So I am looking for the post by Dr. John Baez where he claims--words to the effect-- he read the Feynman Lectures on Physics at some ripe age such as 5 or 6, or it may have been 12 or 13? And Google seems to not cough up this post of Baez. It was mid to late 1990s.

I may have responded to John's post by saying-- "fluent in 20 languages but never a single new thought or idea in anyone of them". I seem to have run out of search terms in Google to cough up John's ego-blunder.

Because, well, let us suppose John actually read Feynman Lectures on Physics by age 6 and comprehended what Feynman was saying and doing. Let us suppose all that to be true.

Does it explain, then, why John Baez looked at thousands of pictures of cones and ellipses and never once in his 60 years of science, never once had a thought-- "that does not look right" a ellipse is symmetrical yet a cone is antisymmetrical to receive a ellipse, so that must be a oval. Yet in those 60 years, John can understand Feynman lectures but never understand a simple truth that oval is the cone slant cut.

Or take for example John's thoughts in Physics for the past 60 years. He surely must have run into Sigma Error in science measuring, and surely John is able to multiply 9 by 105MeV. So John misses the big fact of our physics century, that the neutron and proton are 9 muons within Sigma Error, leading to the astounding deduction the proton is really 840MeV with a muon stuck inside the proton torus doing the Faraday law, while the 0.5MeV particle is actually the Dirac magnetic monopole.

So, did John just fail to read Feynman's Lecture 10 more times to be able to think intelligently or logically in physics. To know when something looks close to equal is actually equal. To realize our Sun shines not from fusion, but from Faraday law, as that is really important for the whole of planet Earth and all its inhabitants.

So while John piddle paddles around with insane idiocy of physics of Quantum Foam, foam here, foam there foam up John's. While John is foaming around, why could he not see the oval is the cone cut, and that the real electron of atoms is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus.

It goes to show, that physics and math professors with "big mouths" usually have tiny brains of science.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science

On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 5:39:46 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> So I am looking for the post...

AP is a malicious internet troll who wants only to mislead and confuse you. He may not be all there, but his fake math and science can only be meant to promote failure in schools. One can only guess at his motives.

Note that AP will often delete his bizarre and hateful postings when his lies are called out, only to repost identical ones moments later in a NEW thread.

Readers should, of course, judge for themselves. In AP's OWN WORDS here:

“Primes do not exist, because the set they were borne from has no division.”
--June 29, 2020

“The last and largest finite number is 10^604.”
--June 3, 2015

“0 appears to be the last and largest finite number”
--June 9, 2015

“0/0 must be equal to 1.”
-- June 9, 2015

“0 is an infinite irrational number.”
--June 28, 2015

“No negative numbers exist.”
--December 22, 2018

“Rationals are not numbers.”
--May 18, 2019

According to AP's “chess board math,” an equilateral triangle is a right-triangle.
--December 11, 2019

Which could explain...

“The value of sin(45 degrees) = 1.”
--May 31, 2019

AP deliberately and repeatedly presented the truth table for OR as the truth table for AND:

“New Logic
AND
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F”
--November 9, 2019

AP seeks aid of Russian agents to promote failure in schools:

"Please--Asking for help from Russia-- russian robots-- to create a new, true mathematics [sic]"
--November 9, 2017

And if that wasn't weird enough...

“The totality, everything that there is [the universe], is only 1 atom of plutonium [Pu]. There is nothing outside or beyond this one atom of plutonium.”
--April 4, 1994

“The Universe itself is one gigantic big atom.”
--November 14, 2019

AP's sinister Atom God Cult of Failure???

“Since God-Pu is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Atom Plutonium!
Its truth is marching on.
It has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
It is sifting out the hearts of people before its judgment seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer it; be jubilant, my feet!
Our God-Pu is marching on.”
--December 15, 2018 (Note: Pu is the atomic symbol for plutonium)

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

Canada's suppression education monster-- Dan Christensen plying his trade of suppression of Science truth not just on Native Indians of Canada, but his suppression mindset on the whole of Canada, with his endless stalking of hatred.

Canada's education motto-- > Are you ready, kids??? Bend over, er...
As expressed by Dan Christensen-- Canada's Suppression Machinery

On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 1:29:49 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
>
> Are you ready, kids??? Bend over, er...
>
> Dan
>
> Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
> Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

Canada never wants to teach the truth of Science, no, instead it wants suppressionists to keep teaching whatever is out there now, never fixing any mistakes and at the end of the day-- Bend over.

This is what happened with Dan Christensen mindset on Native Indians of Canada.

Truth and reality of Science be damned under a Dan Christensen rulership of Canada Education, and apparently Justin Trudeau government feels the same was as Dan-- suppress and never care to fix errors, and at the end of the day-- bend over.

Canadian Education is all b.s. in Science as long as Canada keep teaching--

1) Ellipse is a conic at slant cut when it never was-- for that is the oval..

2) Boole logic riddled full of error and mistakes, worst being 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.

3) Never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for calculus is geometry and the b.s. sickfuck Dan Christensen thinks a "limit analysis hornswaggle is a proof". Dan is such an idiot of calculus he even thinks a vertex point has a derivative.

4) Canadian physicists so ignorant of physics they cannot even "ask" just simply ask the question of which particle is the real electron of atoms, is it the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law with the 0.5MeV particle as Dirac's magnetic monopole as AP claims it is? Never mind Canadian physicists answering AP's question, just as long as they are at least asking the question.

The stupid Dan Christensen always chokes up when it comes to logic or even just plain commonsense with his 2 OR 1 = 3 and his AND as subtraction.

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:08:09 AM UTC-6, Peter Percival wrote:
> Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:47:32 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 8:27:19 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:16:52 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >>>> PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra, Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector
> >>>>
> >>>> The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any two points lies a third new point.
> >>>
> >>> The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points."
> >>>
> >>
> >> What a monsterous fool you are
> >>
> >
> > OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it.
>
> And yet Mr Plutonium is right. Two points are distinct (else they would
> be one) and it is not necessary to say so.
>

Apparently Dan Christensen never took calculus or flunked it with this statement.
On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 8:57:54 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 2:32:51 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > The nonexistence of a curved angle because there is no way to measure the angle if either one of the rays is not a straightline segment at the vertex,
>
> From the derivative of each curve at the point of contact you have the slopes of their respective tangents there. (Assuming derivatives are defined there.) From these slopes, you should be able to calculate angle formed.
>
>
> Dan

3rd published book

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.

Length: 21 pages

File Size: 1620 KB
Print Length: 21 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

#8-2, 11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 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)

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.