John Baez victimizes students with never a geometry proof of Calculus Fundamental Theorem, so stalks Dan Christensen of 7 years long. How failed is John Baez, asking Dan Christensen? I know he still teaches the electron of atoms is the 0.5MeV particle when in truth it is the muon. And still teaches a ellipse is a conic slant section when that is the oval. And still teaches and uses Boole logic uncorrected with 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.. But neither John Baez or Dan Christensen could ever do a geometry proof of Calculus Fundamental Theorem, both too stupid to even be cognizant that calculus needs a geometry proof, not a arsewipe limit analysis hornswaggle.

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 10:30:54 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> fails at math and science:

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 9:55:58 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of

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)

192nd book of AP, History of the screw-up of Red Giant physics, that fusion of helium causes Red Giant stars.

Alright, this history probably happened during my lifetime, and I should be able to sort out some of that screwed up history from recent writings. How much of this screwed idea can be attributed to Hans Bethe, or were others like James Peebles directly involved in the screw up of physics.

What I am talking about is the mindless and absurd notion that a star can shine from fusion of hydrogen to helium and then heat up all of a sudden as it burns up the hydrogen and then starts burning helium via fusion.

So what laws of physics are violated in thinking that Red Giants are helium fusion burning? Is it the 2nd law of thermodynamics of heat goes from hot to cold and never the reverse, which in terms of EM theory the 2nd law of thermodynamics is merely the right-hand rule of how electric current and magnetic field travel.

We can do an exceedingly simple experiment, in a fire of paper combustion with plastics, that you need a higher temperature to start plastic fire and the plastic burns hotter, but is that always the case? No, for some styrofoam plastics burn easier than paper, and this serves to show how ludicrous is the notion that helium fusion is hotter and causes Red Giant stars over hydrogen fusion.

Of course, for AP, all stars shine not from fusion at all, but from the Faraday law of every muon thrusting through its 840MeV proton torus, and as the star adds on more mass from the Faraday law of changing Space into electric current into neutrons which become more protons+muons, the star reaches a mass where it is Red Giant Initiation Phase.

Our own Sun is now a start up Red Giant star. This is extremely dangerous for all life on Earth, for all of our lifes are now in danger of going extinct unless we colonize Europa and Ganymede and get out of the way of the Sun swallowing up Earth.

So here I want to make a book of that history of goofball theory where astronomers saw there were Red Giant stars in the cosmic skies. They saw there were these Red Giant stars. When in fact was the first well known observations of these huge Red Giant stars, probably way before Bethe and his fusion mechanism. Was it Bethe, was it Peebles, was it many other astronomers and physicists that incorrectly linked up fusion with Red Giant stars and their evolution.

So they saw these Red Giant stars, and quickly, quickly they had to cover their silly and stupid fusion mechanism of star shine, stars powered by fusion.

So what this book attempts to do is dig into that cover up, that cover up of mindless airheads of logic who tried to patch Red Giant stars to fit into a mechanism of fusion energy to power stars.

So how long did the corrupt of mind cover up take? Was it 10 years upon discovery of the fusion mechanism and the desire to patch it with Red Giant stars? Was it 50 years for the cover up of physics? And who were its proponents? And why did no physicist ask the question in the back of their minds, for surely it must have been a question in the back of many a minds in physics-- why in hell does helium stay idle and then all of a sudden burn hotter than hydrogen in fusion?

Of course, those with AP's theory, have nothing to answer for or apologize for, because the Faraday law as powering starshine is a direct single line constant mass build-up of a star and thus the transition from normal star to Red Giant is directly straightline function of Faraday law and mass of star.

So, this history of the mindless, warped and corrupt science of fusion stars needs a special book all for itself, to trace and track how science of this magnitude of importance can fall into a trashy mess of thinking helium burns hotter in fusion than hydrogen.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics