Malum, why not ask the simple question, which is the Atom's real electron -- the muon or the 0.5MeV particle that AP says is Dirac's magnetic monopole, instead of your daily spam scree of regurgitating Gabriel posts.

On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 2:05:44 AM UTC-5, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> Den fredag 8 juni 2018 kl. 07:57:33 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> > Zelos Malum calls "fuckign stupid"
> > Markus Hennrich,
> > Carl XVI Gustaf
> > Tommy Ohlsson, Paul Crutzen
> > Tony Hansson,, stalker-- Zelos Malum, Can't do proper Calculus, thinks electron is .5MeV when it is Dirac's monopole , Real Proton = 840MeV
> >
> > Zelos Malum wrote:
> >
> > 12:47 AM (3 minutes ago)
> > >Bigger question is, how are you this fuckign stupid?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Stockholm University
> > Math logic
> > Per Martin-Lof, Erik Palmgren, Tom Britton, Pavel Kurasov
> > Alexander Berglund, Jonas Bergstrom*, Rikard Bogvad
> > Samuel Lundqvist, Annemarie Luger *, Erik Palmgren
> > Torbjorn Tambour
> >
> > Stockholm Univ physics
> > Tony Hansson, Markus Hennrich, Tommy Ohlsson, Paul Crutzen *,
> >
> > Swedish physics, et al
> > Bo Thide, Max Tegmark, Cecilia Jarlskog, Lars Bergstrom, Lars Samuelson
> > Anders Flodstrom, Hans Ryde, Anders Barany, Gunnar von Heijne
> > Claes-Goran Granqvist, Joakim Edsjo, Carl Falthammar, Sven Hansson, Arne Kaijser
> > Pres. Sigbritt Karlsson (KTH)
> >
> >
> > University Gothenburg
> > Bernt Wennberg
> > Aila Sarkka
> >
> > Univ Stockholm Physics dept
> >
> > Gunnar Benediktsson, Clas Blomberg, Bo Cartling
> > Olle Edholm, Goran Grimvall, Goran Lindblad
> > Hakan Snellman, Jouko Mickelsson, Anders Rosengren
> > John Rundgren
> >
> >
> > /\-------/\
> > \::O:::O::/
> > (::_ ^ _::)
> > \_`-----'_/
> > You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Stockholm?
> >
> > And, even though you-- professors of physics/math, want to remain silent and stupid in Real Electron = muon, Calculus your students deserve better.
> >
> >
> > SEE PICTURE DIAGRAM of FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS below, professors hate teaching this for it shows their "limit calculus to be a joke"
> >
> > PICTURE DIAGRAM OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS
> >
> > By April 2015, was there for the first time a picture diagram proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, not just an analysis argument, but a geometry proof (see below). Old Math could never assemble a picture diagram of the FTC. All they could do is argue with limit concept an analysis argument, never a geometry proof of FTC.
> >
> > A picture diagram proof of FTC changes all of calculus and thus, changes all of mathematics for it requires a infinity borderline to produce an actual number for the infinitesimal, and that number is the inverse of the infinity borderline. Requiring a infinity borderline to produce the infinitesimal changes all of mathematics, and throwing out the limit concept. By changing all of Calculus and thus correcting mathematics, all of math before 2015 was just trash math.
> >
> > Picture Diagram needed for Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> >
> > Why no continuum and no curves exist in Math, so that the Calculus
> > can exist, and does exist
> >
> > by Archimedes Plutonium
> >
> > Calculus is based upon there being Grid points in geometry, no
> > continuum, but actually, empty space between two neighboring points.
> > This is called Discrete geometry, and in physics, this is called
> > Quantum Mechanics. In 10 Grid, the first few numbers are 0, .1, .2,
> > .3, etc. That means there does not exist any number between 0 and .1,
> > no number exists between .1 and .2. Now if you want more precise
> > numbers, you go to a higher Grid like that of 100 Grid where the first
> > few numbers are 0, .01, .02, .03, etc.
> >
> > Calculus in order to exist at all, needs this empty space between
> > consecutive numbers or successor numbers. It needs that empty space so
> > that the integral of calculus is actually small rectangles whose
> > interior area is not zero. So in 10 Grid, the smallest width of any
> > Calculus rectangle is of width .1. In 100 Grid the smallest width is
> > .01.
> >
> > But, this revolutionary understanding of Calculus does not stop with
> > the Integral, for having empty space between numbers, means no curves
> > in math exist, but are ever tinier straight-line segments.
> >
> > It also means, that the Derivative in Calculus is part and parcel of
> > the function graph itself. So that in a function such as y = x^2, the
> > function graph is the derivative at a point. In Old Math, they had the
> > folly and idiocy of a foreign, alien tangent line to a function graph
> > as derivative. In New Math, the derivative is the same as the function
> > graph itself. And, this makes commonsense, utter commonsense, for the
> > derivative is a prediction of the future of the function in question,
> > and no way in the world can a foreign tangent line to a point on the
> > function be able to predict, be able to tell where the future point of
> > that function be. The only predictor of a future point of a function,
> > is the function graph itself.
> >
> > If the Calculus was done correctly, conceived correctly, then a
> > minimal diagram explains all of Calculus. Old Math never had such a
> > diagram, because Old Math was in total error of what Calculus is, and
> > what Calculus does.
> >
> > The fundamental picture of all of Calculus are these two of a
> > trapezoid and rectangle. In fact, call the picture, the
> >
> > FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS, Picture
> >
> > Trapezoid for derivative as the roof-top of
> > the trapezoid, which must be a straight-line segment. If it is curved,
> > you cannot fold it down to form a integral rectangle. And the
> > rectangle for integral as area.
> >
> > From this:
> > B
> > /|
> > / |
> > A /----|
> > / |
> > | |
> > |____|
> >
> >
> > The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
> > so that it can be hinged at A, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
> > integral.
> >
> > To this:
> >
> > ______
> > | |
> > | |
> > | |
> > ---------
> >
> > And the derivative of x= A, above is merely the dy/dx involving points
> > A and B. Thus, it can never be a curve in Calculus. And the AB is part
> > of the function graph itself. No curves exist in mathematics and no
> > continuum exists in mathematics.
> >
> > In the above we see that CALCULUS needs and requires a diagram in
> > which you can go from derivative to integral, or go from integral to
> > derivative, by simply a hinge down to form a rectangle for area, or a
> > hinge up to form the derivative from a given rectangle.
> >
> > Why in Old Math could no professor of math ever do the Calculus
> > Diagram? Why? The answer is simple, no-one in Old Math pays attention
> > to Logic, and that no-one in Old Math was required to take formal
> > Logic when they attended school. So a person bereft of Logic, is never
> > going to find mistakes of Logic and think clear and think straight.
> >
> > by Archimedes Plutonium
> > ------------------
> > -------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall
> >
> > 12 PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon
> > by Archimedes Plutonium
> >
> > Proofs that the Real Electron=muon and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall
> > >
> > PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon
> >
> > 1st proof is chemical bonding cannot exist with momentum of 938 versus ..5MeV
> > Chemical Bonds are covalent, ionic, metallic. You simply cannot get atoms to bond if the electron is thought of as the .5MeV particle, only with a muon at 105 MeV and the proton at 840 MeV with neutron at 945 MeV do you have the physics of angular momentum that allows bonding in Chemistry. The .5MeV particle was, all along a magnetic monopole of a photon with .5 MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy.
> >
> > AP
>
> Seriously, si reposting the same shit over and over really how you talk?

fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 07:27:09 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> Malum, why not ask the simple question, which is the Atom's real electron -- the muon or the 0.5MeV particle that AP says is Dirac's magnetic monopole, instead of your daily spam scree of regurgitating Gabriel posts.
> On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 2:05:44 AM UTC-5, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Den fredag 8 juni 2018 kl. 07:57:33 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> > > Zelos Malum calls "fuckign stupid"
> > > Markus Hennrich,
> > > Carl XVI Gustaf
> > > Tommy Ohlsson, Paul Crutzen
> > > Tony Hansson,, stalker-- Zelos Malum, Can't do proper Calculus, thinks electron is .5MeV when it is Dirac's monopole , Real Proton = 840MeV
> > >
> > > Zelos Malum wrote:
> > >
> > > 12:47 AM (3 minutes ago)
> > > >Bigger question is, how are you this fuckign stupid?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Stockholm University
> > > Math logic
> > > Per Martin-Lof, Erik Palmgren, Tom Britton, Pavel Kurasov
> > > Alexander Berglund, Jonas Bergstrom*, Rikard Bogvad
> > > Samuel Lundqvist, Annemarie Luger *, Erik Palmgren
> > > Torbjorn Tambour
> > >
> > > Stockholm Univ physics
> > > Tony Hansson, Markus Hennrich, Tommy Ohlsson, Paul Crutzen *,
> > >
> > > Swedish physics, et al
> > > Bo Thide, Max Tegmark, Cecilia Jarlskog, Lars Bergstrom, Lars Samuelson
> > > Anders Flodstrom, Hans Ryde, Anders Barany, Gunnar von Heijne
> > > Claes-Goran Granqvist, Joakim Edsjo, Carl Falthammar, Sven Hansson, Arne Kaijser
> > > Pres. Sigbritt Karlsson (KTH)
> > >
> > >
> > > University Gothenburg
> > > Bernt Wennberg
> > > Aila Sarkka
> > >
> > > Univ Stockholm Physics dept
> > >
> > > Gunnar Benediktsson, Clas Blomberg, Bo Cartling
> > > Olle Edholm, Goran Grimvall, Goran Lindblad
> > > Hakan Snellman, Jouko Mickelsson, Anders Rosengren
> > > John Rundgren
> > >
> > >
> > > /\-------/\
> > > \::O:::O::/
> > > (::_ ^ _::)
> > > \_`-----'_/
> > > You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Stockholm?
> > >
> > > And, even though you-- professors of physics/math, want to remain silent and stupid in Real Electron = muon, Calculus your students deserve better.
> > >
> > >
> > > SEE PICTURE DIAGRAM of FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS below, professors hate teaching this for it shows their "limit calculus to be a joke"
> > >
> > > PICTURE DIAGRAM OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS
> > >
> > > By April 2015, was there for the first time a picture diagram proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, not just an analysis argument, but a geometry proof (see below). Old Math could never assemble a picture diagram of the FTC. All they could do is argue with limit concept an analysis argument, never a geometry proof of FTC.
> > >
> > > A picture diagram proof of FTC changes all of calculus and thus, changes all of mathematics for it requires a infinity borderline to produce an actual number for the infinitesimal, and that number is the inverse of the infinity borderline. Requiring a infinity borderline to produce the infinitesimal changes all of mathematics, and throwing out the limit concept. By changing all of Calculus and thus correcting mathematics, all of math before 2015 was just trash math.
> > >
> > > Picture Diagram needed for Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > >
> > > Why no continuum and no curves exist in Math, so that the Calculus
> > > can exist, and does exist
> > >
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium
> > >
> > > Calculus is based upon there being Grid points in geometry, no
> > > continuum, but actually, empty space between two neighboring points.
> > > This is called Discrete geometry, and in physics, this is called
> > > Quantum Mechanics. In 10 Grid, the first few numbers are 0, .1, .2,
> > > .3, etc. That means there does not exist any number between 0 and .1,
> > > no number exists between .1 and .2. Now if you want more precise
> > > numbers, you go to a higher Grid like that of 100 Grid where the first
> > > few numbers are 0, .01, .02, .03, etc.
> > >
> > > Calculus in order to exist at all, needs this empty space between
> > > consecutive numbers or successor numbers. It needs that empty space so
> > > that the integral of calculus is actually small rectangles whose
> > > interior area is not zero. So in 10 Grid, the smallest width of any
> > > Calculus rectangle is of width .1. In 100 Grid the smallest width is
> > > .01.
> > >
> > > But, this revolutionary understanding of Calculus does not stop with
> > > the Integral, for having empty space between numbers, means no curves
> > > in math exist, but are ever tinier straight-line segments.
> > >
> > > It also means, that the Derivative in Calculus is part and parcel of
> > > the function graph itself. So that in a function such as y = x^2, the
> > > function graph is the derivative at a point. In Old Math, they had the
> > > folly and idiocy of a foreign, alien tangent line to a function graph
> > > as derivative. In New Math, the derivative is the same as the function
> > > graph itself. And, this makes commonsense, utter commonsense, for the
> > > derivative is a prediction of the future of the function in question,
> > > and no way in the world can a foreign tangent line to a point on the
> > > function be able to predict, be able to tell where the future point of
> > > that function be. The only predictor of a future point of a function,
> > > is the function graph itself.
> > >
> > > If the Calculus was done correctly, conceived correctly, then a
> > > minimal diagram explains all of Calculus. Old Math never had such a
> > > diagram, because Old Math was in total error of what Calculus is, and
> > > what Calculus does.
> > >
> > > The fundamental picture of all of Calculus are these two of a
> > > trapezoid and rectangle. In fact, call the picture, the
> > >
> > > FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS, Picture
> > >
> > > Trapezoid for derivative as the roof-top of
> > > the trapezoid, which must be a straight-line segment. If it is curved,
> > > you cannot fold it down to form a integral rectangle. And the
> > > rectangle for integral as area.
> > >
> > > From this:
> > > B
> > > /|
> > > / |
> > > A /----|
> > > / |
> > > | |
> > > |____|
> > >
> > >
> > > The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
> > > so that it can be hinged at A, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
> > > integral.
> > >
> > > To this:
> > >
> > > ______
> > > | |
> > > | |
> > > | |
> > > ---------
> > >
> > > And the derivative of x= A, above is merely the dy/dx involving points
> > > A and B. Thus, it can never be a curve in Calculus. And the AB is part
> > > of the function graph itself. No curves exist in mathematics and no
> > > continuum exists in mathematics.
> > >
> > > In the above we see that CALCULUS needs and requires a diagram in
> > > which you can go from derivative to integral, or go from integral to
> > > derivative, by simply a hinge down to form a rectangle for area, or a
> > > hinge up to form the derivative from a given rectangle.
> > >
> > > Why in Old Math could no professor of math ever do the Calculus
> > > Diagram? Why? The answer is simple, no-one in Old Math pays attention
> > > to Logic, and that no-one in Old Math was required to take formal
> > > Logic when they attended school. So a person bereft of Logic, is never
> > > going to find mistakes of Logic and think clear and think straight.
> > >
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium
> > > ------------------
> > > -------------------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall
> > >
> > > 12 PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium
> > >
> > > Proofs that the Real Electron=muon and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall
> > > >
> > > PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon
> > >
> > > 1st proof is chemical bonding cannot exist with momentum of 938 versus .5MeV
> > > Chemical Bonds are covalent, ionic, metallic. You simply cannot get atoms to bond if the electron is thought of as the .5MeV particle, only with a muon at 105 MeV and the proton at 840 MeV with neutron at 945 MeV do you have the physics of angular momentum that allows bonding in Chemistry. The .5MeV particle was, all along a magnetic monopole of a photon with .5 MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy.
> > >
> > > AP
> >
> > Seriously, si reposting the same shit over and over really how you talk?