two Faraday laws on Electrolysis. I am looking at the one that states: Faraday's first law of electrolysis relates the mass of a substance liberated (or deposited) at an electrode to the electric charge used (Q). A proportionality constant Z can be used:
> > > >
> > > > m = ZQ = (E/96485)(Q)
> > > >
> > > > m = mass, Q = total charge rewritten as Q = I*t amperes x time in seconds.
> > > >
> > > > This website gives an example: 5amps passed through molten Sodium Chloride for 3 hours. Calculate the mass of Sodium. E=23/1.
> > > >
> > > > m = (23/96485) (5) (3*60*60) approx 12.87 grams.
> > > >
> > > > --- end quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---
> > > >
> > > > Now has such a experiment been performed on Water to see how much atomic mass of hydrogen and of oxygen results??? If AP is correct, the formula of water is H4O, if Old Physics, Old Chemistry is correct the formula is H2O. So which is it???
> > > >
> > > > AP
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No, sorry no, Faraday's Law of Electrolysis is not going to tell the correct mass of hydrogen.
> > > >
> > > > Reading Wikipedia on Faraday's Electrolysis law.
> > > >
> > > > --- quoting Wikipedia ---
> > > > A monovalent ion requires 1 electron for discharge, a divalent ion requires 2 electrons for discharge and so on. Thus, if x electrons flow,
> > > > x/v atoms are discharged.
> > > >
> > > > So the mass m discharged is
> > > >
> > > > m= (xM)/vN_A) = (QM)/(eN_A *v) = (QM) / (vF)
> > > > where
> > > > N_A is the Avogadro constant;
> > > > Q = xe is the total charge, equal to the number of electrons (x) times the elementary charge e;
> > > > F is the Faraday constant.
> > > > --- end quoting Wikipedia ---
> > > >
> > > > No, the Faraday law of Electrolysis will not work on water with a correct answer, because H is not an atom but H2 is an Atom. And where one of the proton+muon converts to being a neutron to the other proton+muon.
> > > >
> > > > So if Faraday's law of Electrolysis was applied to water, thinking it would deliver a true answer is mistaken because the one H converts to neutron.
> > > >
> > > > So it appears that we need to directly measure the test tube of oxygen and the test tube of hydrogen by a direct mass measurement.
> > > >
> > > > AP
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > > 1:14 AM (12 hours ago)
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > > I doubt we can measure a test tube of hydrogen or test tube of oxygen, too small to determine the mass on some sort of weight scale.
> > > >
> > > > But here is a possible lucrative idea. We should be able to get pure deuterium water. Then run the electrolysis. Collect the test tubes.
> > > >
> > > > Now have some sort of balancing beam weight scale. Place the regular water of hydrogen test tube on one side, and place the deuterium water hydrogen test tube on other side. If they stay balanced, then AP is correct and Water is really H4O.
> > > >
> > > > AP
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > > 1:48 AM (11 hours ago)
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > > Cosmic Rays from Sun
> > > >
> > > > 90% of Sun's cosmic rays are 840MeV proton+muon inside = H. The hydrogen Atom is H2 where one of the H proton+muon converts to being a neutron.
> > > >
> > > > When these proton+muon hit Earth atmosphere, they can turn into pions and muons.
> > > >
> > > > I commented that H alone is a subatomic particle and that makes sense in the idea that Sun's cosmic rays are 90% these proton+muon.
> > > >
> > > > Now is interstellar hydrogen H2 and intergalactic hydrogen H2 formed when one H cosmic ray joins up with another H cosmic ray to form H2 atom?
> > > >
> > > > Is this how we get H2 in outer space? From the splitting apart of H2 into H cosmic rays?
> > > >
> > > > So how much of the Sun's hydrogen is H2 and how much is H ready to join with another H and reform back into H2. Probably little of the Sun's H is H alone, and the vast majority of the Sun's hydrogen is H2.
> > > >
> > > > How much deuterium in the Sun? And it is a higher percentage than the deuterium in water on Earth?
> > > >
> > > > AP
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > > 3:11 AM (10 hours ago)
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > > Water is the only known non-metallic substance that expands when if freezes; its density decreases and it expands approximately 9% by volume. (Source: web Lunar and Planetary Institute)
> > > >
> > > > I have to wait for experimental chemists and physicists to weigh the mass of test tubes from electrolysis, as to the verdict-- water is H4O.
> > > >
> > > > But until that news comes in, I will look for other means of proof.
> > > >
> > > > So AP says that the H2 is not a molecule but is the hydrogen Atom itself, where one proton+muon converts to a neutron and capacitates the other proton+muon which undergo the Faraday law.
> > > >
> > > > There are subatomic particles of H in the form of Cosmic Rays from the Sun, but most of the Sun's hydrogen is H2, and flips back and forth from H to rejoining to form H2. Some gets away from the Sun and is cosmic rays..
> > > >
> > > > But H2 is an Atom and H is a fleeting subatomic particle.
> > > >
> > > > So can I prove Water is H4O from the data of Spectral lines of H2 is the same as deuterium, only slight difference is that the deuterium is a full fledged neutron not a makeshift proton+muon of H.
> > > >
> > > > I suspect that special trait of water freezing is a proof that Water is H4O. Because the 840MeV proton torus with muon inside doing the Faraday law acting as a makeshift neutron capacitor for the other 840MeV proton torus with muon inside, is where H2 gets that expansion characteristic.
> > > >
> > > > A neutron is a parallel plate capacitor and those plates can expand when frozen temperature occurs. As the temperature gets colder, those plates move further apart.
> > > >
> > > > Now does deuterium which truly has a full neutron, does it expand also when frozen?? If so, does it expand as much as H2 which is 2 protons with 2 muons inside?
> > > >
> > > > So comparing the freezing and expansion of the parallel plates of a neutron in deuterium with the freezing and expansion of one of the proton+muon that is acting as a makeshift neutron in H2.
> > > >
> > > > If I can numbers correlate the H2 expansion with the Deuterium expansion would be a alternative proof that Water is really H4O and not H2O.
> > > >
> > > > AP
> > > > to
> > > > So now on Blankenship's book "Molecular Mechanisms of Photosynthesis", 2014, page 134, shows The structure of ATP, ADP, AMP. And within that structure are OH hydroxyls.
> > > >
> > > > In New Chemistry, water is truly H4O, and where hydroxyls are now H2O. And we have first proof of this in the Figure 8.1 of Blankenship's "Chemical structure of ATP".
> > > >
> > > > For in the lower left corner of the diagram, Blankenship has a H+ all alone, (really a mindless error) and has P surrounded by O-, O-, O and OH. The OH is really H2O for hydroxyls are H2O and water itself is H4O, and that would leave that mindless H+ as being hydrogen Atom of H2.
> > > >
> > > > The world of physics and chemistry should drop what they are doing and weigh the electrolysis test tube of hydrogen and oxygen to discover the correct true formula of water is H4O.
> > > >
> > > > AP is total confident, becuase an Atom cannot exist if it has no capacitor structure such as a neutron, or one of the H in H2 acting as a neutron. I am totally confident that Water formula is truly H4O. And I need look only to methane of H4C, to realize that there is no HC, no H2C, no H3C, but starts with H4C, and that tells me water starts with H4O. Totally confident that Old Chemistry, Old Physics did electrolysis experiments and the moment they saw hydrogen test tube be 2x volume of oxygen test tube, they dropped their work and went out for a Danish and coffee break, rather than finish their work--- actual physics weighing of atomic mass units (not the Faraday electrolysis law for it does not apply to water).
> > > >
> > > > When water electrolysis is physics weighed, AP is confident that there are 4H per every one oxygen O. And that Water is truly H4O.
> > > >
> > > > AP, King of Science
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > 9:34 AM (15 minutes ago)
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > to
> > > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 8:56:57 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > > Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.
> > > >
> > > > Now modern day physics and chemist experimenters can really do a marvelous job if they wanted to. For they could freeze the test tubes of oxygen and hydrogen to where they are liquid and compare liquids from water electrolysis.
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > 10:01 AM (5 hours ago)
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > to
> > > > So, what AP is saying here is that we do electrolysis of water. We collect the two test tubes, one with oxygen the other with hydrogen.
> > > >
> > > > To prove Water is truly the formula H4O and not H2O we must weigh the masses of the two tubes to find that the ratio is 1 x 16amu to 4 x 1amu.
> > > >
> > > > The silly grotesque science error of the past was to look at volumes in the two test tubes-- "Hey-- the hydrogen is twice the volume of oxygen so the formula of water is H2O".
> > > >
> > > > No, way was that science good practice. For the correct formula of water needs to be measured by mass, by atomic mass units where Oxygen is 16amu and hydrogen is 1amu.
> > > >
> > > > I suspect a balance beam scale is good enough to see the hydrogen test tube will be 1/4 as massive as the oxygen test tube. To get within precision of electronic weighing scale of 0.00001 gram we just have to make a larger test tube of electrolysis of water.
> > > >
> > > > AP is betting that the readings will be hydrogen test tube 1/4 the mass of oxygen test tube proving Water formula is truly H4O.
> > > >
> > > > Old Physics and Old Chemistry is betting that the mass experiment will have the hydrogen test tube be 1/8 the mass of the oxygen test tube, proving Water formula is H2O.
> > > >
> > > > AP does not have these precision equipment to conduct an at-home experiment of this nature.
> > > >
> > > > AP
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > 12:38 PM (4 hours ago)
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > to
> > > > So, once Water is found to actually be H4O, not H2O, we move on to methane, and ask the same question of its hydrogen bonds. Is Methane really that of H8C and not H4C.
> > > >
> > > > Well, looking in the literature for anomalies to methane, I come across a arXiv "Low and high-temperature anomalies in the physical properties of solid methane "The anomalous behavior of thermodynamic, spectral, plastic, elastic and some other properties of solid methane is discussed near 20..48K and...
> > > >
> > > > AP wonders: if they can get methane to solid form, well, I am then hopeful that the mass of the molecule can be determined. Because if methane is truly H8C, that difference of H4 in atomic mass units would be very much noticeable difference.
> > > >
> > > > Chemistry Europe--
> > > > "The Anomalous Deuterium Isotope Effect in the NMR Spectrum of Methane...
> > > >
> > > > P Vermeeren, 2023
> > > > "The abnormally long and weak methylidyne C-H bond.."
> > > > "The C-H bond of the methylidyne radical, CH*, is abnormally long and weak, even longer and..."
> > > >
> > > > AP asks, are these anomalies solved if we consider methane is actually H8C and not H4C?
> > > >
> > > > AP
>
>
> My 250th published book.
>
> TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY; H2 is the hydrogen Atom and water is H4O, not H2O// Chemistry
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
> Prologue: This textbook is 1/2 research history and 1/2 factual textbook combined as one textbook. For many of the experiments described here-in have not yet been performed, such as water is really H4O not H2O. Written in a style of history research with date-time markers, and fact telling. And there are no problem sets. This book is intended for 1st year college. Until I include problem sets and exercises, I leave it to the professor and instructor to provide such. And also, chemistry is hugely a laboratory science, even more so than physics, so a first year college student in the lab to test whether Water is really H4O and not H2O is mighty educational.
>
> Preface: This is my 250th book of science, and the first of my textbooks on Teaching True Chemistry. I have completed the Teaching True Physics and the Teaching True Mathematics textbook series. But had not yet started on a Teaching True Chemistry textbook series. What got me started on this project is the fact that no chemistry textbook had the correct formula for water which is actually H4O and not H2O. Leaving the true formula for hydroxyl groups as H2O and not OH. But none of this is possible in Old Chemistry, Old Physics where they had do-nothing subatomic particles that sit around and do nothing or go whizzing around the outside of balls in a nucleus, in a mindless circling. Once every subatomic particle has a job, task, function, then water cannot be H2O but rather H4O. And a hydrogen atom cannot be H alone but is actually H2. H2 is not a molecule of hydrogen but a full fledged Atom, a single atom of hydrogen.
>
> Cover Picture: Sorry for the crude sketch work but chemistry and physics students are going to have to learn to make such sketches in a minute or less. Just as they make Lewis diagrams or ball & stick diagrams. My 4-5 minute sketch-work of the Water molecule H4O plus the subatomic particle H, and the hydrogen atom H2. Showing how one H is a proton torus with muon inside (blue color) doing the Faraday law. Protons are toruses with many windings. Protons are the coils in Faraday law while muons are the bar magnets. Neutrons are the capacitors as parallel plates, the outer skin cover of atoms.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0CCLPTBDG
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ July 21, 2023
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 784 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 160 pages
>
>
>
>
>
>
> y z
> | /
> | /
> |/______ x

Can_Dr.Roger Penrose,Dr.John Kosterlitz,Dr.John Goodenough (chem), - -PLEASE--step into Univ of Oxford physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. AP's homegrown lab cannot do the fine tuning experiment of weighing a test tube of electrolyzed hydrogen and oxygen from water. If AP is correct Water is really H4O, not H2O. My weighing scale is puny and insufficient for the job at hand, 0.00001 gram or less of hydrogen and oxygen test tubes. If AP is correct the hydrogen is 1/4 the weight of oxygen, if mainstream chemistry, physics is correct the hydrogen is 1/8 in amu to oxygen.

> For no-one at Oxford U. especially Andrew Wiles can admit slant cut of cone is Oval not ellipse. And no-one there can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, much less ask the simple physics question,-- which is the Atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle. So maybe Oxford can do a chemistry experiment, seeing they fail at most everything else. As the 30 year nonstop stalker Kibo Parry Volney points out--
>
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 9:26:36 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> >"Village Idiot of
> > Drag Queen of Science
>
>
Oxford University physics & chemistry
Dr.John Walker, Dr.John Kosterlitz,Dr.John Goodenough (chem),Dr.Roger Penrose,Dr.Douglas Abraham, Dr.Prateek Agrawal, Dr.Wade Allison, Dr.Arzhang Ardavan, Dr.Adam Baird, Dr.Patrick Baird, Dr. Michael Barnes, Dr. Alan Barr, Dr.. Giles Barr, Dr. Tony Bell, Dr. Elliot Bentine, Dr. Steve Biller, Dr. James Binney, Dr. Stephen Blundell, Dr. Andrew Boothroyd, Dr. Nick Bultinck, Dr.. Philip Burrows, Dr. Simon Calcutt, Dr. Matthew Capstick, Dr. Roger Cashmore, Dr. Andrea Cavalleri, Dr. John Chalker, Dr. Yulin Chen, Dr. Frank Close, Dr.Radu Coldea, Dr. Joseph Conlon, Dr.Susan Cooper, Dr.Garret Cotter, Dr.Richard D'Arcy, Dr. Roger Davies, Dr.Simon Davila Solano, Dr.Seamus Davis, Dr.Frederic Dreyer,Dr.Artur Ekert,Dr.Rik Elliott,Dr.Paul Ewart
> >
> > > > > +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within
> >
> > > > > +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within
> > > > >
> > > > > 3m views Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > >
> > > > > In Old Chemistry and Old Physics, their subatomic particles were do nothing and no function and no job particles that sit around as balls or whiz around the outside of balls doing nothing but pointless circling.
> > > > >
> > > > > In New Physics and New Chemistry-- All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. Every subatomic particle has a job a function a purpose as to the Laws of Electromagnetism--- Faraday law, Coulomb law, Ampere law, Capacitor law.
> > > > >
> > > > > A proton is a torus of 840MeV with 840 windings, while the muon is the true electron of Atoms and is encased inside the proton torus thrusting through and producing electricity-- magnetic monopoles.
> > > > >
> > > > > The neutron of Atoms is a parallel plate capacitor storing the electricity of proton+muon and is skin cover on the outside of the proton torus in the form of parallel plates.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can hydrogen be a Atom if it is just a proton+muon? No, all atoms require to have a capacitor such as at least one neutron. Thus the Hydrogen Atom is H2 where you have 2 proton+muon where 1 of the 2 proton+muon acts like a neutron to the other proton+muon. Thus, water molecule is not H2O but rather is H4O.
> > > > >
> > > > > AP is waiting for experimental chemists and physicists to prove him correct that Water is H4O.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the meantime we have Hydroxyl which in Old Chemistry, especially Biology is OH, while AP says that is wrong and that is really H2O.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now glycerine is a hydroxyl with formula C3H8O3. And what I am thinking at this moment, is that hydroxyls will be an easier proof that Water is truly H4O, rather than wait for experimentalists to actually "weigh the electrolysis test tubes of oxygen and hydrogen".
> > > > >
> > > > > You see, with H4O as water, glycerine is C3(2 waters)O with an extra oxygen. If Water is H2O then glycerine is C3(4 waters) deficit O. It is missing an oxygen if water is H2O.
> > > > >
> > > > > The reason glycerine is so effective as a skin ointment is because it has glycerine, the extra O oxygen. If water were H2O, then glycerine would be a missing oxygen and not a skin lotion that works, but makes skin even more dry.
> > > > >
> > > > > Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > >
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > > > 12:24 AM (13 hours ago)
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > > >
> > > > > --- quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---
> > > > > Perhaps there is only two Faraday laws on Electrolysis. I am looking at the one that states: Faraday's first law of electrolysis relates the mass of a substance liberated (or deposited) at an electrode to the electric charge used (Q). A proportionality constant Z can be used:
> > > > >
> > > > > m = ZQ = (E/96485)(Q)
> > > > >
> > > > > m = mass, Q = total charge rewritten as Q = I*t amperes x time in seconds.
> > > > >
> > > > > This website gives an example: 5amps passed through molten Sodium Chloride for 3 hours. Calculate the mass of Sodium. E=23/1.
> > > > >
> > > > > m = (23/96485) (5) (3*60*60) approx 12.87 grams.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- end quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---
> > > > >
> > > > > Now has such a experiment been performed on Water to see how much atomic mass of hydrogen and of oxygen results??? If AP is correct, the formula of water is H4O, if Old Physics, Old Chemistry is correct the formula is H2O. So which is it???
> > > > >
> > > > > AP
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No, sorry no, Faraday's Law of Electrolysis is not going to tell the correct mass of hydrogen.
> > > > >
> > > > > Reading Wikipedia on Faraday's Electrolysis law.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- quoting Wikipedia ---
> > > > > A monovalent ion requires 1 electron for discharge, a divalent ion requires 2 electrons for discharge and so on. Thus, if x electrons flow,
> > > > > x/v atoms are discharged.
> > > > >
> > > > > So the mass m discharged is
> > > > >
> > > > > m= (xM)/vN_A) = (QM)/(eN_A *v) = (QM) / (vF)
> > > > > where
> > > > > N_A is the Avogadro constant;
> > > > > Q = xe is the total charge, equal to the number of electrons (x) times the elementary charge e;
> > > > > F is the Faraday constant.
> > > > > --- end quoting Wikipedia ---
> > > > >
> > > > > No, the Faraday law of Electrolysis will not work on water with a correct answer, because H is not an atom but H2 is an Atom. And where one of the proton+muon converts to being a neutron to the other proton+muon.
> > > > >
> > > > > So if Faraday's law of Electrolysis was applied to water, thinking it would deliver a true answer is mistaken because the one H converts to neutron.
> > > > >
> > > > > So it appears that we need to directly measure the test tube of oxygen and the test tube of hydrogen by a direct mass measurement.
> > > > >
> > > > > AP
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > > > 1:14 AM (12 hours ago)
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > > > I doubt we can measure a test tube of hydrogen or test tube of oxygen, too small to determine the mass on some sort of weight scale.
> > > > >
> > > > > But here is a possible lucrative idea. We should be able to get pure deuterium water. Then run the electrolysis. Collect the test tubes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now have some sort of balancing beam weight scale. Place the regular water of hydrogen test tube on one side, and place the deuterium water hydrogen test tube on other side. If they stay balanced, then AP is correct and Water is really H4O.
> > > > >
> > > > > AP
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > > > 1:48 AM (11 hours ago)
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > > > Cosmic Rays from Sun
> > > > >
> > > > > 90% of Sun's cosmic rays are 840MeV proton+muon inside = H. The hydrogen Atom is H2 where one of the H proton+muon converts to being a neutron.
> > > > >
> > > > > When these proton+muon hit Earth atmosphere, they can turn into pions and muons.
> > > > >
> > > > > I commented that H alone is a subatomic particle and that makes sense in the idea that Sun's cosmic rays are 90% these proton+muon.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now is interstellar hydrogen H2 and intergalactic hydrogen H2 formed when one H cosmic ray joins up with another H cosmic ray to form H2 atom?
> > > > >
> > > > > Is this how we get H2 in outer space? From the splitting apart of H2 into H cosmic rays?
> > > > >
> > > > > So how much of the Sun's hydrogen is H2 and how much is H ready to join with another H and reform back into H2. Probably little of the Sun's H is H alone, and the vast majority of the Sun's hydrogen is H2.
> > > > >
> > > > > How much deuterium in the Sun? And it is a higher percentage than the deuterium in water on Earth?
> > > > >
> > > > > AP
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > > > 3:11 AM (10 hours ago)
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > > > Water is the only known non-metallic substance that expands when if freezes; its density decreases and it expands approximately 9% by volume.. (Source: web Lunar and Planetary Institute)
> > > > >
> > > > > I have to wait for experimental chemists and physicists to weigh the mass of test tubes from electrolysis, as to the verdict-- water is H4O.
> > > > >
> > > > > But until that news comes in, I will look for other means of proof.
> > > > >
> > > > > So AP says that the H2 is not a molecule but is the hydrogen Atom itself, where one proton+muon converts to a neutron and capacitates the other proton+muon which undergo the Faraday law.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are subatomic particles of H in the form of Cosmic Rays from the Sun, but most of the Sun's hydrogen is H2, and flips back and forth from H to rejoining to form H2. Some gets away from the Sun and is cosmic rays.
> > > > >
> > > > > But H2 is an Atom and H is a fleeting subatomic particle.
> > > > >
> > > > > So can I prove Water is H4O from the data of Spectral lines of H2 is the same as deuterium, only slight difference is that the deuterium is a full fledged neutron not a makeshift proton+muon of H.
> > > > >
> > > > > I suspect that special trait of water freezing is a proof that Water is H4O. Because the 840MeV proton torus with muon inside doing the Faraday law acting as a makeshift neutron capacitor for the other 840MeV proton torus with muon inside, is where H2 gets that expansion characteristic.
> > > > >
> > > > > A neutron is a parallel plate capacitor and those plates can expand when frozen temperature occurs. As the temperature gets colder, those plates move further apart.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now does deuterium which truly has a full neutron, does it expand also when frozen?? If so, does it expand as much as H2 which is 2 protons with 2 muons inside?
> > > > >
> > > > > So comparing the freezing and expansion of the parallel plates of a neutron in deuterium with the freezing and expansion of one of the proton+muon that is acting as a makeshift neutron in H2.
> > > > >
> > > > > If I can numbers correlate the H2 expansion with the Deuterium expansion would be a alternative proof that Water is really H4O and not H2O.
> > > > >
> > > > > AP
> > > > > to
> > > > > So now on Blankenship's book "Molecular Mechanisms of Photosynthesis", 2014, page 134, shows The structure of ATP, ADP, AMP. And within that structure are OH hydroxyls.
> > > > >
> > > > > In New Chemistry, water is truly H4O, and where hydroxyls are now H2O. And we have first proof of this in the Figure 8.1 of Blankenship's "Chemical structure of ATP".
> > > > >
> > > > > For in the lower left corner of the diagram, Blankenship has a H+ all alone, (really a mindless error) and has P surrounded by O-, O-, O and OH. The OH is really H2O for hydroxyls are H2O and water itself is H4O, and that would leave that mindless H+ as being hydrogen Atom of H2.
> > > > >
> > > > > The world of physics and chemistry should drop what they are doing and weigh the electrolysis test tube of hydrogen and oxygen to discover the correct true formula of water is H4O.
> > > > >
> > > > > AP is total confident, becuase an Atom cannot exist if it has no capacitor structure such as a neutron, or one of the H in H2 acting as a neutron. I am totally confident that Water formula is truly H4O. And I need look only to methane of H4C, to realize that there is no HC, no H2C, no H3C, but starts with H4C, and that tells me water starts with H4O. Totally confident that Old Chemistry, Old Physics did electrolysis experiments and the moment they saw hydrogen test tube be 2x volume of oxygen test tube, they dropped their work and went out for a Danish and coffee break, rather than finish their work--- actual physics weighing of atomic mass units (not the Faraday electrolysis law for it does not apply to water).
> > > > >
> > > > > When water electrolysis is physics weighed, AP is confident that there are 4H per every one oxygen O. And that Water is truly H4O.
> > > > >
> > > > > AP, King of Science
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > > 9:34 AM (15 minutes ago)
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > to
> > > > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 8:56:57 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > > > Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now modern day physics and chemist experimenters can really do a marvelous job if they wanted to. For they could freeze the test tubes of oxygen and hydrogen to where they are liquid and compare liquids from water electrolysis.
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > > 10:01 AM (5 hours ago)
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > to
> > > > > So, what AP is saying here is that we do electrolysis of water. We collect the two test tubes, one with oxygen the other with hydrogen.
> > > > >
> > > > > To prove Water is truly the formula H4O and not H2O we must weigh the masses of the two tubes to find that the ratio is 1 x 16amu to 4 x 1amu.
> > > > >
> > > > > The silly grotesque science error of the past was to look at volumes in the two test tubes-- "Hey-- the hydrogen is twice the volume of oxygen so the formula of water is H2O".
> > > > >
> > > > > No, way was that science good practice. For the correct formula of water needs to be measured by mass, by atomic mass units where Oxygen is 16amu and hydrogen is 1amu.
> > > > >
> > > > > I suspect a balance beam scale is good enough to see the hydrogen test tube will be 1/4 as massive as the oxygen test tube. To get within precision of electronic weighing scale of 0.00001 gram we just have to make a larger test tube of electrolysis of water.
> > > > >
> > > > > AP is betting that the readings will be hydrogen test tube 1/4 the mass of oxygen test tube proving Water formula is truly H4O.
> > > > >
> > > > > Old Physics and Old Chemistry is betting that the mass experiment will have the hydrogen test tube be 1/8 the mass of the oxygen test tube, proving Water formula is H2O.
> > > > >
> > > > > AP does not have these precision equipment to conduct an at-home experiment of this nature.
> > > > >
> > > > > AP
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > > 12:38 PM (4 hours ago)
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > to
> > > > > So, once Water is found to actually be H4O, not H2O, we move on to methane, and ask the same question of its hydrogen bonds. Is Methane really that of H8C and not H4C.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, looking in the literature for anomalies to methane, I come across a arXiv "Low and high-temperature anomalies in the physical properties of solid methane "The anomalous behavior of thermodynamic, spectral, plastic, elastic and some other properties of solid methane is discussed near 20.48K and...
> > > > >
> > > > > AP wonders: if they can get methane to solid form, well, I am then hopeful that the mass of the molecule can be determined. Because if methane is truly H8C, that difference of H4 in atomic mass units would be very much noticeable difference.
> > > > >
> > > > > Chemistry Europe--
> > > > > "The Anomalous Deuterium Isotope Effect in the NMR Spectrum of Methane...
> > > > >
> > > > > P Vermeeren, 2023
> > > > > "The abnormally long and weak methylidyne C-H bond.."
> > > > > "The C-H bond of the methylidyne radical, CH*, is abnormally long and weak, even longer and..."
> > > > >
> > > > > AP asks, are these anomalies solved if we consider methane is actually H8C and not H4C?
> > > > >
> > > > > AP
> >
> >
> > My 250th published book.
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY; H2 is the hydrogen Atom and water is H4O, not H2O// Chemistry
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
> > Prologue: This textbook is 1/2 research history and 1/2 factual textbook combined as one textbook. For many of the experiments described here-in have not yet been performed, such as water is really H4O not H2O. Written in a style of history research with date-time markers, and fact telling. And there are no problem sets. This book is intended for 1st year college. Until I include problem sets and exercises, I leave it to the professor and instructor to provide such. And also, chemistry is hugely a laboratory science, even more so than physics, so a first year college student in the lab to test whether Water is really H4O and not H2O is mighty educational.
> >
> > Preface: This is my 250th book of science, and the first of my textbooks on Teaching True Chemistry. I have completed the Teaching True Physics and the Teaching True Mathematics textbook series. But had not yet started on a Teaching True Chemistry textbook series. What got me started on this project is the fact that no chemistry textbook had the correct formula for water which is actually H4O and not H2O. Leaving the true formula for hydroxyl groups as H2O and not OH. But none of this is possible in Old Chemistry, Old Physics where they had do-nothing subatomic particles that sit around and do nothing or go whizzing around the outside of balls in a nucleus, in a mindless circling. Once every subatomic particle has a job, task, function, then water cannot be H2O but rather H4O. And a hydrogen atom cannot be H alone but is actually H2. H2 is not a molecule of hydrogen but a full fledged Atom, a single atom of hydrogen.
> >
> > Cover Picture: Sorry for the crude sketch work but chemistry and physics students are going to have to learn to make such sketches in a minute or less. Just as they make Lewis diagrams or ball & stick diagrams. My 4-5 minute sketch-work of the Water molecule H4O plus the subatomic particle H, and the hydrogen atom H2. Showing how one H is a proton torus with muon inside (blue color) doing the Faraday law. Protons are toruses with many windings. Protons are the coils in Faraday law while muons are the bar magnets. Neutrons are the capacitors as parallel plates, the outer skin cover of atoms..
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0CCLPTBDG
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ July 21, 2023
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 784 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 160 pages
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > y z
> > | /
> > | /
> > |/______ x

Can_Dr.Joel Mesot,Dr.Klaus Kirch,Dr.Ursula Keller,Dr.Simon Lilly, -please--step into their ETH Zurich physics or chemistry lab or Oxford Univ, and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. AP's homegrown lab cannot do the fine tuning experiment of weighing a test tube of electrolyzed hydrogen and oxygen from water. If AP is correct Water is really H4O, not H2O. My weighing scale is puny and insufficient for the job at hand, 0.00001 gram or less of hydrogen and oxygen test tubes. If AP is correct the hydrogen is 1/4 the weight of oxygen, if mainstream chemistry, physics is correct the hydrogen is 1/8 in amu to oxygen.

On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 1:27:40 PM UTC-5, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
(snip to save space)

Jeff is that why Oxford University and ETH cannot do electrolysis is because Dr. Wiles and Dr. Joel Mesot cannot even give a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, much less a geometry proof, and these two still think slant cut of cone is ellipse when that is a oval??

My 245th published book of science.

Overhaul & Revitalization of Calculus// Math-psychology-sociology
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Preface: The purpose of this book is to move the dial on calculus education to where all of mathematics is easy, simple, clear, and understandable to even High School students. Where calculus is taught in early High School. All of this is possible when mistakes are corrected in Old Math. And when those mistakes are corrected, it is seen that calculus is just a tiny bit harder than learning the 4 operators of math-- add, subtract, multiply, divide.. The last two operators of math are derivative and integral and not much harder to learn than add, subtract, multiply, divide. Provided, Old Math mistakes are corrected and or thrown out. We throw out the Reals as numbers of math and replace them with Decimal Grid Numbers. We throw out all functions of math, except polynomial functions. Anything else that looks like a function, we have to convert to a polynomial, first, over a interval, and then we can work with it. When we do this, and a little more, we end up with a mathematics and a calculus that is ultra simple, ultra easy, ultra clear, and fun to work with. But because of the psychology of math professors and the social environment of math careers, we have this ugly mess of math and especially calculus as torture chambers, nightmares and nervous breakdowns. So horrid has math education become, that most students steer clear of mathematics. When in truth, once the errors of Old Math are fixed, that math is really the easiest of the physical sciences. It is the psychology and sociology that has made math the worst science and filled with error.

Cover Picture: My cover picture is my iphone photograph of my own handwriting of Decimal Grid Numbers, the numbers that replace the Reals of Old Math, plus the types of polynomials, sitting a-top a sheet of graphing paper. Those three dots after the numbers and polynomials means they continue and I have room to show only three kinds. Calculus is after all, a science of geometry for derivative is rate of change of dy to dx, and integral is after-all the area under the function graph.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0C9P5F755
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ June 27, 2023
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 530 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 116 pages

> > > > > > ETH Zurich
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joel Mesot, Gunther Dissertori
> > > > > > Paul Biran, Marc Burger, Patrick Cheridito, Manfred Einsiedler, Paul Embrechts
> > > > > > Giovanni Felder, Alessio Figalli, Norbert Hungerbuhler, Tom Ilmanen, Horst Knorrer
> > > > > > Emmanuel Kowalski
> > > > > > Urs Lang
> > > > > > Rahul Pandharipande
> > > > > > Richard Pink
> > > > > > Tristan Riviere
> > > > > > Dietmar Salamon
> > > > > > Martin Schweizer
> > > > > > Mete Soner
> > > > > > Michael Struwe
> > > > > > Benjamin Sudakov
> > > > > > Alain Sznitman
> > > > > > Josef Teichmann
> > > > > > Wendelin Werner
> > > > > > Thomas Willwacher
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Zurich ETH, physics dept
> > > > > > Charalampos Anastasiou, Niklas Beisert, Adrian Biland, Gianni Blatter, Marcella Carollo, Christian Degen, Leonardo Degiorgi, Gunther Dissertori, Klaus Ensslin, Tilman Esslinger, Jerome Faist, Matthias Gaberdiel, Aude Gehrmann-De Ridder, Vadim Geshkenbein, Christophorus Grab, Michele Graf, Jonathan Home, Roland Horisberger, Sebastian Huber, Thomas Markus Ihn, Atac Imamoglu, Steven Johnson, Ursula Keller, Klaus Kirch, Simon Lilly, Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner, Andre Rubbia, Werner Schmutz, Thomas Schulthess, Manfred Sigrist, Hans-Arno Synal, Matthias Troyer, Andreas Vaterlaus, Rainer Wallny, Andreas Wallraff, Werner Wegscheider, Audrey Zheludev, Oded Zilberberg

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

On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 11:40:09 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Can_Dr.Joel Mesot,Dr.Klaus Kirch,Dr.Ursula Keller,Dr.Simon Lilly, -please--step into their ETH Zurich physics or chemistry lab or Oxford Univ, and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. AP's homegrown lab cannot do the fine tuning experiment of weighing a test tube of electrolyzed hydrogen and oxygen from water. If AP is correct Water is really H4O, not H2O. My weighing scale is puny and insufficient for the job at hand, 0.00001 gram or less of hydrogen and oxygen test tubes. If AP is correct the hydrogen is 1/4 the weight of oxygen, if mainstream chemistry, physics is correct the hydrogen is 1/8 in amu to oxygen.
>
> On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 1:27:40 PM UTC-5, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> (snip to save space)
>
> Jeff is that why Oxford University and ETH cannot do electrolysis is because Dr. Wiles and Dr. Joel Mesot cannot even give a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, much less a geometry proof, and these two still think slant cut of cone is ellipse when that is a oval??
>

Do you mean the "University of Oxford", which you speak of as though you were a riverboat gambler?

On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 1:11:24 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 11:40:09 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Can_Dr.Joel Mesot,Dr.Klaus Kirch,Dr.Ursula Keller,Dr.Simon Lilly, -please--step into their ETH Zurich physics or chemistry lab or Oxford Univ, and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. AP's homegrown lab cannot do the fine tuning experiment of weighing a test tube of electrolyzed hydrogen and oxygen from water. If AP is correct Water is really H4O, not H2O. My weighing scale is puny and insufficient for the job at hand, 0.00001 gram or less of hydrogen and oxygen test tubes. If AP is correct the hydrogen is 1/4 the weight of oxygen, if mainstream chemistry, physics is correct the hydrogen is 1/8 in amu to oxygen.
> >
> > On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 1:27:40 PM UTC-5, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > (snip to save space)
> >
> > Jeff is that why Oxford University and ETH cannot do electrolysis is because Dr. Wiles and Dr. Joel Mesot cannot even give a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, much less a geometry proof, and these two still think slant cut of cone is ellipse when that is a oval??
> >
> Do you mean the "University of Oxford", which you speak of as though you were a riverboat gambler?

Intellectual Fraud, Simply: "Yeah, that's where you're at with a purported 'Fellow of Oxford University' and the like. Still, usually you wouldn't want to take the 'upgrade' to a normal associate of a Russell Group university...."

On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 12:18:01 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 1:11:24 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 11:40:09 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > Can_Dr.Joel Mesot,Dr.Klaus Kirch,Dr.Ursula Keller,Dr.Simon Lilly, -please--step into their ETH Zurich physics or chemistry lab or Oxford Univ, and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. AP's homegrown lab cannot do the fine tuning experiment of weighing a test tube of electrolyzed hydrogen and oxygen from water. If AP is correct Water is really H4O, not H2O. My weighing scale is puny and insufficient for the job at hand, 0.00001 gram or less of hydrogen and oxygen test tubes. If AP is correct the hydrogen is 1/4 the weight of oxygen, if mainstream chemistry, physics is correct the hydrogen is 1/8 in amu to oxygen.
> > >
> > > On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 1:27:40 PM UTC-5, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > (snip to save space)
> > >
> > > Jeff is that why Oxford University and ETH cannot do electrolysis is because Dr. Wiles and Dr. Joel Mesot cannot even give a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, much less a geometry proof, and these two still think slant cut of cone is ellipse when that is a oval??
> > >
> > Do you mean the "University of Oxford", which you speak of as though you were a riverboat gambler?
> Intellectual Fraud, Simply: "Yeah, that's where you're at with a purported 'Fellow of Oxford University' and the like. Still, usually you wouldn't want to take the 'upgrade' to a normal associate of a Russell Group university..."

"Oh, like you know any of them."
Most US college graduates would have some significant contact with one such person, sorry.
#imbecilicconspiracy

On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 9:09:02 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 12:18:01 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 1:11:24 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 11:40:09 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > Can_Dr.Joel Mesot,Dr.Klaus Kirch,Dr.Ursula Keller,Dr.Simon Lilly, -please--step into their ETH Zurich physics or chemistry lab or Oxford Univ, and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. AP's homegrown lab cannot do the fine tuning experiment of weighing a test tube of electrolyzed hydrogen and oxygen from water. If AP is correct Water is really H4O, not H2O. My weighing scale is puny and insufficient for the job at hand, 0.00001 gram or less of hydrogen and oxygen test tubes. If AP is correct the hydrogen is 1/4 the weight of oxygen, if mainstream chemistry, physics is correct the hydrogen is 1/8 in amu to oxygen.
> > > >
> > > > On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 1:27:40 PM UTC-5, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > (snip to save space)
> > > >
> > > > Jeff is that why Oxford University and ETH cannot do electrolysis is because Dr. Wiles and Dr. Joel Mesot cannot even give a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, much less a geometry proof, and these two still think slant cut of cone is ellipse when that is a oval??
> > > >
> > > Do you mean the "University of Oxford", which you speak of as though you were a riverboat gambler?
> > Intellectual Fraud, Simply: "Yeah, that's where you're at with a purported 'Fellow of Oxford University' and the like. Still, usually you wouldn't want to take the 'upgrade' to a normal associate of a Russell Group university..."
> "Oh, like you know any of them."
> Most US college graduates would have some significant contact with one such person, sorry.
> #imbecilicconspiracy

Wider World: "OMFG, f'in Fermat."

On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 8:53:35 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Is it because Dr. Wiles is too dishonest to admit slant cut of cone is Oval and not the ellipse for you need a slant cut in cylinder to obtain a ellipse. Or is it because Dr. Wiles is too stupid in math to do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus??
>
> On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 10:32:22 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> >of Math and of Physics "Drag Queen of Science"
> Re: Andrew Wiles "dunce" flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
>
> Why Kibo Parry Volney & Jan Burse?? Is it because Dr. Wiles is too dishonest to admit slant cut of cone is Oval and not the ellipse for you need a slant cut in cylinder to obtain a ellipse. Or is it because Dr. Wiles is too stupid in math to do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus??
>
> My 3rd published book
>
> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
> 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, 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)
> #12-3, My 24th published book
>
>
> World's First Proof of Kepler Packing Problem KPP // Math proof series, book 3
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
> There has been a alleged proof of KPP by Thomas Hales, but his is a fakery because he does not define what infinity actually means, for it means a borderline between finite and infinite numbers. Thus, KPP was never going to be proven until a well-defined infinity borderline was addressed within the proof. And because infinity has a borderline means that in free space with no borderlines to tackle and contend with, the 12 kissing point density that is the hexagonal close packed is the maximum density. But the truth and reality of Kepler Packing is asking for maximum packing out to infinity. That means you have to contend and fight with the packing of identical spheres up against a wall or border. And so, in tackling that wall, we can shift the hexagonal closed pack to another type of packing, a hybrid type of packing in order to get "maximum packing". So no proof ever of KPP is going to happen unless the proof tackles a infinity border wall. In free-space, a far distance away from a wall barrier of infinity border, then, hexagonal closed pack reigns and is the packing in all of free space-- but, the moment the packing gets nearby the walls of infinity border, then, we re-arrange the hexagonal closed pack to fit in more spheres. Not unlike us packing a suitcase and then rearranging to fit in more.
>
> Cover picture: is a container and so the closed packing must be modified once the border is nearly reached to maximize the number of spheres.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07NMV8NQQ
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 20, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1241 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 60 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
>
> #12-4, My 28th published book
>
> World's First Valid Proof of 4 Color Mapping Problem// Math proof series, book 4
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
> Now in the math literature it is alleged that Appel & Haken proved this conjecture that 4 colors are sufficient to color all planar maps such that no two adjacent countries have the same color. Appel & Haken's fake proof was a computer proof and it is fake because their method is Indirect Nonexistence method. Unfortunately in the time of Appel & Haken few in mathematics had a firm grip on true Logic, where they did not even know that Boole's logic is fakery with his 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 depending on which is subtracted. But the grave error in logic of Appel & Haken is their use of a utterly fake method of proof-- indirect nonexistence (see my textbook on Reductio Ad Absurdum). Wiles with his alleged proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is another indirect nonexistence as well as Hales's fake proof of Kepler Packing is indirect nonexistence.
> Appel & Haken were in a time period when computers used in mathematics was a novelty, and instead of focusing on whether their proof was sound, everyone was dazzled not with the logic argument but the fact of using computers to generate a proof. And of course big big money was attached to this event and so, math is stuck with a fake proof of 4-Color-Mapping. And so, AP starting in around 1993, eventually gives the World's first valid proof of 4-Color-Mapping. Sorry, no computer fanfare, but just strict logical and sound argument.
>
> Cover picture: Shows four countries colored yellow, red, green, purple and all four are mutually adjacent. And where the Purple colored country is landlocked, so that if it were considered that a 5th color is needed, that 5th color should be purple, hence, 4 colors are sufficient.
>
> Product details
> ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PZ2Y5RV
> Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 23, 2019
> Language ‏ : ‎ English
> File size ‏ : ‎ 1183 KB
> Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Print length ‏ : ‎ 34 pages
> Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
>
>
>
>
> #12-5, My 6th published book
>
> World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
> Last revision was 29Apr2021. This is AP's 6th published book.
>
> Preface: Truthful proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem// including the fake Euler proof in exp3 and Wiles fake proof.
>
> Recap summary: In 1993 I proved Fermat's Last Theorem with a pure algebra proof, arguing that because of the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4 that this special feature of a unique number 4, allows for there to exist solutions to A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That the number 4 is a basis vector allowing more solutions to exist in exponent 2. But since there is no number with N+N+N = N*N*N that exists, there cannot be a solution in exp3 and the same argument for higher exponents. In 2014, I went and proved Generalized FLT by using "condensed rectangles". Once I had proven Generalized, then Regular FLT comes out of that proof as a simple corollary. So I had two proofs of Regular FLT, pure algebra and a corollary from Generalized FLT. Then recently in 2019, I sought to find a pure algebra proof of Generalized FLT, and I believe I accomplished that also by showing solutions to Generalized FLT also come from the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4. Amazing how so much math comes from the specialness of 4, where I argue that a Vector Space of multiplication provides the Generalized FLT of A^x + B^y = C^z.
>
> Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem type of equations.
>
> As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQKGW4M
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1503 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 156 pages
> • Best Sellers Rank: #4,327,817 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #589 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
> ◦ #3,085 in Number Theory (Books)