question: when is your 151st book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS for 1st year college students coming out, great King of science?

AP: thanks for asking, by the end of October, for I feel I worked out all the snags. The last snag was V' is the transformer. Of course Maxwell lived in a nonelectrical society and could not have known his equations needed to provide for a transformer.

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 super easy, 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 was the prior King of Physics before AP showed up. 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 predict this textbook will carry physics forward to at least year 2100, and if I am lucky, perhaps my book will last for thousands of years as the standard bearer of Physics education.

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.

King of Science, companion book MATHOPEDIA-- List of 75 fakes and mistakes of Old Math. AP's 174th book. Soon to be published as a Kindle book. Details of all of these are found in already published Kindle books, such as the geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

Last revision was 21Sep2021.

I added the correction of the Natural Logarithm Ln(x) to base 2.71... for its definition using Y= 1/x of an integral over an interval from 1 to x in 1/t dt is very much flawed and incorrect. It was a serendipity discovery that when taking the Ln(1.00005) the true value is exactly 0.00005 and not 0..000049998... The true definition of Ln(x) has to be from a geometry that allows for the equiangular logarithmic spiral. A Ln(x) based upon 1/x does not give a equiangular log spiral. What does give a equiangular log spiral are the Decimal Grid Number System where you have equal spacing of discrete numbers. So for example in Old Math their Ln(1.02) was 0.0198... while in New Math where we have a corrected and true Ln(x) that Ln(1.02) = 0.02 exactly.

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)

Preface: I suppose, going forward, mathematics should always have a mathopedia, where major parts of mathematics as a science are held under scrutiny and question as to correctness. In past history we have called these incidents as "doubters of the mainstream". Yet math, like physics, can have no permanent mainstream, since there is always question of correctness in physics, there then corresponds question of correctness in mathematics (because math is a subset of physics). What I mean is that each future generation corrects some mistakes of past mathematics. If anyone is unsure of what I am saying here, both math and physics need constant correcting, never belonged in science. This then converges with the logic-philosophy of Pragmatism (see AP's book of logic on Pragmatism).

Some of these can be found in AP's TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS series, but the entries keep changing and added on new, means I need to have a separate book for these fakes, mistakes and errors of Old Math.

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for ages 18-19 Freshperson College, math textbook series, book 3
Teaching True Mathematics, by Archimedes Plutonium 2019
Listing the Errors of Old Math, list of 1 to 50.

Alright, well, mathematics is a closed subject. What I mean by that is due to the textbook series of Archimedes Plutonium TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, that once you learn the polynomial transform and learn the two Power Rules of Calculus, you reached the peak, the pinnacle of all of mathematics, and anything further in math is just details of what you learn in that textbook series. Math is a completed science because it has this "peak of calculus", unlike the other 5 hard sciences of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy. Those other five will continue to find new ideas, new things, while math remains static and complete to its peak of calculus understanding. Mathematics is finished complete as far as a science goes because the peak of math is going nowhere. And even though Physics will find new science such as how the proton toruses inside of atoms are configured in geometry, the geometry and calculus used in that configuration, that new science does not change nor does it create or require a new math peak/summit to handle the new physics.

Now I do need to discuss the Errors of Math in General and the errors of math in geometry in particular. I have the feeling that Geometry is the more important of the two-- algebra - geometry. This list appears in most of AP's Teaching True Mathematics textbook series by Archimedes Plutonium, meant to be a guide and orientation, and a organizing of what must be covered before graduating from College, and what math to steer clear of.

Errors mostly, but not always, for some are included because too much time spent on them.

The listings in Mathopedia of errors, mistakes and fakes is based on the idea that Calculus is the supreme achievement of all of mathematics for it is the essential math of doing Physics electricity and magnetism. And in order to have a proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, we must clean up and clean out all the mistakes, fakes and errors of Old Math, erst, we have no Calculus. So calculus is the consistency maker for the rest of all of mathematics.

1) Calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, a proof that derivative and integral are inverses of one another, just as addition and subtraction are inverses, or, multiplication and division are inverses. The only way to obtain a geometry proof is to clean up and clean out all the fakes, mistakes and errors of Old Math, such as their fake numbers-- the Reals. Their fake definition of function allowing anything be a function. Their fakery of a continuum when even physics by 1900 with Planck onwards in Quantum Mechanics proving the Universe is discrete Space not a continuum, yet by 1900 onwards those in mathematics following the idiotic continuum in the Continuum Hypothesis with even more avid interest, when they should have thrown the continuum on a trashpile of shame.

2) The true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers, because you have to need and apply one mechanism only to obtain the true numbers of mathematics-- Mathematical Induction. In Old Math they had just a tiny few intelligent mathematicians, Kronecker, who emerged from the gaggle crowd of kooks to notice that Naturals all come from one single mechanism-- Mathematical Induction. But Old Math never had a crowd of mathematicians with logical brains to say-- all our numbers need to come from the one mechanism of Mathematical Induction.

3) The true numbers of math have empty space between successor and predecessor numbers. For example the 10 Grid is 0, .1, .2, .3, . . . , 9.8, 9.9, 10..0. Where no numbers exist between .1 and .2, etc. Only discrete numbers allow us to give a proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

4) All functions of mathematics must be a polynomial, and if not a polynomial, convert the offering to a polynomial over a specific interval.

Where is that stupid thread in sci.math, poising as a puzzle problem when it had no functions only pretend functions?

A few days back, 11Aug2021 appeared a stupid puzzle problem here in sci.math. Of someone pretending he had 3, 4 even 5 or 6 functions and wanting to prove equality.

Then I stepped into the conversation saying he had no functions at all, until they are converted into polynomials over a specified interval, then you can do calculus on those true real functions.

So, the world wide math community has got to begin to learn, no function is a function, until, and unless they are polynomials. This is an axiom of math and is proven true by the geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. You cannot have a FTC, if you have functions that are not polynomials.

So there is a trade off-- does math want calculus or no calculus? If you want calculus, all your functions have to be polynomials. This has to do with the concept of discrete geometry, not a continuum, for polynomials are discrete.

5) Space is discrete and all lines in space are strings of attached straight lines.

6) No curves exist in Geometry, only finer and smaller straight line segments attached to one another.
We can still keep the name "curve" as long as we know it is a string of fine tiny straightline segments strung together in what looks like a smooth curve. If curves exist, then the Calculus in Fundamental Theorem of Calculus cannot be proven and thus Calculus does not exist. We all know that we have to have Calculus, and so we throw out onto the trash pile the curve of Old Math. And this is reasonable because starting in 1900 in physics there arose the Quantum Mechanics of Space being discrete. And a discrete space has no continuum, has no curve of Old Math.

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 12:15:09 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium (AP) wrote:
> King of Science...

AP is a malicious internet troll who wants only to mislead and confuse you. He may not be all there, but his fake math and science can only be meant to promote failure in schools. One can only guess at his motives.

In AP's OWN WORDS here:

“Primes do not exist, because the set they were borne from has no division.”
--June 29, 2020

“The last and largest finite number is 10^604.”
--June 3, 2015

“0 appears to be the last and largest finite number”
--June 9, 2015

“0/0 must be equal to 1.”
-- June 9, 2015

“0 is an infinite irrational number.”
--June 28, 2015

“No negative numbers exist.”
--December 22, 2018

“Rationals are not numbers.”
--May 18, 2019

According to AP's “chess board math,” an equilateral triangle is a right-triangle.
--December 11, 2019

Which could explain...

“The value of sin(45 degrees) = 1.”
--May 31, 2019

AP deliberately and repeatedly presented the truth table for OR as the truth table for AND:

“New Logic
AND
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F”
--November 9, 2019

AP seeks aid of Russian agents to promote failure in schools:

"Please--Asking for help from Russia-- russian robots-- to create a new, true mathematics [sic]. What I like for the robots to do, is list every day, about 4 Colleges ( of the West) math dept, and ask why that math department is teaching false and fake math, and if unable to change to the correct true math, well, simply fire that math department until they can find professors who recognize truth in math from fakery...."
--November 9, 2017

And if that wasn't weird enough...

“The totality, everything that there is [the universe], is only 1 atom of plutonium [Pu]. There is nothing outside or beyond this one atom of plutonium.”
--April 4, 1994

“The Universe itself is one gigantic big atom.”
--November 14, 2019

AP's sinister Atom God Cult of Failure???

“Since God-Pu is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Atom Plutonium!
Its truth is marching on.
It has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
It is sifting out the hearts of people before its judgment seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer it; be jubilant, my feet!
Our God-Pu is marching on.”
--December 15, 2018 (Note: Pu is the atomic symbol for plutonium)

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

Univ Toronto and Queen's Univ and Univ Western comparing Dan math to AP's Mathopedia see below AP's Mathopedia.

On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 11:43:25 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
>
> In Dan Christensen's OWN WORDS here:
>
Re: More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics.
by Dan Christensen Jun 28, 2021, 2:33 PM
>
>
> “Primes do not exist, because the set they were borne from has no division.”
> --June 29, 2020
>
> “The last and largest finite number is 10^604.”
> --June 3, 2015
>
>
On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 1:29:49 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
>
> Are you ready, kids??? Bend over, er...
>
> Dan
>
> “0 appears to be the last and largest finite number”
> --June 9, 2015
>
> “0/0 must be equal to 1.”
> -- June 9, 2015
>
> “0 is an infinite irrational number.”
> --June 28, 2015
>
> “No negative numbers exist.”
> --December 22, 2018
>
> “Rationals are not numbers.”
> --May 18, 2019
>
> According to Dan Christensen and Univ Western Ontario classrooms “chess board math,” an equilateral triangle is a right-triangle.
> --December 11, 2019
>
> Which could explain...
>
> “The value of sin(45 degrees) = 1.”
> --May 31, 2019
>
> Dan seeks aid of Russian agents to promote failure in schools:
>
> "Please--Asking for help from Russia-- russian robots-- to create a new, true mathematics [sic]. What I like for the robots to do, is list every day, about 4 Colleges ( of the West) math dept, and ask why that math department is teaching false and fake math, and if unable to change to the correct true math, well, simply fire that math department until they can find professors who recognize truth in math from fakery...."
> --November 9, 2017
>
> Kibo Parry M. prefering AP's Mathopedia over Dumb Dan Christensens DC Proof gimmick toy.
>
>Re: 5) AP's 174th book// Mathopedia-- Listing of 67 fakes and mistakes of Old Math. Last revision was 8JUN2021. Under-Construction: AP recently is reinventing Multivariable Calculus, and will end up throwing out Old Math's Gradient theorem, Green's
by
Michael Moroney
Jun 17, 2021, 11:57 AM 
>
>Re: 2- Dan Christensen on failed math MIT Gilbert Strang, with his scatterbrained Calculus books, no geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Gilbert never knew
by Chris M. Thomasson 6:09 PM On 6/25/2021
>
>Re: Fire the entire Cornell Univ math dept-- unable to even teach Add in Logic is not OR but rather is AND
53 posts by 9 authors
by Dan Christensen 11/9/17
>
>Re: *Fire the entire Univ Western Ontario math dept/ still teaching that the contradictory sine graph as sinusoid when it is really semicircle
by Dan Christensen Nov 21, 2017,
>
>
> And if that wasn't weird enough...
>
>
Re: Trump smarter in math than MIT & UC, Riverside Math departments, smarter in math than Terry Tao, Ed Witten, Appel & Hakken
by Dan Christensen 11/10/16
>
Re: Lisa Thompson,Univ Toronto & Western Ontario, Alex Buchel,Jan Cami,Gordon F. West,Michael B. Walker, -- is the reason none of you have confirmed real proton = 840MeV, real electron is the muon and .5MeV was Dirac monopole, to busy on Dan
By Dan Christensen 1 post 3 views updated 1:12 PM
>
Re: 2Canada's sh)thead stalker Dan in sci.math 1 OR 3 = 4, does Justin Trudeau, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, is that what science is in Canada-- stalking bullies
by Dan Christensen
>
Re: Rik Chandler,One pint short of an empty bladder // Harvard's Dr.Hau "slow light", and turning the laser off; I find very comprehensible
By Dan Christensen 19 posts 99 views updated Sep 9
>
Re: Rik Chandler,Useful as a chocolate teapot // Harvard's Dr.Hau "slow light", and turning the laser off; I find very comprehensible
By Dan Christensen 16 posts 101 views updated Sep 9
>
Re: Zurich's ETH Dr.Thomas Willwacher's stupid all his life in teaching Calculus, never a picture diagram of FTC// as evidence- Jan Burse
4 posts by 3 authors 
12/13/17
by Dan Christensen
>
Re: 1.5- Dan Christensen, the insane Nazi Canadian bully stalker summed up in one beautiful paragraph
By Pete Smith 3 posts 19 views updated Sep 12
>
>Re: 1.4- Dan Christensen, the insane Nazi Canadian bully stalker summed up in one beautiful paragraph
By Pete Smith 2 posts 9 views updated Sep 12
>
>
> Dan
>
> Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
> Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

Above was Dan's contribution to math in sci.math.

This is one book out of 151 that AP posted to sci.math, sci.physics. Who? Ever let a moron like Dan Christensen into public education???

MATHOPEDIA-- List of 75 fakes and mistakes of Old Math. AP's 174th book. Soon to be published as a Kindle book. Details of all of these are found in already published Kindle books, such as the geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

Last revision was 21Sep2021.

I added the correction of the Natural Logarithm Ln(x) to base 2.71... for its definition using Y= 1/x of an integral over an interval from 1 to x in 1/t dt is very much flawed and incorrect. It was a serendipity discovery that when taking the Ln(1.00005) the true value is exactly 0.00005 and not 0..000049998... The true definition of Ln(x) has to be from a geometry that allows for the equiangular logarithmic spiral. A Ln(x) based upon 1/x does not give a equiangular log spiral. What does give a equiangular log spiral are the Decimal Grid Number System where you have equal spacing of discrete numbers. So for example in Old Math their Ln(1.02) was 0.0198... while in New Math where we have a corrected and true Ln(x) that Ln(1.02) = 0.02 exactly.

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)

Preface: I suppose, going forward, mathematics should always have a mathopedia, where major parts of mathematics as a science are held under scrutiny and question as to correctness. In past history we have called these incidents as "doubters of the mainstream". Yet math, like physics, can have no permanent mainstream, since there is always question of correctness in physics, there then corresponds question of correctness in mathematics (because math is a subset of physics). What I mean is that each future generation corrects some mistakes of past mathematics. If anyone is unsure of what I am saying here, both math and physics need constant correcting, never belonged in science. This then converges with the logic-philosophy of Pragmatism (see AP's book of logic on Pragmatism).

Some of these can be found in AP's TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS series, but the entries keep changing and added on new, means I need to have a separate book for these fakes, mistakes and errors of Old Math.

Kibo Parry M can Peter Higgs,Bill Burns,Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall, Lene Hau 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. Or is Kibo Parry M too worried about his newly invented word of "analbuttfuckmanure" that Kibo invented in 2017-18 and has continued to use right through 2021 calling AP that word since AP does science while Kibo never does science, only stalker hate spew.
On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 6:12:36 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> fails at math and science:

On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 2:21:46 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> David S. Cohen "physics hater" William J. Burns
> tarded: William J. Burns
>"barking fuckdog" William J. Burns

William J. Burns psychoceramic David S. Cohen flunked the math test of a lifetime
On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 12:40:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> David S. Cohen "Putin's Stooge"
> blithered: William J. Burns
> > Does the science of psychology have a word for this "insane behavior by insane persons" ?
> How about the phrase "acting like William J. Burns" ?

Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
>> In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes:
> >

AP no longer tolerates permanent hate spew stalkers like Kibo Parry M. of 30 years stalking. Unacceptable that a govt agent stalks a USA citizen for almost 30 years of hate attack spew like kibo Parry Moroney and AP redacts the spew and throws it back into their lap.

William J. Burns "AnalButtfuckManure"
David S. Cohen "shitwit" flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test

Kibo Parry M. wrote which AP redacted, for AP no longer can stomach the insane Kibo
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 1:49:36 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>William J. Burns "AnalButtfuckManure"
> fails at math and science:
>

Kibo Parry M can Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall, Lene Hau 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. Or is Kibo Parry M too worried about his newly invented word of "analbuttfuckmanure" that Kibo invented in 2017-18 and has continued to use right through 2021 calling AP that word since AP does science while Kibo never does science, only stalker hate spew. Kibo you called MIT your invented word of 2017, are you going to call Harvard that also. And you called Dartmouth and Stanford your invented new word. I guess Harvard is special for you Kibo Parry, nonstop stalker, insane kook of 28 years.

On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 10:48:29 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"AnalButtfuckManure"

On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 9:40:52 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"AnalButtfuckManure"

On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 7:38:34 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"Court Jester of Physics"
> fails at math and science:

Kibo, why did you invent that word in 2017-18 and why do you still use it today in 2021, is it because you failed science and now you want to curse those that succeed???

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.

Cover Picture: a photograph taken of me in 1993, after the discovery of Plutonium Atom Totality, and I was 43 years old then, on a wintery hill of New Hampshire. It is nice that Feynman wrote a physics textbook series, for I am very much benefitting from his wisdom. If he had not done that, getting organized in physics by writing textbooks, I would not be writing this book.. And I would not have discovered the true meaning of the Fine Structure Constant, for it was Feynman who showed us that FSC is really 0.0854, not that of 0.0072. All because 0.0854 is Psi, and Psi^2 is 0.0072.
Length: 20 pages

Product details
• ASIN : B0875SVDC7
• Publication date : April 15, 2020
• Language: : English
• File size : 1134 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 20 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #240,066 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #5 in 30-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #65 in General Chemistry & Reference
◦ #481 in Physics (Kindle Store)

#1-6, 135th published book

QED in Atom Totality theory where proton is a 8 ring torus and electron = muon inside proton doing Faraday Law// Atom Totality series, book 6 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 

Since the real true electron of atoms is the muon and is a one ring bar magnet thrusting through the 8 ring torus of a proton, we need a whole entire new model of the hydrogen atom. Because the Bohr model with the 0.5MeV particle jumping orbitals as the explanation of Spectral Lines is all wrong. In this vacuum of explaining spectral line physics, comes the AP Model which simply states that the hydrogen atom creates Spectral lines because at any one instant of time 4 of the 8 proton rings is "in view" and the electricity coming from those 4 view rings creates spectral line physics.

Cover Picture: Is a imitation of the 8 ring proton torus, with my fingers holding on the proton ring that has the muon ring perpendicular and in the equatorial plane of the proton rings, thrusting through. This muon ring is the same size as the 8 proton rings making 9 x 105MeV = 945MeV of energy. The muon ring has to be perpendicular and lie on the equator of the proton torus. Surrounding the proton-torus would be neutrons as skin or coating cover and act as capacitors in storing the electricity produced by the proton+muon.