Dan Christensen asks the question is every Canadian College and University -- logically brain-dead-- and are hopeless in seeing that Boole screwed up AND with OR?
On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 1:33:04 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of

Rose Patten, like James Leech, just like Linda of UWO, please look at (12) especially, for the way students and adults think is of concern. Because if students and adults cannot even think straight and clear, hindered by even their education of brainwash and propaganda is of major concern, especially if those students want to go into science.

So there was 1854 with George Boole in England trying to figure out what the truth tables of Logic connectors should be. The tables for AND, for OR, for If-->Then, for Equal+Not.

Boole made several colossal mistakes in his truth table, especially for AND with OR. It is common sense reasoning, even the village idiots that live around University of Western Ontario would know that 2 AND 1 = 3. And for subtraction 2 OR 1, would be either you take 2 and discard 1 or you take 1 and discard 2. Simple enough, even village idiots of UWO would recognize and follow that.

However, Boole, the so called Father of Logic, got it horribly messed up. He switched them around. Some say Boole was "gay" and perhaps because of gayness-- for gay is switched around sex desire. That perhaps Boole switched the Logic connectors. But that is no excuse for brainwashing young students into force demanding them to say the AND table is TFFF when it really is TTTF. And forcing students to learn a logic that ends up with 2 OR 1 = 3.

Yes, computer science realized you needed a truth table of TTTF for addition in computers, but those in computer science were just not intelligent enough to say-- Boole was wrong and that OR as FTTF could not fulfill the need.. And that AND as TTTF does fill the vacancy of truth.

No, instead the boneheaded philosophers and ignorant logicians and ignorant mathematicians came up with a contradiction in terms of Either.. Or.. Or.. Both to say that OR as either or or both would fill the vacancy. Trouble with that, is it is a contradiction, for Either or or Both ends up not as TTTF but ends up as TTTT.

So, Linda, the story of Boole is that he went to teach class and forgot his umbrella and caught in a nasty rainstorm. He arrived at College soaking wet and instead of looking for dry clothes to serve his lecture, nay, he taught in rain soaked clothing shivering like crazy while his students laughed at him. Boole caught pneumona and ordered his wife to cold bath him and wet his bed, thinking that coldness conquers pneumonia. And a crazy insane Boole died of pneumonia, having lived a life barren of logical thought, and so his work in logic is also--- barren of truth.

So, Linda, your school of Univ Western Ontario is not doing a service to students in teaching Logic and how to think straight and clear but teaching propaganda b.s. that thwarts even perhaps destroys the young minds of students wanting to know the truth of the world of science.

AP's List of 61 fakes and mistakes of Old Math.

These can be found in AP's TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS series.

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for ages 18-19 Freshperson College, math textbook series, book 3

Teaching True Mathematics, by Archimedes Plutonium 2019

Listing the Errors of Old Math, list of 1 to 50.

Alright, well, mathematics is a closed subject. What I mean by that is due to the textbook series of Archimedes Plutonium TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, that once you learn the polynomial transform and learn the two Power Rules of Calculus, you reached the peak the pinnacle of all of mathematics, and anything further in math is just details of what you learn in that textbook series. Math is a completed science, unlike the other 5 hard sciences of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy. Those other five will continue to find new ideas, new things, while math remains static and complete. Mathematics is finished complete as far as a science goes. And even though Physics will find new science such as how the proton toruses inside of atoms are configured in geometry, the geometry and calculus used in that configuration, that new science does not change nor does it create or require new math to handle the new physics.

Now I do need to discuss the Errors of Math in General and the errors of math in geometry in particular. I have the feeling that Geometry is the more important of the two-- algebra - geometry. This list appears in most of AP's Teaching True Mathematics textbook series by Archimedes Plutonium, meant to be a guide and orientation, and a organizing of what must be covered before graduating from College, and what math to steer clear of.

Errors mostly, but not always, for some are included because too much time spent on them.

1) No curves exist in Geometry, only finer and smaller straight line segments attached to one another.

2) Space has gaps in between one point and the next point. These gaps are empty space from one point to the next point, for example in 10 Grid there is no number between .1 and .2, and in 100 Grid there exists no number between .01 and .02.

3) Infinity has a borderline and there is a microinfinity compared to a macroinfinity. For example in 10 Grid, the microinfinity is .1 if we exclude 0 and so there is no number smaller than .1 and no number larger than 10 in 10 Grid, where 10 is macroinfinity.

4) The 1st Quadrant Only in Coordinate System Geometry. Sad that the first coordinate system of Descartes was correct but soon became corrupted with 4 quadrants. See Mathematical Thought, Volume 1, Kline, 1972, page 303. Where Fermat then Descartes starts the Cartesian Coordinate System as 1 axis only and from 0 rightwards, meaning in our modern day math, 1st Quadrant Only.. Why did math screw up on coordinate systems? I suppose some clowns thought negative numbers were true and they wanted ease of drawing a circle with center at 0. When they could have just as easily drawn the circle in 1st Quadrant Only.

5) Calculus needed a Geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, but Old Math never provided such, instead they provided some stupid Limit argument. The reason for the creation of the Limit disaster was that the French mathematician Cauchy got sick and tired of hearing his smartest students complain that the width of rectangles in the integral are 0 width, and those smart students could not, for the life of them understand how a rectangle with 0 width has any interior area. So instead of the math community denouncing the limit, instead they elevated the fakery.

6) Further in Calculus, they knew you could do a transform of coordinate points to turn any function into a polynomial function, a method of Lagrange. However, they in Old Math were too stupid to take this transform to its highest form-- all functions are polynomial functions and only polynomial functions. When you learn that-- the derivative and integral of any and every function of math is a snap breeze simple and easy.

7) With the error filled 4 quadrants, when it should be 1st Quadrant Only, we have Trigonometry's sine and cosine with the fakery of sinusoid wave when it never was that. The sine and cosine are semicircle waves, and no sinusoid wave exists.

8) There is only one Geometry-- Euclidean, and there is not three distinct geometries of elliptical Riemannian or hyperbolic Lobachevsky. Those two are just duals that make up Euclidean.

9) Torus, volume and surface area formulas in Old Math are all screwed up and in error because they imagined bending a cylinder to form a torus. This brings back memories, for I had to do a percentage formula, since I could not follow the fake way of bending a cylinder. Where 78.5% of Disc Torus (pi)R^2h - (pi)r^2h is the volume of Circle Torus, and 78.5% of Disc Torus 2(pi)Rh + 2(pi)rh + 2 ((pi)R^2 - (pi)r^2) is the surface area of Circle Torus.

10) Ellipse is never a conic slant cut, always a cylinder slant cut.

11) All Parallelepipeds reduced to a Rectangular Box by making 2 cuts and pastes. Volume of the original Parallelepiped is simply a*b*c of the Rectangular Box length*width*depth formed. Old Math never understood that a precise definition of Parallelepiped has two kinds, the parallelepiped that has 90 degree angles and the parallelepiped that has no 90 degree angle.

12) All of Old Logic such as the textbooks by Copi and Boole and Jevons with their messed up operators -- their logic connectors of AND, OR, If->Then, Equal+Not, Boole went insane with logic for he never lived a logical life as he even thought cold bathes and a wet bed would cure him of pneumonia, so insane was Boole he taught class shivering in rain soaked clothes and so when it came time to decide for Boole what AND should be, he thought its table was TFFF, not realizing that if just one statement among many statements is true, then the entire collection is true and thus the true truth table of AND must be TTTF and now in modern day computer making times of 1990s onward we see clearer the Boole error of logic for the computers are expressing the thoroughly wrong and muddle headed Boole logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction of 2 AND 1 = either 1 or 2 as in subtraction of the other. And the Boole mistake of AND and OR is easily fixed as we correct AND to be TTTF and we accept only a OR truth table of FTTF.

13) Set theory is thrown out completely, although we can use the word "set" to mean collection, group. All of Cantor set theory is phony baloney, not worth reading. There never was anything to set theory and was seen as the "part of math inhabited by those crippled in mind to doing regular math" as they played around with Venn diagrams when they should be learning true math of calculus.

1 Dan Christensen asks the question is every Canadian College and University -- logically brain-dead-- and are hopeless in seeing that Boole screwed up AND with OR?

On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 2:55:46 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of

1> Rose Patten, like James Leech, just like Linda of UWO, please look at (12) especially, for the way students and adults think is of concern. Because if students and adults cannot even think straight and clear, hindered by even their education of brainwash and propaganda is of major concern, especially if those students want to go into science.
>
1> So there was 1854 with George Boole in England trying to figure out what the truth tables of Logic connectors should be. The tables for AND, for OR, for If-->Then, for Equal+Not.
>
1> Boole made several colossal mistakes in his truth table, especially for AND with OR. It is common sense reasoning, even the village idiots that live around University of Western Ontario would know that 2 AND 1 = 3. And for subtraction 2 OR 1, would be either you take 2 and discard 1 or you take 1 and discard 2. Simple enough, even village idiots of UWO would recognize and follow that.
>
1> However, Boole, the so called Father of Logic, got it horribly messed up.. He switched them around. Some say Boole was "gay" and perhaps because of gayness-- for gay is switched around sex desire. That perhaps Boole switched the Logic connectors. But that is no excuse for brainwashing young students into force demanding them to say the AND table is TFFF when it really is TTTF. And forcing students to learn a logic that ends up with 2 OR 1 = 3..
>
> Yes, computer science realized you needed a truth table of TTTF for addition in computers, but those in computer science were just not intelligent enough to say-- Boole was wrong and that OR as FTTF could not fulfill the need. And that AND as TTTF does fill the vacancy of truth.
>
> No, instead the boneheaded philosophers and ignorant logicians and ignorant mathematicians came up with a contradiction in terms of Either.. Or.. Or... Both to say that OR as either or or both would fill the vacancy. Trouble with that, is it is a contradiction, for Either or or Both ends up not as TTTF but ends up as TTTT.
>
> So, Linda, the story of Boole is that he went to teach class and forgot his umbrella and caught in a nasty rainstorm. He arrived at College soaking wet and instead of looking for dry clothes to serve his lecture, nay, he taught in rain soaked clothing shivering like crazy while his students laughed at him. Boole caught pneumona and ordered his wife to cold bath him and wet his bed, thinking that coldness conquers pneumonia. And a crazy insane Boole died of pneumonia, having lived a life barren of logical thought, and so his work in logic is also--- barren of truth.
>
> So, Linda, your school of Univ Western Ontario is not doing a service to students in teaching Logic and how to think straight and clear but teaching propaganda b.s. that thwarts even perhaps destroys the young minds of students wanting to know the truth of the world of science.
>
>
> AP's List of 61 fakes and mistakes of Old Math.
> These can be found in AP's TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS series.
>
>
> TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for ages 18-19 Freshperson College, math textbook series, book 3
>
> Teaching True Mathematics, by Archimedes Plutonium 2019
>
> Listing the Errors of Old Math, list of 1 to 50.
> Alright, well, mathematics is a closed subject. What I mean by that is due to the textbook series of Archimedes Plutonium TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, that once you learn the polynomial transform and learn the two Power Rules of Calculus, you reached the peak the pinnacle of all of mathematics, and anything further in math is just details of what you learn in that textbook series. Math is a completed science, unlike the other 5 hard sciences of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy. Those other five will continue to find new ideas, new things, while math remains static and complete. Mathematics is finished complete as far as a science goes. And even though Physics will find new science such as how the proton toruses inside of atoms are configured in geometry, the geometry and calculus used in that configuration, that new science does not change nor does it create or require new math to handle the new physics.
> Now I do need to discuss the Errors of Math in General and the errors of math in geometry in particular. I have the feeling that Geometry is the more important of the two-- algebra - geometry. This list appears in most of AP's Teaching True Mathematics textbook series by Archimedes Plutonium, meant to be a guide and orientation, and a organizing of what must be covered before graduating from College, and what math to steer clear of.
>
> Errors mostly, but not always, for some are included because too much time spent on them.
>
> 1) No curves exist in Geometry, only finer and smaller straight line segments attached to one another.
>
> 2) Space has gaps in between one point and the next point. These gaps are empty space from one point to the next point, for example in 10 Grid there is no number between .1 and .2, and in 100 Grid there exists no number between .01 and .02.
>
> 3) Infinity has a borderline and there is a microinfinity compared to a macroinfinity. For example in 10 Grid, the microinfinity is .1 if we exclude 0 and so there is no number smaller than .1 and no number larger than 10 in 10 Grid, where 10 is macroinfinity.
>
> 4) The 1st Quadrant Only in Coordinate System Geometry. Sad that the first coordinate system of Descartes was correct but soon became corrupted with 4 quadrants. See Mathematical Thought, Volume 1, Kline, 1972, page 303. Where Fermat then Descartes starts the Cartesian Coordinate System as 1 axis only and from 0 rightwards, meaning in our modern day math, 1st Quadrant Only. Why did math screw up on coordinate systems? I suppose some clowns thought negative numbers were true and they wanted ease of drawing a circle with center at 0. When they could have just as easily drawn the circle in 1st Quadrant Only.
>
> 5) Calculus needed a Geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, but Old Math never provided such, instead they provided some stupid Limit argument. The reason for the creation of the Limit disaster was that the French mathematician Cauchy got sick and tired of hearing his smartest students complain that the width of rectangles in the integral are 0 width, and those smart students could not, for the life of them understand how a rectangle with 0 width has any interior area. So instead of the math community denouncing the limit, instead they elevated the fakery.
>
> 6) Further in Calculus, they knew you could do a transform of coordinate points to turn any function into a polynomial function, a method of Lagrange. However, they in Old Math were too stupid to take this transform to its highest form-- all functions are polynomial functions and only polynomial functions. When you learn that-- the derivative and integral of any and every function of math is a snap breeze simple and easy.
>
> 7) With the error filled 4 quadrants, when it should be 1st Quadrant Only, we have Trigonometry's sine and cosine with the fakery of sinusoid wave when it never was that. The sine and cosine are semicircle waves, and no sinusoid wave exists.
>
> 8) There is only one Geometry-- Euclidean, and there is not three distinct geometries of elliptical Riemannian or hyperbolic Lobachevsky. Those two are just duals that make up Euclidean.
>
> 9) Torus, volume and surface area formulas in Old Math are all screwed up and in error because they imagined bending a cylinder to form a torus. This brings back memories, for I had to do a percentage formula, since I could not follow the fake way of bending a cylinder. Where 78.5% of Disc Torus (pi)R^2h - (pi)r^2h is the volume of Circle Torus, and 78.5% of Disc Torus 2(pi)Rh + 2(pi)rh + 2 ((pi)R^2 - (pi)r^2) is the surface area of Circle Torus.
>
> 10) Ellipse is never a conic slant cut, always a cylinder slant cut.
>
> 11) All Parallelepipeds reduced to a Rectangular Box by making 2 cuts and pastes. Volume of the original Parallelepiped is simply a*b*c of the Rectangular Box length*width*depth formed. Old Math never understood that a precise definition of Parallelepiped has two kinds, the parallelepiped that has 90 degree angles and the parallelepiped that has no 90 degree angle.
> 12) All of Old Logic such as the textbooks by Copi and Boole and Jevons with their messed up operators -- their logic connectors of AND, OR, If->Then, Equal+Not, Boole went insane with logic for he never lived a logical life as he even thought cold bathes and a wet bed would cure him of pneumonia, so insane was Boole he taught class shivering in rain soaked clothes and so when it came time to decide for Boole what AND should be, he thought its table was TFFF, not realizing that if just one statement among many statements is true, then the entire collection is true and thus the true truth table of AND must be TTTF and now in modern day computer making times of 1990s onward we see clearer the Boole error of logic for the computers are expressing the thoroughly wrong and muddle headed Boole logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction of 2 AND 1 = either 1 or 2 as in subtraction of the other. And the Boole mistake of AND and OR is easily fixed as we correct AND to be TTTF and we accept only a OR truth table of FTTF.
>
>
> 13) Set theory is thrown out completely, although we can use the word "set" to mean collection, group. All of Cantor set theory is phony baloney, not worth reading. There never was anything to set theory and was seen as the "part of math inhabited by those crippled in mind to doing regular math" as they played around with Venn diagrams when they should be learning true math of calculus.
>
> 14) Rationals and Negative Numbers thrown out completely because the only true numbers are Decimal Grid Numbers. Some would complain, why AP throws out Rationals? And the answer is simple, that numbers must be free of operations, for Rationals are unresolved divisions. Numbers are free and clear of any operator. Numbers have to be formed purely from mathematical-induction and having no unfinished operator. The Smallest set of Grid numbers is the 10 Grid System with its infinitesimal being .1, and the entire collection of 10 Grid is 0, .1, .2, .3, . . , 9.9, 10.0 where .1 is microinfinity and 10 is macroinfinity. In 100 Grid the infinitesimal is .01, in 1000 Grid the infinitesimal is .001, etc etc. In such a true system of numbers, all the numbers are built by mathematical-induction. Not just one group of numbers-- counting, but all numbers from mathematical-induction.
>
> 15) Irrationals thrown out completely (ditto to Rationals and Negative numbers).
>
> 16) Reals thrown out completely (ditto).
>
> 17) Imaginary numbers and Complex numbers are b.s. and thrown out completely.
>
> 18) Trigonometry pared down so much-- 90% thrown out, and no trigonometry ever enters Calculus. Only real use of trigonometry is when you have an angle and side, you can figure out the rest of the right triangle. But no, when you give true math to a gaggle of kooks, it is not long before they stretch true math way way out of its "zone of truth". And even fill up by 50% of calculus, when trig should never be in calculus.
>
> 19) Continuum and continuity thrown out as horrible fakery (in fact the Quantum Mechanic Physics of early 1900s had a better handle on the truth and reality of math with discrete space).
>
> 20) Topology is junk and a waste of time for many reasons such as continuum does not exist, and the fact that the idea of "bending" is not really ever a mathematical concept.
>
> 21) Prime numbers are fakery for the Naturals never had division in the first place. The real true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers and they do not have a concept of "prime". The key evidence that primes were silly stupid error, was the fact that there never existed a "pattern for primes". And all of mathematics is a science of "pattern". If any part of mathematics has no pattern, is indication that such was a phony fake concept to start with. Below begins a write-up of Math topics all have pattern, if not, then not math. Now some may worry about the idea that no primes ever existed for they worry about the Unique Prime Factorization Theorem of Old Math. But here again, there is no worry. For "Factors exist" just not prime factors.
>
> 22) Limit in Old Math was a horrible fakery, built by lowly idiots of math who wanted to get away from the smart students asking them-- stupid professor, come back here,-- how does a zero width rectangle even have interior area.
>
> 23) Lobachevsky, Riemann geometries and all NonEuclidean geometries are fakery and a waste of time. Many math professors want to spice up their boring math, so they ventured way way off into the twilight-zone of math with NonEuclidean geometry, like eating the hottest peppers in the world for breakfast.
>
> 24) Boole logic a horrid gaggle of monumental mistakes; one colossal error was their insane 10 OR 4 = 14. Boole was a monumental idiot of logic that he went to college to teach in a rainstorm without umbrella and when he got there, shivering, and no commonsense to switch into dry clothes, taught in rain soaked clothes with his students laughing at the fool he was for catching pneumonia. Boole was so logically insane that he ordered his wife to give him cold bathes and wet his bed in order to fight pneumonia, and western culture, now, elevates this insane logical fool, and puts such a logical misfit as the Father- of- logic. And modern day schools of 2020 are as insanely crazy as was Boole for they continue to teach that 4 OR 1 = 5, when even a village idiot society knows better with 4 AND 1 = 5.
>
> 25) Galois Algebra of Group, Ring, Field a fakery and waste of time.
>
> 26) Dimension stops at 3rd, and 3rd is the last and highest dimension possible, for there is no 4th or higher dimensions.
>
> 27) High School in Old Math spends too much time on quadratic equations with their negative numbers and imaginary-complex numbers when such never existed in the first place and where they violate a principle of algebra-- that an equation of algebra-- the right-side of the equation must always have a greater than zero number. So we throw out all quadratic equations of Old Math as fake math.
>
> 28) High School in Old Math spends too much time on teaching in geometry the congruence of SSS, ASA etc etc and we should pare that back somewhat, as excess teaching of a tiny minor concept.
>
> 29) Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations are now seen as superfluous when all functions are polynomials and need only the Power Rule. In Old Math we throw out all the insane ridiculous myriad of fake rules-- the Chain Rule, Simpson's Rule, Trapezoidal Rule, all because math has only one type of function-- polynomials and that makes for only one rule-- Power Rule.
>
> 30) Parametric Equations thrown out-- for what need is there of a sack of dung when all functions are polynomials. Interchanging equation with function.
>
> 31) Graph theory-- 90% worthless for it is based on the fakery of continuum.
>
> 32) Probability and Statistics theory now becomes a part of Sigma Error in New Math, the Old Math Probability and Statistics theory were wastrel and thrown out for it is based on a continuum and they had no proper definition of "probability" that fits with statistics. We keep Probability and Statistics in new math but revise and overhaul it completely.
>
> 33) We definitely throw out all Old Math Calculus textbooks as mostly propaganda, based on the silly Limit and the Continuum.
>
> 34) We throw out the Euclidean Axioms of Geometry and start anew, with axioms based on Physics as geometry truth.
>
> 35) Fractal theory totally junk and a waste-- uses ill-defined infinity.
>
> 36) Vector Calculus (not the vector concept itself), Chaos theory, Complex Analysis, utter junk and waste of time since polynomial theory covers all functions.
>
> 37) Differential geometry, Measure theory fakery since they never had the correct numbers of math, and they had the fakery continuum.
>
> 38) We throw out all the Apollonius conic sections because he misidentified the ellipse. The ellipse is a cylinder section, never a conic section and the oval is the slant cut of the cone, never the ellipse. We replace the entire conic sections by the AP theory of axes of symmetry using Decimal Grid Numbers for algebra and strip-wavelength-geometry axioms.
>
> 39) Most of Algebra, starting with Linear Algebra is esoteric minutiae, or, just cute tools for specialized math, just as the Binomial Theorem and the Pascal triangle, all cute esoteric minutiae. Certainly none of which is appropriate in school math education. These topics are for those interested in sideline math, but does not belong in mainstream math. Algebra reaches its pinnacle of importance with the Polynomial Function transform. Anything else in Algebra is sideline esoteric minutiae. These are not wrong or false math, just not important enough math to be mainstream worthy of math education.
>
> 40) Gaussian Curvature is esoteric exotica, perhaps even fakery. It is a fallacy of "idealism". There has never been any physics application for now 200 years. But most damaging is the fact that Euclidean is the only geometry, and that elliptic and hyperbolic are just dualities for which if you compound them together is Euclidean geometry.
>
> 41) Manifolds in Old Math were fakery, since topology is fake with its "bending" and math cannot define "bending" which belongs to physics and chemistry. Bending is a physics phenomenon, not something that ever belonged in mathematics. Topology with its continuum and ill-defined infinity is fakery, then also is its manifold. In New Math, all 2-Dimensional figures are handled by polynomial transforms, so also all 3-Dimensional figures. How so much easier is it, that doing a Polynomial Transform, rather than the silly fakery and obfuscation of manifolds.
>
> 42) Fourier, Laplace and other transforms, all of them thrown out the window because the only valid transforms are polynomial transforms. Polynomials are the only valid functions, hence, polynomials are the only valid transforms. And here in mathematics we begin to see that Polynomial transform is the mirror image of physics wanting a unification of the 4 forces of Old Physics, where the EM unification of physics, is like the Polynomial transform of mathematics that unifies all so-called-functions.
>
> 43) Principle of Logic, that Physics is king of sciences, and that means math is but a tiny subset. But in 20th and 21st century, we still have goons and kooks of math that think math is bigger than physics. These goons and kooks think that the Universe is a mathematical equation. They belong in an asylum, not the sciences.
>
> 44) There are many Principles of Logic which were unknown or ignored in Old Math. One of those principles caused the horrendous failure of sine and cosine trigonometry. The failure that a graph of a function in 2D or 3D, where the axes, all have to be the same numbers. You cannot have the x-axis as angles and the other axis as numbers. You abandon mathematics when you enact such a policy. You may as well have bar graphs and pie-charts and call them foundation mathematics, when you do sine and cosine with different representations of axes.
>
> 45) Principle of Logic-- follow your definitions exactly. When you do not follow your definitions you end up with the craziness of thinking sine is a sinusoidal wave when in truth it is a semicircle wave. You defined sine as opposite/hypotenuse of right triangles in a circle. That means, it is impossible from the definition for sine and cosine to be anything other than a semicircle wave.
>
> 46) Principle of Reality in a Equation-- You formed equations in mathematics where one side is the same as the other side. This is the algebra axiom of where the rightside can only be a positive nonzero decimal Grid Number. Equations must have "reality" on the rightside of the equation, in order for the equation to even exist. We cannot put negative numbers, or zero, or imaginary numbers on the right side of an equation and expect there to even be an "equation of mathematics". Math like physics deals with "reality". And that means a equation of mathematics must have a true substantive reality on the rightside of the equation all by itself. You can clutter up the leftside of the equation and solve for unknowns, but the rightside of the equation has all by itself a positive, nonzero Decimal Grid Number. Anything else is not mathematics.
>
> 47) The Reductio Ad Absurdum, RAA, or some call it proof by contradiction is not a valid proof argument in mathematics. RAA at best is a strong hypothetical, but not a guarantee of truth or proof. The trouble with RAA is the trouble with the IF-->Then connector of Logic which has a truth table of True, False, Unknown, Unknown. Old Logic had this connector of If-->Then as TFTT. It is the unknowns in F--> T and F--> F that neither has a true conclusion but an unknown conclusion that renders RAA as non workable in math.
>
> 48) The primal axiom of Physics-- All is Atom and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism reigns not only over physics but mathematics as well. Most of the Teaching True Mathematics textbook series books have physics experiments involving electricity and magnetism.
>
> 49) Geometry is discrete with not only discrete numbers but empty space in between numbers as coordinate points of a graph and with a discrete angle.. No continuum exists in either algebra or geometry.
>
> 50) True geometry cannot have all volumes by stacking 2D figures, for example the torus, where the circles near the donut hole would be spaced too close together versus the circles near the rim of the circumference have wide empty space gaps. Stacking to achieve volume is not a universal method.
>
> 51) Mathematics has a peak, a pinnacle, a climax of understanding with Calculus, the motion of physics and the energy of physics. This is expressed in the 2D and 3D calculus. It closes the subject of mathematics. And once we learn how to transform polynomials, and apply the power rule in High School, all the rest of mathematics we learn in life is just mere details of our teachings that took place in High School. Math is a closed subject beyond Calculus.
>
> 52) Mathematics is a closed subject, meaning it has a summit, a peak and that peak mirrors the Physics of motion. It is called calculus. Once you learn calculus, and it is very easy for it is just the Power Rule upon Polynomials. Once you learn this in High School, all the rest of mathematics is just details concerning motion. Mathematics is a tiny tiny subset of Physics.. Everything of mathematics comes from physics. The reason the world has numbers is because physics has atoms and atoms are numerous. The reason the world has geometry is because atoms come in various shapes and sizes.
>
>
> 53) Math is a closed subject, a tiny subset of physics, and ever since 2019, the writing of this Calculus Guide, all the important topics of mathematics can be taught in junior and senior year High School. Any mathematics beyond High School is mere details of that junior and senior year teaching-- namely polynomial transform and Power Rules for derivative and integral of calculus.
>
> 54) The AP-EM equations of physics and mathematics. They replace the error ridden Maxwell Equations.
> If you desire, you can replace E, electric field with L, angular momentum.. Where V is voltage, i or A is current, B is magnetic field, E is electric field, kg is kilogram mass, m is meters, s is seconds, C=quantity of current A*s.
>
> a) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
> b) V = C*B*E New Ohm's law, law of electricity
> c) V' = (C*B*E)' Capacitor Law of Physics
> d) (V/C*E)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
> e) (V/(B*E))' = C' Faraday law
> f) (V/(C*B))' = E' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
>
>
> PHYSICS LAWS
> a) Facts of chemistry and physics
> b) Voltage V = kg*m^2/(A*s^3)
> c) Amount of current C = A*s = magnetic monopoles
> d) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /(A*s^2)
> e) Electric Field E = kg m^2/(A*s)
> f) V = C*B*E New Ohm's law, law of electricity
> g) V' = (C*B*E)' Capacitor Law of Physics
> h) (V/C*E)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
> i) (V/(B*E))' = C' Faraday law
> j) (V/(C*B))' = E' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
> 55) Research into what I call "pencil ellipses" that are ellipses of enormous semimajor axis and tiny tiny semiminor axis, whose importance to physics is ultra important.
>
> 56) Light waves are not straightline arrows, open ended arrows but rather instead are pencil ellipses always connected as a closed loop circuit with the source of that light.
>
> 57) Old Math in its fakery and stupidity never had a 3rd Dimension Calculus, for theirs was only 2nd dimension. Their colossal mistake of never a geometry proof of Calculus for the idiots believed in "limit analysis of 0 width rectangles for integral", that those Old Math idiots could never understand there exists 3rd dimension calculus.
>
> 58) Apollonius geometry corrected, especially the two cones put base to base <> and not the error filled apex to apex >< and the ellipse = 2 hyperbolas and the oval = 2 parabolas.
>
> 59) A well defined oval as being two parabolas joined at their widest width circle.
>
> 60) Their minor error of listing pi as 3.14... when using radius in formulas when they should list pi as 6.28... whenever using radius, because area of circle is really 1/2 pi*r^2 to match the prefix factor of 1/2 mv^2 as kinetic energy. Old Math never had a full brain of logic when they did Old Math, but always puttering around with a 1/10 tank of logic.
>
> 61) The single biggest fake and error of Old Math is their Calculus, with no geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. It is the biggest mistake because providing a geometry proof alerts the mathematician that they are mistaken about a "limit" mistaken about what are the true numbers of math (Decimal Grid Numbers, not the Reals), they are mistaken about infinity without a borderline. So fixing their calculus forces them to fix so many other ills of Old Math.
> True mathematics is a subject that is always easy, clear, and comprehensible. Old Math never had a program of "let us make the subject easy and clear and accessible to all". Old Math was about fame and fortune for a grubby few arrogant and ignorant fame seekers to those seeking fame and fortune by adding fake math, incomprehensible, hard, worthless, at the expense of torturing young students who all they wanted was a foundation understanding of true mathematics.
>
> Old Math cared more about having a few kooks run out and about, getting fame and fortune by piling incomprehensible trash onto mathematics, than it ever cared about going into a classroom and teaching math that everyone can understand. Of the four hard sciences, physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, there is no reason in the entire world, that math is the easiest of those 4 sciences. The only reason today, that math is not the easiest of those four sciences, is because after Descartes for 5 centuries now, mathematics was given over to kooks of math who sought for fame and fortune at the expense of keeping math simple and easy. Kooks of math filling up math so that math is now in 2020 a gaggle of kook ridden incomprehensible garbage. Ask your local kook math professor why he/she holds onto Boole logic with his 10 OR 4 = 14 when you know well that 10 AND 4 = 14. Ask your local kook math professor why he keeps teaching ellipse is a conic when you can show him on the spot with a paper cone and a lid that the slant cut is a oval, never a ellipse. And ask your local kook math professor why he/she never is able to give you a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. And the answer is always-- they are kooks of math, not mathematicians.
>
> This list is ongoing, and is a bulletin-board of errors of Old Math and useful for Teaching True Mathematics. I insert this list as a guide. To show students what math to avoid, to steer away from, as a total fake and waste of time.
>
>
> AP
> King of Science
>
> y z
> | /
> | /
> |/______ x
>
> More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci..physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.
>
> In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.
>
> I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.
>
> There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.
>
>
> Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> Archimedes Plutonium

Re: Stewart failed Calculus also, and his book should be removed
43 views
by Dan Christensen
Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen
Jun 24, 2018, 10:52:49 PM


AP writes: I agree with Dan Christensen, for Stewart has a fake proof of FTC. He should have a geometry proof for FTC is geometry, not a wiggle waggle of some insane limits.

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 17May2021. 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". 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.

Length: 100 pages

Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1281 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 100 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)

Not a single math professor of Univ Toronto able to teach a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Not a single math professor of Univ Toronto with enough brains to ask two questions: (1) Since calculus is geometry, why cannot the math professor do a geometry proof of FTC (2) Did George Boole make a huge mistake with AND connector of Logic in its truth table should be TTTF and not TFFF because TFFF leads to the silly 2 OR 1=3 with AND as subtraction. We know Dan Christensen has his head up his a... but that does not mean Univ of Toronto should follow suit.

Ask the question Univ Toronto-- you know calculus is geometry, yet you never can do a geometry proof of Fundamental theorem of Calculus, all you can do is your piddly limit analysis

Ask the question Univ Toronto-- did Boole screw up royally with his AND truth table of TFFF when it should be TTTF

7 year endless bully suppression stalker Dan Christensen (self appointed dictator of sci.math)
On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 8:31:11 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of

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 17May2021. 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". 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.

Length: 112 pages

Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1290 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 112 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)

5th published book

Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
Preface:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.

The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.

My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.

Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.

Length: 72 pages

File Size: 773 KB
Print Length: 72 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 



#6-2, 27th published book

Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum// Teaching True Logic series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 9NOV2020. This is AP's 27th published book.

Preface:
These are the TRUE Truth Tables of the 4 connectors of Logic

Equal+Not
T = T = T
T = ~F = T
F = ~T = T
F = F = T

If--> then
T --> T = T
T --> F = F
F --> T = U (unknown or uncertain)
F --> F = U (unknown or uncertain)

And
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F

Or
T or T = F
T or F = T
F or T = T
F or F = F

Those can be analyzed as being Equal+Not is multiplication. If-->then is division. And is addition and Or is subtraction in mathematics. Now I need to emphasis this error of Old Logic, the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability unknown, undefined end conclusion.

Now in Old Logic they had for Reductio Ad Absurdum as displayed by this schematic:

| | ~p
| |---
| | .
| | .
| | q
| | .
| | .
| | ~q
| p

Which is fine except for the error of not indicating the end conclusion of "p" is only a probability of being true, not guaranteed as true. And this is the huge huge error that mathematicians have fallen victim of. For the Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a proof method for mathematics, it is probability of being true or false. Math works on guaranteed truth, not probability. This textbook is written to fix that error.
Length: 86 pages

Product details
• ASIN : B07Q18GQ7S
• Publication date : March 23, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 1178 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 86 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #346,875 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #28 in Logic (Kindle Store)
◦ #95 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #217 in Mathematical Logic
•

2- Dan identifies math con-artists of Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, Andrew Wiles, John Stillwell who never did a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, and too dumb in math to even know calculus demands a geometry proof of FTC.

Dan identifies math con-artists of Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, Andrew Wiles, John Stillwell who never did a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, and too dumb in math to even know calculus demands a geometry proof of FTC.

Dan Christensen warning on Linda Hasenfratz Western Ontario Univ and why UWO fails in math and physics-- no geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, and no-one intelligent enough to ask if real electron of atoms is muon not the 0.5MeV particle.

Dan Christensen asking Linda Hasenfratz Western Ontario Univ if students wasting time of their life with no geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus at UWO, and no-one intelligent enough to ask if real electron of atoms is muon not 0.5MeV particle.

Re: 7,744-Student victims of Linda Hasenfratz Univ Western Ontario from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz President Alan Shepard
Canadian students victimized by Dan Christensen and his party-- Linda Hasenfratz, Silvia Mittler, Els
11:53 AM 10Apr2021
by Wayne Decarlo

2nd published book

True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere.

Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule.

Length: 1150 pages

Product details
• File Size : 2167 KB
• ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ
• Publication Date : March 11, 2019
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 1150 pages
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#181 in General Chemistry & Reference
#1324 in General Chemistry
#1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)

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 19May2021. 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". 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.

Length: 137 pages

Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1307 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 137 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)

AP's 175th book//Physicsopedia-- Listing of 125 fakes and mistakes of Old Physics.

Preface: I suppose, going forward, physics should always have a physicsopedia, where major parts of physics are held under question, under suspicion as to correctness. In past history we have called them as "doubters of the mainstream". Yet physics, can have no permanent mainstream. And theories passing as "standard model" is a travesty of science, of logical thinking and just a wide open door of physics corruption and tedious nonsense. The Standard Model of Old Physics is a example of "numerology and algebras turned from circus act into the physics mainstream".

Last revision was 15May2021
1) The picture of electricity and how it works was only truly begun in 2020 with the cover of this book showing electricity as closed loops, hoola hoops and how these loops flow in circuits taking on the shape of those circuits at the speed of light, where the flowing entity are magnetic monopoles-dipoles and photons. Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1
by Archimedes Plutonium.

2) The thoughts and images of electrons in Old Physics and Old Chemistry were horrendously error filled. The first place I see this huge error is in Feynman Lectures on Physics, not that I want to pick on Feynman for he is one of my heroes, but rather I chose Feynman because his Lectures have been translated into almost all languages and his books widely available and known. On page 14-10 of Volume 1, Feynman... And news out of Princeton Univ as of May 2021, where they are finding that the 0.5MeV Dirac magnetic monopole comes in pairs, even though the Princeton researchers are too stupid yet to know that the 0.5MeV particle is not the atom's electron.

3) Old Physics never had a Primal axiom of Physics-- All is atom and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. Old Physics wasted too much time on General Relativity (a fake theory) in the 20th century and too little time on electricity and magnetism.

4) New Physics starts with electricity and magnetism. Old Physics always started with idealizations such as linear momentum, and a force of gravity that had no relation to electricity and magnetism. Idealization physics is more imagination than about the truth of the world.

5) New Physics has the correct particles of physics where the proton is 840MeV, the real electron is the muon of 105MeV and is stuck inside the proton torus thrusting through the proton and producing electricity in the Faraday law. The 0.5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole.

6) The true cosmology theory of science is the Atom Totality theory which began to replace the Big Bang theory starting 1990.

7) Big Bang theory is a joke, never a reality. And a outright contradiction of the Atomic theory, that all matter is composed of atoms. For all matter can be interchanged with "all things". If all things are atoms, then the universe itself , we must admit if we are logical thinkers, is "a thing" and thus the universe must be a atom also. Big Bang contradicts Logic. And if science is anything, it is logical.

8) When you find in the world, a Generalization of All Matter is made up of Atoms. You have to go with the Logic as the truth. If all Matter is atoms, then the Whole of the Universe is Matter, you must continue to the conclusion that the Whole is also an Atom. If you do not make that conclusion, you have to thence say-- All Matter except the Universe, and that is a silly end conclusion.

9) A second major physics fallacy is their screwing up of the 1897 Thomson particle they called the electron of 0.5MeV when it is the Dirac magnetic monopole that Thomson had found. It would not be until 1936 that the true electron of atoms is discovered and called the muon. What the 1897 screw-up mis-identity shows most of all, is that physicists throughout the 20th century never had a handle on what angular momentum means. If you understand angular momentum, you would realize that a proton at 938MeV and electron at 0.5MeV cannot support the existence of a hydrogen atom, or any atom for that sake.

10) Direct consequence of muon being the true electron, determines that the proton is 840MeV and the muon is stuck inside the proton doing a Faraday Law of producing new electricity by turning Space into electromagnetism. This is Dirac's new radioactivity and is the creation of new mass, matter in Space. This means all stars shine not from fusion, but from Faraday Law. Not only do stars grow more massive and bigger, but that all astro-bodies grow bigger. Meaning the Nebular Dust Cloud theory is a gigantic hoax for the growing of the Solar System.