Not a single math professor of Univ Western Ontario able to teach a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Not a single math professor of Univ Western Ontario 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 Western Ontario should follow suit.

Ask the question Univ Western Ontario-- 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 Western Ontario-- 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
•

n) AP's 174th book// Mathopedia-- Listing of 67 fakes and mistakes of Old Math.

Last revision was 16May2021.

Preface: I suppose, going forward, mathematics should always have a mathopedia, where major parts of mathematics as a science are held under question as to correctness. In past history we have called these incidents as "doubters of the mainstream". Yet math, like physics, can have no permanent mainstream, since there is always question of correctness in physics, there then corresponds question of correctness in mathematics (because math is a subset of physics). What I mean is that each future generation corrects some mistakes of past mathematics. If anyone is unsure of what I am saying here, both math and physics need constant correcting, never belonged in science. This then converges with the logic-philosophy of Pragmatism (see AP's book of logic on Pragmatism).

Some of these can be found in AP's TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS series, but the entries keep changing and added on new, means I need to have a separate book for these fakes, mistakes and errors of Old Math.

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.

The listings in Mathopedia of errors, mistakes and fakes is based on the idea that Calculus is the supreme achievement of all of mathematics for it is the essential math of doing Physics electricity and magnetism. And in order to have a proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, we must clean up and clean out all the mistakes, fakes and errors of Old Math, erst, we have no Calculus. So calculus is the consistency maker for the rest of all of mathematics.

1) Calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, a proof that derivative and integral are inverses of one another, just as addition and subtraction are inverses, or, multiplication and division are inverses. The only way to obtain a geometry proof is to clean up and clean out all the fakes, mistakes and errors of Old Math, such as their fake numbers-- the Reals. Their fake definition of function allowing anything be a function. Their fakery of a continuum when even physics by 1900 with Planck onwards in Quantum Mechanics proving the Universe is discrete Space not a continuum, yet by 1900 onwards those in mathematics following the idiotic continuum in the Continuum Hypothesis with even more avid interest, when they should have thrown the continuum on a trashpile of shame.

2) The true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers, because you have to need and apply one mechanism only to obtain the true numbers of mathematics-- Mathematical Induction. In Old Math they had just a tiny few intelligent mathematicians, Kronecker, who emerged from the gaggle crowd of kooks to notice that Naturals all come from one single mechanism-- Mathematical Induction. But Old Math never had a crowd of mathematicians with logical brains to say-- all our numbers need to come from the one mechanism of Mathematical Induction.

3) The true numbers of math have empty space between successor and predecessor numbers. For example the 10 Grid is 0, .1, .2, .3, . . . , 9.8, 9.9, 10..0. Where no numbers exist between .1 and .2, etc. Only discrete numbers allow us to give a proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

4) All functions of mathematics must be a polynomial, and if not a polynomial, convert the offering to a polynomial over a specific interval.

5) Space is discrete and all lines in space are strings of attached straight lines.

6) No curves exist in Geometry, only finer and smaller straight line segments attached to one another.
We can still keep the name "curve" as long as we know it is a string of fine tiny straightline segments strung together in what looks like a smooth curve. If curves exist, then the Calculus in Fundamental Theorem of Calculus cannot be proven and thus Calculus does not exist. We all know that we have to have Calculus, and so we throw out onto the trash pile the curve of Old Math. And this is reasonable because starting in 1900 in physics there arose the Quantum Mechanics of Space being discrete. And a discrete space has no continuum, has no curve of Old Math.

7) 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.

8) Limit analysis was an insane fakery in Old Math, concocted because Old Math needed the excuse of some proof, so they invented the monster con-artist trick that a limit analysis would divert the fact it is no proof at all, but a Non Sequitur argument. Limit analysis is juju totem witchcraft dance around a desire to prove the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Just as idiotic as dancing around a sick person of a virus is going to cure the person.

9) 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.

10) 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.

11) 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.

12) 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.

13) 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.

14) 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.

15) 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..

16) Ellipse is never a single cone slant cut, always a cylinder slant cut. Although you do get an ellipse from double cones of this configuration <> which in Old Math was the hyperbola, but two hyperbolas joined together to form a ellipse.

17) 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.

2- SCI.PHYSICS FAQ, 11Aug2021// Usenet science dead, but AP's newsgroup up and running well-- today's topics--
What I argue in my books on gravity, such as the gravity of Sun to Earth, is that the Sun magnetism creates lines of force in space, magnetic lines, as a pathway for Planet Earth to follow. This pathway is critically important because it is the orbit of Earth. And the Sun shots out a stream of electricity as a Electric field also. And that electricity flows in the magnetic field pathways, in particular Earth's orbit and hits Earth from the rear with electricity as a push force, and simultaneously pulls Earth in the front of this magnetic pathway by the electricity, what we call in chemistry as the electrical potential pull of the electric current. That is gravity as a EM force as gravity lock-- both a push and a pull in a magnetic pathway. And clearly you can picture a gravity lock or gravitational bond from this mechanism. It is as if Earth was in a electrical circuit, pushed along and pulled along in its magnetic pathway.

For details see:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe

XXXXXXXXXXX

SCI.MATH FAQ and SCI. PHYSICS FAQ (although I personally remember the FAQ routinely posted to sci.math in 1993-1999), and I do not remember it in sci.physics. Maybe different persons had the separate duty of watchful eye over sci.physics and sci.math.

Snapshot History of Usenet's sci.physics and sci.math, and why it is almost dead, not as dead as sci.chem, but approaching it, save for a few individuals such as AP, and others. Others who care more about truth, than about money and prejudice and opinion, and mindless sentiment and sex orientation.

AP cannot afford to lose sci.physics and sci.math because most of his new ideas after 1993 were all recorded and archived in sci.math and sci.physics.

The death of sci.chem and so many other newsgroups can be blamed on a govt interference pattern of paying for stalkers, and police drag net spam. As if doing physics in sci.physics is a nuisance to others doing stalking and police drag net spam.

Sci.chem is a dead newsgroup. Sci.physics and sci.math are almost dead newsgroups where stalkers fill each thread of those doing physics in sci.physics or math in sci.math, paid stalkers to demonize authors and after the end of the day, all of the posts are flushed off into 2nd or 3rd or 4th page by government block spam, police drag net spam to get all posts off the front page. Here is an example of block-flush-spam found almost daily in sci.physics. The purpose of which is to flush all posts into 2nd or 3rd page-- out of sight, out of mind of posts that have physics content.

unread,
i take back what i said previous forgive me im sick i ccry
How are you ?
7:30 AM

_'s profile photo
_
,
He Llo
2
unread,
i take back whta i said previosu forgive me im sick i cry
How are you ?
7:29 AM

_'s profile photo
_
,
He Llo
2
unread,
in 1999 they called me a monster but i thought i was a good monster like for example the monsters of rocknroll>>and not a bad monster>>what did i do to be a monster?i dont know, its because somthing she told them that i dont know and never will cause i wasnt any mmonster
7:29 AM

_'s profile photo
_
,
He Llo
2
unread,
in 1999 when i was a kid my senses didnt detect the monstruos proportion that i was confrontated aka with the rockstars >> if i was anonymous there woudnt be any problem cause i could handle it cause i had the controls>>but she stole my controls from me and made me contract freeze and they wanted me to explain without me having hte controls>>she caught me>>and i turned to crap>>she wanetd to steal my freedom and she succeeded
7:29 AM

_'s profile photo
_
,
He Llo
2
unread,
i take back what i said preivous forgive me im sick i cry

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
9:46 AM (1 hour ago)



to
On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 9:17:14 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Sunday, August 8, 2021 at 11:27:39 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > 6-SCI.PHYSICS FAQ, 8Aug2021// Usenet science dead, but AP's newsgroup up and running--
> > For details see:
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> >

Zelos Malum is doing a block-flush-spam over in sci.math, and every night he spits up as spam every one of Gabriel's spam that morning and loads the block of 15 threads onto sci.math to push everyone off the front pages.

Sci.chem is a dead newsgroup. With only police drag net spam occupying 90% of the posts. You can easily tell police drag net spam-- always off topic, and incendiary, and full of references. Danger-- those references are likely to be viruses to hack into your computer.

The USA government created Usenet in late 1980s, circa 1989 and I started to post 1993. About 90% of the posts were authored by edu dot addresses, harvard, nwu, berkeley and many colleges and universities. Today it is rare to see any edu dot address. Whenever I pull up a thread of mine in the early 1990s they are loaded with dot edu addresses. So what caused them to all flee? It was that the government of USA that invented Usenet started to pay stalkers to pester, harass, and cause to flee authors with their drumbeat of hate and stalking spam, which after the end of the day would be flushed off the front pages with more govt spam of drag net or flush-spam. So the govt created Usenet, in early 1990s and by 2000 was on a cruise to bruise and destroy Usenet. By 2021, only a enclave of posters in sci.math and sci.physics is keeping those two newsgroups still alive.

Some had warned in 1990s to use filters when reading sci.physics or sci.math. Filter out all bad pests and stalkers. Trouble is, the stalkers turned away dot edu authors and by 1999 most colleges and university authors were heading for the exits.

The vital reason AP cannot leave sci.physics and sci.math is because most everyone of my new ideas of science was posted to sci.physics and sci.math and many of those posts are seen in any one of my so far published books on Kindle Amazon. In the two years of 2019 - 2021 I managed to publish 150 books and working on my 151st book of TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year college.

It is safe to say the only fully functioning Usenet newsgroup of pure science, with no spam is AP's newsgroup. A place where almost all is pure science, seldom "people talk".

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe

Google newsgroups have abuse monitoring buttons and abuse report. But when the abuse comes from the USA govt itself, there is nothing Google can do.

And, much of that police drag net spam is experimental spam, and what I mean is they test out to see how well and easy they can get into your computer should you dare click on one of their reference sites. Sort of test out "how to hack" should you click on their spam posts.

This is what sci.chem looks like at the moment, a bombed out shell husk of police drag net spam. And the only reason sci.physics and sci.math are still functioning and do not look like sci.chem, are the efforts of a few people who care about sci.physics and sci.math.

FBInNSATerroristSlayer
unread,
Economist John Maynard Keynes Said Whites Had The Right To KILL Non-Whites
Aug 1

FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer's profile photo
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
, …
Nomen Nescio
4
unread,
EVIL WHITE CHRISTIAN THIEVES "deliberately diminished" Greatest Mathematical Contributions by Indians
Jul 26


FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer's profile photo
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
unread,
USA UK Aus Canada govts have been LYING to public - Ex-MI5 Microwave Scientist Barrie Trower
Jul 23

FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer's profile photo
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
unread,
Fibonacci: I loved Indian Mathematics to such an extent above all others that I completely devoted myself to it
Jul 17

FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer's profile photo
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
unread,
The Magneto-Plasma Cosmology of the Ṛgveda - Alternative to Big Bang Theory
Jul 17

FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer's profile photo
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
unread,
Re: Trump's lawsuit (WHITE FILTH spend their entire lives GOSSIPING while CIA, NSA is secretly CHIPPING them with MIND CONTROL CHIPS)
Jul 11

FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer's profile photo
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
unread,
MERCILESSLY MASSACRE THE CIA, NSA n FBI AGENTS LIKE FUCKING PIGS for SECRETLY CHIPPING Amrikkkans with MIND CONTROL CHIPS
Jul 6

FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer's profile photo
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
unread,
The VEDA of PHYSICS: Reconciling the Observer and the Observed
Jul 4



FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer's profile photo
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
unread,
MASSACRE CIA, FBI, NSA agents like FUCKING PIGS for SECRETLY CHIPPING americans with MIND INVASIVE CHIPS and TORTURING with DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS
Jun 30

FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer's profile photo
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
unread,
How INDIAN LOGIC played a role in the CREATION OF MODERN LOGIC, which is at the BASIS OF COMPUTER SCIENCE