novaBBS - sci.math - 5m views:: 252nd book of science// The units of mathematics and physics consolidated// physics research by Archimedes Plutonium

252nd book of science// The units of mathematics and physics consolidated// physics research by Archimedes Plutonium
5m views
Subscribe

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
1:43 AM (11 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
This book has become difficult for me in that writing it up almost finished, it was not logically coherent. Is the book about 3 and the importance of 3, or as I found in the last chapters, the book is more focused on a unification of Units of Math with Units of Physics.

If we look at units in physics such as this list:

electric current = i = A

Angular momentum L = kg*m^2/s

Magnetic Field = kg /A*s^2

Voltage = kg*m^2 /A*s^3

velocity or speed = m/s

acceleration = m/s^2

angular momentum = kg*m^2/s

frequency = 1/s

Force = kg*m/s^2

Pressure = kg / m*s^2

Energy = kg*m^2 / s^2

Power, or radiant flux = Energy times frequency, = kg*m^2 / s^3

Quantity of Electricity, Coulomb = C = A*s ( not the silly daffy + or - charge but a wire of monopoles)

Inertia = ML^2

Energy = Force x distance = work = ML^2T^-2

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 mv^2 = 1/2 ML^2T^-2

Force = current x mass x acceleration = ma = MLT^-2

Action = energy*time or it is momentum*length

velocity = LT^-1

acceleration = LT^-2

energy EM = ML^2T^-2

Entropy = ML^2T^-2
force = MLT^-2

frequency = T^-1

linear momentum EM = MLT^-1

linear momentum = MLT^-1

action = ML^2T^-1

Pressure = ML^-1T^-2

Power = ML^2T^-3

Entropy = ML^2T^-2

Magnetic Field = kg /A*s^2 = kg /C*s

Current = C = A*s = wire ( not the silly daffy + or - charge, but an actual wire of monopoles)

Voltage = kg*m^2 /A*s^3 = kg*m^2 /C*s^2

Pressure = kg/m*s^2
energy EM = ML^2T^-2

Entropy = ML^2T^-2
force = MLT^-2

Pressure = kg / m*s^2

Energy = kg*m^2 / s^2

Force = kg*m/s^2

Power = kg*m^2/s^3

Resistance = kg*m^2 /A^2*s^3 = kg*m^2 /C *A*s^2

Capacitance = A^2*s^4/ kg*m^2

velocity or speed = m/s

acceleration = m/s^2

angular momentum L = kg m^2/(A)s

frequency = 1/s

Force = kg*m/s^2

Pressure = kg / m*s^2

Energy = kg*m^2 / s^2

Power, or radiant flux = Energy times frequency, = kg*m^2 / s^3

Quantity of Electricity, current, Coulomb = C = A*s

Voltage is the (a) Electric Potential, the (b) Potential Difference and (c) Electromotive Force and all of which has the Units of W/A = kg*m^2/A*s^3

Capacitance = farad = C/V = A^2*s^4 / kg*m^2

Electrical Resistance = ohm = kg*m^2 /A^2*s^3

Conductance = A/V = A^2*s^3 / kg*m^2

Magnetic Flux = V*s = kg*m^2 /A*s^2

Magnetic Field = tesla = kg /A*s^2

Electric Field is E = kg*m^2/ A*s^2 = kg*m^2/ C*s

Resistance = kg*m^2/A^2*s^3

Inductance = kg*m^2 /A^2*s^2

velocity = LT^-1

acceleration = LT^-2

energy EM = ML^2T^-2

energy = ML^2T^-2

action = ML^2 T^-1

force = MLT^-2

frequency = T^-1

linear momentum = MLT^-1

Angular momentum = ML^2T^-1

Force = MLT^-2

Energy = ML^2T^-2

Pressure = ML^-1T^-2

Power = ML^2T^-3

Entropy = ML^2T^-2

Angular momentum L = kg*m^2/s

Action = kg*m^2/s where angular momentum = action = electric field

Current = A where the A represents Ampere

Quantity of Current = C = A*s where the C represents Coulomb

Magnetic Field B = kg/ C*s

Electric Field is E = kg*m^2/ A*s^2 = kg*m^2/ C*s

Voltage = C*B*E = kg*m^2 /A*s^3 = kg*m^2 /C*s^2

Conductance = A/V = A^2*s^3 / kg*m^2

Capacitance = farad = C/V = A^2*s^4 / kg*m^2

If we look at that list, we do see some exponent 3, but rarely, and there is even a exponent 4 in capacitance.

But here is a theme I want to discuss. The derivative of calculus in math is 2 dimensional of a x-axis and y-axis where the integral is area under function graph curve. And when you take the integral, you raise the exponent to a higher power. So if the function is in 2D and raising it in integral we are in 3D.

If we are in 2D with the function graph and taking the derivative, we lower the exponent by 1 (polynomial power rule of calculus).

For example, we have a function graph of speed meters/second. The derivative is acceleration of meters/seconds^2 and if we include a mass we have force. The integral with respect to meters is meters^2/sec a angular momentum. Taking the derivative of meters^2/second with respect to seconds is meters^2/seconds^2 which is Energy if we include mass.

So what are the units of Mathematics if the above is a list of units in Physics. That Physics list of units is basically Mass and Meters and Time, the common familiar MKS physics units of meters, kilograms, seconds.

Now math also has units but they never admitted to that fact. In Math, the units are the 3 variables of the x-axis, the y-axis and the z-axis.

So in physics, the units are MKS and in math the units are xyz axes. In fact this is what we do when we take speed as being x axis of time and y axis as distance length, the dy/dx of a function graph, its slope at a point on the graph.

Now in the above physics units listed there appears to be some parameters that are not MKS such as Ampere A or C Coulomb, and even some units have a T temperature. But all those can be reduced to MKS.

And so, what is the link-up here of the number 3 with the units of math or units of physics? The link-up is that we need just 3 such units in both math and in physics.

And it is important that the graph is 2D, which when integrated becomes 3D, and that dimension of Space ends at 3D. So the Calculus of mathematics is going to determine what are meaningful units.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
2:10 AM (10 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
So as I was writing this book on the importance of the number 3 in physics, and in math, I was not able to express the larger meaning of this book-- the meaning that units of math and physics are essentially bound up together in 3 types.

And the Primal Axiom over all Science, including mathematics is All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism.

To form the Equations and laws of Electromagnetism we take New Ohm's Law Voltage = Coulomb*Magnetic Field B * Electric Field E. Now the multiplication by * is a generalized multiplication, it could be scalar or dot product or cross product.

But that Equation has the form V=CBE. And that equation through all permutations of the derivative yields all the laws of electromagnetism. Every one of Maxwell's corrected equations are within V=CBE differential equations.

So now the question is, in V=CBE, do I have 3 variables in math or 4 variables? Is V a variable or is V a resultant answer from only 3 variables.

Here I have to stop and correct the Mathematics and Physics community of their bad and horrible logic. Most never even knew this question exists and there is trouble here.

The trouble is, is V=CBE of 3 axes or of 4 axes where all 4 V,C,B,E are independent?

And here the answer lies within a Logical Hardship that no-one in Old Physics or Old Math recognized. The answer lies in the difference between a Equation of Math and a Function of Math.

Most in Old Physics and Old Math were sloppy, as sloppy as can be. Perhaps every textbook of Old Math and Old Physics write their functions with a equal sign F_x = x^2. Or some write it as Y = x^2. But a function is not an equation, but far different. A function is a progression of mapping x values to a given y value. And the proper and correct way of writing a function is x^2 --> Y, or x^2 --> F_x.

Once we know that, then our New Ohm's law is really 3 variables of CBE, not 4 variables. And that CBE =V is an equation. The 3 variables, the C makes the x-axis, the B makes the y-axis and the E makes the z axis. There is no independent 4th axis for voltage.

For example, volume in geometry is Volume= length*width*height, 3 independent variables of math, and volume is a resultant number answer, not a 4th axis nor a 4th dimension.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
3:12 AM (9 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
What I did in mathematics starting 2013 with a geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus FTC, was put all of mathematics ideas under the test of calculus. In other words, are the Reals the numbers of mathematics? No they are fake because the Reals cannot give you a proof of FTC. Are the 4 quadrants of graphing correct or is 1st Quadrant Only the proper graphing? Here again FTC steps in and says we have to throw out 3 of the 4 quadrants. In other words, FTC became a consistency check upon mathematics. If we take the Reals we throw out calculus. If we take 4 quadrants we throw out calculus. We never want to throw out calculus, thus we throw out the Reals and the other 3 quadrants.

So using Calculus as a consistency check upon mathematics was highly rewarding for it throws out much of the fakery of Old Math.

But now, here, I am applying that Calculus as a consistency check upon concepts and ideas in physics. Can we have Calculus if we had 4th dimension or higher? Apparently the answer is that calculus exists only in 2nd and 3rd dimension and no higher.

And we see this in speed and force and energy in physics. Energy is a mere meter^2/second^2. Volume in Space is a mere meters^3. When you integrate on energy of meters^2 you get meters^3.

Click here to read the complete article

Re: _Kibo's corpse fucking--UCLA Dr. Terence Tao. Why Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney, is it because Dr.Tao runs and hides when faced with the question of slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse? Or is it because Dr.Tao fails math
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 6:14:37 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>Re: "barking fuckdog"

Re: _Kibo's corpse fucking--UCLA Dr. Terence Tao. Why Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney, is it because Dr.Tao runs and hides when faced with the question of slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse? Or is it because Dr.Tao fails math with never a geometry pr
by
V May 13, 2023, 12:44:05 PM

Or, Kibo, is it because Dr.Tao cannot do a geometry proof, much less a valid 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)

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

Subject	Author
5m views:: 252nd book of science// The units of mathematics and physics consolid	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: 5m views:: 252nd book of science// The units of mathematics and	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: 5 views:: Archimedes "barking fuckdog" Plutonium flunked the math	Volney
Re: 5 views:: Archimedes "barking fuckdog" Plutonium flunked the math	Archimedes Plutonium

Don't compare floating point numbers solely for equality.

tech / sci.math / 5m views:: 252nd book of science// The units of mathematics and physics consolidated// physics research by Archimedes Plutonium