*
Some of us are thinking: When will our friend and colleague, Archimedes Plutonium, win a Nobel Proze for all of his contributions to our field of Physics? There is no doubt that he has completely turned the entire field of Physics and brought it into the new way of thinking. We owe him some great thing.

At the same time, we need to think about the Fields Medal for Mathematical achievements. This is the Nobel Prize of Mathematiscs. Plutonium had completely re-writteen conventional mathematics into the new format and has offered many proofs of his new findings. His proof of slant cut of conic sections (the oval) is sufficiently advanced to warrant this award.

He is widely publiched and widely quoted. He has some 150 + books now attributed to his intellect.

Can we somehow get behind him and promote his wise genius? He needs to be recognized and awarded.

Earle Jones, Georgia Tech, Stanford.
*

Earle Jones, a new man? Jones first upbeat post?

Thanks for the nomination. But, Earle, I think I would be better off with such a prize, being able to get a lot more science accomplished.

When you win the Nobel-- I have never seen anyone who won that prize and able to do "good science" afterwards. As if all their remaining time is in a state of publicity rather than being in a state of research. Thousands of nosey reporters knocking on your door, wanting your appearance, trespassing all over your property, kids camped out on your lawn wanting autographs. No, I rather be content doing science, not going out in mindless publicity.

But recently I see that a huge science neglected was RNA editing.

And I see that rightfully Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna won the chemistry Nobel in 2020 for CRISPR. But see little chemistry involved and should have gone for Physiology.

Thanks Earle, I am content as is. The only benefit a award like that for AP would be that it gets more people on my side, and perhaps increases my chances of conquering the science of Reincarnation, which I hope to conquer before I die.

Awards often do the opposite that a scientist needs-- peace and quiet away from other people.

AP

I should have proofread this post, but I seldom do proofreading.

On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 2:52:30 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Earle Jones, a new man? Jones first upbeat post?
>
> Thanks for the nomination. But, Earle, I think I would be better off with such a prize, being able to get a lot more science accomplished.
>

better off without such a prize/s

> When you win the Nobel-- I have never seen anyone who won that prize and able to do "good science" afterwards. As if all their remaining time is in a state of publicity rather than being in a state of research. Thousands of nosey reporters knocking on your door, wanting your appearance, trespassing all over your property, kids camped out on your lawn wanting autographs. No, I rather be content doing science, not going out in mindless publicity.
>
> But recently I see that a huge science neglected was RNA editing.
>
> And I see that rightfully Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna won the chemistry Nobel in 2020 for CRISPR. But see little chemistry involved and should have gone for Physiology.
>
> Thanks Earle, I am content as is. The only benefit a award like that for AP would be that it gets more people on my side, and perhaps increases my chances of conquering the science of Reincarnation, which I hope to conquer before I die.
>

To fasttrack the evolution of drone airflight, and to fasttrack humanity colonizing Europa before Earth gets swallowed by the Sun as the Sun has gone Red Giant Phase.

> Awards often do the opposite that a scientist needs-- peace and quiet away from other people.
>
> AP

The very moment one of my worst critics sees the light of day is the very moment ( as a sign to me, from God for the Ancients were always looking for signs from God, but in our terribly athiest view of the world in modern times we no longer look for signs from God) is the very moment that I must act upon the other crackpot crank fools of mathematics and of physics especially.

Today, on my list is Jill Pipher, John Baez, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Terence Tao, Andrew Wiles, Ken Ribet--- all need to go to their current University newspaper or magazine and acknowledge the Slant cut in Single Cone is a Oval, never the Ellipse. State it clear that Old Math was wrong and the slant cut of single cone is Oval never ellipse and have it published.

Time is of the essence.

No longer are people in academics able to play a Fools Game of teaching obnoxious garbage simply because they "refuse to do proper correct true mathematics".

Time is of the essence.

The above list of math fools reminds me of the moron tennis player Djokovic, the moron who refuses vaccination, simply because he is a moron of science, just as Jill Pipher, John Baez, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Terence Tao, Andrew Wiles, Ken Ribet are morons of mathematics.

As for Physics, far more important than mathematics, on this side of science-- I require every one of these failed physicists who are alive still to do the same thing -- go to your nearest University newspaper or magazine and have published that -- True electron of Atoms is the muon and the 0.5MeV particle is the Dirac magnetic monopole. Do it in Godspeed. Because Earth and humanity has not the time to fool around as you are fools of physics.

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

AP, King of Science, especially Physics

On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 10:59:10 AM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> The very moment one of my worst critics sees the light of day is the very moment ( as a sign to me, from God for the Ancients were always looking for signs from God, but in our terribly athiest view of the world in modern times we no longer look for signs from God) is the very moment that I must act upon the other crackpot crank fools of mathematics and of physics especially.
>
> Today, on my list is Jill Pipher, John Baez, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Terence Tao, Andrew Wiles, Ken Ribet--- all need to go to their current University newspaper or magazine and acknowledge the Slant cut in Single Cone is a Oval, never the Ellipse. State it clear that Old Math was wrong and the slant cut of single cone is Oval never ellipse and have it published.
>
> Time is of the essence.
>
> No longer are people in academics able to play a Fools Game of teaching obnoxious garbage simply because they "refuse to do proper correct true mathematics".
>
> Time is of the essence.
>
> The above list of math fools reminds me of the moron tennis player Djokovic, the moron who refuses vaccination, simply because he is a moron of science, just as Jill Pipher, John Baez, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Terence Tao, Andrew Wiles, Ken Ribet are morons of mathematics.
>
> As for Physics, far more important than mathematics, on this side of science-- I require every one of these failed physicists who are alive still to do the same thing -- go to your nearest University newspaper or magazine and have published that -- True electron of Atoms is the muon and the 0.5MeV particle is the Dirac magnetic monopole. Do it in Godspeed. Because Earth and humanity has not the time to fool around as you are fools of physics.
>
> 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
>
> AP, King of Science, especially Physics

Who told you you deserve that prize you moron?

Mitchell Raemsch

On 1/7/2022 2:02 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 10:59:10 AM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
[]

> Who told you you deserve that prize you moron?
>
> Mitchell Raemsch
>

He didn't deserve his Nobel Prizes.

He stole your proofs of no negative numbers and no imaginary numbers
from you, Mitch. He was awarded two Nobel Prizes in Mathematics for
those proofs, which rightfully should have been awarded to you.

You need to protect your ideas better, Mitch. Plutonium has copyrighted,
trademarked and patented a certain word he created in 2017, which I am
not allowed to use. You should have done the same for your proof of the
nonexistence of negative or imaginary numbers.

Plutonium is always stealing ideas and claiming them as his own. He has
recently filed a lawsuit against a caveman named Ogg, who was the first
to domesticate the dog, for stealing his idea of the dog being the first
domesticated animal. The lawsuit is on hold due to the fact that Ogg is
very, very dead.

AP will probably accept a Chemistry or Physiology or Medicine Nobel Prize, as those prizes are less than than 1/4 wrong. However the Physics Nobel prizes has become a list of 80% wrong. For AP to go on a Physics Nobel prize list is like asking a physicist to go on a list of banal comics and airhead comics list, those who think I love Lucy is funny.

Chemistry has less of a chance of awarding to fake and con-artist chemists. For it is strongly experimental, not so much the silly dumbminds of theoretical physicists.

Of course, chemistry had the wrong electron ever since JJ Thomson. And Thomson won the physics Nobel.

Probably Physiology and Medicine have low rate of errors, as well as chemistry.

But Nobel Physics prize is a garbage dump cesspool. In fact, so bad is the Physics Nobel, that is more of a dishonor to be on that list, than ever any honor, but then there are some blokes who see the money as valuable.

If I do win a Nobel Chemistry or Physiology or Medicine prize, I should go through and accurately cull out the fake junk in those awards, but pretty sure the Physics Noble is about 80% fake physics, perhaps the only true physics in the Physics Nobel are the raw experiments-- superconductivity. But even here, the experiment of Bohr to determine a atom has a nucleus is sheer nonsense, so even experiments in physics are often bogus. My 80% of physics Nobels as fake, maybe too low, for it maybe that 95% of physics Nobels are poppycock.


AP, King of Science, especially Physics

The discovery of the JJ Thomson particle was actually Dirac's magnetic monopole after Dirac started to pursue that particle in theory after 1930. And the awards for the muon especially is a solid award, as well as the neutron (was the neutron to Chadwick awarded?? my memory slips me). Many of the principles of physics are well founded. For a principle of physics is often where we simply do not know or understand the underlying electromagnetism creating that phenomenon.

But about 1950 onwards where this nonsense of Standard Model and all its gimmicks crept into Physics is a fountain trough of Fakery, ugly fakery.

Probably because most physicists got behind General Relativity-- a fakery itself. So when a science gets behind a fakery, then count on decades wasted..

They should have got behind Maxwell and electricity and magnetism. My heroes, Dirac, Feynman, Bell, DeBroglie shone in all that ugly fakery of that century of physics. For they probably, deep down avoided the fake General Relativity and focused on electricity and magnetism.

Not easy to master the Maxwell Equation, and that is probably why so many losers flocked to General Relativity, where you had to do nothing.

With the Maxwell Equations, it is easy to separate out the quacks from the learned.

So if the 20th century had fully focused on EM theory and never for once paid any attention to GR lunacy, then the Physics Nobel prizes would have probably be more correct awards than its dismal status now of 80% or more fakes.

But there can never be a replacement of the Missed Awards, the missing of Edison and Tesla who of which two men changed the entire 20th century and beyond with their "electrification of the world". The Nobel prize in physics will forevermore be a flawed system of awards, for they missed Edison and Tesla. It is like a award for religion leaders, and missing Jesus Christ in the list.

So, does AP want to be on a list of such massive mistakes and Misses? Hell no, for that only elevates the con-artist fakesters who now infest that list, and demotes AP.

I will probably accept a Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine Nobel award.

In Chemistry, AP even cleans up the Lewis 8 Structure with the true structure of Lewis 6. I do not know if anyone won a Chemistry Nobel for the Lewis 8 structure, and if they did, well they are wrong. For the Lewis 6 Structure leads directly into there being 3 distinct isomers of CO2. And that is extremely important in our modern world of Global Warming, not to mention the evolution of life depends on animal-CO2 which is altogether different from fire-CO2.

Chemistry is more stable of a science for awards, for you have to do something in experiments. While physics, often is some kook with his mind blowing kook games, upstairs.


As for any prizes or awards in mathematics to Archimedes Plutonium, is out of the question.

For the Abel Prize and the Fields Medal are goon lists of mathematicians. At least there was room for some true Nobel Physics prizes such as the discovery of the neutron and muon, or the Schrodinger and Dirac Equations as partial truths of the Dirac magnetic monopole of 0.5MeV particle, or the superconductivity discoveries or the cathode ray tubes and discovery of radioactivity, and others.

For the huge problem in Physics was the mix up in the true real electron of atoms is the muon, not the 0.5MeV particle and coupled with the braindead love of General Relativity, when the love should have been placed on Maxwell's electricity and magnetism and his Equations of EM. Instead, the 20th century physics went down a cesspool in GR nonsense with black holes, dark matter dark energy and other lunatic ideas.

But in mathematics with its Fields Medal and Abel prize it was near impossible to do anything new and true in mathematics. Not when you have a continuum, have Reals as numbers, and never have a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

The entire list of math awards in Fields Medal and Abel Prize, that entire list is a list of 100% worthless fakery of mathematics.

At least some discoveries and ideas were true in the Physics Nobel prizes, but in mathematics, 100% were worthless nonsense fakery. You cannot have any true mathematics with a Continuum, with Reals, and never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

In this sense, AP will accept a Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his Oval is the conic section and the geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. For the entire universe is a Atom Totality and atoms have geometry and the totality is a atom of 231Pu and you do not get any more science chemistry than atoms. So, if someone wants to award AP for all his mathematics contributions, a Nobel in Chemistry is wise and sufficient.

As for the Abel and Fields awards, they should die a swift death of shame and silly ineptitude. I predict no-one except cash strapped fools will accept a Fields or Abel award in the future. For why be put on a list of greater-fools?

AP, King of Science, especially Physics

On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 12:27:27 AM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:
> *
> Some of us are thinking: When will our friend and colleague, Archimedes Plutonium, win a Nobel Proze for all of his contributions to our field of Physics? There is no doubt that he has completely turned the entire field of Physics and brought it into the new way of thinking. We owe him some great thing.
>
> At the same time, we need to think about the Fields Medal for Mathematical achievements. This is the Nobel Prize of Mathematiscs. Plutonium had completely re-writteen conventional mathematics into the new format and has offered many proofs of his new findings. His proof of slant cut of conic sections (the oval) is sufficiently advanced to warrant this award.
>
> He is widely publiched and widely quoted. He has some 150 + books now attributed to his intellect.
>
> Can we somehow get behind him and promote his wise genius? He needs to be recognized and awarded.
>
> Earle Jones, Georgia Tech, Stanford.
> *

An engineer out of Georgia Tech, Stanford, smarter than the entire math dept of UCLA with Terence Tao, for no-one at UCLA can admit the truth about the conic single cone slant cut is a Oval, never the ellipse. UCLA should be intensely ashamed of themselves, that a High School student knows better than all of UCLA on cone slant cut is Oval.

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.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
•
•

#11-2, 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 15Dec2021. 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". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.

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.

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 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)

Earle, I have a favor to ask of you, and your are far more qualified to set this idea into motion than I am. I say that because you have a degree in electrical engineering Ga.Tech and Stanford Univ. Just the perfect career to get started and launched for one of my most curious of all projects.

I need to see how high a drone can fly, for I have the sneeky suspicion as seen from the drone on Mars. That drones can fly without a atmosphere at all, but fly on the Magnetic Field of Earth and on the Solar Wind that is pervasive in the Solar System.

So my favor I ask of you Earle Jones, is to get a hold of some of your friends and acquaintances and test fly drones of all stripes and shapes to fly the drone to the International Space Station, ISS.

Everyone, I know says it is impossible, but I think they are all wrong.

So, Earle, can you start the ball rolling on this experiment? It needs to fly at launch near the North Pole to get that upward lift force from Earth's Magnetic Field lines of force at the North Pole.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics

Earle, I have a favor to ask of you, and you are far more qualified to set this idea into motion than I am. I say that because you have a degree in electrical engineering Ga.Tech and Stanford Univ. Just the perfect career to get started and launched for one of my most curious of all projects.

I need to see how high a drone can fly, for I have the sneeky suspicion as seen from the drone on Mars, its splendid behavior. That drones can fly without a atmosphere at all, but fly on the Magnetic Field of Earth and on the Solar Wind that is pervasive in the Solar System.

So my favor I ask of you Earle Jones, is to get a hold of some of your friends and acquaintances and test fly drones of all stripes and shapes to fly the drone to the International Space Station, ISS.

Everyone, I know says it is impossible-- but what do they know with their --- book knowledge but no innate knowledge, and I think naysayers are all wrong.

So, Earle, can you start the ball rolling on this experiment? It needs to fly at launch near the North Pole to get that upward lift force from Earth's Magnetic Field lines of force at the North Pole.


AP, King of Science, especially Physics

Of course we need international permission to try to fly a drone to the ISS.

Permission so that we do not hit a satellite or something else up there already.

And I do not know if we need some practice in the ISS to intercept a drone if it flys that high.

Of course we need international permission to try to fly a drone to the ISS..

Permission so that we do not hit a satellite or something else up there already.

And I do not know if we need some practice in the ISS to intercept a drone if it flys that high.


I am convinced that drones can fly in space "without ambient air". They can fly on the Solar Magnetic Field and Earth's Magnetic Field and get acceleration from the Solar Wind.

I envision this flight by drone as the blades being a thrusting magnet and the Magnetic fields and Solar Wind as the coils of copper wire.

142nd published book

Spacecraft Propulsion System based entirely on electricity and magnetism using the ambient electricity & magnetism of Space// Engineering series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

While writing several books recently in the months leading up to October 2020, I needed a new Spacecraft Propulsion System, to ferry Humanity from Earth to Mars, Europa, Pluto, due to Sun Initiation of Red Giant Phase with its 0.005% yearly increase in UV radiation. And to satisfy my sci-fi books of "White Rhino", "Two White Rhinos", and some other books. So in October 2020, I had a urgent need to write a book on how to engineer the worlds finest spacecraft for the future. And that urgent need lead me to this book. I must say though, that without that Scientific American article in February 2020, "The Enigma of Aerodynamic Lift" without that article, this book would not have come about. So this book is a clear cut example of the nexus of several research projects all lending a helping hand in the writing and culmination of this book. As the Old Saying goes, one hand washes the other hand..

Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of a Google search for drones. Now I define drones as those that are lithium battery powered and are helicopter flight in motion. I do no include airplanes as drones.
Length: 34 pages

Product details
• Publication Date : October 24, 2020
• File Size : 1007 KB
• Print Length : 34 pages
• Language: : English
• ASIN : B08LT9ST84
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled

Of course we need international permission to try to fly a drone to the ISS..

Permission so that we do not hit a satellite or something else up there already.

And I do not know if we need some practice in the ISS to intercept a drone if it flys that high.


Of course we need international permission to try to fly a drone to the ISS..

Permission so that we do not hit a satellite or something else up there already.

And I do not know if we need some practice in the ISS to intercept a drone if it flys that high.


AP will accept a Nobel prize in Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, but not physics for it has been so polluted in error that the physics Nobel is about 80% or more fake physics. And definitely no math prize is worthy, for the Fields and Abel are virtually 100% awards for math fakery. I dare anyone can show me a single Fields or Abel award for true math, all fakery.

News from Mars helicopter today-THE NOBEL PRIZE IN PHYSICS FOR ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM 62k views Subscribe  Earle Jones's profile photo Earle Jones Jan 6, 2022, 12:27:27 AM    to * Some of us are thinking: When will our friend and colleague, Archimedes Plutonium,

THE NOBEL PRIZE IN PHYSICS FOR ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM
62k views


Earle Jones's profile photo
Earle Jones
Jan 6, 2022, 12:27:27 AM



to
*
Some of us are thinking: When will our friend and colleague, Archimedes Plutonium, win a Nobel Proze for all of his contributions to our field of Physics? There is no doubt that he has completely turned the entire field of Physics and brought it into the new way of thinking. We owe him some great thing.

At the same time, we need to think about the Fields Medal for Mathematical achievements. This is the Nobel Prize of Mathematiscs. Plutonium had completely re-writteen conventional mathematics into the new format and has offered many proofs of his new findings. His proof of slant cut of conic sections (the oval) is sufficiently advanced to warrant this award.

He is widely publiched and widely quoted. He has some 150 + books now attributed to his intellect.

Can we somehow get behind him and promote his wise genius? He needs to be recognized and awarded.

Earle Jones, Georgia Tech, Stanford.
*
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 6, 2022, 2:52:30 AM (6 days ago)



to
Earle Jones, a new man? Jones first upbeat post?

Thanks for the nomination. But, Earle, I think I would be better off with such a prize, being able to get a lot more science accomplished.

When you win the Nobel-- I have never seen anyone who won that prize and able to do "good science" afterwards. As if all their remaining time is in a state of publicity rather than being in a state of research. Thousands of nosey reporters knocking on your door, wanting your appearance, trespassing all over your property, kids camped out on your lawn wanting autographs. No, I rather be content doing science, not going out in mindless publicity.

But recently I see that a huge science neglected was RNA editing.

And I see that rightfully Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna won the chemistry Nobel in 2020 for CRISPR. But see little chemistry involved and should have gone for Physiology.

Thanks Earle, I am content as is. The only benefit a award like that for AP would be that it gets more people on my side, and perhaps increases my chances of conquering the science of Reincarnation, which I hope to conquer before I die.

Awards often do the opposite that a scientist needs-- peace and quiet away from other people.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 6, 2022, 2:57:36 AM (6 days ago)



to
I should have proofread this post, but I seldom do proofreading.

On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 2:52:30 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Earle Jones, a new man? Jones first upbeat post?
>
> Thanks for the nomination. But, Earle, I think I would be better off with such a prize, being able to get a lot more science accomplished.
>

better off without such a prize/s

> When you win the Nobel-- I have never seen anyone who won that prize and able to do "good science" afterwards. As if all their remaining time is in a state of publicity rather than being in a state of research. Thousands of nosey reporters knocking on your door, wanting your appearance, trespassing all over your property, kids camped out on your lawn wanting autographs. No, I rather be content doing science, not going out in mindless publicity.
>
> But recently I see that a huge science neglected was RNA editing.
>
> And I see that rightfully Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna won the chemistry Nobel in 2020 for CRISPR. But see little chemistry involved and should have gone for Physiology.
>
> Thanks Earle, I am content as is. The only benefit a award like that for AP would be that it gets more people on my side, and perhaps increases my chances of conquering the science of Reincarnation, which I hope to conquer before I die.
>

To fasttrack the evolution of drone airflight, and to fasttrack humanity colonizing Europa before Earth gets swallowed by the Sun as the Sun has gone Red Giant Phase.

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 7, 2022, 12:59:10 PM (4 days ago)



to
The very moment one of my worst critics sees the light of day is the very moment ( as a sign to me, from God for the Ancients were always looking for signs from God, but in our terribly athiest view of the world in modern times we no longer look for signs from God) is the very moment that I must act upon the other crackpot crank fools of mathematics and of physics especially.

Today, on my list is Jill Pipher, John Baez, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Terence Tao, Andrew Wiles, Ken Ribet--- all need to go to their current University newspaper or magazine and acknowledge the Slant cut in Single Cone is a Oval, never the Ellipse. State it clear that Old Math was wrong and the slant cut of single cone is Oval never ellipse and have it published.

Time is of the essence.

No longer are people in academics able to play a Fools Game of teaching obnoxious garbage simply because they "refuse to do proper correct true mathematics".

Time is of the essence.

The above list of math fools reminds me of the moron tennis player Djokovic, the moron who refuses vaccination, simply because he is a moron of science, just as Jill Pipher, John Baez, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Terence Tao, Andrew Wiles, Ken Ribet are morons of mathematics.

As for Physics, far more important than mathematics, on this side of science-- I require every one of these failed physicists who are alive still to do the same thing -- go to your nearest University newspaper or magazine and have published that -- True electron of Atoms is the muon and the 0.5MeV particle is the Dirac magnetic monopole. Do it in Godspeed. Because Earth and humanity has not the time to fool around as you are fools of physics.

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

AP, King of Science, especially Physics

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 7, 2022, 10:47:01 PM (4 days ago)



to
AP will probably accept a Chemistry or Physiology or Medicine Nobel Prize, as those prizes are less than than 1/4 wrong. However the Physics Nobel prizes has become a list of 80% wrong. For AP to go on a Physics Nobel prize list is like asking a physicist to go on a list of banal comics and airhead comics list, those who think I love Lucy is funny.

Chemistry has less of a chance of awarding to fake and con-artist chemists. For it is strongly experimental, not so much the silly dumbminds of theoretical physicists.

Of course, chemistry had the wrong electron ever since JJ Thomson. And Thomson won the physics Nobel.

Probably Physiology and Medicine have low rate of errors, as well as chemistry.

But Nobel Physics prize is a garbage dump cesspool. In fact, so bad is the Physics Nobel, that is more of a dishonor to be on that list, than ever any honor, but then there are some blokes who see the money as valuable.

Moses Charikar, Sourav Chatterjee, Tom Church, Stanford Univ, for AP would be more happy without a prize if fools of Stanford Univ math department stop torturing young students with their mindless calculus and just teach Power Rules based calculus where the only functions that exist in math are polynomial. See AP's 228th book of science and his TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbooks. Stanford math classes are appalling dumb and stupid with nothing but notetaking going on... not any actual learning of math truth and reality..

Robert Wagoner, Stanley Wojcicki, Mason Yearian fools of physics unable to ask whether the Muon is really the Atom's electron and the 0.5MeV particle is the Dirac magnetic monopole, for maybe they failed science much like Earle Jones fails science with his impish Ohm's law and unable to admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse. Stanford Univ. seems to attract goofballs more than actual real scientists.

Nymshifter Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney spams
On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 1:53:16 PM UTC-6, Volney wrote:
> "Clown of Physics" "physics hater"
> fails at math and science:

Stanford Uni Gregory Brumfiel, Daniel Bump does not teach calculus but a torture chamber of notetaking classrooms at Stanford unable to teach calculus as purely Power Rules says Kibo Parry M-V. Earle Jones expecting to confirm----

228th published book

Brief History of *True Calculus*--including new integration methods / math focus

by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Preface: AP as a teenager had a wish at University in 1969-- to make all of calculus as easy as the Power Rules over polynomial functions. And by 2015, AP's wish came true. For calculus really is easy math, as easy as add, subtract, multiply and divide. But only when people see the light of day about calculus. And where math professors stop chasing fame and fortune in publishing nonsense and spend more time teaching better in classrooms and making calculus be easy.

The history of True Calculus is far different from that which is written in math history books. True Calculus requires a true valid geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, which none was ever given until 2015. Once a geometry proof of FTC arrived, can we write a true history of calculus. The Old Math history of calculus is filled with error and fake science such as the "limit concept", the concept of "continuity". And where Old Math never even had a proper well defined "function" concept. No wonder Old Math history of calculus is trash. AP provides a brief history of True Calculus. But while studying this subject, AP has new insights into the right-circular-cone. And a new method of integration of varying sized circles over a distance length.

Cover Picture: My iphone photograph of a Wikipedia entry of Cavalieri quadrature formula (area formula) that was so critical in Calculus history for it is the formula of integrals under the function graph curve for polynomial functions. Cavalieri's discovery of the Power Rule for integrals marks the beginning of modern day calculus.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0BXJ4RRZR
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 4, 2023
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 626 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 24 pages

Robert Wagoner, Stanley Wojcicki, Mason Yearian, Stanford University ever ask the question, which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle which AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole while the real electron is a muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. In fact so stupid is this list of so called physicists that they went through life believing the slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, when in reality it is a Oval of 1 axis of symmetry for the cone has 1 axis of symmetry but ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry. The minds of all these so called physicists are not good enough to be doing physics. In fact, so stupid in science and math are all these people that when told in High School or College that a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, they believed it, and believe in it to this day without so much as ever questioning the idea that a single cone and oval have just 1 axis of symmetry while ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, and yet many on this list were awarded science prizes. Maybe for ignorance of science but not for truth of science.

1) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
2) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
3) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
4) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sapheads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.

> > 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
> > .
> > .
> > Edward Witten
> > 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
> > Jennifer Kahn, Discover, science hater
> > Eric Francis Coppolino, newsreporter hatred of science, George Witte, St.Martin's Press science hater
> > Toby Howard, The Guardian, science hater
> >
> >
> > #2-1, 137th published book
> >
> > Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> >
> >
> > #1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory
> >
> > This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so I can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me.
> >
> > Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics community updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast, as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to.
> >
> > Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory.
> > And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
> > Length: 64 pages
> >
> > Product details
> > • File Size : 790 KB
> > • Publication Date : October 5, 2020
> > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > • Print Length : 64 pages
> > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > • Language: : English
> > • ASIN : B08KS4YGWY
> > • Lending : Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory
> > ◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> >
> > #2-2, 145th published book
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
> > Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and errors and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the halls and corridors of education.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN : B08PC99JJB
> > • Publication date : November 29, 2020
> > • Language: : English
> > • File size : 682 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > • Print length : 78 pages
> > • Lending : Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
> > ◦ #344 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books)
> >
> > #2-3, 146th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3
> > Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > 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)
> >
> >
> > #2-4, 151st published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4
> > Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09JW5DVYM
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 19, 2021
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1035 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 386 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #4,874,333 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #526 in Electromagnetic Theory
> > ◦ #1,321 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #9,546 in Electromagnetism (Books)
> >
> >
> >
> > #2-5, 174th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 2nd year College
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition
> >
> > Preface: At the moment this is a physics book for 2nd year College. But as the months and years go by I intend to convert it into a textbook of about 200 to 300 pages. It is mostly about thermodynamics for in my own college education 1968-1972 at University of Cincinnati, I took physics thermodynamics in the 2nd year (if memory has not failed me).
> > Cover-Picture: Is a iphone photograph of the Chemistry textbook I used at UC 1968-1972 with my own paper cut-outs of magnetic monopoles. Pictured are 4 bent circles, bent at 90degrees from diameter and each bent circle is a individual magnetic monopole.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09TKL4HMC
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 27, 2022
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 675 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 41 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> >
> >
> >
> > #2-6, 177th published book
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Atoms, 3rd year College
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition
> >
> > Preface: I come to teaching physics for 3rd year College as the Architecture of Atoms. My writing style will be prose-narrative, until I add on exercise problems and convert it into a textbook. The 1st year College, has to be the equations and laws of electricity and magnetism. For the primal-axiom over all of physics is-- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. The 2nd year College is thermodynamics. And now the 3rd year College physics has to teach the Architecture, the geometry of the inside and exterior surface of the atom. One of the greatest faults, misery, and anti-science teaching of Old Physics is their denial that subatomic particles have to be something more than tiny balls tiny spheres that do-nothing, perform nothing, function as nothing. That the proton and neutron and true electron=muon, has to be matter with a function and purpose and design and task and job. This is a year of physics teaching of the architecture of the atom.
> > Cover Picture: A iphone photograph of my book chemistry book, a long time favorite of mine of CHEM ONE, 2nd edition, Waser, Trueblood, Knobler, 1980, and page 307 of that book. Why this page? Because it was instrumental in my discovery of the true Architecture of Atoms. Not many professors of chemistry or physics dive into the Shrodinger Equation that results in a meaningful teaching of "matter waves". Matter waves are the heart of understanding the geometry of Atomic Architecture.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09VFH9QST
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2022
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 823 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 74 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> >
> >
> >
> > #2-7, 178th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Light Waves & Energy, 4th year College
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Kindle edition)
> >
> >
> > Preface: This is 4th year College Physics and the important ideas of physics to learn as last year undergraduate school is the architecture and geometry of the Light Wave & Energy in physics. This is New Physics and not Old Physics. New Physics is defined as physics that knows and uses the true electron of atoms is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus and doing the Faraday law, creating new electrical energy that is storaged in the neutrons of atoms until they grow from 1eV into 945MeV and then create a new higher atomic numbered atom or emitted as radioactivity. Old Physics mistakenly identified the electron of atoms as the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. In 3rd year College we studied the architecture of the interior of atoms. In 4th year College we study the architecture of Light Waves & Energy.
> >
> > The template book for 4th year College is Feynman's 1985 book of QED.
> >
> > Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of the template book for this book. Feynman's 1985 QED, quantum electrodynamics, showing my plastic toy model of DNA and my cut-outs of 4 bent circles that each bent circle represents one magnetic monopole. I arranged the monopoles into a single strand of a cycloid wave.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09W58XGDW
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 21, 2022
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 824 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 66 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> >
> >
> >

2-Moses Charikar, Sourav Chatterjee, Tom Church, Stanford Univ, for AP would be more happy without a prize if fools of Stanford Univ math department stop torturing young students with their mindless calculus and just teach Power Rules based calculus where the only functions that exist in math are polynomial. See AP's 228th book of science and his TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbooks. Stanford math classes are appalling dumb and stupid with nothing but notetaking going on... not any actual learning of math truth and reality.
>
> Robert Wagoner, Stanley Wojcicki, Mason Yearian fools of physics unable to ask whether the Muon is really the Atom's electron and the 0.5MeV particle is the Dirac magnetic monopole, for maybe they failed science much like Earle Jones fails science with his impish Ohm's law and unable to admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse. Stanford Univ. seems to attract goofballs more than actual real scientists.
>
> Nymshifter Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney spams
> On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 1:53:16 PM UTC-6, Volney wrote:
> > "Clown of Physics" "physics hater"
> > fails at math and science:
>
> Stanford Uni Gregory Brumfiel, Daniel Bump does not teach calculus but a torture chamber of notetaking classrooms at Stanford unable to teach calculus as purely Power Rules says Kibo Parry M-V. Earle Jones expecting to confirm----
>
> 228th published book
>
> Brief History of *True Calculus*--including new integration methods / math focus
>
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
>
> Preface: AP as a teenager had a wish at University in 1969-- to make all of calculus as easy as the Power Rules over polynomial functions. And by 2015, AP's wish came true. For calculus really is easy math, as easy as add, subtract, multiply and divide. But only when people see the light of day about calculus. And where math professors stop chasing fame and fortune in publishing nonsense and spend more time teaching better in classrooms and making calculus be easy.
>
> The history of True Calculus is far different from that which is written in math history books. True Calculus requires a true valid geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, which none was ever given until 2015. Once a geometry proof of FTC arrived, can we write a true history of calculus.. The Old Math history of calculus is filled with error and fake science such as the "limit concept", the concept of "continuity". And where Old Math never even had a proper well defined "function" concept. No wonder Old Math history of calculus is trash. AP provides a brief history of True Calculus.. But while studying this subject, AP has new insights into the right-circular-cone. And a new method of integration of varying sized circles over a distance length.
>
>
> Cover Picture: My iphone photograph of a Wikipedia entry of Cavalieri quadrature formula (area formula) that was so critical in Calculus history for it is the formula of integrals under the function graph curve for polynomial functions. Cavalieri's discovery of the Power Rule for integrals marks the beginning of modern day calculus.
>
>
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0BXJ4RRZR
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 4, 2023
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 626 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 24 pages
>
>
>
>
> Robert Wagoner, Stanley Wojcicki, Mason Yearian, Stanford University ever ask the question, which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle which AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole while the real electron is a muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. In fact so stupid is this list of so called physicists that they went through life believing the slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, when in reality it is a Oval of 1 axis of symmetry for the cone has 1 axis of symmetry but ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry. The minds of all these so called physicists are not good enough to be doing physics. In fact, so stupid in science and math are all these people that when told in High School or College that a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, they believed it, and believe in it to this day without so much as ever questioning the idea that a single cone and oval have just 1 axis of symmetry while ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, and yet many on this list were awarded science prizes. Maybe for ignorance of science but not for truth of science.
>
> 1) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
> 2) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
> 3) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
> 4) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sapheads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.
> > > 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
> > > .
> > > .
> > > Edward Witten
> > > 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
> > > Jennifer Kahn, Discover, science hater
> > > Eric Francis Coppolino, newsreporter hatred of science, George Witte, St.Martin's Press science hater
> > > Toby Howard, The Guardian, science hater
> > >
> > >
> > > #2-1, 137th published book
> > >
> > > Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > #1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory
> > >
> > > This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so I can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me.
> > >
> > > Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics community updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast, as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to.
> > >
> > > Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory.
> > > And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
> > > Length: 64 pages
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • File Size : 790 KB
> > > • Publication Date : October 5, 2020
> > > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > > • Print Length : 64 pages
> > > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> > > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > • Language: : English
> > > • ASIN : B08KS4YGWY
> > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > • Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory
> > > ◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> > >
> > > #2-2, 145th published book
> > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
> > > Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and errors and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the halls and corridors of education.
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN : B08PC99JJB
> > > • Publication date : November 29, 2020
> > > • Language: : English
> > > • File size : 682 KB
> > > • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > > • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > > • Print length : 78 pages
> > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > • Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
> > > ◦ #344 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books)
> > >
> > > #2-3, 146th published book
> > >
> > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3
> > > Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > > 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)
> > >
> > >
> > > #2-4, 151st published book
> > >
> > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4
> > > Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09JW5DVYM
> > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 19, 2021
> > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1035 KB
> > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 386 pages
> > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Best Sellers Rank: #4,874,333 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #526 in Electromagnetic Theory
> > > ◦ #1,321 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #9,546 in Electromagnetism (Books)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > #2-5, 174th published book
> > >
> > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 2nd year College
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition
> > >
> > > Preface: At the moment this is a physics book for 2nd year College. But as the months and years go by I intend to convert it into a textbook of about 200 to 300 pages. It is mostly about thermodynamics for in my own college education 1968-1972 at University of Cincinnati, I took physics thermodynamics in the 2nd year (if memory has not failed me).
> > > Cover-Picture: Is a iphone photograph of the Chemistry textbook I used at UC 1968-1972 with my own paper cut-outs of magnetic monopoles. Pictured are 4 bent circles, bent at 90degrees from diameter and each bent circle is a individual magnetic monopole.
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09TKL4HMC
> > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 27, 2022
> > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 675 KB
> > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 41 pages
> > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > #2-6, 177th published book
> > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Atoms, 3rd year College
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition
> > >
> > > Preface: I come to teaching physics for 3rd year College as the Architecture of Atoms. My writing style will be prose-narrative, until I add on exercise problems and convert it into a textbook. The 1st year College, has to be the equations and laws of electricity and magnetism. For the primal-axiom over all of physics is-- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. The 2nd year College is thermodynamics. And now the 3rd year College physics has to teach the Architecture, the geometry of the inside and exterior surface of the atom. One of the greatest faults, misery, and anti-science teaching of Old Physics is their denial that subatomic particles have to be something more than tiny balls tiny spheres that do-nothing, perform nothing, function as nothing. That the proton and neutron and true electron=muon, has to be matter with a function and purpose and design and task and job. This is a year of physics teaching of the architecture of the atom.
> > > Cover Picture: A iphone photograph of my book chemistry book, a long time favorite of mine of CHEM ONE, 2nd edition, Waser, Trueblood, Knobler, 1980, and page 307 of that book. Why this page? Because it was instrumental in my discovery of the true Architecture of Atoms. Not many professors of chemistry or physics dive into the Shrodinger Equation that results in a meaningful teaching of "matter waves". Matter waves are the heart of understanding the geometry of Atomic Architecture.
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09VFH9QST
> > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2022
> > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 823 KB
> > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 74 pages
> > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > #2-7, 178th published book
> > >
> > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Light Waves & Energy, 4th year College
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Kindle edition)
> > >
> > >
> > > Preface: This is 4th year College Physics and the important ideas of physics to learn as last year undergraduate school is the architecture and geometry of the Light Wave & Energy in physics. This is New Physics and not Old Physics. New Physics is defined as physics that knows and uses the true electron of atoms is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus and doing the Faraday law, creating new electrical energy that is storaged in the neutrons of atoms until they grow from 1eV into 945MeV and then create a new higher atomic numbered atom or emitted as radioactivity. Old Physics mistakenly identified the electron of atoms as the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. In 3rd year College we studied the architecture of the interior of atoms. In 4th year College we study the architecture of Light Waves & Energy.
> > >
> > > The template book for 4th year College is Feynman's 1985 book of QED.
> > >
> > > Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of the template book for this book. Feynman's 1985 QED, quantum electrodynamics, showing my plastic toy model of DNA and my cut-outs of 4 bent circles that each bent circle represents one magnetic monopole. I arranged the monopoles into a single strand of a cycloid wave.
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09W58XGDW
> > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 21, 2022
> > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 824 KB
> > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 66 pages
> > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
> Stanford University, math dept.
>
> Gregory Brumfiel, Daniel Bump, Emmanuel Candès, Gunnar Carlsson, Moses Charikar, Sourav Chatterjee, Tom Church, Ralph Cohen, Brian Conrad, Brian Conrey, Amir Dembo, Persi Diaconis, Yakov Eliashberg, Robert Finn, Jacob Fox, Laura Fredrickson, Søren Galatius, George Schaeffer, Or Hershkovits, David Hoffman, Eleny Ionel, Renata Kallosh, Yitzhak Katznelson, Vladimir Kazeev, Michael Kemeny, Steven Kerckhoff, Susie Kimport, Jun Li, Tai-Ping Liu, Mark Lucianovic, Jonathan Luk, Frederick Manners, Rafe Mazzeo, James R. Milgram, Maryam Mirzakhani, Stefan Mueller, Christopher Ohrt, Donald Ornstein, George Papanicolaou, Lenya Ryzhik, Richard Schoen, Leon Simon, Rick Sommer, Kannan Soundararajan, Tadashi Tokieda, Cheng-Chiang Tsai, Ravi Vakil, András Vasy, Akshay Venkatesh, Jan Vondrák, Brian White, Wojciech Wieczorek, Jennifer Wilson, Alex Wright, Lexing Ying, Xuwen Zhu
> 
>
>
> President: Marc Tessier-Lavigne (neuroscience)
> Provost: Persis Drell (physics)
>
> Stanford physics dept.
>
> Alexander Fetter, John Lipa, William Little, Douglas Osheroff, David Ritson, H. Alan Schwettman, John Turneaure, Robert Wagoner, Stanley Wojcicki, Mason Yearian

On Sun Mar 5 14:11:14 2023 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Moses Charikar, Sourav Chatterjee, Tom Church, Stanford Univ, for AP would be more happy without a prize if fools of Stanford Univ math department stop torturing young students with their mindless calculus and just teach Power Rules based calculus where the only functions that exist in math are polynomial. See AP's 228th book of science and his TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbooks. Stanford math classes are appalling dumb and stupid with nothing but notetaking going on... not any actual learning of math truth and reality.
>
> Robert Wagoner, Stanley Wojcicki, Mason Yearian fools of physics unable to ask whether the Muon is really the Atom's electron and the 0.5MeV particle is the Dirac magnetic monopole, for maybe they failed science much like Earle Jones fails science with his impish Ohm's law and unable to admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse. Stanford Univ. seems to attract goofballs more than actual real scientists.
>
> Nymshifter Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney spams
> On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 1:53:16PM UTC-6, Volney wrote:
> > "Clown of Physics" "physics hater"
> > fails at math and science:
>
> Stanford Uni Gregory Brumfiel, Daniel Bump does not teach calculus but a torture chamber of notetaking classrooms at Stanford unable to teach calculus as purely Power Rules says Kibo Parry M-V. Earle Jones expecting to confirm----
>

*
Nowhere in your 200 + "books" have you shown that, as the King of Science, you really understand Ohm's Law. That is Electrical Engineeing 101. And your "proofs" are just simple "proofs" that you do not know what the word "proof" really means. In mathematics or physics.

You have much to learn, but, very sadly, you have shown (In thousands of postings here) that you are not capable of learning. Clearly, you do not understand the fundamental axiom of education: First: Learn; Then, Teach.

earle
*

Only the number 360 as 1 full revolution in angles for circle can unify Fine Structure Constant with Pi

Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
Mar 7, 2023, 3:05:44 AM (2 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Now we have a formula for adding consecutive integers as N(N+1)/2

We have a formula for adding consecutive integer squares N(N+1)(2N+1)/6

However, I am puzzled why we have no formula for multiplication factorial other than its definition: 1*2*3*4*5*..*n so for instance 6factorial is 1*2*3*3*4*5*6. A formula that is a short cut to the answer. For instance 20factorial, a shortcut.

If there is no shortcut for factorial, then we have to wonder for a conjecture of why no shortcut.

AP
Message has been deleted
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
Mar 8, 2023, 2:02:38 AM (yesterday)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, I need to start thinking about a proof of unifying factorial concept with Theory of 9s concept. Both are rich in factors. Factorials are multiplication while theory of 9s is addition of digits.

Factorials have many 0s to the right, while theory of nines in a specific Decimal Grid is the last number before it ends in 1 with 0s. So for 100 Grid 99 is rich in theory of 9s, in 1000 Grid 999 is rich, etc.

It is unclear as yet whether there exists a single prime number that obeys Theory of 9s. My cursory glance through primes has not spotted any prime to obey theory of 9s. If true, no primes obey theory of 9, has a huge impact on a conjecture or proof of theory of 9s.

It is not yet clear if pi digits obey theory of 9s in the 601, 602, 603, 604 decimal place value or in the 1208 place value. If pi digits obey theory of 9s is a huge impact on any proof of theory of 9s.

It is unclear if theory of 9s, exists for all factorials beyond 720. I went out to 20 factorial and found the theory of 9s obeyed.

So there is still much data and information needed before a reasonable conjecture can be laid down and then a proof search.

I suspect there is a conjecture and proof, for the theory of 9s looks to me as a dual to the factorial of math.

And that raises the question. There is a Function for Factorial and just today I was posting about it as a polynomial for 4!, 5!, and 6!.

Y = 252x^2 -2172x + 4680

It is unknown to me as I write this, whether a function in polynomials exists for Theory of 9s. If a function exists, then of course there is a conjecture and a proof on how Theory of 9s relates to Factorial.

I suppose a function for Theory of 9s can be obtained as a simple yes or no..

1 no
2 no
3 no
4 no
5 no
6 no
7 no
8 no
9 yes
10 no
11 no
12 no
13 no
14 no
15 no
16 no
17 no
18 yes
19 no

And to graph the Theory of 9s function would be 1 for no and 2 for yes. It reminds me much of those step functions. And a low lying step function is just the nice dual to a rapidly rising factorial function. I think of factorial function as a Accelerator function, while a low lying step function of theory of 9s is a slow steady velocity with bumps now and then.

And that leads to an interesting question, can you have consecutive numbers be 9s compliance-- I suppose no, but have not given it much thought.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
12:23 AM (16 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe

I had better modifie the above to include that if a number is obeying Theory of 9s, we give it the y-value of what ever that number is, so for 8 we have coordinate point (8,1) for 9 we have (9,9) for 120 we have (120,120).
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
12:25 AM (16 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, the only physics textbooks that puts it all together.. The proton is 840 MeV because it is a 8 ring torus with muon stuck inside doing the Faraday law, producing electricity which is storaged in neutrons that grow from 1eV up to 945MeV.

Have we discovered 1/2 or fractional neutrons yet? We have discovered neutrons far away from the nucleus, called halo neutrons. But are they fractional neutrons growing up to be the full 945MeV.

We now know that if you take any circle, any what so ever and have 840 of those circles in a torus. That the diameter of the donut hole is exactly pi distance length 3.14159.... We also know that 5 factorial is 120, although muon is 105MeV. But 6 factorial is 720. Now add 120 to 720 and you get our 840 the rest mass of proton torus. Notice also that you take 1/2 of 720 you get our familiar 360 we use as angle measure of degrees.

Now take 840, those 840 circles to compose a torus and ask what angle of separation there is from one circle to the next, and surprisingly it is 360/840 = 0.42 angle of separation. The number 0.42 degrees may look uninteresting but put 0.42 degrees to radian measure and you get Physics Fine Structure Constant 0.0073.

So, with the numbers 840MeV for proton torus we get the most important constant of math -- Pi -- as the diameter of donut hole in torus. And we get the Fine Structure Constant of physics, the most important constant in physics.

But let us include the Dirac magnetic monopole, that mistaken particle found by Thomson in 1897 thinking he found the Atom's electron when in fact he found the Dirac magnetic monopole and it comes in as a mass of 0.5MeV. Which makes total sense as a dipole is mass 1 MeV. So that each of the 840MeV windings of the Proton torus is a diple of two particles of magnetic monopoles.

But the story does not stop there, where we capture the most important two constants in physics-- pi and fine structure.

Why would the addition of 720 = 6 factorial the addition with 5 factorial add up to being exactly 840 as the rest mass of Proton torus.

There is no particle of importance at 720 MeV. None at 120 MeV. Notice also that 120 times 7 is again 840. Is it that the logarithmic spiral number, the second most important constant in mathematics 2.71828.... is involved and is derived from proton and muon and monopole mass?? We do know that plutonium atom has 22 subshells in 7 shells giving us pi and only 19 of those subshells full at any instant of time giving us 2.71828.... as 19/7.

So here we are seeing all the finest and important constants of math and physics all drawing together into one consistent and coherent and beautiful picture.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
3:25 AM (13 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, great progress and even a proof so far on Theory of 9s.

The theory of 9s is focused on adding the digits and seeing if it is a multiple of 9. However, if I train my focus on division of a theory of 9 number such as 360, I get a lead in to a first proof of the theory.

So start with 360 divide by 2 successively

180
90
45
22.5
11.25
5.625
2.8125
1.40625
0.703125
0.3515625
0.17578125
0.087890625
0.0439453125
0.02197265625
0.010986328125
0.0054931640625
0.00274658203125

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
4:03 PM (12 minutes ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Now going in the other direction of starting from 360 and continually multiply by 2 is a proof that the strings are obeying theory of 9s infinitely many times. At this rate, it is not long before I have strings with 604 digits obeying or 1208 digits obeying.

360
720
1440
2880
5760
11520
23040
46080
92160
184320

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
4:14 PM (1 minute ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe

So now, only the number 360 as 1 complete revolution of a circle will work in science that keeps both the derivation of Pi and Fine Structure Constant derived from the fact that the Proton torus must be 8 rings of muons with an additional muon insided doing the Faraday law, because a Proton torus of 840 Windings is 360/840 is 0.42 degree angle of separation of 840 wrings and 0.42 in radians is the Fine Structure constant of Physics 0.0072. And Pi comes from the fact that 840 identical circles formed into a Torus forces the diameter of donut hole to be exactly 3.14....

So, how could humanity be so lucky as to pick the one and only one number that unifies Fine Structure Constant and Pi digits by picking the number 360? If they had picked any other number, they would not have unified Fine Structure Constant of Electromagnetism with the constant of math of Pi.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics & Logic

Only the number 360 as 1 full revolution in angles for circle can unify Fine Structure Constant with Pi

Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Mar 7, 2023, 3:05:44 AM (2 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Now we have a formula for adding consecutive integers as N(N+1)/2

We have a formula for adding consecutive integer squares N(N+1)(2N+1)/6

However, I am puzzled why we have no formula for multiplication factorial other than its definition: 1*2*3*4*5*..*n so for instance 6factorial is 1*2*3*3*4*5*6. A formula that is a short cut to the answer. For instance 20factorial, a shortcut.

If there is no shortcut for factorial, then we have to wonder for a conjecture of why no shortcut.

AP
Message has been deleted
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Mar 8, 2023, 2:02:38 AM (yesterday)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, I need to start thinking about a proof of unifying factorial concept with Theory of 9s concept. Both are rich in factors. Factorials are multiplication while theory of 9s is addition of digits.

Factorials have many 0s to the right, while theory of nines in a specific Decimal Grid is the last number before it ends in 1 with 0s. So for 100 Grid 99 is rich in theory of 9s, in 1000 Grid 999 is rich, etc.

It is unclear as yet whether there exists a single prime number that obeys Theory of 9s. My cursory glance through primes has not spotted any prime to obey theory of 9s. If true, no primes obey theory of 9, has a huge impact on a conjecture or proof of theory of 9s.

It is not yet clear if pi digits obey theory of 9s in the 601, 602, 603, 604 decimal place value or in the 1208 place value. If pi digits obey theory of 9s is a huge impact on any proof of theory of 9s.

It is unclear if theory of 9s, exists for all factorials beyond 720. I went out to 20 factorial and found the theory of 9s obeyed.

So there is still much data and information needed before a reasonable conjecture can be laid down and then a proof search.

I suspect there is a conjecture and proof, for the theory of 9s looks to me as a dual to the factorial of math.

And that raises the question. There is a Function for Factorial and just today I was posting about it as a polynomial for 4!, 5!, and 6!.

Y = 252x^2 -2172x + 4680

It is unknown to me as I write this, whether a function in polynomials exists for Theory of 9s. If a function exists, then of course there is a conjecture and a proof on how Theory of 9s relates to Factorial.

I suppose a function for Theory of 9s can be obtained as a simple yes or no..

1 no
2 no
3 no
4 no
5 no
6 no
7 no
8 no
9 yes
10 no
11 no
12 no
13 no
14 no
15 no
16 no
17 no
18 yes
19 no

And to graph the Theory of 9s function would be 1 for no and 2 for yes. It reminds me much of those step functions. And a low lying step function is just the nice dual to a rapidly rising factorial function. I think of factorial function as a Accelerator function, while a low lying step function of theory of 9s is a slow steady velocity with bumps now and then.

And that leads to an interesting question, can you have consecutive numbers be 9s compliance-- I suppose no, but have not given it much thought.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
12:23 AM (16 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe

I had better modifie the above to include that if a number is obeying Theory of 9s, we give it the y-value of what ever that number is, so for 8 we have coordinate point (8,1) for 9 we have (9,9) for 120 we have (120,120).
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
12:25 AM (16 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, the only physics textbooks that puts it all together.. The proton is 840 MeV because it is a 8 ring torus with muon stuck inside doing the Faraday law, producing electricity which is storaged in neutrons that grow from 1eV up to 945MeV.

Have we discovered 1/2 or fractional neutrons yet? We have discovered neutrons far away from the nucleus, called halo neutrons. But are they fractional neutrons growing up to be the full 945MeV.

We now know that if you take any circle, any what so ever and have 840 of those circles in a torus. That the diameter of the donut hole is exactly pi distance length 3.14159.... We also know that 5 factorial is 120, although muon is 105MeV. But 6 factorial is 720. Now add 120 to 720 and you get our 840 the rest mass of proton torus. Notice also that you take 1/2 of 720 you get our familiar 360 we use as angle measure of degrees.

Now take 840, those 840 circles to compose a torus and ask what angle of separation there is from one circle to the next, and surprisingly it is 360/840 = 0.42 angle of separation. The number 0.42 degrees may look uninteresting but put 0.42 degrees to radian measure and you get Physics Fine Structure Constant 0.0073.

So, with the numbers 840MeV for proton torus we get the most important constant of math -- Pi -- as the diameter of donut hole in torus. And we get the Fine Structure Constant of physics, the most important constant in physics.

But let us include the Dirac magnetic monopole, that mistaken particle found by Thomson in 1897 thinking he found the Atom's electron when in fact he found the Dirac magnetic monopole and it comes in as a mass of 0.5MeV. Which makes total sense as a dipole is mass 1 MeV. So that each of the 840MeV windings of the Proton torus is a diple of two particles of magnetic monopoles.

But the story does not stop there, where we capture the most important two constants in physics-- pi and fine structure.

Why would the addition of 720 = 6 factorial the addition with 5 factorial add up to being exactly 840 as the rest mass of Proton torus.

There is no particle of importance at 720 MeV. None at 120 MeV. Notice also that 120 times 7 is again 840. Is it that the logarithmic spiral number, the second most important constant in mathematics 2.71828.... is involved and is derived from proton and muon and monopole mass?? We do know that plutonium atom has 22 subshells in 7 shells giving us pi and only 19 of those subshells full at any instant of time giving us 2.71828.... as 19/7.

So here we are seeing all the finest and important constants of math and physics all drawing together into one consistent and coherent and beautiful picture.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
3:25 AM (13 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, great progress and even a proof so far on Theory of 9s.

The theory of 9s is focused on adding the digits and seeing if it is a multiple of 9. However, if I train my focus on division of a theory of 9 number such as 360, I get a lead in to a first proof of the theory.

So start with 360 divide by 2 successively

180
90
45
22.5
11.25
5.625
2.8125
1.40625
0.703125
0.3515625
0.17578125
0.087890625
0.0439453125
0.02197265625
0.010986328125
0.0054931640625
0.00274658203125

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
4:03 PM (12 minutes ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Now going in the other direction of starting from 360 and continually multiply by 2 is a proof that the strings are obeying theory of 9s infinitely many times. At this rate, it is not long before I have strings with 604 digits obeying or 1208 digits obeying.

360
720
1440
2880
5760
11520
23040
46080
92160
184320

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
4:14 PM (1 minute ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe

So now, only the number 360 as 1 complete revolution of a circle will work in science that keeps both the derivation of Pi and Fine Structure Constant derived from the fact that the Proton torus must be 8 rings of muons with an additional muon insided doing the Faraday law, because a Proton torus of 840 Windings is 360/840 is 0.42 degree angle of separation of 840 wrings and 0.42 in radians is the Fine Structure constant of Physics 0.0072. And Pi comes from the fact that 840 identical circles formed into a Torus forces the diameter of donut hole to be exactly 3.14....

So, how could humanity be so lucky as to pick the one and only one number that unifies Fine Structure Constant and Pi digits by picking the number 360? If they had picked any other number, they would not have unified Fine Structure Constant of Electromagnetism with the constant of math of Pi.

The answer is, humanity was not lucky, but forced to accept 360 for they saw the Sun go around Earth in Ancient times by 360 days, and thus, our complete revolution of a circle is 360 degrees. If the Sun went around in 720 days, then our complete revolution angle would be 720, not 360.

But this begs the question of whether 360 is baked into astronomy. Are there any stars, binary stars that orbit one another in 360 days just as Earth orbits Sun??????

AP, King of Science, especially Physics & Logic

P.S. I looked up the orbit of Mars, and it is 720 as a average of 687 days sidereal and 780 days synodic. So if you average the sidereal with synodic, we easily can get the 720 number.

Hey, Earle Jones. Can You help me with 8 000 000 000 $'s ?

On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 8:27:27 AM UTC+2, Earle Jones wrote:
> *
> Some of us are thinking: When will our friend and colleague, Archimedes Plutonium, win a Nobel Proze for all of his contributions to our field of Physics? There is no doubt that he has completely turned the entire field of Physics and brought it into the new way of thinking. We owe him some great thing.
>
> At the same time, we need to think about the Fields Medal for Mathematical achievements. This is the Nobel Prize of Mathematiscs. Plutonium had completely re-writteen conventional mathematics into the new format and has offered many proofs of his new findings. His proof of slant cut of conic sections (the oval) is sufficiently advanced to warrant this award.
>
> He is widely publiched and widely quoted. He has some 150 + books now attributed to his intellect.
>
> Can we somehow get behind him and promote his wise genius? He needs to be recognized and awarded.
>
> Earle Jones, Georgia Tech, Stanford.
> *

🦥 of Math and 🐌 of Physics Archimedes "Kim Jong Un's minion" Plutonium
<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
>
> My 134th published book
>
> Introduction to TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 1 for ages 5 through 26, math textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
Why do you keep trying to brainwash poor little 5 year old kids?

WARNING TO STUDENTS, PARENTS and TEACHERS: Archimedes Plutonium is
offering to teach your children his broken physics and math. BEWARE! He
will corrupt the minds of your children! Mr. Plutonium is not content to
be a failure of math and physics all by himself. He wants everyone else
to fail as well! He teaches bizarre false physics and math, such as
atoms contain the unstable muon, water is H4O and not H2O, the ellipse
isn't a conic section, there are no negative numbers and no complex
numbers, that a sine wave isn't sinusoidal but semicircles, cycloids or
parabolas (depending on his mood), plus many, many other instances of
bad math and physics.

Plutonium has previously tried to corrupt our youth by posting his books
on Usenet. That has failed until now, perhaps in part due to the fact
Usenet is an old, dying medium, which few modern students even know of,
much less use. However, Mr. Plutonium has somehow duped Amazon into
providing his dangerous books for free on Kindle. This has greatly
increased the danger to our students!

One of his dangerous tricks is teach false Boolean logic such as 10 AND
2 = 12. His method at doing this is particularly insidious. He'll post a
false statement that nobody believes, such as 10 OR 2 = 12, say that it
is false (which it is), but then he'll try to replace it with another
similar false statement such as 10 AND 2 = 12, in order to really
confuse future computer scientists. Plutonium is taking advantage of the
fact that AND means different things in Boolean logic and elementary
arithmetic, as AND is an informal synonym for plus/addition. It is
important for future computer scientists to remember that in the bitwise
Boolean logic used by modern computers, 10 OR 2 = 10 and 10 AND 2 = 2.
Of course in pure Boolean logic the only possible values are true and
false (1 or 0), so in pure Boolean logic the statements "10 AND 2" and
"10 OR 2" don't even make sense. Don't let evil Plutonium's bad logic
confuse you!

Plutonium has been targeting children as young as 5. A new attempt to
corrupt the minds of young children is to teach that the alphabet has 12
letters, 6 vowels and 6 consonants. This sounds like a great way to
keep our children from reading!

Nobody knows why Plutonium wishes to corrupt the minds of our youth like
this. Perhaps Plutonium is envious of their potential success, which he
never had because he is a failure at math and science. Plutonium is not
content to be a failure at math and physics all by himself. He wants
everyone to fail as well. Some claim Plutonium is an agent of China, in
order for China to dominate the world economy. Maybe he is a minion of
Kim Jong Un of North Korea. Most likely, however, he is an agent of
Putin and Russia, since Plutonium has previously attempted to summon
Russian robots in 2017 "to create a new, true mathematics" in an attempt
to destroy mathematics.

Additionally, Plutonium has started a Cult of Failure. He is trying to
convince students to worship his evil pagan Plutonium atom god of
Failure. This cult is anti-science and anti-mathematics. Its only goal
is to promote failure in math and science.

There is some evidence this Cult of Failure may be a suicide cult.
Plutonium has advocated that the "good guy" nations join into a
supernation and threaten to "flatten" the (nuclear armed) "bad guy"
nations who misbehave. The idea may to initiate an all-out nuclear
war when "bad guy" nations retaliate. Not simply is Plutonium or his
cult committing suicide but would take Planet Earth with them. As the
war in Ukraine continues, Plutonium keeps asking NATO to attack the
Russians, starting a nuclear WW3, which he feels is unavoidable. More
evidence of Plutonium's Cult of Failure being a suicide cult.

Plutonium is now encouraging resistance fighters fighting the regimes
in Russia and Iran to attack power lines in Tehran and Moscow by
carrying long vertical aluminum poles under them, presumably to short
them out, complete with a diagram. Obviously, this will not end well
for for the resistance fighter. The question is, did he do this because
he is Putin's stooge trying to kill off resistance fighters? Or is this
part of Plutonium's Suicide Cult of Failure, meaning this is merely a
suggestion how to commit suicide while failing to harm the regimes? Or
both?

But the point is, stay away, if he offers to give or sell you one of his
dangerous books. Especially now since they are available for free from
otherwise legitimate Amazon.