subtracting from zero does not exist as real.
It is like imaginary math... it is just the mathematicians
imaginary belief.

Mitchell Raemsch

On 11/27/2021 9:40 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> subtracting from zero does not exist as real.

Negative electric charge is quite real, Roy.

Em 27/11/2021 23:40, mitchr...@gmail.com escreveu:
> subtracting from zero does not exist as real.

Sô? It being "real" or not doesn't matter.

> It is like imaginary math... it is just the mathematicians
> imaginary belief.

Sô? It being imaginary or not doesn't matter: it works.

> Mitchell Raemsch

nabru.

--
nabru | "This PIZZA symbolizes |
| my COMPLETE EMOTIONAL RECOVERY!!" |
------ ------------------------------------

MitchR could Jill Pipher, Andrew Beal, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, possibly ever do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC? I say possibly because they cannot even correct their mistake that a slant cut in single cone is not an ellipse but is a oval. Since they cannot even see that mistake in conics, there is no hope or prayer that they can do a geometry proof of FTC.

MitchR can Ken Ribet, Andrew Beal, Jill Pipher, Roger Penrose ever do a geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? We know you Amine cannot, for you spend all your time spamming Usenet. In fact we do not know if Amine can do any math that is college level math.

On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 5:15:54 PM UTC-6, Amine Moulay Ramdane wrote:
> "A Harvard immunologist said

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)

MitchR can Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez, Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss please ask the question, which is the atom's real electron, the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law or the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole.

Undeserving of awards in both physics and math

Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,
Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish
David J. Thouless, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita
Arthur B. McDonald
Francois Englert
Saul Perlmutter
Brian P. Schmidt
Adam G. Riess
Makoto Kobayashi
Toshihide Maskawa
Yoichiro Nambu
John C. Mather
George F. Smoot
Roy J. Glauber
David J. Gross
Hugh David Politzer
Frank Wilczek
Raymond Davis Jr.
Masatoshi Koshiba
Riccardo Giacconi
Gerardus 't Hooft
Martinus J.G. Veltman
Jerome I. Friedman
Henry W. Kendall
Richard E. Taylor
Carlo Rubbia
Simon van der Meer
William Alfred Fowler
Kenneth G. Wilson
James Watson Cronin
Val Logsdon Fitch
Sheldon Lee Glashow
Steven Weinberg
..
..
little fishes
..
..
Layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = subtraction of either 3 or 2, while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV

Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass
Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu
more and more layers of error thinking physics
..
..
John Baez
Brian Greene
Lisa Randall
Alan H. Guth
Michael E. Brown
Konstantin Batygin
Ben Bullock
Larry Harson
Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
None at all - he was a raving nutter.
Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley
Edward Witten

HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

In 2016-2017, AP discovered that the real proton has a mass of 840 MeV, not 938. The real electron was actually the muon and the muon stays inside the proton that forms a proton torus of 8 rings and with the muon as bar magnet is a Faraday Law producing magnetic monopoles. So this book is all about why researchers of physics and engineers keep getting the number 938MeV when they should be getting the number 840 MeV + 105 MeV = 945 MeV.

Cover Picture is a proton torus of 8 rings with a muon of 1 ring inside the proton torus, doing the Faraday Law and producing magnetic monopoles.
Length: 17 pages

Product details
• Publication Date : December 18, 2019
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 17 pages
• File Size : 698 KB
• ASIN : B082WYGVNG
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled

#1-4, 105th published book

Atom Geometry is Torus Geometry // Atom Totality series, book 4 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Since all atoms are doing the Faraday Law inside them, of their thrusting muon into a proton coil in the shape of a geometry torus, then the torus is the geometry of each and every atom. But then we must explain the neutrons since the muon and proton are doing Faraday's Law, then the neutron needs to be explained in terms of this proton torus with muon inside, all three shaped as rings. The muon is a single ring and each proton is 8 rings. The neutron is shaped like a plate and is solid not hollow. The explanation of a neutron is that of a capacitor storing what the proton-muon rings produce in electricity. Where would the neutron parallel plates be located? I argue in this text that the neutron plates when fully grown from 1 eV until 945MeV are like two parallel plate capacitors where each neutron is part of one plate, like two pieces of bread with the proton-muon torus being a hamburger patty.

Cover Picture: I assembled two atoms in this picture where the proton torus with a band of muons inside traveling around and around the proton torus producing electricity. And the pie-plates represent neutrons as parallel-plate capacitors.
Length: 39 pages

Product details
• Publication Date : March 24, 2020
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• ASIN : B086BGSNXN
• Print Length : 39 pages
• File Size : 935 KB
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,656,820 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#6413 in Mathematics (Kindle Store)
#315 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
#4953 in Physics (Kindle Store)



#1-5, 112th published book

New Perspective on Psi^2 in the Schrodinger Equation in a Atom Totality Universe// Atom Totality series, book 5
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

I first heard of the Schrodinger equation in college chemistry class. We never actually did any problem solving with the equation, and we were only told about it. Then taking physics my next year in college and after I bought the Feynman Lectures on Physics, just for fun for side reading, three volume set did I learn what this Schrodinger equation and the Psi^2 wavefunction was about. I am not going to teach the mathematics of the Schrodinger equation and the math calculations of the Psi or Psi^2 in this book, but leave that up to the reader or student to do that from Feynman's Lectures on Physics. The purpose of this book is to give a new and different interpretation of what Psi^2 is, what Psi^2 means. Correct interpretation of physics experiments and observations turns out to be one of the most difficult tasks in all of physics.

On 11/28/2021 1:38 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 6:55:20 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 11/27/2021 9:40 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> subtracting from zero does not exist as real.
>> Negative electric charge is quite real, Roy.
>
> But that is not negative amount of electrons.

Roy Masters, it is a negative amount of electric charge!

> It is still a positive amount you moron.

A negative amount of electric charge, Roy. If you want positive charge,
use protons or positrons instead.

On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 7:15:50 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 11/28/2021 1:38 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 6:55:20 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 11/27/2021 9:40 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> subtracting from zero does not exist as real.
> >> Negative electric charge is quite real, Roy.
> >
> > But that is not negative amount of electrons.
> Roy Masters, it is a negative amount of electric charge!

Roy masters is dead. How is it an amount of negative charge?

> > It is still a positive amount you moron.
> A negative amount of electric charge, Roy. If you want positive charge,
> use protons or positrons instead.

What is your negative amount doing?

Mitchell Raemsch

On 11/28/2021 10:51 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 7:15:50 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 11/28/2021 1:38 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 6:55:20 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 11/27/2021 9:40 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> subtracting from zero does not exist as real.
>>>> Negative electric charge is quite real, Roy.
>>>
>>> But that is not negative amount of electrons.
>> Roy Masters, it is a negative amount of electric charge!
>
> Roy masters is dead.

Naah, you must be the Second Coming of Roy Masters because you lie as
much as only he could lie.

> How is it an amount of negative charge?

Because, since the proton's charge is considered positive, the electron
charge behaves mathematically EXACTLY as the negative number math (which
you claim doesn't exist) does. Simplest example: 1 electron charge + 1
proton charge = ZERO net charge. Just like -1 + 1 = 0.
>
>>> It is still a positive amount you moron.

Nope. If you redefine the electron charge as being positive, the
proton's charge becomes negative and you are right where you started.
Negative number mathematics.

>> A negative amount of electric charge, Roy. If you want positive charge,
>> use protons or positrons instead.
>
> What is your negative amount doing?

All the stuff negative number mathematics predicts it will do. Too bad
for you, negative number mathematics is real!

On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 9:55:41 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 11/28/2021 10:51 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 7:15:50 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 11/28/2021 1:38 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 6:55:20 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 11/27/2021 9:40 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> subtracting from zero does not exist as real.
> >>>> Negative electric charge is quite real, Roy.
> >>>
> >>> But that is not negative amount of electrons.
> >> Roy Masters, it is a negative amount of electric charge!
> >
> > Roy masters is dead.
> Naah, you must be the Second Coming of Roy Masters because you lie as
> much as only he could lie.
> > How is it an amount of negative charge?
> Because, since the proton's charge is considered positive, the electron
> charge behaves mathematically EXACTLY as the negative number math (which
> you claim doesn't exist) does. Simplest example: 1 electron charge + 1
> proton charge = ZERO net charge. Just like -1 + 1 = 0.
> >
> >>> It is still a positive amount you moron.
> Nope. If you redefine the electron charge as being positive, the
> proton's charge becomes negative and you are right where you started.
> Negative number mathematics.
> >> A negative amount of electric charge, Roy. If you want positive charge,
> >> use protons or positrons instead.
> >
> > What is your negative amount doing?
> All the stuff negative number mathematics predicts it will do. Too bad
> for you, negative number mathematics is real!

The liar lies and it is not me.
Math is imaginary...
They named it right.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 9:40:36 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> subtracting from zero does not exist as real.
> It is like imaginary math... it is just the mathematicians
> imaginary belief.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

This is just how Descartes saw it. U R in good company.

On 12/5/2021 1:22 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 9:55:41 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 11/28/2021 10:51 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 7:15:50 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 11/28/2021 1:38 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 6:55:20 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/27/2021 9:40 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> subtracting from zero does not exist as real.
>>>>>> Negative electric charge is quite real, Roy.
>>>>>
>>>>> But that is not negative amount of electrons.
>>>> Roy Masters, it is a negative amount of electric charge!
>>>
>>> Roy masters is dead.
>> Naah, you must be the Second Coming of Roy Masters because you lie as
>> much as only he could lie.
>>> How is it an amount of negative charge?
>> Because, since the proton's charge is considered positive, the electron
>> charge behaves mathematically EXACTLY as the negative number math (which
>> you claim doesn't exist) does. Simplest example: 1 electron charge + 1
>> proton charge = ZERO net charge. Just like -1 + 1 = 0.
>>>
>>>>> It is still a positive amount you moron.
>> Nope. If you redefine the electron charge as being positive, the
>> proton's charge becomes negative and you are right where you started.
>> Negative number mathematics.
>>>> A negative amount of electric charge, Roy. If you want positive charge,
>>>> use protons or positrons instead.
>>>
>>> What is your negative amount doing?

>> All the stuff negative number mathematics predicts it will do. Too bad
>> for you, negative number mathematics is real!
>
> The liar lies and it is not me.

Smitch, you lie so much you must be the reincarnation of Roy Masters.

> Math is imaginary...

For once you're not lying, Smitch. All math is abstract; however math
makes for excellent models of physics and other sciences. For example,
the mathematics of positive and negative real numbers makes an excellent
model of the behavior of electric charges if you call a charge which
repels an electron 'negative' and attracts an electron 'positive'.

On 12/5/2021 4:26 PM, Timothy Golden wrote:
> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 9:40:36 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> subtracting from zero does not exist as real.
>> It is like imaginary math... it is just the mathematicians
>> imaginary belief.
>>
>> Mitchell Raemsch
>
> This is just how Descartes saw it. U R in good company.
>

Well, think of a scale. Define the left side negative, and the right
side positive. Put three unit weights on the right hand side... The
scale is all the way down on the right. Put four unit weights on the
left side. Now, the scale is a little down, one units worth in a sense,
on the left. The negative region... ;^)

(-0) + (+3) = +3, favors the positive side.

(-4) + (+3) = -1, favors the negative side.

Make any sense to you? To make it balance, put 3 unit weights on the
left side instead of four:

(-3) + (+3) = 0, balanced!

On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 4:27:55 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 12/5/2021 1:22 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 9:55:41 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 11/28/2021 10:51 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 7:15:50 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 11/28/2021 1:38 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 6:55:20 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 11/27/2021 9:40 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> subtracting from zero does not exist as real.
> >>>>>> Negative electric charge is quite real, Roy.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But that is not negative amount of electrons.
> >>>> Roy Masters, it is a negative amount of electric charge!
> >>>
> >>> Roy masters is dead.
> >> Naah, you must be the Second Coming of Roy Masters because you lie as
> >> much as only he could lie.
> >>> How is it an amount of negative charge?
> >> Because, since the proton's charge is considered positive, the electron
> >> charge behaves mathematically EXACTLY as the negative number math (which
> >> you claim doesn't exist) does. Simplest example: 1 electron charge + 1
> >> proton charge = ZERO net charge. Just like -1 + 1 = 0.
> >>>
> >>>>> It is still a positive amount you moron.
> >> Nope. If you redefine the electron charge as being positive, the
> >> proton's charge becomes negative and you are right where you started.
> >> Negative number mathematics.
> >>>> A negative amount of electric charge, Roy. If you want positive charge,
> >>>> use protons or positrons instead.
> >>>
> >>> What is your negative amount doing?
>
> >> All the stuff negative number mathematics predicts it will do. Too bad
> >> for you, negative number mathematics is real!
> >
> > The liar lies and it is not me.
> Smitch, you lie so much you must be the reincarnation of Roy Masters.
>
> > Math is imaginary...
>
> For once you're not lying, Smitch. All math is abstract;

Then if you admit your side is inferior... why
would it be important?

Mitchell Raemsch

On 12/7/2021 2:07 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 4:27:55 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 12/5/2021 1:22 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 9:55:41 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 11/28/2021 10:51 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 7:15:50 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/28/2021 1:38 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 6:55:20 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/27/2021 9:40 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> subtracting from zero does not exist as real.
>>>>>>>> Negative electric charge is quite real, Roy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But that is not negative amount of electrons.
>>>>>> Roy Masters, it is a negative amount of electric charge!
>>>>>
>>>>> Roy masters is dead.
>>>> Naah, you must be the Second Coming of Roy Masters because you lie as
>>>> much as only he could lie.
>>>>> How is it an amount of negative charge?
>>>> Because, since the proton's charge is considered positive, the electron
>>>> charge behaves mathematically EXACTLY as the negative number math (which
>>>> you claim doesn't exist) does. Simplest example: 1 electron charge + 1
>>>> proton charge = ZERO net charge. Just like -1 + 1 = 0.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is still a positive amount you moron.
>>>> Nope. If you redefine the electron charge as being positive, the
>>>> proton's charge becomes negative and you are right where you started.
>>>> Negative number mathematics.
>>>>>> A negative amount of electric charge, Roy. If you want positive charge,
>>>>>> use protons or positrons instead.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is your negative amount doing?
>>
>>>> All the stuff negative number mathematics predicts it will do. Too bad
>>>> for you, negative number mathematics is real!
>>>
>>> The liar lies and it is not me.
>> Smitch, you lie so much you must be the reincarnation of Roy Masters.
>>
>>> Math is imaginary...
>>
>> For once you're not lying, Smitch. All math is abstract;
>
> Then if you admit your side is inferior... why
> would it be important?
>
Because of the part you snipped, Roy. Because math makes an excellent
model base to describe what nature is doing (science), by creating
models. And, depending on the situation, various kinds of math can be
used, positive integers, positive and negative reals, complex numbers,
quaternions etc. Just because you can't understand more than the
simplest of math doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is wrong.

On 11/27/2021 6:55 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 11/27/2021 9:40 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> subtracting from zero does not exist as real.
>
> Negative electric charge is quite real, Roy.

Source vs Sink! ;^)

On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 4:26:16 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 12/7/2021 2:07 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 4:27:55 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 12/5/2021 1:22 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 9:55:41 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 11/28/2021 10:51 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 7:15:50 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 11/28/2021 1:38 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 6:55:20 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 11/27/2021 9:40 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> subtracting from zero does not exist as real.
> >>>>>>>> Negative electric charge is quite real, Roy.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But that is not negative amount of electrons.
> >>>>>> Roy Masters, it is a negative amount of electric charge!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Roy masters is dead.
> >>>> Naah, you must be the Second Coming of Roy Masters because you lie as
> >>>> much as only he could lie.
> >>>>> How is it an amount of negative charge?
> >>>> Because, since the proton's charge is considered positive, the electron
> >>>> charge behaves mathematically EXACTLY as the negative number math (which
> >>>> you claim doesn't exist) does. Simplest example: 1 electron charge + 1
> >>>> proton charge = ZERO net charge. Just like -1 + 1 = 0.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> It is still a positive amount you moron.
> >>>> Nope. If you redefine the electron charge as being positive, the
> >>>> proton's charge becomes negative and you are right where you started.
> >>>> Negative number mathematics.
> >>>>>> A negative amount of electric charge, Roy. If you want positive charge,
> >>>>>> use protons or positrons instead.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What is your negative amount doing?
> >>
> >>>> All the stuff negative number mathematics predicts it will do. Too bad
> >>>> for you, negative number mathematics is real!
> >>>
> >>> The liar lies and it is not me.
> >> Smitch, you lie so much you must be the reincarnation of Roy Masters.
> >>
> >>> Math is imaginary...
> >>
> >> For once you're not lying, Smitch. All math is abstract;
> >
> > Then if you admit your side is inferior... why
> > would it be important?
> >
> Because of the part you snipped, Roy. Because math makes an excellent

You are in your imagination you moron...