b) THE NOBEL PRIZE IN CHEMISTRY FOR ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM 62k views nomination by Stanford's Earle Jones-- AP will accept a Chemistry Nobel, not a physics for physics is more than 80% fake awards

Ironic, is it not that J.J. Thomson was awarded the Physics Nobel in 1906 for the conduction of electricity by gases. In essence for the erroneous belief that the 0.5MeV particle was an atom's electron. And ironic that the true electron of atoms would not be discovered until 2016-2017 by AP noticing that if you multiply the muon rest mass of 105MeV by 9, multiply by 9, you have the rest mass of the neutron and proton within sigma error. Meaning? Meaning that the muon is the atom's true electron and is stuck INSIDE a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law.

So yes, AP deserves the Nobel prize in Chemistry for the discovery of the True Electron of Atoms is the muon.

As for all the mathematics that AP did, we can call Physiology as being mathematical for physiology is form, and math is form whether algebra form or geometry form.

As for a Nobel in Medicine for AP, his discovery that DNA is perfect light-waves puts a foundation under all of biology and easily deserving of a Nobel in Medicine.

Of course, the bulk of AP's work is physics, and all of that can be put under Chemistry.

The Nobel in Physics from 1901 to 2022 was too polluted in fakery and con-art that AP does not ever want to be on that list, for it only drags AP down and lifts up con art charlatans of physics.

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.
*

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

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

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)

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.


SCIENCE NEWS, 15Jan2022 has news of the helicopter on Mars "The NASA helicopter is pushing limits and doing science.

So, I would like to ask NASA to build another helicopter the same as the one on Mars and over the North Pole where the greatest amount of Earth Magnetic field is found, test it if this robot can fly to the height of the ISS, International Space Station. I would think everyone on Earth will be lovely surprised that such a helicopter can fly without ambient air. In fact, could fly to the moon if we did our calculations.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
3:49 PM (1 hour ago)



to

Read an interesting article on salamanders and how much extra loaded down they are in DNA

y  
|  /
| /
|/______ x

More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.

In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.

AP will accept most graciously the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. For Chemistry is the science more relevant more direct, more pertinent to a Atom Totality Universe theory than is physics. If Democritus and Leucippus were alive today, they would be most honored for chemistry, not physics.

What I am trying to say is that Chemistry is more central to science than is physics. For physics has too much room for cranks and crackpots and morons and kooks to hide in and spoil and ruin the science. Chemistry is more experimental and thus more prone to truth.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics

onsdag 26 januari 2022 kl. 01:37:22 UTC+1 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> b) THE NOBEL PRIZE IN CHEMISTRY FOR ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM 62k views nomination by Stanford's Earle Jones-- AP will accept a Chemistry Nobel, not a physics for physics is more than 80% fake awards
>
> Ironic, is it not that J.J. Thomson was awarded the Physics Nobel in 1906 for the conduction of electricity by gases. In essence for the erroneous belief that the 0.5MeV particle was an atom's electron. And ironic that the true electron of atoms would not be discovered until 2016-2017 by AP noticing that if you multiply the muon rest mass of 105MeV by 9, multiply by 9, you have the rest mass of the neutron and proton within sigma error. Meaning? Meaning that the muon is the atom's true electron and is stuck INSIDE a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law.
>
> So yes, AP deserves the Nobel prize in Chemistry for the discovery of the True Electron of Atoms is the muon.
>
> As for all the mathematics that AP did, we can call Physiology as being mathematical for physiology is form, and math is form whether algebra form or geometry form.
>
> As for a Nobel in Medicine for AP, his discovery that DNA is perfect light-waves puts a foundation under all of biology and easily deserving of a Nobel in Medicine.
>
> Of course, the bulk of AP's work is physics, and all of that can be put under Chemistry.
>
> The Nobel in Physics from 1901 to 2022 was too polluted in fakery and con-art that AP does not ever want to be on that list, for it only drags AP down and lifts up con art charlatans of physics.
>
>
> 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.
> *
>
> Earle Jones, a new man? Jones first upbeat post?
>
>
> 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
>
> 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)
>
> 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.
> 
>
> SCIENCE NEWS, 15Jan2022 has news of the helicopter on Mars "The NASA helicopter is pushing limits and doing science.
>
> So, I would like to ask NASA to build another helicopter the same as the one on Mars and over the North Pole where the greatest amount of Earth Magnetic field is found, test it if this robot can fly to the height of the ISS, International Space Station. I would think everyone on Earth will be lovely surprised that such a helicopter can fly without ambient air. In fact, could fly to the moon if we did our calculations.
>
> AP, King of Science, especially Physics
> Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> Archimedes Plutonium
> 3:49 PM (1 hour ago)
> 
> 
> 
> to
> 
> Read an interesting article on salamanders and how much extra loaded down they are in DNA
>
>
> y
> | /
> | /
> |/______ x
>
> More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci..physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.
>
> In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.
>
> I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.
>
> There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.
>
> Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> Archimedes Plutonium

On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 1:40:20 AM UTC-8, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> onsdag 26 januari 2022 kl. 01:37:22 UTC+1 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> > b) THE NOBEL PRIZE IN CHEMISTRY FOR ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM 62k views nomination by Stanford's Earle Jones-- AP will accept a Chemistry Nobel, not a physics for physics is more than 80% fake awards
> >
> > Ironic, is it not that J.J. Thomson was awarded the Physics Nobel in 1906 for the conduction of electricity by gases. In essence for the erroneous belief that the 0.5MeV particle was an atom's electron. And ironic that the true electron of atoms would not be discovered until 2016-2017 by AP noticing that if you multiply the muon rest mass of 105MeV by 9, multiply by 9, you have the rest mass of the neutron and proton within sigma error. Meaning? Meaning that the muon is the atom's true electron and is stuck INSIDE a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law.
> >
> > So yes, AP deserves the Nobel prize in Chemistry for the discovery of the True Electron of Atoms is the muon.
> >
> > As for all the mathematics that AP did, we can call Physiology as being mathematical for physiology is form, and math is form whether algebra form or geometry form.
> >
> > As for a Nobel in Medicine for AP, his discovery that DNA is perfect light-waves puts a foundation under all of biology and easily deserving of a Nobel in Medicine.
> >
> > Of course, the bulk of AP's work is physics, and all of that can be put under Chemistry.
> >
> > The Nobel in Physics from 1901 to 2022 was too polluted in fakery and con-art that AP does not ever want to be on that list, for it only drags AP down and lifts up con art charlatans of physics.
> >
> >
> > 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.
> > *
> >
> > Earle Jones, a new man? Jones first upbeat post?
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> > 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)
> >
> > 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.
> > 
> >
> > SCIENCE NEWS, 15Jan2022 has news of the helicopter on Mars "The NASA helicopter is pushing limits and doing science.
> >
> > So, I would like to ask NASA to build another helicopter the same as the one on Mars and over the North Pole where the greatest amount of Earth Magnetic field is found, test it if this robot can fly to the height of the ISS, International Space Station. I would think everyone on Earth will be lovely surprised that such a helicopter can fly without ambient air. In fact, could fly to the moon if we did our calculations.
> >
> > AP, King of Science, especially Physics
> > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > Archimedes Plutonium
> > 3:49 PM (1 hour ago)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > to
> > 
> > Read an interesting article on salamanders and how much extra loaded down they are in DNA
> >
> >
> > y
> > | /
> > | /
> > |/______ x
> >
> > More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.
> >
> > In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.
> >
> > I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.
> >
> > There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.
> >
> > Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > Archimedes Plutonium
> as always you are insane. Muon is far too heavy for it and we know this already. Stop being retarded