12-- AP's 199th book A book of New Age, New Wave math conjectures

Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Sep 9, 2021, 2:57:45 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Making up a brand new conjecture is a lot easier than proving a conjecture, but here I think I am going to prove my below, after some modifications.

> So let me make this my 199th book of science, a new era of Math Conjectures since AP solved all the Old Math conjectures outstanding. We need a new era to wile away the time of math professors.
>
> Since the last conjecture I solved was Collatz, let me start with a New Era, New Wave of conjectures starting with a conjecture that looks like a Collatz type of problem.
> On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 1:56:49 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Having Conquered Collatz conjecture by AP in 2016, thoroughly conquering and destroying Collatz with AP's famous 4 Consecutive Evens in a Row Proof. That AP is drafting a New Age type of Collatz conjecture to keep rumdummy math professors active for another 100 years in their "no logical brains to be in mathematics".
> >
> > Now AP is well known for making the most difficult math conjectures, unproven for 2,000 years look like a piece of cake in solving. AP is well known for that. Or in the case of Riemann Hypothesis and Twin Primes Infinitude, where AP offers not only a proof, but two alternative proofs, instead of 1, yet the rest of the math community pulling out there hair for just a beginning lead into a proof.
> >
> > AP's fearsome conquering of math conjectures that no math professor even has a hope of indulging is matched by AP's simplicity of proof. I mean, well, there you have a childish silly idiotic Wiles proof of Fermat's Last Theorem in 150 pages of mind numbing nonsense because Wiles proof is a scam, scam scam spam on par with John Gabriel scam spam that even street suckers, and loolipop suckers of Simon Singh and Kevin Hartnett soak in as if on a Bermuda vacation. Whereas AP's true proof of math of Fermat's Last Theorem is just a sentence long 2+2=2x2=4 yet no N+N+N= NxNxN = M allows for solutions to Pythagorean theorem but none for exp 3 and higher. And something that even crumby science reporters like Simon Singh or Kevin Hartnett can carry home and put bacon on the table for their households.
> >
> > So AP is more than a conqueror, more than Peter the Great or Ivan the Terrible or veni, vedi, vici, as Julius Caesar famously said crossing the Mississippi, et tu, Brute.
> >
> > So AP is assembling a New Wave, a New Age Conjecture to keep math pinheads occupied in their driverless cars to and from the university down the turnpike, or in train terminals.
> >
> > AP's conjecture
> >
> > We take Successive Evens 4 in a row and add and multiply.
> >
> > 2+4 = 6 4+6 = 10 6+8 = 14
> > 2x4 = 8 4x6 = 24 6x8 = 48
> >
> > then the next set of 4 consecutive evens
> >
> > 10+12 =22 14 +16=30 18+20=38
> > 10x12=120 14x16=224 18x20=360
> >
> > Now we do the same thing with odd numbers
> >
> > 1+3 = 4 5+7=12 9+11=20
> > 1x3= 3 5x7= 35 9x11=99
> >

So in this conjecture I wanted a flavor of Galois Algebra but also a flavor of Collatz. And if I make some modifications I believe I can prove this conjecture.

> Now AP threw out Galois Algebra as unnecessary crap, for the mistake of Galois was to be ignorant of a axiom of mathematics of algebra. All equations of mathematics must never have a zero all alone on the rightside of the equation, worse yet is to have negative numbers all alone on the rightside of the equation. Or, any number that is not a positive Decimal Grid Number all alone on the rightside of the equation is not a equation of mathematics.
>
> Call it the Axiom of Equation. All valid equations of math are ones in which there is a positive non zero Decimal Grid Number all alone on the rightside of the equation at all times. (If you are Chinese, then leftside.)
>
> So the mistake Galois made was he never knew or learned this essential axiom of mathematics, and thus, he wasted his life in mathematics on Galois algebras.
>
> The solution or proof of Collatz of 1937 is a one sentence proof that in all and any 4 consecutive Even numbers, one of them is a factor of 8 and will slide you down faster to 1 than ever landing on a even number. So all Counting Numbers have this backbone of 4 consecutive Evens in a row.
>
> So, can we make a modern day New Wave, New Era Collatz type of conjecture and bring in Galois also? Although Collatz is relatively recent in 1937 while Galois goes back to the 1800s.
>
> So yesterday I started making a algebra type matrix with that of consecutive evens and consecutive odds.
>
> 2+4 = 6, 4+6 = 10, 6+8 = 14
> 2x4 = 8, 4x6 = 24, 6x8 = 48
>
> 1+3 = 4, 3+5 =8, 5+7=12,
> 1x3= 3, 3x5=15, 5x7=35
>
> So, let us input Galois 4 by 4 matrix. And couple it with Collatz 4 consecutive Evens and 4 consecutive Odds in a row.
>
> Now we can only use addition and multiplication.
>
> Conjecture-- there exists a unique pattern that encompasses all the counting numbers starting with 3. In the above I can only obtain 3,4,5, 6, missing 7, missing 9, missing 11, etc. The pattern is not the default pattern of 2+2k for even and 1+2k for odd. Or, is the default pattern the only such that includes all the counting numbers starting with 3.
>

Let me modify that Conjecture considerably for I have the hankering that only the Default Pattern exists 2+2k for all evens and 1+2k for all odds. That is it, end of story.

However if I bring in the Concept of Infinity borderline 1*10^604, this conjecture takes on a brand new story line, and a surprizing story line at that.

The only thing we save from Collatz is the 3N+1 only we use the 3 in division for all odd numbers.
Of course we use 2 for all even numbers.

Now one beauty of the Decimal Grid System as the true numbers of mathematics, that I can predict what happens in 1*10^604 by pretending 10 is the infinity borderline and thus 100 as 10^2 is the algebraic completeness (Galois)..

So Old Math had only 2+2K and 1+2K for all evens and all odds.

But if we started at infinity (pretend 10) and start at the algebraic closure 100 and divide by 3 as we descend to 10 do we all the Odd numbers 1,3,5, 7,9 in 10 Grid. So as we descend from 100 we are dividing 3 into so called infinity numbers and as we reach 27 we get 9 and 21 we get 7 and 15 we get 5 and have to take 1 and 3 as givens. Now as we descend and divide by 2 starting at 20 we get 10 then at 16 we get 8 and at 12 we get 6. And we have to take 4 and 2 as given.

So here I shift the original conjecture to that of being this new one.

Modified Conjecture of Collatz and Galois: If we start at Infinity Borderline and divide by 3, we get all the odd numbers except for a few givens as we descend from the algebraic closure. And dividing by 2 we get all the evens except for a few givens. And a side question, in our descent we do not have to start at algebraic closure but can start far lower and what specifically is that lower number? For example in 10 Grid we could start at 20 instead of 100 for we pick up 9 from 18/2. But this is risky, for maybe in the 100 Grid with algebraic closure 10000, that we do not get 99 by division of 2.

So whereas Old Math had 2+2K and 1+2K, that New Math also has closure/3 = all odd and closure/2= all evens except for a few givens.

AP

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Sep 9, 2021, 6:00:41 PM (2 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Since AP conquered most of Old Math conjectures, time for AP to assemble the new set of Conjectures to be proven for the future.

to Plutonium Atom Universe
Having Conquered Collatz conjecture by AP in 2016, thoroughly conquering and destroying Collatz with AP's famous 4 Consecutive Evens in a Row Proof. That AP is drafting a New Age type of Collatz conjecture to keep rumdummy math professors active for...

Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 8, 2021, 1:56:49 PM
to sci.math
Having Conquered Collatz conjecture by AP in 2016, thoroughly conquering and destroying Collatz with AP's famous 4 Consecutive Evens in a Row Proof. That AP is drafting a New Age type of Collatz conjecture to keep rumdummy math professors active for another 100 years in their "no logical brains to be in mathematics".

Now AP is well known for making the most difficult math conjectures, unproven for 2,000 years look like a piece of cake in solving. AP is well known for that. Or in the case of Riemann Hypothesis and Twin Primes Infinitude, where AP offers not only a proof, but two alternative proofs, instead of 1, yet the rest of the math community pulling out there hair for just a beginning lead into a proof.

AP's fearsome conquering of math conjectures that no math professor even has a hope of indulging is matched by AP's simplicity of proof. I mean, well, there you have a childish silly idiotic Wiles proof of Fermat's Last Theorem in 150 pages of mind numbing nonsense because Wiles proof is a scam, scam scam spam on par with John Gabriel scam spam that even street suckers, and loolipop suckers of Simon Singh and Kevin Hartnett soak in as if on a Bermuda vacation. Whereas AP's true proof of math of Fermat's Last Theorem is just a sentence long 2+2=2x2=4 yet no N+N+N= NxNxN = M allows for solutions to Pythagorean theorem but none for exp 3 and higher. And something that even crumby science reporters like Simon Singh or Kevin Hartnett can carry home and put bacon on the table for their households.

CONJECTURE #16.1

Statement: All of set theory belongs in Logic and not Mathematics, especially Venn Diagrams. And specifically, all of set theory belongs in Pragmatism Philosophy that belongs in Logic.

Possible lead in a proof of the conjecture is that in Old Logic, riddled full of error and mistakes, and one of their disgusting mistakes was the Either..Or.. Or.. Both, which is in reality a "compacted contradiction of terms.. The Either-OR-OR-Both of Old Logic is no better than if someone answered your question by saying YesNo. So, what the hell is a answer of "YesNo". Do they mean yes, or do they mean no. Same sort of gross error of Old Logic of their Either..Or..Or.. Both. And the people in Old Logic were so so mindless of logic itself, that none of them had even a itsy bitsy brain of logic to question-- "hey, you fool, is it not alarming that you have several takes on the connector OR". I mean you have a inclusive Or and you have a exclusive Or. Which means, you have a half brain in ever doing logic.

So why was no-one in Old Logic ever skeptical about their idiocy of 2 sorts of OR. Why not 2 types of AND or two types of If-Then. If you have two types of OR why not 2 or 3 types of NOT.

So, I mean, those in Old Logic were truly failures of mental reasoning. And we can expect from such failures of mental reasoning that they would mess up on their contraption they call a "set".

So what AP conjectures in #16, is that all of "set theory" belongs in Logic and Pragmatism where Pragmatism is the geometry wing or side of Logic, leaving the quantity or algebra side of Logic as the connectors with Existential and Universal quantification as the algebra of Logic.

And the easy proof of this, I suspect is associated with that mindless Either-Or-Or-Both, that you cannot make a Venn Diagram of Either-Or-Or-Both, and giving us a easy proof.

However, we can use the concept or word of "set" in New Math as having a loose meaning, for AP often says that Mathematics is a subset of Physics, yet set theory never belongs in mathematics. In mathematics, the closest or nearest we come to set theory is "sequence concept".

Conjecture #16.2
Statement: Prove that Set theory can never be a part of mathematics. Suggested proof: Mathematics has no concept of "disjoint". Although math has concept of discrete, as well as physics, but no concept of disjoint.

And here I need to fill out more of my already published book, my 100th published book.

Pragmatism, the only Philosophy I loved // Teaching True Logic series, book 4
By Archimedes Plutonium

Last revision was on 10Nov2020. This is AP's 100th published book.

Preface: I need to give credit to the philosophy of Pragmatism, the only philosophy that I know of that is based on science. Credit for my discovery of the Plutonium Atom Totality in 1990, came in part, partially due to a passage of the Pragmatist Charles Sanders Peirce in Peirce's Cosmology:

 Peirce's The Architecture of Theories...
         ...would be a Cosmogonic Philosophy. It would suppose that in the beginning - infinitely remote - there was a chaos of unpersonalized feeling, which being without connection or regularity would properly be without existence. This feeling, sporting here and there in pure arbitrariness, would have
started the germ of a generalizing tendency. Its other sportings would be evanescent, but this would have a growing virtue. Thus, the tendency to habit would be started; and from this, with the other principles of evolution, all the regularities of the universe would be evolved. At any time, however, an element of pure chance survives and will remain until the world becomes an absolutely perfect, rational, and symmetrical system, in which mind is at last crystallized in the infinitely distant future.
--- end quoting Peirce's Cosmology ---

But also I must give credit to Pragmatism for making it a philosophy one can actually live their lives by, for living a life of pragmatic solutions to everyday problems that occur in my life. A case in point example is now in March 2020, being the pragmatist that I am, and enduring the 2020 corona virus pandemic. No other philosophy that I know of is so keenly in tune with a person, the surrounding environment and how to live.

Cover Picture: Is my photograph of the two books on Pragmatism that I almost looked upon as my-bibles-of-living. The small paperback was bought by me at Univ Cincinnati when I was a 1st year student 1969 not for any course, but my own self study reading, for I was curious of what philosophies existed. The second one I purchased at Melbourne Univ, 1974, when I was a math teacher in Australia. So good was the 1969 book that I bought the 1974 book, not knowing until 1990 how crucial and critical was this book with its Peirce's Cosmology.

---------------------------
Table of Contents
---------------------------

1) My greatest discovery in science came directly from the philosophy of Pragmatism.

2) Pragmatism in the history of my life.

3) Pragmatism, the most scientific of all the philosophies.

4) Knowledge is in the "doing". Truth is what works, and "works in the long run". Meaning or understanding is in the "use". Wisdom is "habits of what works".

5) Some truths are absolute.

6) Pragmatism as the best philosophy system of all since its mechanism is the 'scientific method'.

7) Meaning is future actions. Knowledge is in the "doing". Ideas for a pragmatist is weapons for purposeful action.

8) AP extends Pragmatism to be the generalization of Logic// So that Logic is a generalization of Math, but Pragmatism a generalization of Logic.

9) Descriptive-Language Format of the Maxwell Equations contain much more information than the Math format.

10) The Transformation of Pragmatism as the Geometry of Language.

11) Pragmatism the Geometry and Calculus part of Logic.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics

On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 3:30:22 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> CONJECTURE #16.1
>
> Statement: All of set theory belongs in Logic and not Mathematics, especially Venn Diagrams. And specifically, all of set theory belongs in Pragmatism Philosophy that belongs in Logic.
>
> Possible lead in a proof of the conjecture is that in Old Logic, riddled full of error and mistakes, and one of their disgusting mistakes was the Either..Or.. Or.. Both, which is in reality a "compacted contradiction of terms. The Either-OR-OR-Both of Old Logic is no better than if someone answered your question by saying YesNo. So, what the hell is a answer of "YesNo". Do they mean yes, or do they mean no. Same sort of gross error of Old Logic of their Either..Or..Or.. Both. And the people in Old Logic were so so mindless of logic itself, that none of them had even a itsy bitsy brain of logic to question-- "hey, you fool, is it not alarming that you have several takes on the connector OR". I mean you have a inclusive Or and you have a exclusive Or. Which means, you have a half brain in ever doing logic.
>
> So why was no-one in Old Logic ever skeptical about their idiocy of 2 sorts of OR. Why not 2 types of AND or two types of If-Then. If you have two types of OR why not 2 or 3 types of NOT.
>
> So, I mean, those in Old Logic were truly failures of mental reasoning. And we can expect from such failures of mental reasoning that they would mess up on their contraption they call a "set".
>
> So what AP conjectures in #16, is that all of "set theory" belongs in Logic and Pragmatism where Pragmatism is the geometry wing or side of Logic, leaving the quantity or algebra side of Logic as the connectors with Existential and Universal quantification as the algebra of Logic.
>
> And the easy proof of this, I suspect is associated with that mindless Either-Or-Or-Both, that you cannot make a Venn Diagram of Either-Or-Or-Both, and giving us a easy proof.
>
> However, we can use the concept or word of "set" in New Math as having a loose meaning, for AP often says that Mathematics is a subset of Physics, yet set theory never belongs in mathematics. In mathematics, the closest or nearest we come to set theory is "sequence concept".
>
> Conjecture #16.2
> Statement: Prove that Set theory can never be a part of mathematics. Suggested proof: Mathematics has no concept of "disjoint". Although math has concept of discrete, as well as physics, but no concept of disjoint.

No, the proof is Halving or Thirding a given set, the reverse of Union is halving. And this is the proving mechanism, that Set theory is a part of Logic and Pragmatism philosophy but not a part of mathematics.

>
> And here I need to fill out more of my already published book, my 100th published book.
>
> Pragmatism, the only Philosophy I loved // Teaching True Logic series, book 4
> By Archimedes Plutonium
>
> Last revision was on 10Nov2020. This is AP's 100th published book.
>
> Preface: I need to give credit to the philosophy of Pragmatism, the only philosophy that I know of that is based on science. Credit for my discovery of the Plutonium Atom Totality in 1990, came in part, partially due to a passage of the Pragmatist Charles Sanders Peirce in Peirce's Cosmology:
>
> Peirce's The Architecture of Theories...
> ...would be a Cosmogonic Philosophy. It would suppose that in the beginning - infinitely remote - there was a chaos of unpersonalized feeling, which being without connection or regularity would properly be without existence.. This feeling, sporting here and there in pure arbitrariness, would have
> started the germ of a generalizing tendency. Its other sportings would be evanescent, but this would have a growing virtue. Thus, the tendency to habit would be started; and from this, with the other principles of evolution, all the regularities of the universe would be evolved. At any time, however, an element of pure chance survives and will remain until the world becomes an absolutely perfect, rational, and symmetrical system, in which mind is at last crystallized in the infinitely distant future.
> --- end quoting Peirce's Cosmology ---
>
> But also I must give credit to Pragmatism for making it a philosophy one can actually live their lives by, for living a life of pragmatic solutions to everyday problems that occur in my life. A case in point example is now in March 2020, being the pragmatist that I am, and enduring the 2020 corona virus pandemic. No other philosophy that I know of is so keenly in tune with a person, the surrounding environment and how to live.
>
> Cover Picture: Is my photograph of the two books on Pragmatism that I almost looked upon as my-bibles-of-living. The small paperback was bought by me at Univ Cincinnati when I was a 1st year student 1969 not for any course, but my own self study reading, for I was curious of what philosophies existed. The second one I purchased at Melbourne Univ, 1974, when I was a math teacher in Australia. So good was the 1969 book that I bought the 1974 book, not knowing until 1990 how crucial and critical was this book with its Peirce's Cosmology.
>
> ---------------------------
> Table of Contents
> ---------------------------
>
> 1) My greatest discovery in science came directly from the philosophy of Pragmatism.
>
> 2) Pragmatism in the history of my life.
>
> 3) Pragmatism, the most scientific of all the philosophies.
>
> 4) Knowledge is in the "doing". Truth is what works, and "works in the long run". Meaning or understanding is in the "use". Wisdom is "habits of what works".
>
> 5) Some truths are absolute.
>
> 6) Pragmatism as the best philosophy system of all since its mechanism is the 'scientific method'.
>
> 7) Meaning is future actions. Knowledge is in the "doing". Ideas for a pragmatist is weapons for purposeful action.
>
> 8) AP extends Pragmatism to be the generalization of Logic// So that Logic is a generalization of Math, but Pragmatism a generalization of Logic.
>
> 9) Descriptive-Language Format of the Maxwell Equations contain much more information than the Math format.
>
> 10) The Transformation of Pragmatism as the Geometry of Language.
>
> 11) Pragmatism the Geometry and Calculus part of Logic.
> AP
> King of Science, especially Physics

On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 3:07:07 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 3:30:22 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > CONJECTURE #16.1
> >
> > Statement: All of set theory belongs in Logic and not Mathematics, especially Venn Diagrams. And specifically, all of set theory belongs in Pragmatism Philosophy that belongs in Logic.
> >
> > Possible lead in a proof of the conjecture is that in Old Logic, riddled full of error and mistakes, and one of their disgusting mistakes was the Either..Or.. Or.. Both, which is in reality a "compacted contradiction of terms. The Either-OR-OR-Both of Old Logic is no better than if someone answered your question by saying YesNo. So, what the hell is a answer of "YesNo".. Do they mean yes, or do they mean no. Same sort of gross error of Old Logic of their Either..Or..Or.. Both. And the people in Old Logic were so so mindless of logic itself, that none of them had even a itsy bitsy brain of logic to question-- "hey, you fool, is it not alarming that you have several takes on the connector OR". I mean you have a inclusive Or and you have a exclusive Or. Which means, you have a half brain in ever doing logic.
> >
> > So why was no-one in Old Logic ever skeptical about their idiocy of 2 sorts of OR. Why not 2 types of AND or two types of If-Then. If you have two types of OR why not 2 or 3 types of NOT.
> >
> > So, I mean, those in Old Logic were truly failures of mental reasoning. And we can expect from such failures of mental reasoning that they would mess up on their contraption they call a "set".
> >
> > So what AP conjectures in #16, is that all of "set theory" belongs in Logic and Pragmatism where Pragmatism is the geometry wing or side of Logic, leaving the quantity or algebra side of Logic as the connectors with Existential and Universal quantification as the algebra of Logic.
> >
> > And the easy proof of this, I suspect is associated with that mindless Either-Or-Or-Both, that you cannot make a Venn Diagram of Either-Or-Or-Both, and giving us a easy proof.
> >
> > However, we can use the concept or word of "set" in New Math as having a loose meaning, for AP often says that Mathematics is a subset of Physics, yet set theory never belongs in mathematics. In mathematics, the closest or nearest we come to set theory is "sequence concept".
> >
> > Conjecture #16.2
> > Statement: Prove that Set theory can never be a part of mathematics. Suggested proof: Mathematics has no concept of "disjoint". Although math has concept of discrete, as well as physics, but no concept of disjoint.
> No, the proof is Halving or Thirding a given set, the reverse of Union is halving. And this is the proving mechanism, that Set theory is a part of Logic and Pragmatism philosophy but not a part of mathematics.

And of course, the other way around, in that there is something in Set theory for which mathematics never has or never can possess, and obviously that is Continuity. To have continuity, means throwing out Calculus.

The key to telling the difference between Mathematics and Logic is that Mathematics is discrete with the motion of calculus. While Logic embraces everything even fictional concepts such as Continuity. Which in itself is logical that you have to talk about fictional items to know what is "true real items". And this is the case of Physics also, in that Physics is a larger body of knowledge than Logic. Math is a subset of Logic and Logic is a subset of Physics.

And today I want to start CONJECTURES 17, and 18.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics

CONJECTURE 17.1

The difference between Centripetal force and Centrifugal force. Halliday & Resnick, 1988 do not even bother in covering centrifugal but explain centripetal starting page 111 "Uniform Circular Motion" F= (m*v^2)/r.

Physics calls centrifugal force a "fictional force". And most books do not even bother teaching centrifugal. And most people are happy to memorize that centrifugal is the fiction force while centripetal is the real force, which is bothersome to almost everyone because they know centrifuges work to separate blood. Most students have heard of centrifuge and spinning liquids to separate, and here they come to physics and told that centrifugal force is a fiction force.

So here AP wants to straighten out this mess that Old Physics left behind. And I include this discussion in my upcoming TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year College.

So what is the truth behind centripetal and centrifugal forces. Is Centrifugal really a fiction force?

STATEMENT OF CONJECTURE 17.1 : We all know particle wave duality of physics.. Well, AP conjectures that centripetal force is the Coulomb-gravity law of E' = (Voltage/(CB))' and one of those terms of the three terms of that differential equation has the Centripetal-Centrifugal force.

Old Physics failed to realize that Centripetal and Centrifugal both are genuine forces with opposite directions. None is fictional. And these two forces are like particle wave experiments. We design a experiment that shows the particle nature, or we design a different experiment to show the wave nature.

Same thing goes for Centripetal and Centrifugal, where centripetal is the wave nature of spinning motion while the centrifugal is the particle nature.

More to discuss....

But now before I forget I want to start Conjecture 18.1.

CONJECTURE 18.1 : It is somewhat easy to show in mathematics where all the closed loop figures of only straightlines 2D geometry can be broken down into a minimum number of right-triangles. Mind you these figures consist of only straightlines. But in New Math, there are no curve lines, none at all because the numbers are discrete with gaps in between one number to the next number, and so we have to join those two points with a straightline. This is 2D. What about 3D? Can we say all Closed loop 3D figures consist of a minimum number of right triangular wedges?

Statement: Every Closed loop 3D figure has a miniumum number of right triangular wedges.

Now that is not the real important conjecture I want to reach and grab for. The real important conjecture involves the Physics EM theory of Voltage = CBE where B magnetic field is always perpendicular to E, electric field (some like to think of E as angular momentum for it has the same units).

CONJECTURE 18.2 STATEMENT : Every volume of Space is composed of a minimum number of 3D right triangular wedges which in turn is a B field at right angle to a E field and for which the current is a 2D closed loop of a pencil-ellipse. And here we draw upon the previous conjecture of Centripetal and Centrifugal force.

CONJECTURE 18.3 STATEMENT : In the book The Elements Beyond Uranium, Seaborg, Loveland, 1990, page 73, shows the "The General Set and the The Cubic Set". And it has always bothered me why there should be two different sets. And here again we can assert Duality, of particle to wave. For electricity in EM theory does not flow well in straightline circuits for as electricity hits a vertex, it is disturbed, a disturbance of the electricity and so the vertices the sharp corners are rounded off to form a ellipsoid or pencil ellipse. Conjecture: prove that the two representations of General and Cubic are because one is wave other is particle.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics

Here I am tying together particle to wave, centripetal to centrifugal, General to Cubic representation.

On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 4:28:33 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Here I am tying together particle to wave, centripetal to centrifugal, General to Cubic representation.

I do not know the history of the centripetal versus centrifugal force and the assigned "ficticious label to centrifugal". I do not know the history of that debate and would be intriguing to find out if before 1900 or after. But I do know for a fact, that Old Physics downplayed or undercut the centrifugal force. Maybe they saw it and thought of centrifugal as a form of Special Relativity in play. But they certainly could not deny the centrifuge machine that is operating each and every day across the world.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics

Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
Sep 15, 2021, 3:17:10 PM (yesterday)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
CONJECTURE 17.1

The difference between Centripetal force and Centrifugal force. Halliday & Resnick, 1988 do not even bother in covering centrifugal but explain centripetal starting page 111 "Uniform Circular Motion" F= (m*v^2)/r.

Physics calls centrifugal force a "fictional force". And most books do not even bother teaching centrifugal. And most people are happy to memorize that centrifugal is the fiction force while centripetal is the real force, which is bothersome to almost everyone because they know centrifuges work to separate blood. Most students have heard of centrifuge and spinning liquids to separate, and here they come to physics and told that centrifugal force is a fiction force.

So here AP wants to straighten out this mess that Old Physics left behind. And I include this discussion in my upcoming TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year College.

So what is the truth behind centripetal and centrifugal forces. Is Centrifugal really a fiction force?

STATEMENT OF CONJECTURE 17.1 : We all know particle wave duality of physics.. Well, AP conjectures that centripetal force is the Coulomb-gravity law of E' = (Voltage/(CB))' and one of those terms of the three terms of that differential equation has the Centripetal-Centrifugal force.

Old Physics failed to realize that Centripetal and Centrifugal both are genuine forces with opposite directions. None is fictional. And these two forces are like particle wave experiments. We design a experiment that shows the particle nature, or we design a different experiment to show the wave nature.

Same thing goes for Centripetal and Centrifugal, where centripetal is the wave nature of spinning motion while the centrifugal is the particle nature.

More to discuss....

But now before I forget I want to start Conjecture 18.1.

CONJECTURE 18.1 : It is somewhat easy to show in mathematics where all the closed loop figures of only straightlines 2D geometry can be broken down into a minimum number of right-triangles. Mind you these figures consist of only straightlines. But in New Math, there are no curve lines, none at all because the numbers are discrete with gaps in between one number to the next number, and so we have to join those two points with a straightline. This is 2D. What about 3D? Can we say all Closed loop 3D figures consist of a minimum number of right triangular wedges?

Statement: Every Closed loop 3D figure has a miniumum number of right triangular wedges.

Now that is not the real important conjecture I want to reach and grab for. The real important conjecture involves the Physics EM theory of Voltage = CBE where B magnetic field is always perpendicular to E, electric field (some like to think of E as angular momentum for it has the same units).

CONJECTURE 18.2 STATEMENT : Every volume of Space is composed of a minimum number of 3D right triangular wedges which in turn is a B field at right angle to a E field and for which the current is a 2D closed loop of a pencil-ellipse. And here we draw upon the previous conjecture of Centripetal and Centrifugal force.

CONJECTURE 18.3 STATEMENT : In the book The Elements Beyond Uranium, Seaborg, Loveland, 1990, page 73, shows the "The General Set and the The Cubic Set". And it has always bothered me why there should be two different sets. And here again we can assert Duality, of particle to wave. For electricity in EM theory does not flow well in straightline circuits for as electricity hits a vertex, it is disturbed, a disturbance of the electricity and so the vertices the sharp corners are rounded off to form a ellipsoid or pencil ellipse. Conjecture: prove that the two representations of General and Cubic are because one is wave other is particle.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics


Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
Sep 15, 2021, 4:29:51 PM (24 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Here I am tying together particle to wave, centripetal to centrifugal, General to Cubic representation.

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
Sep 15, 2021, 6:33:06 PM (22 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe

On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 4:28:33 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Here I am tying together particle to wave, centripetal to centrifugal, General to Cubic representation.

I do not know the history of the centripetal versus centrifugal force and the assigned "ficticious label to centrifugal". I do not know the history of that debate and would be intriguing to find out if before 1900 or after. But I do know for a fact, that Old Physics downplayed or undercut the centrifugal force. Maybe they saw it and thought of centrifugal as a form of Special Relativity in play. But they certainly could not deny the centrifuge machine that is operating each and every day across the world.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
Sep 15, 2021, 11:48:45 PM (16 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 6:31:28 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 4:28:33 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Here I am tying together particle to wave, centripetal to centrifugal, General to Cubic representation.
>
> I do not know the history of the centripetal versus centrifugal force and the assigned "ficticious label to centrifugal". I do not know the history of that debate and would be intriguing to find out if before 1900 or after. But I do know for a fact, that Old Physics downplayed or undercut the centrifugal force. Maybe they saw it and thought of centrifugal as a form of Special Relativity in play. But they certainly could not deny the centrifuge machine that is operating each and every day across the world.

I was just reading Wikipedia's entree of "Fictitious Force" saying " A fictitious force (also called a pseudo force, d'Alembert force, or inertial force is a force that appears to act on a mass whose motion is described using a non-inertial frame of reference.."

And I ask any reader, especially those who pride themselves of having a logical mind. Does that make sense? Not to me and I know I have a logical mind, much more so than the author of that above. Because the above does not explain anything. For the reader with a logical mind now has to ask-- what the hell is a non-inertial frame of reference.

You see, a author of something explaining something, needs to simplify in order to offer a explanation, not ratchet up the explanation where the explanation is more opaque and obfuscation than the original concept itself. More people understand a fictitious force on its periphery than they ever understand what the hell is a non-inertial frame of reference.

So what AP would do if asked to define fictitious force such as centrifugal force would be to say. There is no fiction to centrifugal force at all, but rather, like particle and wave duality. In some experiments you see all particle no wave, others you see all wave no particle. Same goes for centrifugal and centripetal, some experiments you see all one none the other and vice versa. This is why the centrifuge works so well.

Now AP has to review where in the Coulomb-gravity law of the EM laws the law of E' = (V/(CB))' =
E' = (V/(CB))' = V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2 which is Coulomb-gravity law.
(1st term as E production) -- 2nd term as inverse square of distance -- 3rd term as synchronicity

In those 3 terms can we spot a F= (m*v^2)/r.

Is the F= (m*v^2)/r some form of synchronicity, much like Ganymede and Europa are in sycnchronous orbit with Jupiter, or the Moon with Earth.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics


Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
2:58 AM (13 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
If not for Centripetal versus centrifugal with centrifugal labeled as ficticious force, there would be no "ficticious force in all of physics.

And the reason it is labeled ficticious is because the Coulomb and gravity force were never recognized as a EM force, under the AP unification of all forces are EM force. So in the differential equation of Electric Field we end up with 3 terms and one of those three is where centrifugal force lies within. I think it is the synchronicity, such as the Moon is in synchronous orbit around Earth.

But I want to comment on human mind and scientists should have more logical brains. When I was 20 years old taking physics in college, this topic of centrifugal force being fictional struck me as pecularily strange and odd. So strange that I never believed it at 20, and having the centrifuge machine as constant reminder I was correct.

So what I am saying about logic, psychology and being a physicist. If in your training or career, you find something strange and odd, and no matter what is written up about it and attempts to explain it, if you still find it strange and odd. Means you are likely correct-- that it is wrong and full of error. But sadly, most scientists follow a herd instinct rather than their own intuition.

AP


Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
4:05 PM (now)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
CONJECTURE 19.1

CONJECTURE 3.4 and upwards.

STATEMENT : considering the all enclusiveness the completeness of the magic number 6 for physics, we must explore if this is a minimal number to create other subjects and topics. For example, is 6 necessary and sufficient to create all language words?

Conjecture 3.4 : I conjecture that 6 is sufficient to create a alphabet and have all the words that English has words from a alphabet of 26 letters "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz". So AP conjectures that if 6 laws are sufficient to create all of physics, then 6 letters should be sufficient to create a language. And the only reason really that English has 26 letters is because of keeping the words short and allow for dialects. So for instance we keep "c" and throw out "z" as redundant. We keep "g" and throw out "j". We keep "m" and throw out "n".

Actually we can look back in history and see if there was a language with alphabet of only 6 letters for pronunciation. And perhaps we can look to the Indian language for clues as to whether a 6 letter alphabet ever existed, for I say that because many Indian words are very long, and that is what happens when you have a alphabet of only 6 letters.

CONJECTURE 3.5

Statement : Let me shift this idea that 6 is a magic number in all sciences, because Physics needs just 6 laws of EM theory for which all the forces of nature are unified under those 6 laws. Conjecture, can we build the smallest number system from 6 numbers where I count 0 as a number, that Old Math does not count in their base systems. So Old Math calls it Senary for base 6 but to me base 6 is 0,1,2,3,4. That would mean instead of Decimal system, would mean a system on 0,1,2,3,4 where 5 is 10 and 10 is 20. Now, some would say, especially severely toilet trained mathematicians, would say this is hoopla, kookish, because they would tightly grip and hold onto their fetish of binary since it is computers driven, and let me include the severely toilet trained computer engineers and their coworkers. So these folk would say, no, a system of 6 is not special but binary a system of 2 is special. AP would however disagree and that a system of 6 forms the smallest possible number representation system because, because it preserves Scale Numbers, or does it???? And what AP argues is that Binary cannot include the most valuable numbers of all-- the Scale numbers of 1, 10, 100, 1000, 10^4, etc. Binary destroys the Scale numbers where 10 is 1010. But a system based on 6 of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20, ... is conjectured to preserve Scale Numbers. Is AP true or false on this conjecture? For I doubt it myself.

On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 5:26:33 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 8:56:28 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Alright, let me do a 3rd Conjecture, for as I said, conjectures are easy, and the proof is hard.
>
> Recently in writing my TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year College came upon a conjecture that needs proving. A conjecture that not only applies to physics, mathematics and also logic.
>
> It is a dazzling, brilliant and magnificent conjecture. One that will knock your socks off without any effort. A conjecture that will keep my stalker enemies up awake at night and not able to sleep. A conjecture that will make all the award winning mathematicians, get outside and bark and howl at the moon.
>
> I noticed in physics that I needed 6 laws to cover all of ElectroMagnetic theory. And since all the forces of physics are reduced or unified to the EM force, means that 6 laws are all enclusive of all of Physics.
>
> So then I looked upon mathematics and found this magical number 6 for all-inclusiveness. And sure enough all of mathematics goes under the domain of 6 operations-- add, subtract, multiply,divide, integrate, derivative.
>
> Next I go to Logic and sure enough, 6 operators are all inclusive of the subject of Logic as -- Equal&Not, AND, OR, IF->Then, existential, universal..
>
> So, the idea is of All-Inclusiveness, that with these 6 in their respective subject matters, the entire science is covered.
>
> So here I conjecture that those sciences require 6 laws or operators to make a whole subject and no more are allowed.
>
> So, I conjecture that 6 fills physics, math, and logic and if anyone were to think a 7th was needed for physics, math, logic, they be wrong and muddleheaded.
>
> So, prove that physics, math, logic require 6 independent operators or laws and any more would be seen as redundancy of those 6.
>
> And AP further conjectures the reason underlying this magical number 6 is because the entire universe is just one atom of 231Pu and its geometry is the outer 5f6 that encompasses the entire cosmic atom. Notice the 6 in 5f6 shell of 231Pu. If we happened to live in a Cosmos where the Cosmic Atom was Americium and the outermost shell was 5f7, then in that universe, we would have 7 laws of physics and math having 7 operators as well as logic having 7 operators.
>
> Call this conjecture, #3 All encompassing 6 laws-operators.
>
> #3 CONJECTURE
>

Let me divide up Conjecture #3 for it has many corollaries in store. So the main conjecture is 3.1 of showing that 6 laws or 6 operators are necessary and sufficient to create physics and mathematics and logic.

Conjecture 3.2 : would say that Biology requires 6 units or operators, to cover all of biology in that 4 nucleotides plus 2 sugar phosphate strands in DNA. In other words, DNA is the photon or light wave of B magnetic field and E electric field in double transverse wave or in longitudinal wave. So here we have the "if and only if" of the magical important number 6.

Conjecture 3.3 : would say, that when one builds the axioms of Algebra in mathematics or the axioms of Geometry in mathematics, that 6 are necessary and sufficient to create Algebra and or Geometry. One of the most important algebra axioms was missed until AP discovered it recently in the early 21st century-- the axiom that a equation exists if and only if a positive Decimal Grid number exists on the rightside of equation all alone by itself at all times. If Tartaglia history down to Galois had known of this axiom would have spared themselves a lifetime of what is now seen as almost wasted math. So these conjectures point to the fact that 6 is a magical number in all sciences, and AP conjectures the reason for the magical 6 is because the Atom Totality Universe of 231Pu, is the 5f6 muon electric shell and that 6 is an all encompassing number. If the Universe was a 5f7 universe, our physics and math would depend on the magic number 7 not 6.

AP writes: The New Wave of math conjectures are so much more than Old Math conjectures, for the New Wave conjectures have footprints in all the sciences, an embrace of all sciences and math as one science.

On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 6:49:45 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> CONJECTURE 3.4 and upwards.
>
> STATEMENT : considering the all enclusiveness the completeness of the magic number 6 for physics, we must explore if this is a minimal number to create other subjects and topics. For example, is 6 necessary and sufficient to create all language words?
>
> Conjecture 3.4 : I conjecture that 6 is sufficient to create a alphabet and have all the words that English has words from a alphabet of 26 letters "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz". So AP conjectures that if 6 laws are sufficient to create all of physics, then 6 letters should be sufficient to create a language. And the only reason really that English has 26 letters is because of keeping the words short and allow for dialects. So for instance we keep "c" and throw out "z" as redundant. We keep "g" and throw out "j". We keep "m" and throw out "n".
>
> Actually we can look back in history and see if there was a language with alphabet of only 6 letters for pronunciation. And perhaps we can look to the Indian language for clues as to whether a 6 letter alphabet ever existed, for I say that because many Indian words are very long, and that is what happens when you have a alphabet of only 6 letters.
>
> CONJECTURE 3.5
>
> Statement : Let me shift this idea that 6 is a magic number in all sciences, because Physics needs just 6 laws of EM theory for which all the forces of nature are unified under those 6 laws. Conjecture, can we build the smallest number system from 6 numbers where I count 0 as a number, that Old Math does not count in their base systems. So Old Math calls it Senary for base 6 but to me base 6 is 0,1,2,3,4. That would mean instead of Decimal system, would mean a system on 0,1,2,3,4 where 5 is 10 and 10 is 20. Now, some would say, especially severely toilet trained mathematicians, would say this is hoopla, kookish, because they would tightly grip and hold onto their fetish of binary since it is computers driven, and let me include the severely toilet trained computer engineers and their coworkers. So these folk would say, no, a system of 6 is not special but binary a system of 2 is special. AP would however disagree and that a system of 6 forms the smallest possible number representation system because, because it preserves Scale Numbers, or does it???? And what AP argues is that Binary cannot include the most valuable numbers of all-- the Scale numbers of 1, 10, 100, 1000, 10^4, etc. Binary destroys the Scale numbers where 10 is 1010. But a system based on 6 of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20, ... is conjectured to preserve Scale Numbers. Is AP true or false on this conjecture? For I doubt it myself.

Thinking some more on this magic number 6 extension to bases of number systems. We would have to redefine binary as unary, ternary as binary, and base 5 as being base 6 all because we cannot count 0 as a number but a place value.

So in base 5 we have 100 = 400, and 1,000 = 13,000, and 10,000= 310,000.

So, what I had conjectured above was the idea that the smallest base that can represent numbers and still contain Scale Numbers is base 5, only it is really base 6.

So it is looking to be that this conjecture is true from the looks of things. We know that 5 is half of 10 and we know the Decimal system representation of numbers carries the all important Scale Numbers. So far, it looks like base5 = base6 __does carry the Scale Numbers__.

Let me see if 100,000 base 10 yields a base5=base6 where all the zero digits are together in a row.

Yes, well we just take 400 x 13,000 in base 5= base 6 to get 510,000. I was looking to see if nothing like say 501,010 showed up, where all the zeros are in a row after a few nonzero digits.

So yes, the mighty magical number 6 of physics shows up in the most fundamental parts of mathematics, number representation.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics

AP brain farto mute for more than 14 hours? What happened?
Dont worry, if AP brain farto is not posting his nonsense, then
Ross A Finlayson aka herpes boy will post irrelevant nonsense.

What happened, was the 199th book the final curtain
for AP brain farto. Archimedes Plutonium "pepsi"?

Lets remember him with a song:

Elton John - Candle In The Wind
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoOhnrjdYOc

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 17. September 2021 um 19:06:41 UTC+2:
> AP brain farto mute for more than 14 hours? What happened?
> Dont worry, if AP brain farto is not posting his nonsense, then
> Ross A Finlayson aka herpes boy will post irrelevant nonsense.

Maybe AP brain farto had some problems with mosquitos?

"His neighbor, April Gawboy, said she gets along well with Archie.
"He really cares about me and my children," she said. "He really kind of
watches out for us. He's what I would call a perfect neighbor."
Gawboy recalled when Plutonium came to her house to cut away some shrubs

that had overgrown, then hauled away the refuse.
"I trust him 100 percent," she said, "but he's very different." He wears
a beekeeper's suit to fend off mosquitoes, but Gawboy said the neighbors
suspect his many tubs of rainwater breed armies of them."
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.religion.kibology/c/aW988Y8B8Vs/m/u7lpgvHILT0J

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 17. September 2021 um 19:16:29 UTC+2:
> What happened, was the 199th book the final curtain
> for AP brain farto. Archimedes Plutonium "pepsi"?
>
> Lets remember him with a song:
>
> Elton John - Candle In The Wind
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoOhnrjdYOc
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 17. September 2021 um 19:06:41 UTC+2:
> > AP brain farto mute for more than 14 hours? What happened?
> > Dont worry, if AP brain farto is not posting his nonsense, then
> > Ross A Finlayson aka herpes boy will post irrelevant nonsense.

On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 6:48:54 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
CONJECTURE 3.4 and upwards.

STATEMENT : considering the all enclusiveness the completeness of the magic number 6 for physics, we must explore if this is a minimal number to create other subjects and topics. For example, is 6 necessary and sufficient to create all language words?

Conjecture 3.4 : I conjecture that 6 is sufficient to create a alphabet and have all the words that English has words from a alphabet of 26 letters "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz". So AP conjectures that if 6 laws are sufficient to create all of physics, then 6 letters should be sufficient to create a language. And the only reason really that English has 26 letters is because of keeping the words short and allow for dialects. So for instance we keep "c" and throw out "z" as redundant. We keep "g" and throw out "j". We keep "m" and throw out "n".

Actually we can look back in history and see if there was a language with alphabet of only 6 letters for pronunciation. And perhaps we can look to the Indian language for clues as to whether a 6 letter alphabet ever existed, for I say that because many Indian words are very long, and that is what happens when you have a alphabet of only 6 letters.

I understand there is a living language that gets by on 12 letters of the alphabet, twice as many as my conjecture. A language Rotokas near Papua New Guinea. If they can get by on 12, then I see no reason that a more primitive alphabet can get by on 6 letters.

And this language foray for me is going to draw me into a scientific analysis of Languages. So far to date, I had not wanted to nor desired to enter language science. Having only trespassed on the fringes of Language science with my logic book of Pragmatism. But here, I am going to be drawn into this science by the quantity of 6.

And I suspect language is divided into two parts, the Spoken Language which came millions of years before a Written Language.

CONJECTURE 3.4.2, Statement : Every animal with a voice box or sound organs has a Spoken Language.

CONJECTURE 3.4.3, Statement: Every animal with a Spoken Language has at least a Vocabulary of 6 sounds.

Here is a quote from the web of work done on cat sounds.
--- quoting the web ---
Cat Sounds Mean?
Moelk said cats meow in different ways to convey:

Friendliness
Confidence
Dissatisfaction
Anger
Fear
Pain
Although emphasizing that these sounds are not words, Moelk said cats routinely change these to communicate their goals, desires and emotions

--- end quoting ---

CONJECTURE 3.4.4, Statement : A Written Language can come millions of years after a Spoken Language is transformed into a Written Language. It is unsure if humanity is the only animal with a written language. For it is unsure if the bee's dance is a written language or purely a spoken language.

The conjectures that AP outlines with the magic number 6 comes from the logic that Physics is the overriding number one subject of all knowledge. Everything else come from physics. And since all of Physics is governed by 6 laws of EM theory where all the forces of physics are from these 6 laws, means that 6 is a magic number of all inclusion, of completeness of all encompassing.

If 6 laws can do all of physics, and since every other subject is a subset of physics, then it stands to reason 6 is a number in which all those other subjects can be built from 6 primitive units.

CONJECTURE 3.6
Statement: Since Physics primal axiom is All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism, and EM is encompassed by 6 laws, then where is the magic number 6 in the EM Spectrum? Hard to see that magic number 6 in the EM spectrum, but I conjecture it is there with hard fast boundaries. Taking a look at Feynman's EM Spectrum.

Quoting Feynman, page 2-5, Volume 1 Lectures on Physics--- 

The Electromagnetic Spectrum 
Frequency in oscillations     Name        Rough behavior 
per second 

10^2 Electrical disturbance                      Field 
5*10^5-10^6 Radio broadcast                Waves 
10^8 FM-TV                                           Waves 
10^10 Radar                                           Waves 
5*10^14 - 10^15 Light                             Waves 
10^18 X-rays                                          Particle 
10^21 gamma-ray, nuclear                    Particle 
10^24 gamma-ray, artificial                    Particle 
10^27 gamma-ray, in cosmic rays          Particle 

And Feynman appears to have 8 regions, not 6. But I feel I can easily clean up those 8 to be actually 6 regions.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics

🦨 of Math and 🦟 of Physics Archimedes "little fish" Plutonium
<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> tarded:

> CONJECTURE 3.4 and upwards.
>
> STATEMENT : considering the all enclusiveness the completeness of the magic number 6 for physics, we must explore

"We" again, StupidPlutonium? Nobody else is going to "explore" your
numerology with you.

> if this is a minimal number to create other subjects and topics. For example, is 6 necessary and sufficient to create all language words?
>
> Conjecture 3.4 : I conjecture that 6 is sufficient to create a alphabet and have all the words that English has words from a alphabet of 26 letters "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz".

You mean six letters? Stupid, many sounds will need multiple letters.
English does that already to a point but it's dumb. Ideally (if there
is such a thing), one letter per sound used in the language, and only
one sound per letter.

> So AP conjectures that if 6 laws are sufficient to create all of physics,

Which is false.

> then 6 letters should be sufficient to create a language.

Or 10 letters, or 5 letters, or 41 letters, or 2* letters. Your
numerology aside, no reason for one number over another. *

> And the only reason really that English has 26 letters is because of keeping the words short and allow for dialects. So for instance we keep "c" and throw out "z" as redundant.

"We" again? Your English is usually fine except for some strangeness
("liar" as a verb for example), but you always use "we" when referring
to only yourself. Maybe this will help: "I" = "ich" in German. "we" =
"wir" in German.

> We keep "g" and throw out "j".

See above for your language mistake.

> We keep "m" and throw out "n".

Ignoring the repeated language mistake, that's simply stoopid, m and n
make different sounds and both are rather consistent in English. Do you
really think "mime", "mine" and "nine" should be spelled the same to
satisfy your strange numerology belief?

>
> Actually we can look back in history and see if there was a language with alphabet of only 6 letters for pronunciation.

There is no "we" here, your belief in your silly numerology is unique to
yourself.

(*) Of course computers have an "alphabet" of 2 symbols, 1 and 0, or
true and false, from this you can combine 8 of these symbols to become
each letter in the English alphabet plus many symbols and digits
(ASCII), or as few as 5 (Baudot).

☠️ of Math and 🕱 of Physics Archimedes "antiscience" Plutonium
<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> blithered:

> Physics calls centrifugal force a "fictional force". And most books do not even bother teaching centrifugal. And most people are happy to memorize that centrifugal is the fiction force while centripetal is the real force, which is bothersome to almost everyone because they know centrifuges work to separate blood. Most students have heard of centrifuge and spinning liquids to separate, and here they come to physics and told that centrifugal force is a fiction force.

It's fictional because it only exists in non-inertial frames, such as a
rotating centrifuge. (oh right, you don't know what "non-inertial" means)
>
> So here AP wants to straighten out this mess that Old Physics left behind.

The only mess is what you create.

> STATEMENT OF CONJECTURE 17.1 : We all know particle wave duality of physics. Well, AP conjectures that centripetal force is the Coulomb-gravity law of E' = (Voltage/(CB))' and one of those terms of the three terms of that differential equation has the Centripetal-Centrifugal force.

Word salad.

<snip>

> Can we say all Closed loop 3D figures consist of a minimum number of right triangular wedges?

No, "we" (meaning at least one someone other yourself is included)
cannot. You can use such silliness in your make-believe world if you wish.

> CONJECTURE 18.2 STATEMENT : Every volume of Space is composed of a minimum number of 3D right triangular wedges which in turn is a B field at right angle to a E field and for which the current is a 2D closed loop of a pencil-ellipse. And here we draw upon the previous conjecture of Centripetal and Centrifugal force.

Word salad.

<snip remainder of babble>

Re: 🐸 Dorothy I. Wallace, "evil stalker shithead" David L. Webb, 🐢 Philip J. Hanlon flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test

On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 6:19:06 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> ☠️ Dartmouth Dana P. Williams, of Math and 🕱 of Physics Peter Winkler "antiscience"
Miles P. Blencowe,
> Robert R. Caldwell, Brian Charles Chabover, > blithered:

On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 8:56:30 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 🐸 Richard Denton, Robert A. Fesen, of Math and 🐢 of Physics Marcelo Gleiser, Ryan Hickox, Mary K. Hudson, Village Idiot"
>James William LaBelle, Kristina Anne Lynch, > fails at math and science:
> >
> So Dartmouth College need to see the fake Kibo Parry ellipse-is-a-conic-section proof again? Here you go!
>
>
>
> Some preliminaries:
>
> Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used
> in the proof:
>
> ^ x
> |
> -+- <= x=h
> .' | `.
> . | .
> | | |
> ' | '
> `. | .'
> y <----------+ <= x=0
>
> Cone (side view):
> .
> /|\
> / | \
> /b | \
> /---+---' <= x = h
> / |' \
> / ' | \
> / ' | \
> x = 0 => '-------+-------\
> / a | \
>
> Proof:
>
> r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence
>
> y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.
>
> Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1 ...equation of an ellipse
>
> qed

Dartmouth College: Philip J. Hanlon, Joseph Helble, Asher Auel, Peter Doyle, Anne Gelb, Marcia Groszek, Ethan Levien, Peter J Mucha, Rosa C. Orellana, Scott D. Pauls, Daniel N. Rockmore, Thomas R. Shemanske, John, D Trout, Erik van Erp, John Voight, Dorothy I. Wallace, David L. Webb, Dana P. Williams, Peter Winkler
Miles P. Blencowe, Robert R. Caldwell, Brian Charles Chabover, Richard Denton, Robert A. Fesen, Marcelo Gleiser, Ryan Hickox, Mary K. Hudson, James William LaBelle, Kristina Anne Lynch, Robyn Millan, Hans Mueller, Elisabeth Newton, Roberto Onofrio, Alex Rimberg, Barrett N. Rogers, John R. Thorstensen, Lorenza Viola, Martin N. Wybourne, Joseph D. Harris, Walter E. Lawrence, David C. Montgomery, Gary Alan Wegner

AP writes: AP no longer tolerates Criminal Stalkers such as Kibo Parry M of 28 years nonstop, and shreds his attacks and spits them back into his lap.
6) Criminal-Stalking is defined as constant attacking of another person's character exclusive of science content in his/her threads for more than 1 year. In the case of criminal stalking the attackee, can just shred the attackers post and repost. For stalking is not science, nor academics nor debate nor discussion. Stalking is insanity and criminal behavior.

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)

Woa! Archidummy Plutodummy is still alive!

Jan Burse threatens> Woa! ETH, Zurich; Univ Bern is still alive!
On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 9:05:36 PM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> Woa! ETH, Zurich; Univ Bern is still alive!

Jan Burse>💩 for 🧠Andreas Vaterlaus, Rainer Wallny, Andreas Wallraff
Andre Rubbia , "Putin's Stooge" ETH Zurich, Univ Bern
On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 12:06:41 PM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> Roland Horisberger, farto mute for more than 14 hours? What happened?
> Dont worry, if Sebastian Huber, brain farto is not posting Thomas Markus Ihn, nonsense, then
> Steven Johnson, Ursula Keller, aka herpes boy will post irrelevant nonsense.

On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 12:16:29 PM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> What happened, was the Klaus Kirch, Simon Lilly, the final curtain
> for Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner, brain farto. ETH Zurich "pepsi"?
>
> Lets remember Andre Rubbia, with a song:
>
> Werner Schmutz, Thomas Schulthess, - Candle In The Wind
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoOhnrjdYOc
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 17. September 2021 um 19:06:41 UTC+2:
> > Manfred Sigrist, Hans-Arno Synal, brain farto mute
On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 12:28:36 PM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> Maybe University Bern
Christian Leumann, brain farto had some problems with mosquitos?
>
> "Walter Benjamin, neighbor, Emil Theodor Kocher, , said Kurt Wuthrich, gets along well with Friedrich Durrenmatt.
> "Zurich ETH, physics dept
Charalampos Anastasiou, really cares about Niklas Beisert, and my children," Adrian Biland,
Gianni Blatter, said. Marcella Carollo, really kind of
> watches out for Christian Degen. Leonardo Degiorgi, Gunther Dissertori, Klaus Ensslin,
then hauled away the refuse.
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.religion.kibology

> On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 12:54:19 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > 💩 for 🧠 Klaus Kirch, Simon Lilly, Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner,
Andre Rubbia , "Putin's Stooge" ETH Zurich, Univ Bern

> On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 12:10:08 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > 👎🏼 ETH Zurich of Math and 🖕🏼 Univ Bern of Physics
> >"Drag Queen of Physics"
> > fails at math and science:
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 17. September 2021 um 19:16:29 UTC+2:

*************
*************
AP writes: AP no longer tolerates Criminal Stalking by self righteous, self appointed bullies and Shreds their attacks and spits it back into their laps.
6) Criminal-Stalking is defined as constant attacking of another person's character exclusive of science content in his/her threads for more than 1 year. In the case of criminal stalking the attackee, can just shred the attackers post and repost. For stalking is not science, nor academics nor debate nor discussion. Stalking is insanity and criminal behavior.

**************
---quoting Wikipedia ---
Controversy
Many government and university installations blocked, threatened to block, or attempted to shut-down The World's Internet connection until Software Tool & Die was eventually granted permission by the National Science Foundation to provide public Internet access on "an experimental basis."
--- end quote ---

ETH Zurich

Paul Biran, Marc Burger, Patrick Cheridito, Manfred Einsiedler, Paul Embrechts, Giovanni Felder, Alessio Figalli, Norbert Hungerbuhler, Tom Ilmanen, Horst Knorrer, Emmanuel Kowalski, Urs Lang, Rahul Pandharipande, Richard Pink, Tristan Riviere, Dietmar Salamon, Martin Schweizer, Mete Soner, Michael Struwe, Benjamin Sudakov, Alain Sznitman, Josef Teichmann
Wendelin Werner, Thomas Willwacher

Zurich ETH, physics dept
Charalampos Anastasiou, Niklas Beisert, Adrian Biland,
Gianni Blatter, Marcella Carollo, Christian Degen, Leonardo Degiorgi, Gunther Dissertori, Klaus Ensslin,
Tilman Esslinger, Jerome Faist, Matthias Gaberdiel,
Aude Gehrmann-De Ridder, Vadim Geshkenbein, Christophorus Grab, Michele Graf, Jonathan Home,
Roland Horisberger, Sebastian Huber, Thomas Markus Ihn, Atac Imamoglu, Steven Johnson, Ursula Keller, Klaus Kirch, Simon Lilly, Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner,
Andre Rubbia, Werner Schmutz, Thomas Schulthess, Manfred Sigrist, Hans-Arno Synal, Matthias Troyer, Andreas Vaterlaus, Rainer Wallny, Andreas Wallraff,
Werner Wegscheider, Audrey Zheludev, Oded Zilberberg

University Bern
Christian Leumann, Walter Benjamin, Emil Theodor Kocher, Kurt Wuthrich, Friedrich Durrenmatt, Daniel Vassella, Rene Fasel, Mani Matter

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)

Which is the 6th Regular Polyhedron, dual to the Tetrahedron Re: AP's 199th book A book of New Age, New Wave math conjectures.

Looks like I already had a conjecture for a 6th regular polyhedron. But let me add this one as a competitive rival, and may the best one win.

The need for a 6th regular polyhedron to be the dual of the tetrahedron.

Conjecture 12.2
Statement the dual of the tetrahedron is in 2D and is the parallelogram made into a square, but folding the 4 faces of the tetrahedron.

On Sunday, September 12, 2021 at 2:43:18 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
It is appropriate that this be my #12 Conjecture for it involves the Dodecahedron which involves the shape of the Cosmic Atom 231Pu.

CONJECTURE #12

Statement: There are 6 regular polyhedron in all. Old Math missed a regular polyhedra of 0 face and infinitude sides of a regular polygon. We think of this object as a sphere, but it is a sphere-like polyhedra. In some respects this Sphere-Polyhedra is the dual of the Tetrahedron just as the Cube is the dual of the Octahedron, and just as the Dodecahedron is the dual of the Icosahedron.

In true math, there are no curves at all but only straightline segments strung along together to form what we conceive and perceive of as curves. The circle is a 1*10^604 string of tiny straight line segments. The sphere is formed in the same way. The sides are so tiny that we perceive them as a smooth curve when curves never ever existed. The true numbers of mathematics are discrete numbers with holes in between every number and its successor number, again, causing no smooth curve to ever exist.

The sphere is actually a Regular Polyhedron of no face, 0 face and composed of these regular polygon circles.

Actually, the proof of this conjecture should be easy because, as most of these conjectures involving the Real True numbers of mathematics have to be the Decimal Grid Numbers that allows for the Calculus to exist, that requirement is the proof of this Conjecture, that Old Math missed the 6th regular polyhedron.

And this is reasonable in the sense that 6 is the magic number of math and physics.

And another proof of this conjecture is the proof-method done in Ancient Greek times of the other 5 regular polyhedra involving angles, the constraint and restriction of angles making the 5 regular polyhedra, except they forgot to include a polyhedra of 180 degrees + 180 degrees = 360 degrees.

AP