TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4
by Archimedes Plutonium

Preface: This is AP's 151st book of science published. It is one of my most important books of science because 1st year college physics is so impressionable on students, if they should continue with physics, or look elsewhere for a career. And also, physics is a crossroad to all the other hard core sciences, where physics course is mandatory such as in chemistry or even biology. I have endeavored to make physics 1st year college to be as easy and simple to learn. In this endeavor to make physics supereasy, I have made the writing such that you will see core ideas in all capital letters as single sentences as a educational tool. And I have made this textbook chapter writing follow a logical pattern of both algebra and geometry concepts, throughout. The utmost importance of logic in physics needs to be seen and understood. For I have never seen a physics book, prior to this one that is logical. Every Old Physics textbook I have seen is scatter brained in topics and in writing. I use as template book of Halliday & Resnick because a edition of H&R was one I was taught physics at University of Cincinnati in 1969. And in 1969, I had a choice of majors, do I major in geology, or mathematics, or in physics, for I will graduate from UC in 1972. For me, geology was too easy, but physics was too tough, so I ended up majoring in mathematics.. If I had been taught in 1969 using this textbook that I have written, I would have ended up majoring in physics, my first love. For physics is not hard, not hard at all, once you clear out the mistakes and the obnoxious worthless mathematics that clutters up Old Physics, and the illogic that smothers much of Old Physics.

Maybe it was good that I had those impressions of physics education of poor education, which still exists throughout physics today. Because maybe I am forced to write this book, because of that awful experience of learning physics in 1969. Without that awful experience, maybe this textbook would have never been written by me.

Cover picture is the template book of Halliday & Resnick, 1988, 3rd edition Fundamentals of Physics and sitting on top are cut outs of "half bent circles, bent at 90 degrees" to imitate magnetic monopoles. Magnetic Monopoles revolutionizes physics education, and separates-out, what is Old Physics from what is New Physics.

The world needs a new standard in physics education since Feynman set the standard in 1960s with his "Lectures on Physics" that lasted until about 1990 and then AP's Atom Totality theory caused Feynman's Lectures to be completely outdated. And so much has changed in physics since 1960s that AP now sets the new world standard in physics education with this series of textbooks.

To be a Master of physics or Calculus or Mathematics, has to be seen in "signs and signals". Can you correct the mistakes and errors of Old Physics, of Old Calculus, of Old Math? If you cannot clean up the fakery of Old Physics, of Old Calculus, of Old Math, you have no business, no reason to write a physics, calculus or math textbook. There is an old legend in England about King Arthur, and the legend goes, that the King is the one who pulls Excalibur out of the iron anvil. Pulling the sword out of the anvil is a metaphor for Cleaning up all the mistakes and errors of Old Physics, of Old Calculus, of Old Math. You have to clean up and clear out the mistakes and errors of the past, for Physics to move forward.

Should you write a textbook on Calculus, if you cannot see that the slant cut in a cone is a oval, never the ellipse? Of course not. Should you write a Calculus textbook if you cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Of course not. Should you write a physics textbook if you cannot ask the question, which is the atom's real true electron, is it the muon or the 0.5MeV particle that AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole.

Feynman wrote the last textbook in 1960s to guide physics forward, and although Feynman did not clean up much of Old Physics, he did direct the way forward in that Electricity and Magnetism in his Quantum Electrodynamics was the way forward. It would have been nice for Feynman to have found that it is impossible for a 0.5MeV particle to be the atom's electron moving near the speed of light outside the proton of hydrogen and still remain an atom, thus all atoms collapse. It would have been nice for Feynman to say the muon is the real atom's electron and that the 0.5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole. But it just was not in the fated cards of Feynman's physics. Yet, his textbook served the leadership of physics from 1960 to 1990. Time we have the new replacement of physics textbook.

Now, in 2021, we need a new textbook that carries all of physics forward into the future for the next 100 years, and that is what this textbook is.

I will use Halliday and Resnick textbook as template to garner work exercise problems for 1st year and 2nd year college. For 3rd and senior year college physics I will directly use Feynman's Lectures and QED, quantum electrodynamics. Correcting Feynman and setting the stage that all of physics is-- All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.

Much and most of 20th century physics was error filled and illogical physics, dead end , stupid paths such as General Relativity, Big Bang, Black holes, gravity waves, etc etc. Dead end stupidity is much of Old Physics of the 20th century. What distinguishes Feynman, is he kept his head above the water by concentrating almost exclusively on Electrodynamics. He remarked words to the effect== "QED is the most precise, most accurate theory in all of physics". And, that is true, given All is Atom, and Atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.

This textbook is going to set the world standard on college physics education. Because I have reduced the burden of mathematics, reduced it to be almost what I call -- difficult-free-math. I mean, easy-math. Meaning that all functions and equations of math and physics are just polynomials. All functions of math and physics are polynomials. Making calculus super super easy because all you ever do is plug in the Power rules for derivative and integral, so that physics math is able to be taught in High School. In other words, physics with almost no math at all-- so to speak, or what can be called as easy as learning add, subtract, multiply, divide.

What makes both math and physics extremely hard to learn and understand is when mathematics never cleans itself up, and never tries to make itself easy. If all of math can be made as easy as add, subtract, multiply, divide, no one would really complain about math or physics. But because math is overrun by kooks (definition of kook: is a person who cares more about fame and fortune than about truth in science), that math has become a incomprehensible trash pile and the worst of all the sciences, and because the math is so difficult, it carried over into physics, making physics difficult.
And that may sound like a contradiction that AP ended up majoring in mathematics, rather than his first love of physics. But not a contradiction in truth. Because in Old Physics, you have not only a use of the messed up dirty Old Math, but you have use of what I call "idealisms" in Old Physics. Idealisms are "suppose this and that.... " "imagine a ball of mass moving in space....." So Old Physics not only had the tangled mess of kook math of trigonometry everywhere and thousands of silly rules for calculus. But Old Physics had a fakery contraption of "idealism". I ended up majoring in mathematics, although math was a mess, but at least I could still navigate in that mess. But I just could not navigate in physics with their math mess plus, their idealism mess. If you closely examine all Old Physics textbooks, even the latest recent ones, they are all "idealism physics". Idealism is a nice and better term for "fake physics".

You see, one of the greatest omissions of science in the 20th and 21st century was the idea that both math and physics can be reduced to a Simplicity of education. That math need not be hard and difficult. That physics can be made logical, not full of idealisms. Yet no-one in the 20th and 21st century ever had that idea of simplicity, (with the possible exception of Harold Jacobs in mathematics) that math had run out-of-bounds as a science and was more of a science fiction subject for kook mathematicians. Math had become absurdly difficult because of the reason that kooks gain fame and fortune on making math difficult. Mathematicians never thought their job was to make math simple and easy, instead, the kooks of math piled on more trash and garbage to make math a twilight zone of science. The same in physics with idealism run amok. And this is easily proven true about the sociology of math and physics education for it is no secret to anyone in education that college professors are paid not for their teaching so much, no, they are recognized and paid for their research, and this means the simplification of math or physics is secondary, not of first importance. College professor research is of more importance to them, than their failure to make physics or mathematics clear and easy to learn.

When you make all of math be just polynomial equations and functions, you make math the easiest of the major sciences, which then follows up by making physics easy as possible. For there is no longer trigonometry to cloud the mind in everything you do in physics. There is no longer hundreds of calculus rules you must learn just to do Faraday's law or Ampere's law.

So I end up writing this textbook, keeping in mind of AP way back in 1969 in a huge classroom of 1st year college physics, and how AP, the King of Science, especially Physics, would have majored in physics and not mathematics, if physics had been properly taught.

Science, especially physics is a constant review. And let us review the EM Spectrum. Below I have Wikipedia's and Feynman's EM Spectrum. What we are going to try to do is see the placement of "electricity" in the EM Spectrum.

Quoting Wikipedia on what the EM Spectrum is, and adding where electricity fits in -- 
Class    Frequency  Wave-length  Energy per photon   Ionizing radiation        
γ        Gamma rays                 300 EHz        1 pm        1.24 MeV 
AC electricity 0.5MeV
DC electricity 0.5MeV
         30 EHz        10 pm        124 keV 
HX        Hard X-rays         
         3 EHz        100 pm        12.4 keV 
SX        Soft X-rays         
         300 PHz        1 nm        1.24 keV 
  
         30 PHz        10 nm        124 eV 
EUV        Extreme 
ultraviolet         
         3 PHz        100 nm        12.4 eV 
         NUV        Near 
ultraviolet, 
visible         
                  300 THz        1 μm        1.24 eV 
NIR        Near infrared         
         30 THz        10 μm        124 meV 
MIR        Mid infrared         
         3 THz        100 μm        12.4 meV 
FIR        Far infrared         
         300 GHz        1 mm        1.24 meV 
Micro-waves 
and 
radio 
waves        EHF        Extremely high 
frequency         
         30 GHz        1 cm        124 μeV 
SHF        Super high 
frequency         
         3 GHz        1 dm        12.4 μeV 
UHF        Ultra high 
frequency         
         300 MHz        1 m        1.24 μeV 
VHF        Very high 
frequency         
         30 MHz        10 m        124 neV 
HF        High 
frequency         
         3 MHz        100 m        12.4 neV 
MF        Medium 
frequency         
         300 kHz        1 km        1.24 neV 
LF        Low 
frequency         
         30 kHz        10 km        124 peV 
VLF        Very low 
frequency         
         3 kHz        100 km        12.4 peV 
ULF        Ultra low frequency         
         300 Hz        1000 km        1.24 peV 
SLF        Super low 
frequency         
         30 Hz        10000 km        124 feV 
ELF        Extremely low 
frequency         
         3 Hz        100000 km        12.4 feV 
end quote --- 
Quoting Feynman, page 2-5, Volume 1 Lectures on Physics and adding where electricity fits in--- 
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 
DC electricity
AC electricity
10^21 gamma-ray, nuclear                    Particle 
10^24 gamma-ray, artificial                    Particle 
10^27 gamma-ray, in cosmic rays          Particle 
Here I am bothered by making the Geometrical Explanation of electricity, magnetism, light waves all work together to match the Algebraic or quantity of the units of electricity, magnetism and light.
I need that comprehensive coherence of geometry connected to algebra of how electricity and magnetism work. This is a task never done before in physics. For in Old Physics, they went all with quantity of algebra, and had pictures of geometry as just a aid in teaching. Unlike AP, who knows that you have to be able to do physics purely geometrical and then matching the algebra, where geometry is more than a mere teaching aid.

I hope to publish book 151 before end of October. Many things to still iron out------

And so we see that voltage V in V=CBE has no corresponding physical reality. So what is the physical reality of voltage? One can say it is multiply C by B by E, but that is not really a good answer. So if we call V' as the electric generator law, where we produce electricity and emit electricity. We should have some clue as to what we call voltage as a physical entity. And this guides us to the idea that voltage, although it is CBE, can be called a capacitor-battery. V' in this reshuffling must be the AC generator of EM theory. Can we picture the V as a capacitor- battery and the V' then as a DC or AC generator, converting transverse waves of magnetic and electric field into longitudinal waves of DC and AC current. Well the differential equation of B' or E' converts the 1/s^2 into 1/s^3 to be voltage, while the V' converts the 1/s^3 in voltage to being 1/s^4 in V' with respect to time. And if we check back at capacitance units, it has a s^4 in numerator but if we reverse that to denominator we have 1/s^4.

Now something I have put off for a long time, even though it was on the back of my mind for several years now, is the question of New Ohm's Law. In New Physics we turn the Old Physics Ohm's Law of V=iR of voltage equals current times resistance. In New Physics we make it a total law in general, where it does not break down at high voltages. By making Voltage equal current times magnetic field times electric field.

But, ever since I wrote that V = CBE or V= CBE where V= voltage, C=amount of current, B is magnetic field, E is electric field. Ever since I wrote that several years back. Even when I used angular momentum in place of E electric field as V= iBL. I was never specific about the multiplication times involved. Is it a vector multiplication of B cross E, or is it a scalar dot product multiplication of B dot E.

Nor was I ever clear of how Resistance is magnetic field times angular momentum. Or, how resistance is magnetic field times electric field.

So as I write 1st year college TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, I must make that absolutely clear.

I normally tend to see Resistance as a form of friction. So can we see resistance as a B cross product E, magnetic field cross product electric field. Or if not cross product, then dot product? 

We tend to view B and E following one another everywhere there is light waves, so it is difficult to imagine B times E as resistance. 

About the only place I see a friction or resistance is Lenz's law in Faraday Law. 

A different possibility is the choice of term of "resistance" and that it is really not a resistance or friction but rather a "heat". So if Old Ohms law had been Voltage = current times Heat, maybe that would have been better. 

And here the idea is that BxE generates heat. 

I am almost certain that Resistance was a poor choice of term for electricity and magnetism. At high voltages or high current, what the degradation of EM is heat. We see it in computers that they have to be air conditioned. We see it in pulling a plug out of the wall receptacle and sparks and heat arise. Faraday said light was a disturbance in the electromagnetic field.
So would Heat have been a better concept rather than Resistance?

Now there is another possibility of a term concept, and that is of attraction force. We tend to think of friction as the interaction of two different surfaces in contact and their attraction or motion that is disturbed "to have to change motion and go around". And in this sense, heat is collisions. So is Resistance the amount of collisions?

And let us again look at B X E fields, is that a number for amount of collisions? So the light wave always has B and E following one another at all times, yet that would not be collisions. 

But in electricity flowing in copper wire, do we have what can be called collisions of the B field with the E field.

A material of high resistance, rubber, it does not conduct at all or a tiny bit, what is it doing to a B and E field? Or a semiconductor like silicon, is it a diversion of the B and E field?

Alright, it is going to be very plain to see why AP had to write a book on true Geometry of curvedline figures, with their volume formula and with the math form of x^2/a^2. To tackle a problem such as what is Resistance if resistance of physics is BxE, magnetic field times electric field.

I could not tackle this problem and get a correct answer until I thoroughly had the mathematics of geometry volumes of form A= BCD and math forms of paths of motion as x^2/a^2.

Only until the proper and correct mathematics of volume and of motion path of x^2/a^2 can the true physics math of Resistance = Magnetic field X Electric field be tackled.

So, I had the warm up of considering what Resistance could possibly be? Could it be a atomic and subatomic sort of Friction? Could it be Heat? Could it be Attraction forces slowing down electric current?

Always, in physics or math, whenever you are caught in a bind about some problem, then there is one smart thing you can always do and should be the first smart thing you always do--- go to the definitions. In physics the definitions are the UNITS.

Here I am reminded of the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. How important is this constant in physics and the relationship of SB constant = Blackbody Radiance Emitting / T^4.

How important, how central is that physics thermodynamics to physics?

Often I see where seconds is easily replaceable as thermodynamics absolute temperature T.

Obviously when you have BxE, magnetic field times electric field, you have (m^2/A*s^2)(m^2/A*s^2) = m^4/A^2*s^4.

This tells me that BxE is heat in thermodynamics. And instead of calling it resistance, it is better to call it heat. In essence it is what wears out a battery that it requires recharging.

AP

On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 11:02:47 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> I hope to publish book 151 before end of October. Many things to still iron out------
>
>
> And so we see that voltage V in V=CBE has no corresponding physical reality. So what is the physical reality of voltage? One can say it is multiply C by B by E, but that is not really a good answer. So if we call V' as the electric generator law, where we produce electricity and emit electricity.. We should have some clue as to what we call voltage as a physical entity. And this guides us to the idea that voltage, although it is CBE, can be called a capacitor-battery. V' in this reshuffling must be the AC generator of EM theory. Can we picture the V as a capacitor- battery and the V' then as a DC or AC generator, converting transverse waves of magnetic and electric field into longitudinal waves of DC and AC current. Well the differential equation of B' or E' converts the 1/s^2 into 1/s^3 to be voltage, while the V' converts the 1/s^3 in voltage to being 1/s^4 in V' with respect to time. And if we check back at capacitance units, it has a s^4 in numerator but if we reverse that to denominator we have 1/s^4.
>
>
> Now something I have put off for a long time, even though it was on the back of my mind for several years now, is the question of New Ohm's Law. In New Physics we turn the Old Physics Ohm's Law of V=iR of voltage equals current times resistance. In New Physics we make it a total law in general, where it does not break down at high voltages. By making Voltage equal current times magnetic field times electric field.
>
> But, ever since I wrote that V = CBE or V= CBE where V= voltage, C=amount of current, B is magnetic field, E is electric field. Ever since I wrote that several years back. Even when I used angular momentum in place of E electric field as V= iBL. I was never specific about the multiplication times involved. Is it a vector multiplication of B cross E, or is it a scalar dot product multiplication of B dot E.
>
> Nor was I ever clear of how Resistance is magnetic field times angular momentum. Or, how resistance is magnetic field times electric field.
>
> So as I write 1st year college TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, I must make that absolutely clear.
>
> I normally tend to see Resistance as a form of friction. So can we see resistance as a B cross product E, magnetic field cross product electric field. Or if not cross product, then dot product?
>
> We tend to view B and E following one another everywhere there is light waves, so it is difficult to imagine B times E as resistance.
>
> About the only place I see a friction or resistance is Lenz's law in Faraday Law.
>
> A different possibility is the choice of term of "resistance" and that it is really not a resistance or friction but rather a "heat". So if Old Ohms law had been Voltage = current times Heat, maybe that would have been better.
>
> And here the idea is that BxE generates heat.
>
> I am almost certain that Resistance was a poor choice of term for electricity and magnetism. At high voltages or high current, what the degradation of EM is heat. We see it in computers that they have to be air conditioned. We see it in pulling a plug out of the wall receptacle and sparks and heat arise. Faraday said light was a disturbance in the electromagnetic field.
> So would Heat have been a better concept rather than Resistance?
>
> Now there is another possibility of a term concept, and that is of attraction force. We tend to think of friction as the interaction of two different surfaces in contact and their attraction or motion that is disturbed "to have to change motion and go around". And in this sense, heat is collisions.. So is Resistance the amount of collisions?
>
> And let us again look at B X E fields, is that a number for amount of collisions? So the light wave always has B and E following one another at all times, yet that would not be collisions.
>
> But in electricity flowing in copper wire, do we have what can be called collisions of the B field with the E field.
>
> A material of high resistance, rubber, it does not conduct at all or a tiny bit, what is it doing to a B and E field? Or a semiconductor like silicon, is it a diversion of the B and E field?
>
> Alright, it is going to be very plain to see why AP had to write a book on true Geometry of curvedline figures, with their volume formula and with the math form of x^2/a^2. To tackle a problem such as what is Resistance if resistance of physics is BxE, magnetic field times electric field.
>
> I could not tackle this problem and get a correct answer until I thoroughly had the mathematics of geometry volumes of form A= BCD and math forms of paths of motion as x^2/a^2.
>
> Only until the proper and correct mathematics of volume and of motion path of x^2/a^2 can the true physics math of Resistance = Magnetic field X Electric field be tackled.
>
> So, I had the warm up of considering what Resistance could possibly be? Could it be a atomic and subatomic sort of Friction? Could it be Heat? Could it be Attraction forces slowing down electric current?
>
> Always, in physics or math, whenever you are caught in a bind about some problem, then there is one smart thing you can always do and should be the first smart thing you always do--- go to the definitions. In physics the definitions are the UNITS.
>
> Here I am reminded of the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. How important is this constant in physics and the relationship of SB constant = Blackbody Radiance Emitting / T^4.
>
> How important, how central is that physics thermodynamics to physics?
>
> Often I see where seconds is easily replaceable as thermodynamics absolute temperature T.
>
> Obviously when you have BxE, magnetic field times electric field, you have (m^2/A*s^2)(m^2/A*s^2) = m^4/A^2*s^4.
>
> This tells me that BxE is heat in thermodynamics. And instead of calling it resistance, it is better to call it heat. In essence it is what wears out a battery that it requires recharging.

In 2nd year college TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, I am going to carry that idea one step forward, by considering that all heat energy is defined as BxE, magnetic field times electric field. That is not intuitive, for it implies that light waves must tire over distance since they are Double Transverse Waves.. What many in Old Physics called "tired light". That is a terribly difficult concept to tackle, and one of the many reasons I am taking a year long break.

In this book we learn that Voltage was badly named. We should never name something from a person's name in science. Old Physics named Voltage as pressure. I named it capacitor. Old Physics named Resistance in their Ohm's law. That was another bad name. It is better named as "Heat" and is BxE.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics

👽 of Math and 👾 of Physics Archimedes "science hater" Plutonium
<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
> Science, especially physics is a constant review.

True. Too bad you have no part in that.

> And let us review the EM Spectrum.

"Us"? Only you (singular, German 'du') will "review" (meaning babble
about) that here.

> Below I have Wikipedia's and Feynman's EM Spectrum. What we are going to try to do is see the placement of "electricity" in the EM Spectrum.

"We"? Who else besides yourself will join you in your babble?

> Old Physics in their EM Spectrum missed two gargantuan important entrees in their EM Spectrum and in AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year College, AP fills in what Old Physics missed in their error.

No missing entries in the EM spectrum. Just your gargantuan ignorant
belief that there is.

<snip more blithering>

Kibo Parry M on >👾David Isaacson, analbuttfuckmanure Elizabeth Kam, Maya Kiehl
On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 11:33:20 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 👽 of Math and 👾 of Physics Dr. Panchanathan "science hater" NSF

Kibo Parry M on>William Henshaw, analbuttfuckmanure Isom Herron, klutz of math Mark H Holmes, Rensselaer Polytech

On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 1:58:53 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:

Kibo Parry M on>Donald Schwendeman, analbuttfuckmanure Jeffrey Banks, Rensselaer Polytech
On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 1:32:52 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 10/9/2021 1:26 AM, Eram semper recta wrote:

AP writes: AP no longer tolerates bully criminal stalkers like Dan Christensen or Kibo Parry M. and shreds their criminal posts and spits it back into their laps.

AP writes: Dr. Panchanathan if his NSF is paying Kibo Parry M. to stalk sci..math and sci.physics. Then Dr. Panchanathan has shit for brains, and should be removed out of the NSF. If not, then please excuse me, for I am fed up with bully stalkers in sci.math and sci.physics.

> > On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 4:21:06 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > Kristin Bennett, Piñata of sci.math and Joseph Ecker, Punching Bag of sci.physics MIT's George Clark "irrelevant" Jeffrey Goldstone, < Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins , Paul Joss> fails at math and science:
> > Kibo Parry M on>🦍 of Physics Cynthia Barnhart "AnalButtfuckManure" MIT
> > > Dan Christensen, Gilbert Strang> fails at math and science:
> > On Sunday, August 21, 1994 at 3:41:59 AM UTC-5, James Kibo Parry wrote:
> > > So let me get this straight... Tipler is not a crackpot because you said
> > On Saturday, May 8, 2021 at 5:52:45 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > 👎🏼 of Math and 🖕🏼 of Physics Arthur B.McDonald "Drag Queen of Physics"
> > >James Leech Queens Univ> fails at math and science:
> > >
> > On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 10:35:09 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > 🐒 of Math and 🦍 of Physics Arthur B. McDonald "AnalButtfuckManure"
> > > Dan Christensen> fails at math and science:
> >
> > On Monday, June 14, 2010 at 9:45:58 PM UTC-5, John Baez wrote:
> > > Also available at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week299.html
> >
> > Kibo Parry M on>John Baez "Village Idiot of UCR
> > > Marcela Carena> fails completely at physics:
> > On Thursday, September 30, 2021 at 1:26:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > 🪲 of Math and 🪳 of Physics John Baez "Village Idiot of UCR
> > > Marcela Carena> fails completely at physics:
> >

Moroney says the reason Rensselaer's Vincent Meunier,Ethan Brown,Glenn Ciolek, Julian S. Georg,Joel T. Giedt, Yong Sung Kim,Gyorgy Korniss,Toh-Ming Lu, Charles Martin, cannot learn ellipse is never a conic nor real proton is 840MeV,not 938-- is autism

Donald Schwendeman, Rensselaer Polytechnic,Joseph Ecker, William Henshaw, Isom Herron, James Parry (kibo), is the reason RPI failed ellipse is like Kibo fails with 938 is 12% short of 945

On Saturday, April 6, 2019 at 2:29:51 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Autistic

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Physics dept
Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek, Julian S. Georg, Joel T. Giedt, Yong Sung Kim, Gyorgy Korniss, Toh-Ming Lu, Charles Martin, Joseph Darryl Michael, Heidi Jo Newberg, Moussa N'Gom, Peter Persans, John Schroeder, Michael Shur, Shawn-Yu Lin, Humberto Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang, Morris A Washington, Esther A. Wertz, Christian M. Wetzel, Ingrid Wilke, Shengbai Zhang

Rensselaer math department
Donald Schwendeman, Jeffrey Banks, Kristin Bennett, Mohamed Boudjelkha, Joseph Ecker, William Henshaw, Isom Herron, Mark H Holmes, David Isaacson, Elizabeth Kam, Ashwani Kapila, Maya Kiehl, Gregor Kovacic, Peter Kramer, Gina Kucinski, Rongjie Lai, Fengyan Li, Chjan Lim, Yuri V Lvov, Harry McLaughlin, John E. Mitchell, Bruce Piper, David A Schmidt, Daniel Stevenson, Yangyang Xu, Bulent Yener, Donald Drew, William Siegmann

> > Wikipedia:
> > James Parry grew up and lived in Scotia, New York. He showed early computing skills, such as being able to open up and reprogram ROM video game cartridges such as those for the Atari 2600, but was more interested in graphics and artistic pursuits. In this vein, he was initially a computer engineering major at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) in Troy, New York, but moved to Boston, Massachusetts in 1990 and attended Emerson College, where he studied videography and graphic design. At that time, he also worked as a typeface designer and for the world.std.com internet service provider. He developed several fonts in use today. One of his better-known works is the typography for Philip K. Dick's novel Gather Yourselves Together.[6]
> > Click here to Reply

Question RPI-- did you dismiss James Parry from RPI because he is a incurable stalker-- 27 years stalking AP. And Parry knows no math nor physics as shown by his recent gaffe--

Moroney math failure, here is where the fool thinks 938 is short of 945 by 12%, and he pretends he is an electrical engineer. Perhaps the first e.e. in the world that cannot do a percentage correctly

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:

> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon..
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:

> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.

Question Rensselaer-- is the reason you keep teaching the ellipse is a conic even when AP proved it was the oval of a slant cut into the cone (see AP's proof below). Is the reason you keep teaching the ellipse is a conic because all the professors at Rensselaer have a "joke mind when it comes to science, a joke like Parry is just a joke in science and a failure in science"..

10> AP writes: AP no longer tolerates criminal stalkers like Kibo Parry M and shreds his posts in a shredder and spits them back at him and his paid for stalks-- NSF Dr Panchanathan ???---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 ---
> 6> Why is UCR John Baez a failure in math and physics, cannot even take 9 times 105 and see that it is 945? I mean, well, why ever bother with the mindless Weinberg-Glashow-Gell-Mann Standard Model nonsense of physics, as some sort of Algebra, when you cannot do 9x105=945 and interpret it correctly of what you have done in physics.


> >
> > Much the same problem with Marcela Carena of Fermi Natl. Lab with the excessive muon spin as reported in Scientific American, Oct2021. Not able to ask the most simple and basic question of physics, which is the atom's true real electron is it the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus or is it the 0.5MeV particle that AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole. No, Marcela Carena and John Baez rather listen to a herd community, rather than practice and do physics with a logical mind-- ask the simple questions and do the logical experiments from those logical questions.
> >
> > Physics, left up to Baez and his buddies of Weinberg, Glashow, Gell-Mann, Peter Higgs, Ed Witten those buddies are comfortable with a electron at 0.5MeV, proton at 938MeV, neutron at 940MeV and all three of them as "do nothing particles" with the amazing audacity of saying the 0.5MeV particle flys around the outside of a 938MeV proton at nearly the speed of light 99.99% speed of light, yet never flys off. For Baez, and his buddies never understood Angular Momentum. Never could interpret 9 x 105 = 938 or 940 within Sigma Error.
> >
> > But then along comes AP, and says-- sigma error is important in physics and use it.
> >
> > AP says-- you cannot have "do nothing particles in physics".
> >
> > AP says-- the true electron of atoms is the muon and stuck inside a 840MeV proton doing the Faraday law by producing Dirac magnetic monopoles such as the 0.5MeV dipole as electricity.
> >
> > Is John Baez or Sheldon Glashow or Peter Higgs or Ed Witten still able to learn in science, or are they just complete washed up and washed out. Are they complete wash out failures of physics? Probably complete failures because they cannot even muster the intelligence of dropping a Kerr or Mason lid inside a folded up paper cone and acknowledge something as simple as what a High School student can prove, that a slant cut in cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, (see AP books below). Yet that is what the "pack of fools Baez, Glashow, Higgs, Witten" still teach their electron is 0.5MeV, their ellipse is slant cut in cone, but probably worst of all, these bozos still teach the Boole logic of 2 OR 1= 3 with AND as subtraction. Imagine that, physics professors who cannot even think logically correct, no wonder they are incapable of 9 x 105.
> > ..
> > .- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
> > , . `.' ' `.
> > .' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
> > . ; .' . `. ;
> > ; . ' `. . '
> > . ' ` `. |
> > . '. '
> > . 0 0 ' `.
> > ' `
> > ; `
> > .' `
> > ; U `
> > ; '; `
> > : | ;.. :` `
> > : `;. ```. .-; | '
> > '. ` ``.., .' :' '
> > ; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' Hi, I am John Baez, who when hearing of AP's proof that slant cut in cone is truly a Oval, never the ellipse, I did the biggest no, no you can ever do in science, for I attacked the man, rather than do the experiment. I bent over backwards to redefine the ellipse in order to deny AP credit of a discovery. For I, John Baez feels it more important to suppress the truth in science than to acknowledge the truth, and my brethren Terence Tao, Andrew Wiles, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell seem to all feel the same way-- suppress truth of science and run and hide, hide and run.
> > ` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
> > ` ` ; ; ' '
> > ` ` ; ; ' '
> > ` `. ````'''''' ' '
> > ` . ' '
> > / ` `. ' ' .
> > / ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
> > / .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
> > / .'' ; ` .' `
> > ...'.' ; .' ` .' `
> > "" .' .' | ` .; \ `
> > ; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
> > :' | ' ` , `. `
> > | ' ` ' `. `
> > ` ' ` ; `. |
> > `.' ` ; `-'
> > `...'
> > 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)
> > 

> > I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science, you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the science. I further believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later years of physics courses, we can always pick up on details. So I devote this senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this textbook. Now Asimov's book is full of error and mistakes, and that is disappointing but all of Old Physics is full of error. On errors and mistakes of Old Physics, the best I can do is warn the students, and the largest warning of all is that whenever someone in Old Physics says "electron" what they are talking about is really the Dirac magnetic monopole. And whenever they talk about the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, they are talking about huge huge grave mistakes, for the true atom is protons as 8 ringed toruses with a muon stuck inside of a proton doing the Faraday law and producing those magnetic monopoles as electricity. I use Asimov's book as a template but in the future, I hope to rewrite this textbook using no template at all, that is if I have time in the future.
> > Cover Picture: Is the book The History of Physics, by Isaac Asimov, 1966 and on top of the book are 4 cut-outs of bent circles representing magnetic monopoles which revolutionizes modern physics, especially the ElectroMagnetic theory.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08RK33T8V
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 28, 2020
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 794 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 123 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #4,167,235 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #15,099 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #91,163 in Physics (Books)
> >
> > #3-1, 2nd published book
> >
> > True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere.
> >
> > Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule.
> >
> > Length: 1150 pages
> >
> >
> > Product details
> > • File Size : 2167 KB
> > • ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ
> > • Publication Date : March 11, 2019
> > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > • Print Length : 1150 pages
> > • Language: : English
> > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > • Lending : Enabled
> > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> > #181 in General Chemistry & Reference
> > #1324 in General Chemistry
> > #1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > 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
> >
> >
> > 11th published book
> >
> > World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Last revision was 19May2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
> > Preface:
> > Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
> >
> > Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
> >
> > Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
> >
> > Length: 137 pages
> >
> > Product details
> > ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
> > Publication date : March 14, 2019
> > Language : English
> > File size : 1307 KB
> > Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> > Screen Reader : Supported
> > Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > Word Wise : Not Enabled
> > Print length : 137 pages
> > Lending : Enabled
> > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> > #2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> > #134 in Calculus (Books)
> > #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
> > 
> > 5th published book
> >
> > Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science..
> > Preface:
> > First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
> >
> > The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
> >
> > My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
> >
> > Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
> >
> >
> > Length: 72 pages
> >
> > File Size: 773 KB
> > Print Length: 72 pages
> > Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > Language: English
> > ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> > Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> > X-Ray: Not Enabled
> > Word Wise: Not Enabled
> > Lending: Enabled
> > Screen Reader: Supported
> > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

> > y z
> > | /
> > | /
> > |/______ x
> >
> > More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.
> >
> > In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.
> >
> > I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.
> >
> > There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.
> >
> > Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > Archimedes Plutonium