1st 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...

The very first Nobel prize in Chemistry to Archimedes Plutonium should be for-- "For the correction of the real true electron of Atoms is the muon of 105MeV stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law and the 0.5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. "

1st 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...

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

This Nobel award corrects many of the past mistakes of the Physics prizes. Honestly, I cannot see the Physics Nobel moving forward in time without this correction, but rather as a laughing-stock.

1st NOBEL PRIZE IN CHEMISTRY FOR ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM -- for For the discovery of the real true electron of Atoms is the muon, stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law and where the 0.5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole.

This award for the correct Atom's electron would be one of the highest Nobel science awards ever made. For the correct electron of Atoms from 0.5MeV to the true electron = muon at 105MeV changes and alters every science in existence.


When a science has a mistaken Identity-- then it suffers tragically. Oh yes, we can invent TV and radio and atom bombs with a mistaken electron, even fly to the Moon. But with a mistaken electron of atoms, we would think the Sun and stars shine from fusion and not the truth-- they shine from Faraday law.

And the longer and longer we hold that false belief of electron as 0.5MeV, the closer we get to the extinction of all Earth life, because we have a small window of colonizing Europa, before Earth is unliveable.

Even here on Earth, if every human realized true electron is muon and the Sun gone Red Giant Phase, we probably would not have a Russia ready to invade Ukraine, a China seeking Taiwan, no, we would have all humans in unison seeking to colonize Europa, for if we fail in that, means all of life on Earth goes extinct.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Feb 7, 2022, 11:16:00 PM (1 hour ago)



to
There has never been a Nobel prize in science that corrects the past mistakes of other Nobel prizes. This would be the first such Nobel prize that corrects the mistakes of the past. And it goes to show, that the correction of past science can often be the most important science achievement, rather than a brand new science discovery.

And we can well understand that science prizes are fallible, prone to error, and expect a correction.

This award for the correct Atom's electron would be one of the highest Nobel science awards ever made. For the correct electron of Atoms from 0.5MeV to the true electron = muon at 105MeV changes and alters every science in existence. Virtually every book of science, not just the hard sciences of physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy have to be rewritten with the true electron = muon.

AP

This Nobel award corrects many of the past mistakes of the Physics prizes. Honestly, I cannot see the Physics Nobel moving forward in time without this correction, but rather as a laughing-stock.

AP's first Nobel Prize should be in Chemistry, for "For the clarification that the true real electron of Atoms is the muon at 105MeV stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus, doing the Faraday law, and where the 0.5MeV particle as Dirac's magnetic monopole."

Now the students of the future are going to be really surprised to learn how this discovery was made. For logically Bohr-Geiger-Marsden were correct in thinking the alpha particles shot into a gold leaf bounced back at the gun because the alpha particle hit a dense nucleus. For there is nothing wrong with Bohr's logical conclusions on that data. However, as years and decades rolled by with the Bohr model of the Atom, there was plenty, plenty wrong, because as the years rolled by, the Bohr model had us believe that a electron at 0.5MeV and a proton at 938MeV with the electron whizzing around OUTSIDE of the proton at 99.9% speed of light could stay together as a hydrogen atom-- how preposterous, how ludicruous. What happened was that the force of "charge" in Old Physics, kept this insane belief that a 0.5MeV particle travelling outside a 938MeV proton at 99.9% speed of light would keep them together, which now we see as not only ludicrous, but insane science.

Now students of the future are going to think the discovery that the real electron of Atoms is the muon and stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus is because of how insane and ludicrous is the Bohr model of electron outside the proton at a speed of 99.9% speed of light.

This is what most people will think the discovery of true electron as muon came about. But no, for I was the discoverer of the true electron of atoms as the muon, and it had nothing to do with the insane idea of a 0.5MeV particle outside a 938MeV proton orbiting at 99.9% speed of light.

The discovery of true electron = muon involved of all things Sigma Error that is a common practice in physics experiments of measuring the percent of error. So in 2016 AP multiplies 105MeV by 9 and has 945MeV and says to himself, what is the Sigma Error of 938MeV proton or 940MeV neutron with that of 945MeV and lo and behold, it is within sigma error, 0.7% and 0.5% respectively, to say the proton is actually 9 muons, and by 2017, realizing that the true proton was 840MeV with a muon as electron stuck inside the proton torus doing a Faraday law. Only years later, would AP realize how ridiculous, how pathetic a model was the Bohr model.

But why should that discovery be from Sigma Error and not from the plain preposterous notion of a 99.9% speed of light staying attached to a proton exterior? Why should Sigma Error reveal the truth and not the laughable 99.9% light speed cause the change? Probably because "charge" could cover up the insanity of the Bohr model, but nothing could cover up the plain bare fact of a 0.5% sigma error.

AP, King of Science, especially Chemistry-Physics