Our cherished 151st book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4 by Archimedes Plutonium Preface: This is AP's 151st book of science published. It is one of my most important books of science because 1st year

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4
by Archimedes Plutonium

Preface: This is AP's 151st book of science published. It is one of my most important books of science because 1st year college physics is so impressionable on students, if they should continue with physics, or look elsewhere for a career. And also, physics is a crossroad to all the other hard core sciences, where physics course is mandatory such as in chemistry or even biology. I have endeavored to make physics 1st year college to be as easy and simple to learn. In this endeavor to make physics super easy, I have made the writing such that you will see core ideas in all capital letters as single sentences as a educational tool. And I have made this textbook chapter writing follow a logical pattern of both algebra and geometry concepts, throughout. The utmost importance of logic in physics needs to be seen and understood. For I have never seen a physics book, prior to this one that is logical. Every Old Physics textbook I have seen is scatter brained in topics and in writing. I use as template book of Halliday & Resnick because a edition of H&R was one I was taught physics at University of Cincinnati in 1969.. And in 1969, I had a choice of majors, do I major in geology, or mathematics, or in physics, for I will graduate from UC in 1972. For me, geology was too easy, but physics was too tough, so I ended up majoring in mathematics. If I had been taught in 1969 using this textbook that I have written, I would have ended up majoring in physics, my first love. For physics is not hard, not hard at all, once you clear out the mistakes and the obnoxious worthless mathematics that clutters up Old Physics, and the illogic that smothers much of Old Physics.

Maybe it was good that I had those impressions of physics education of poor education, which still exists throughout physics today. Because maybe I am forced to write this book, because of that awful experience of learning physics in 1969. Without that awful experience, maybe this textbook would have never been written by me.

Cover picture is the template book of Halliday & Resnick, 1988, 3rd edition Fundamentals of Physics and sitting on top are cut outs of "half bent circles, bent at 90 degrees" to imitate magnetic monopoles. Magnetic Monopoles revolutionizes physics education, and separates-out, what is Old Physics from what is New Physics.

The world needs a new standard in physics education since Feynman set the standard in 1960s with his "Lectures on Physics" that lasted until about 1990 and then AP's Atom Totality theory caused Feynman's Lectures to be completely outdated. And so much has changed in physics since 1960s that AP now sets the new world standard in physics education with this series of textbooks.

To be a Master of physics or Calculus or Mathematics, has to be seen in "signs and signals". Can you correct the mistakes and errors of Old Physics, of Old Calculus, of Old Math? If you cannot clean up the fakery of Old Physics, of Old Calculus, of Old Math, you have no business, no reason to write a physics, calculus or math textbook. There is an old legend in England about King Arthur, and the legend goes, that the King is the one who pulls Excalibur out of the iron anvil. Pulling the sword out of the anvil is a metaphor for Cleaning up all the mistakes and errors of Old Physics, of Old Calculus, of Old Math. You have to clean up and clear out the mistakes and errors of the past, for Physics to move forward.

Should you write a textbook on Calculus, if you cannot see that the slant cut in a cone is a oval, never the ellipse? Of course not. Should you write a Calculus textbook if you cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Of course not. Should you write a physics textbook if you cannot ask the question, which is the atom's real true electron, is it the muon or the 0.5MeV particle that AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole.

Feynman wrote the last textbook in 1960s to guide physics forward, and although Feynman did not clean up much of Old Physics, he did direct the way forward in that Electricity and Magnetism in his Quantum Electrodynamics was the way forward. It would have been nice for Feynman to have found that it is impossible for a 0.5MeV particle to be the atom's electron moving near the speed of light outside the proton of hydrogen and still remain an atom, thus all atoms collapse. It would have been nice for Feynman to say the muon is the real atom's electron and that the 0.5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole. But it just was not in the fated cards of Feynman's physics. Yet, his textbook served the leadership of physics from 1960 to 1990. Time we have the new replacement of physics textbook.

Now, in 2021, we need a new textbook that carries all of physics forward into the future for the next 100 years, and that is what this textbook is.

I will use Halliday and Resnick textbook as template to garner work exercise problems for 1st year and 2nd year college. For 3rd and senior year college physics I will directly use Feynman's Lectures and QED, quantum electrodynamics. Correcting Feynman and setting the stage that all of physics is-- All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.

Much and most of 20th century physics was error filled and illogical physics, dead end , stupid paths such as General Relativity, Big Bang, Black holes, gravity waves, etc etc. Dead end stupidity is much of Old Physics of the 20th century. What distinguishes Feynman, is he kept his head above the water by concentrating almost exclusively on Electrodynamics. He remarked words to the effect== "QED is the most precise, most accurate theory in all of physics". And, that is true, given All is Atom, and Atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.

This textbook is going to set the world standard on college physics education. Because I have reduced the burden of mathematics, reduced it to be almost what I call -- difficult-free-math. I mean, easy-math. Meaning that all functions and equations of math and physics are just polynomials. All functions of math and physics are polynomials. Making calculus super super easy because all you ever do is plug in the Power rules for derivative and integral, so that physics math is able to be taught in High School. In other words, physics with almost no math at all-- so to speak, or what can be called as easy as learning add, subtract, multiply, divide.

What makes both math and physics extremely hard to learn and understand is when mathematics never cleans itself up, and never tries to make itself easy. If all of math can be made as easy as add, subtract, multiply, divide, no one would really complain about math or physics. But because math is overrun by kooks (definition of kook: is a person who cares more about fame and fortune than about truth in science), that math has become a incomprehensible trash pile and the worst of all the sciences, and because the math is so difficult, it carried over into physics, making physics difficult.
And that may sound like a contradiction that AP ended up majoring in mathematics, rather than his first love of physics. But not a contradiction in truth. Because in Old Physics, you have not only a use of the messed up dirty Old Math, but you have use of what I call "idealisms" in Old Physics. Idealisms are "suppose this and that.... " "imagine a ball of mass moving in space....." So Old Physics not only had the tangled mess of kook math of trigonometry everywhere and thousands of silly rules for calculus. But Old Physics had a fakery contraption of "idealism". I ended up majoring in mathematics, although math was a mess, but at least I could still navigate in that mess. But I just could not navigate in physics with their math mess plus, their idealism mess. If you closely examine all Old Physics textbooks, even the latest recent ones, they are all "idealism physics". Idealism is a nice and better term for "fake physics".

You see, one of the greatest omissions of science in the 20th and 21st century was the idea that both math and physics can be reduced to a Simplicity of education. That math need not be hard and difficult. That physics can be made logical, not full of idealisms. Yet no-one in the 20th and 21st century ever had that idea of simplicity, (with the possible exception of Harold Jacobs in mathematics) that math had run out-of-bounds as a science and was more of a science fiction subject for kook mathematicians. Math had become absurdly difficult because of the reason that kooks gain fame and fortune on making math difficult. Mathematicians never thought their job was to make math simple and easy, instead, the kooks of math piled on more trash and garbage to make math a twilight zone of science. The same in physics with idealism run amok. And this is easily proven true about the sociology of math and physics education for it is no secret to anyone in education that college professors are paid not for their teaching so much, no, they are recognized and paid for their research, and this means the simplification of math or physics is secondary, not of first importance. College professor research is of more importance to them, than their failure to make physics or mathematics clear and easy to learn.

When you make all of math be just polynomial equations and functions, you make math the easiest of the major sciences, which then follows up by making physics easy as possible. For there is no longer trigonometry to cloud the mind in everything you do in physics. There is no longer hundreds of calculus rules you must learn just to do Faraday's law or Ampere's law.

onsdag 13 oktober 2021 kl. 08:05:15 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> Our cherished 151st book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4 by Archimedes Plutonium Preface: This is AP's 151st book of science published. It is one of my most important books of science because 1st year
>
>
> TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4
> by Archimedes Plutonium
>
>
> Preface: This is AP's 151st book of science published. It is one of my most important books of science because 1st year college physics is so impressionable on students, if they should continue with physics, or look elsewhere for a career. And also, physics is a crossroad to all the other hard core sciences, where physics course is mandatory such as in chemistry or even biology. I have endeavored to make physics 1st year college to be as easy and simple to learn. In this endeavor to make physics super easy, I have made the writing such that you will see core ideas in all capital letters as single sentences as a educational tool. And I have made this textbook chapter writing follow a logical pattern of both algebra and geometry concepts, throughout. The utmost importance of logic in physics needs to be seen and understood. For I have never seen a physics book, prior to this one that is logical. Every Old Physics textbook I have seen is scatter brained in topics and in writing. I use as template book of Halliday & Resnick because a edition of H&R was one I was taught physics at University of Cincinnati in 1969. And in 1969, I had a choice of majors, do I major in geology, or mathematics, or in physics, for I will graduate from UC in 1972. For me, geology was too easy, but physics was too tough, so I ended up majoring in mathematics. If I had been taught in 1969 using this textbook that I have written, I would have ended up majoring in physics, my first love. For physics is not hard, not hard at all, once you clear out the mistakes and the obnoxious worthless mathematics that clutters up Old Physics, and the illogic that smothers much of Old Physics.
>
> Maybe it was good that I had those impressions of physics education of poor education, which still exists throughout physics today. Because maybe I am forced to write this book, because of that awful experience of learning physics in 1969. Without that awful experience, maybe this textbook would have never been written by me.
>
> Cover picture is the template book of Halliday & Resnick, 1988, 3rd edition Fundamentals of Physics and sitting on top are cut outs of "half bent circles, bent at 90 degrees" to imitate magnetic monopoles. Magnetic Monopoles revolutionizes physics education, and separates-out, what is Old Physics from what is New Physics.
>
> The world needs a new standard in physics education since Feynman set the standard in 1960s with his "Lectures on Physics" that lasted until about 1990 and then AP's Atom Totality theory caused Feynman's Lectures to be completely outdated. And so much has changed in physics since 1960s that AP now sets the new world standard in physics education with this series of textbooks.
>
> To be a Master of physics or Calculus or Mathematics, has to be seen in "signs and signals". Can you correct the mistakes and errors of Old Physics, of Old Calculus, of Old Math? If you cannot clean up the fakery of Old Physics, of Old Calculus, of Old Math, you have no business, no reason to write a physics, calculus or math textbook. There is an old legend in England about King Arthur, and the legend goes, that the King is the one who pulls Excalibur out of the iron anvil. Pulling the sword out of the anvil is a metaphor for Cleaning up all the mistakes and errors of Old Physics, of Old Calculus, of Old Math. You have to clean up and clear out the mistakes and errors of the past, for Physics to move forward.
>
> Should you write a textbook on Calculus, if you cannot see that the slant cut in a cone is a oval, never the ellipse? Of course not. Should you write a Calculus textbook if you cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Of course not. Should you write a physics textbook if you cannot ask the question, which is the atom's real true electron, is it the muon or the 0.5MeV particle that AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole.
>
> Feynman wrote the last textbook in 1960s to guide physics forward, and although Feynman did not clean up much of Old Physics, he did direct the way forward in that Electricity and Magnetism in his Quantum Electrodynamics was the way forward. It would have been nice for Feynman to have found that it is impossible for a 0.5MeV particle to be the atom's electron moving near the speed of light outside the proton of hydrogen and still remain an atom, thus all atoms collapse. It would have been nice for Feynman to say the muon is the real atom's electron and that the 0.5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole. But it just was not in the fated cards of Feynman's physics. Yet, his textbook served the leadership of physics from 1960 to 1990. Time we have the new replacement of physics textbook.
>
> Now, in 2021, we need a new textbook that carries all of physics forward into the future for the next 100 years, and that is what this textbook is.
>
> I will use Halliday and Resnick textbook as template to garner work exercise problems for 1st year and 2nd year college. For 3rd and senior year college physics I will directly use Feynman's Lectures and QED, quantum electrodynamics. Correcting Feynman and setting the stage that all of physics is-- All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
>
> Much and most of 20th century physics was error filled and illogical physics, dead end , stupid paths such as General Relativity, Big Bang, Black holes, gravity waves, etc etc. Dead end stupidity is much of Old Physics of the 20th century. What distinguishes Feynman, is he kept his head above the water by concentrating almost exclusively on Electrodynamics. He remarked words to the effect== "QED is the most precise, most accurate theory in all of physics". And, that is true, given All is Atom, and Atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
>
> This textbook is going to set the world standard on college physics education. Because I have reduced the burden of mathematics, reduced it to be almost what I call -- difficult-free-math. I mean, easy-math. Meaning that all functions and equations of math and physics are just polynomials. All functions of math and physics are polynomials. Making calculus super super easy because all you ever do is plug in the Power rules for derivative and integral, so that physics math is able to be taught in High School. In other words, physics with almost no math at all-- so to speak, or what can be called as easy as learning add, subtract, multiply, divide.
>
> What makes both math and physics extremely hard to learn and understand is when mathematics never cleans itself up, and never tries to make itself easy. If all of math can be made as easy as add, subtract, multiply, divide, no one would really complain about math or physics. But because math is overrun by kooks (definition of kook: is a person who cares more about fame and fortune than about truth in science), that math has become a incomprehensible trash pile and the worst of all the sciences, and because the math is so difficult, it carried over into physics, making physics difficult.
> And that may sound like a contradiction that AP ended up majoring in mathematics, rather than his first love of physics. But not a contradiction in truth. Because in Old Physics, you have not only a use of the messed up dirty Old Math, but you have use of what I call "idealisms" in Old Physics. Idealisms are "suppose this and that.... " "imagine a ball of mass moving in space....." So Old Physics not only had the tangled mess of kook math of trigonometry everywhere and thousands of silly rules for calculus. But Old Physics had a fakery contraption of "idealism". I ended up majoring in mathematics, although math was a mess, but at least I could still navigate in that mess. But I just could not navigate in physics with their math mess plus, their idealism mess. If you closely examine all Old Physics textbooks, even the latest recent ones, they are all "idealism physics". Idealism is a nice and better term for "fake physics".
>
> You see, one of the greatest omissions of science in the 20th and 21st century was the idea that both math and physics can be reduced to a Simplicity of education. That math need not be hard and difficult. That physics can be made logical, not full of idealisms. Yet no-one in the 20th and 21st century ever had that idea of simplicity, (with the possible exception of Harold Jacobs in mathematics) that math had run out-of-bounds as a science and was more of a science fiction subject for kook mathematicians. Math had become absurdly difficult because of the reason that kooks gain fame and fortune on making math difficult. Mathematicians never thought their job was to make math simple and easy, instead, the kooks of math piled on more trash and garbage to make math a twilight zone of science. The same in physics with idealism run amok. And this is easily proven true about the sociology of math and physics education for it is no secret to anyone in education that college professors are paid not for their teaching so much, no, they are recognized and paid for their research, and this means the simplification of math or physics is secondary, not of first importance. College professor research is of more importance to them, than their failure to make physics or mathematics clear and easy to learn.
>
> When you make all of math be just polynomial equations and functions, you make math the easiest of the major sciences, which then follows up by making physics easy as possible. For there is no longer trigonometry to cloud the mind in everything you do in physics. There is no longer hundreds of calculus rules you must learn just to do Faraday's law or Ampere's law.
>
> So I end up writing this textbook, keeping in mind of AP way back in 1969 in a huge classroom of 1st year college physics, and how AP, the King of Science, especially Physics, would have majored in physics and not mathematics, if physics had been properly taught.
>
>
> --------------------------
> Table of Contents
> --------------------------
>
> Part I, Introduction, and about physics.
>
> a) About this textbook and series of Physics textbooks.
>
> b) Brief history lesson of 20th century physics.
>
> c) How we make the mathematics super easy.
>
> d) Horrible error-filled concept of "charge" in Old Physics, and thrown out of New Physics.
>
> e) We increasingly have to use Biology DNA knowledge to unravel the physics of light waves and EM theory.
>
> Part II, 6 Laws of EM theory.
>
> f) The 6 laws of EM, ElectroMagnetic theory and their Units.
>
> g) Matrix of the 6 EM laws.
>
> h) Fixing the horrible mistake of Old Physics units of Magnetic field compared to Electric field.
>
> i) The four differential equations laws of EM theory.
>
> j) Defining the units of Coulomb and Ampere as C = A*seconds; and the Elementary-Coulomb.
>
> k) Faraday Constant Experiment in classroom.
>
> l) Matching the physics Algebra of units with the physics Geometry of units.
>
> m) The EM Spectrum, Electromagnetic Spectrum.
>
> Part III, 1st Law of EM theory.
>
> n) 1st Law of EM theory; law of Magnetic Monopole and units are B = m^2 / A*s^2 = m^2/ C*s.
>
> Part IV, 2nd Law of EM theory.
>
> o) 2nd Law of EM theory; New Ohm's Law V = CBE, the Capacitor-battery law.
>
> p) Short Circuit.
>
> q) Series versus Parallel Circuits connection of closed loop.
>
> r) Review of Geometry volume in 3D and path in 2D.
>
> Part V, 3rd Law of EM theory.
>
> s) 3rd law of EM theory, Faraday's law, C' = (V/(BE))'.
>
> t) Short history lesson of Old Physics, 1860s Maxwell Equations.
>
> u) New Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden Experiment observing Faraday Law.
>
> v) Math Algebra for making one physical concept be perpendicular to another physical concept.
>
> w) EM laws derive the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
>
> x) Principle of Maximum Electricity and Torus geometry so essential in Atomic Physics.
>
> Part VI
>
> y) 4th law of EM theory; Ampere-Maxwell law B' = (V/(CE))'.
>
> Part VII
>
> z) 5th law of EM theory; Coulomb-gravity law; E' = (V/(CB))'.
>
> aa) Centripetal versus Centrifugal force explained.
>
> Part VIII
>
> bb) 6th Law of EM theory, electric generator law; differential equation of New Ohm's Law V' = (CBE)'.
>
> cc) Reinventing the Multivariable Calculus.
>
> dd) Atomic bomb physics comes directly out of short circuit of V'=(CBE)', for atoms have no nucleus, just a thrusting muon inside a 840MeV proton torus.
you're still a homophobic crank :)

Zelos Malum smarter than Andrew Wiles, smarter than Terence Tao, smarter than Thomas Hales. For Zelos left the door open to learn he knows nothing about conic sections and is reading up on why the slant cut in cone is a Oval never the ellipse. And reading up on how AP gives a geometrical proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, while Wiles, Tao and Hales stagnate in their mindless math of error.

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.

Length: 21 pages

File Size: 1620 KB
Print Length: 21 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

#8-2, 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 19May2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.

Length: 137 pages

Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1307 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 137 pages
Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

🕷 of Math and 🦂 of Physics Archimedes "science hater" Plutonium
<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> tarded:
> My despised 151st book TEACHING FALSE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4 by Archimedes Plutonium Preface: This is AP's 151st book of science published. It is one of my most idiotic book of science because 1st year

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, the ellipse isn't a conic section, that there
are no negative numbers, 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 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!

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.

Nobody knows why he wishes to corrupt the minds of our youth like this.
Perhaps he 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 he is an agent of China, in order for them to
dominate the world economy. Maybe he is a minion of Kim Jong Un of North
Korea. Most likely he is an agent of Putin and Russia, because he has
previously attempted to summon Russian robots in 2017 "to create a new,
true mathematics" in an attempt to destroy mathematics. But the point is,
stay away, if he offers to give or sell you his dangerous books.
Especially now since they are available for free from otherwise
legitimate Amazon.

Will Nick Thompson award Kibo Parry a 2nd cover picture in "Wired magazine" for Kibo's invention of the word "analbuttfuckmanure".

On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 5:31:29 AM UTC-5, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> you're still a homophobic crank :)

Zelos Malum, seriously, with your below portfolio of posts in sci.math, do you seriously think you still have a career in mathematics??? You be lucky if any college in Sweden allows you to step foot on campus with your sci.math posting history.

PEER REVIEW
Re: 3- Excerpt from 151st book, TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year College
by
zelos...@gmail.com Sep 2, 2021, 4:13 AM  

Re: Shit for brains in Logic Morons of logic George Boole, William Jevons, Bertrand Russell, Kurt Godel, Rudolf Carnap, Jan Burse& Dan Christensen as moronette cadets of Boole, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Willard Quine, Alfred North Whitehead, Irving Copi
by zelos...@gmail.com Mar 25, 2021, 12:55:15 AM 

Re: Zelos asks why Harvard's Dr. Hau wants to fail in physics, by not turning off the light to see if light wave is a closed loop pencil ellipse that AP predicts. Is Dr.Hau stubborn and too ignorant to finish her experiment??
by Michael Moroney

Re: 1Canadian Stalker DAN anal buttfuckmanure CHRISTENSEN stalk reports::: 6 year stalker
By Zelos Malum 30 posts 449 views updated 9:01 PM

Re: Why is John Stillwell such a numbskull on Irrational numbers-- his book Mathematics and its History
By Zelos Malum 46 posts 500 views updated 2:29 PM

Re: Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
By Zelos Malum 67 posts 1027 views updated 2:22 PM

Re: Why is John Stillwell such a numbskull on Irrational numbers-- his book Mathematics and its History
67 posts by 10 authors
4/25/18
Zelos Malum Anthyphairesis > > --- quoting Stillwell --- > It follows that similar steps will

Re: Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
154 posts by 15 authors
3/9/18
Zelos Malum General Science (each generation has its science test, and ours is Global

Re: Zelos Malum calls dipshit --Max Tegmark, Erik Palmgren, Tom Britton, Carl XVI Gustaf stalker-- Zelos Malum fails Calculus, thinks electron is .5MeV when it is Dirac's monopole , Real Proton = 840MeV Real Electron= 105MeV
by Zelos Malum
7/7/18

Drs.Martin Schweizer,Mete Soner,Michael Struwe-- Zurich ETH, are you as dumb in Calculus, no Picture of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, as is math failure Jan Burse??
by Zelos Malum
12/30/17

Re: 1Canadian Stalker DAN anal buttfuckmanure CHRISTENSEN stalk reports::: 6 year stalker
17 posts by 7 authors
8/21/18
by Zelos Malum
Pointing out that you are an idiot is nto stalking

Will Nick Thompson award Kibo Parry a 2nd cover picture in "Wired magazine" for Kibo's invention of the word "analbuttfuckmanure".

Comedy production by "I love my dog
       o-:^>___?
       `~~c--^c'

Tootsie Productions. LTD, Greensleeves, England

Although, Kibo, I really cannot find any science math or physics content in your invention of the word "analbuttfuckmanure", and yet you spend so so much time in sci.math and sci.physics. A reasonably sane person knowing that they cannot do a correct percentage would stay away from science newsgroups. But then maybe your invention was spurred by your insistence that 938 is 12% short of 945.

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
 > Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
 > Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>  Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass
 > of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.

Zelos, can you tell us how you earned a degree in math but fail to take just 5 minutes and roll up a paper into a cone, drop a lid inside, slant it and prove the cut is a Oval, never the ellipse. Which you fail in algebra also with the cone for the cone has 1 axis of symmetry and a ellipse requires 2 axis of symmetry which a cylinder cut offers to produce the ellipse.

So, Zelos, looks like your degree in math is null and void as your mind is null and void of math abilities.

Kibo can you tell us how you earned a degree in engineering from Rensselaer Polytech yet still cannot do a percentage problem correctly? I mean, if you were the engineer of a skyscraper and had a 12% tilt in the building, you would be rivalling the Leaning Tower of Pisa.

Or will Nick Thompson's Wired Magazine explain how you can earn a engineering degree from Rensselaer and still not do a correct percentage problem?

Kibo, why cannot Philip Hanlon at Dartmouth College take the time of 5 minutes like every student in the world and roll up a paper cone, drop a Kerr or Mason lid inside and tilt it and prove to himself that the slant cut in cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. Kibo, why is Dr. Hanlon and Stanford's Dr.. Marc Tessier-Lavigne running and hiding from the truth of mathematics, are they scared of the truth. Just like Andrew Wiles never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, only his "limit analysis hornswaggle". Does Dr.Hanlon and Stanford Univ still believe Calculus is "not geometry" not geometry as the excuse and reason that Dartmouth and Stanford has professor there to teach a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. See AP's proofs below.

Kibo, why do you resort to swearing instead of doing math in sci.math? Is that what Dr. Panchanathan at the National Science Foundation, NSF, pays you and instructs you to do in sci.math-- swear instead of doing math. Of course, Kibo, your 938 is 12% short of 945, does not endear you to any college or math professor.
On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 5:42:43 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> "AnalButtfuckManure"
> fails at math and science:

Kibo, how many times have you Defamed AP with your swearing and stalking? Is it every day for the past 28 years? The most defaming and defammatory poster on Usenet. And should they put you in jail, or will you plead innocent on grounds of insanity?

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.

Length: 21 pages

File Size: 1620 KB
Print Length: 21 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

#8-2, 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 19May2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.

Length: 137 pages

Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1307 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 137 pages
Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 10, 2021, 5:20 PM
to sci.math
Was Kibo let down, saddened that he did not win the Nobel prize for invention of the word "analbuttfuckmanure" a term he uses often when posting and defaming in sci.math and sci.physics?? Was he saddened that only another cover picture in Wired magazine by Nick Thompson is all that Kibo's new word amounted to?

🪲 of Math and 🪳 of Physics Archimedes "Village Idiot of Meckling SD"
Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
>
> Will Nick Thompson award Kibo Parry a 2nd cover picture in "Wired magazine" for Kibo's invention of the word "analbuttfuckmanure".
>
> On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 5:31:29 AM UTC-5, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
>> you're still a homophobic crank :)
>
> Zelos Malum, seriously, with your below portfolio of posts in sci.math, do you seriously think you still have a career in mathematics??? You be lucky if any college in Sweden allows you to step foot on campus with your sci.math posting history.
>
>
> PEER REVIEW
> Re: 3- Excerpt from 151st book, TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year College
> by
> zelos...@gmail.com Sep 2, 2021, 4:13 AM
>
> Re: Shit for brains in Logic Morons of logic George Boole, William Jevons, Bertrand Russell, Kurt Godel, Rudolf Carnap, Jan Burse& Dan Christensen as moronette cadets of Boole, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Willard Quine, Alfred North Whitehead, Irving Copi
> by zelos...@gmail.com Mar 25, 2021, 12:55:15 AM
>
> Re: Zelos asks why Harvard's Dr. Hau wants to fail in physics, by not turning off the light to see if light wave is a closed loop pencil ellipse that AP predicts. Is Dr.Hau stubborn and too ignorant to finish her experiment??
> by Michael Moroney
>
> Re: 1Canadian Stalker DAN anal buttfuckmanure CHRISTENSEN stalk reports::: 6 year stalker
> By Zelos Malum 30 posts 449 views updated 9:01 PM
[...]

Wow. Talk about psychological projection! The evil ArchiePoo is doing it
big time now! First he blames me for his "invention" of his "word"
"Analbuttfuckmanure", and now he's posting snippets of his *own* posts
and blaming them on Zelos (and me)!

Be a man, ArchiePoo. You wrote those posts. You created the word
"Analbuttfuckmanure". Take blame for the badness you create. I don't
think you'd like a defamation lawsuit from either Zelos or myself, or
from anyone else you libel in here. I don't want to deal with an
unheated single wide in South Dakota surrounded by diseased cats.

onsdag 13 oktober 2021 kl. 13:35:45 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> Zelos Malum smarter than Andrew Wiles, smarter than Terence Tao, smarter than Thomas Hales. For Zelos left the door open to learn he knows nothing about conic sections and is reading up on why the slant cut in cone is a Oval never the ellipse. And reading up on how AP gives a geometrical proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, while Wiles, Tao and Hales stagnate in their mindless math of error.
>
> 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.
>
> Length: 21 pages
>
> File Size: 1620 KB
> Print Length: 21 pages
> Publication Date: March 11, 2019
> Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> Language: English
> ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
> Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> X-Ray: Not Enabled
> Word Wise: Not Enabled
> Lending: Enabled
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
>
>
> #8-2, 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 19May2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
> Preface:
> Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
>
> Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis".. To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
>
> Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
>
> Length: 137 pages
>
> Product details
> ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
> Publication date : March 14, 2019
> Language : English
> File size : 1307 KB
> Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> Screen Reader : Supported
> Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> X-Ray : Not Enabled
> Word Wise : Not Enabled
> Print length : 137 pages
> Lending : Enabled
> Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> #2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> #134 in Calculus (Books)
> #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
you're still a homophobic crank :)

Boycott Samsung & Hyundai until they free their moon bears

Amine spam turned into masterpiece painting of freeing Moon Bears.

\\ ("`****/").
\\ `0_ 0 ) `-.
\\ (_&_.)' ._ )
\\ `--' / /
\\ ==1(li)===========
\\
\\
two caged Moon Bears caged all their life and bile extracted

\\ ("`****//'").
\\ `0_ 0 ) `-.
\\ (_&_.)' ._ )
\\ `--' / /
\\ ==1(li)===========
\\
\\


Zelos, is Peter Higgs & Sheldon Glashow hiding behind a big machine rather than tell the truth-- they failed physics. So stupid they cannot even ask a question and cannot even add 1+1=2 in oval is the conic section.

Kibo Parry M. on failures Doreen Wackeroth, Martin Grunewald, Peter Higgs, Dr. Kotwal, Dr. D. Denisov, Dr. Gomez-Ceballos, Harry Cliff. Kibo, how much of this physics failure is due to the fact that they "hide behind a big machine" as a substitute for not thinking clear, logical, and straightforward.. Even Dr. Rosenbaum at Caltech can admit that a Oval is the slant cut in a single cone, never the ellipse. Yet the bozo the clown physics failures Peter Higgs, Arthur McDonald, Roger Penrose, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall do not even have the brains to ask the simple logical question, which is the Atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle. Run, Sheldon, hide Sheldon, run hide Peter.

Analbuttfuckmanure physics failures Ed Witten,Lisa Randall,Dr.Panchanathan, Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Harry Cliff says Kibo Parry M, the 30 year stalker, who says 938 is 12% short of 945.

On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 2:14:07 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 4:53:13 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"Putin's minion"
On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 10:37:31 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"AnalButtfuckManure"
> fails at math and science:

Why Kibo? Because they cannot ask the simple question, which is the true real electron of Atoms-- muon or 0.5MeV particle???????

Kibo, I see you still use your famous invented word of 2017 "analbuttfuckmanure" as your frustrations in failing science, and now living on stalking those that succeed in science.

My 186th published book

Proof the Muon is true real electron of Atoms, and 0.5MeV particle is the magnetic monopole// physics research

by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Format: Kindle Edition

Preface: In April of 2022, AP notices a anomaly of battery life of operation and of power output of radioactive element plutonium compared to commonplace batteries such as lithium. And almost instantly, I realized this could be a proof that the muon stuck inside of every proton doing the Faraday law with the proton is the cause of this "extra electricity" and "long life longevity". When each proton inside a atom is an electrical generator producing electricity, means the heaviest elements in Nature are going to be the best batteries. Lithium atom has 3 protons+ 3muons while plutonium atom has 94 protons + 94muons, so that when divided, 94/3 we can expect that the plutonium battery is 31 times more electricity than lithium battery.

Well, in doing this book, I could only find evidence that the plutonium battery is 10 times better than a lithium battery, not 31 times. So maybe that is an anomaly for future research to work out. But for now, I have proven the muon is the real true electron of Atoms and that the 0.5MeV particle, although the unit particle of electricity, the 0.5MeV particle is not the atom's electron but is the Dirac magnetic monopole, produced by the muon thrusting through the proton torus in Faraday law.

Old Physics was really dumb physics, with their elementary particles doing nothing, but relaxing on a beach. Whereas in New Physics, every particle in Nature has a task and function to perform, such as the Faraday law. And that makes commonsense, while Old Physics is kook physics, no logical thinking.

Cover Picture: My iphone photograph picture of a Google search for when Caltech scientists Neddermeyer and Anderson discovered the muon particle of physics in 1936.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09YLLKWBX
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ April 20, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 366 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 36 pages

🤡 of Math and 🃏 of Physics Archimedes "bozo" Plutonium
<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

> My 186th published book
>
> Proof the Muon is true real electron of Atoms, and 0.5MeV particle is the magnetic monopole// physics research

Yes, one of these days, you need to come up with actual experimental
evidence and scientific observations which supports your claims. Since
you never provided any of the so-called "proof" which you claim, I must
assume your peer reviewed scientific paper isn't ready yet. Because I'm
a nice guy, I'll try to help you with that. Some suggestions:

1) Don't claim "proof" because in science, nothing is ever proven, only
disproven. Every scientist knows this, so any claim of a "proof" will
only tell scientists that you don't know science.
2) Of course, you will have to provide the results of scientific
experiments which you or your employees or cohorts have actually
performed, with clear and convincing evidence that your claims are
correct. That is, devise and perform experiments whose outcome is X if
there are muons in atoms, and Y if there are electrons in atoms. Simply
confirming existing results isn't sufficient, since scientists will have
no reason not to change. Your experiments need to have results which
obviously support your claims and discredit the old claims.
3) There will be many questions raised of course. You need to have
prepared answers to the obvious questions. Such as, the muon exists for
only about 2.2 microseconds. Why didn't the universe evaporate 2.2
microseconds after it formed? Why are we still here? And when we zap
atoms with energy, we see electrons, not muons, fly out. Where are your
purported muons?
4) Your math doesn't add up. Scientists can measure the masses of
muons, protons and neutrons to many digits of accuracy. Yet when one
adds the masses of 9 muons together, you get a sum which is
substantially different from the mass of the proton. WAY outside any
reasonable margin of error. You'll need to explain that, or, better yet,
re-examine your logic.
5) There is a mountain of data for the outcome of earlier experiments.
For your claims to be accepted, your claims must correctly predict the
observed results of all these previous experiments. Otherwise, real
scientists will just laugh at you.
6) You claim repeatedly you have a proof, but haven't produced anything
so far. This is bad form, hold off until your paper is completed and
submitted for peer review. (Ignoring the fact there's no such thing as a
proof in science, of course)

Good luck.

Michael Moroney wrote:

> 6) You claim repeatedly you have a proof, but haven't produced anything
> so far. This is bad form, hold off until your paper is completed and
> submitted for peer review. (Ignoring the fact there's no such thing as a
> proof in science, of course)

maybe just you, not understnding it.

PHYSICSOPEDIA -- List of 137 fakes and mistakes of Old Physics// Student teaches professor
by Archimedes Plutonium

Last revision was 5May2022. This is AP's 161st published book of science.
For I had to revise the parametric equation of Old Math, is a Double Function in true math; and the need to have x and y axes as a function of time t.

Preface:
A Physicsopedia is a book of the overall assessment and evaluation of the state of the art of Physics. It is like a report card. It is a total view of the science and a judgement of the science, both of the past, present and the direction forward into the future. Its greatest use is to alert readers and people in science of what is wrong with their subject, and as a ancillary use, to alert students what to avoid in college as a waste of time.

It is not in alphabetical order but mostly, rather, has a ordering of what is most important at the start and only at the very very end. For there is no index.

Physics is the most important hard science for every other science is a specialized part of physics. And Old Physics has three key huge mistakes that this book addresses. The true theory of the Universe is the Atom Totality, not the Big Bang which is a ridiculous theory. The true electron of atoms is not the particle of 0.5MeV which turns out to be Dirac's magnetic monopole, while the true real electron of atoms is the muon of 105MeV which is stuck inside a proton torus of 8 rings of 840MeV. This causes another huge mistake, for a mistake in physics usually has a cascade effect of more and more mistakes. When we take the true electron of atoms is the muon, means the Sun and stars shine not from fusion, but from that muon thrusting through the proton torus in a Faraday law of electricity and magnetism producing electrical energy. So our Sun shines from the Faraday law, not fusion. And this implies the Sun has gone into Red Giant phase with a solar radiation increase of 0.005% yearly increase. That implies all life on Earth is in danger of going extinct as the Sun becomes more and more Red Giant, and unless humanity moves out to Europa, humanity goes extinct.

----------------------------
Table of Contents
----------------------------

1) Introduction

2) List of 137 errors, mistakes and fakes of Old Physics.

3) Appendix

Zelos on Olle Edholm, Goran Grimvall, Goran Lindblad Univ Stockholm

PHYSICSOPEDIA -- List of 137 fakes and mistakes of Old Physics// Student teaches professor
by Archimedes Plutonium

Last revision was 5May2022. This is AP's 161st published book of science.
For I had to revise the parametric equation of Old Math, is a Double Function in true math; and the need to have x and y axes as a function of time t.

Preface:
A Physicsopedia is a book of the overall assessment and evaluation of the state of the art of Physics. It is like a report card. It is a total view of the science and a judgement of the science, both of the past, present and the direction forward into the future. Its greatest use is to alert readers and people in science of what is wrong with their subject, and as a ancillary use, to alert students what to avoid in college as a waste of time.

It is not in alphabetical order but mostly, rather, has a ordering of what is most important at the start and only at the very very end. For there is no index.

Physics is the most important hard science for every other science is a specialized part of physics. And Old Physics has three key huge mistakes that this book addresses. The true theory of the Universe is the Atom Totality, not the Big Bang which is a ridiculous theory. The true electron of atoms is not the particle of 0.5MeV which turns out to be Dirac's magnetic monopole, while the true real electron of atoms is the muon of 105MeV which is stuck inside a proton torus of 8 rings of 840MeV. This causes another huge mistake, for a mistake in physics usually has a cascade effect of more and more mistakes. When we take the true electron of atoms is the muon, means the Sun and stars shine not from fusion, but from that muon thrusting through the proton torus in a Faraday law of electricity and magnetism producing electrical energy. So our Sun shines from the Faraday law, not fusion. And this implies the Sun has gone into Red Giant phase with a solar radiation increase of 0.005% yearly increase. That implies all life on Earth is in danger of going extinct as the Sun becomes more and more Red Giant, and unless humanity moves out to Europa, humanity goes extinct.

----------------------------
Table of Contents
----------------------------

1) Introduction

2) List of 137 errors, mistakes and fakes of Old Physics.

3) Appendix

Stockholm University
Math logic
Per Martin-Lof, Erik Palmgren, Tom Britton, Pavel Kurasov
Alexander Berglund, Jonas Bergstrom, Rikard Bogvad
Samuel Lundqvist, Annemarie Luger, Erik Palmgren
Torbjorn Tambour
 
Rector: Astrid Soderbergh Widding

Carl XVI Gustaf

Stockholm Univ physics
Tony Hansson, Markus Hennrich, Tommy Ohlsson, Paul Crutzen,

Swedish physics, et al
Bo Thide, Max Tegmark, Cecilia Jarlskog, Lars Bergstrom, Lars Samuelson
Anders Flodstrom, Hans Ryde, Anders Barany, Gunnar von Heijne
Claes-Goran Granqvist, Joakim Edsjo, Carl Falthammar, Sven Hansson, Arne Kaijser
Pres. Sigbritt Karlsson (KTH)

University Gothenburg
Bernt Wennberg
Aila Sarkka

Univ Stockholm Physics dept

Gunnar Benediktsson, Clas Blomberg, Bo Cartling
Olle Edholm, Goran Grimvall, Goran Lindblad
Hakan Snellman, Jouko Mickelsson, Anders Rosengren
John Rundgren

Zelos on Univ Stockholm's Olle Edholm, Goran Grimvall, Goran Lindblad
>
>
> PHYSICSOPEDIA -- List of 137 fakes and mistakes of Old Physics// Student teaches professor
> by Archimedes Plutonium
>
> Last revision was 5May2022. This is AP's 161st published book of science.
> For I had to revise the parametric equation of Old Math, is a Double Function in true math; and the need to have x and y axes as a function of time t.
>
> Preface:
> A Physicsopedia is a book of the overall assessment and evaluation of the state of the art of Physics. It is like a report card. It is a total view of the science and a judgement of the science, both of the past, present and the direction forward into the future. Its greatest use is to alert readers and people in science of what is wrong with their subject, and as a ancillary use, to alert students what to avoid in college as a waste of time.
>
> It is not in alphabetical order but mostly, rather, has a ordering of what is most important at the start and only at the very very end. For there is no index.
>
> Physics is the most important hard science for every other science is a specialized part of physics. And Old Physics has three key huge mistakes that this book addresses. The true theory of the Universe is the Atom Totality, not the Big Bang which is a ridiculous theory. The true electron of atoms is not the particle of 0.5MeV which turns out to be Dirac's magnetic monopole, while the true real electron of atoms is the muon of 105MeV which is stuck inside a proton torus of 8 rings of 840MeV. This causes another huge mistake, for a mistake in physics usually has a cascade effect of more and more mistakes. When we take the true electron of atoms is the muon, means the Sun and stars shine not from fusion, but from that muon thrusting through the proton torus in a Faraday law of electricity and magnetism producing electrical energy. So our Sun shines from the Faraday law, not fusion. And this implies the Sun has gone into Red Giant phase with a solar radiation increase of 0.005% yearly increase. That implies all life on Earth is in danger of going extinct as the Sun becomes more and more Red Giant, and unless humanity moves out to Europa, humanity goes extinct.
>
> ----------------------------
> Table of Contents
> ----------------------------
>
> 1) Introduction
>
> 2) List of 137 errors, mistakes and fakes of Old Physics.
>
> 3) Appendix
>
>
>
> Stockholm University
> Math logic
> Per Martin-Lof, Erik Palmgren, Tom Britton, Pavel Kurasov
> Alexander Berglund, Jonas Bergstrom, Rikard Bogvad
> Samuel Lundqvist, Annemarie Luger, Erik Palmgren
> Torbjorn Tambour
>
> Rector: Astrid Soderbergh Widding
>
> Carl XVI Gustaf
>
> Stockholm Univ physics
> Tony Hansson, Markus Hennrich, Tommy Ohlsson, Paul Crutzen,
>
> Swedish physics, et al
> Bo Thide, Max Tegmark, Cecilia Jarlskog, Lars Bergstrom, Lars Samuelson
> Anders Flodstrom, Hans Ryde, Anders Barany, Gunnar von Heijne
> Claes-Goran Granqvist, Joakim Edsjo, Carl Falthammar, Sven Hansson, Arne Kaijser
> Pres. Sigbritt Karlsson (KTH)
>
>
> University Gothenburg
> Bernt Wennberg
> Aila Sarkka
>
> Univ Stockholm Physics dept
>
> Gunnar Benediktsson, Clas Blomberg, Bo Cartling
> Olle Edholm, Goran Grimvall, Goran Lindblad
> Hakan Snellman, Jouko Mickelsson, Anders Rosengren
> John Rundgren

fredag 5 augusti 2022 kl. 07:21:17 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> Zelos on Univ Stockholm's Olle Edholm, Goran Grimvall, Goran Lindblad
> >
> >
> > PHYSICSOPEDIA -- List of 137 fakes and mistakes of Old Physics// Student teaches professor
> > by Archimedes Plutonium
> >
> > Last revision was 5May2022. This is AP's 161st published book of science.
> > For I had to revise the parametric equation of Old Math, is a Double Function in true math; and the need to have x and y axes as a function of time t.
> >
> > Preface:
> > A Physicsopedia is a book of the overall assessment and evaluation of the state of the art of Physics. It is like a report card. It is a total view of the science and a judgement of the science, both of the past, present and the direction forward into the future. Its greatest use is to alert readers and people in science of what is wrong with their subject, and as a ancillary use, to alert students what to avoid in college as a waste of time.
> >
> > It is not in alphabetical order but mostly, rather, has a ordering of what is most important at the start and only at the very very end. For there is no index.
> >
> > Physics is the most important hard science for every other science is a specialized part of physics. And Old Physics has three key huge mistakes that this book addresses. The true theory of the Universe is the Atom Totality, not the Big Bang which is a ridiculous theory. The true electron of atoms is not the particle of 0.5MeV which turns out to be Dirac's magnetic monopole, while the true real electron of atoms is the muon of 105MeV which is stuck inside a proton torus of 8 rings of 840MeV. This causes another huge mistake, for a mistake in physics usually has a cascade effect of more and more mistakes. When we take the true electron of atoms is the muon, means the Sun and stars shine not from fusion, but from that muon thrusting through the proton torus in a Faraday law of electricity and magnetism producing electrical energy. So our Sun shines from the Faraday law, not fusion. And this implies the Sun has gone into Red Giant phase with a solar radiation increase of 0.005% yearly increase. That implies all life on Earth is in danger of going extinct as the Sun becomes more and more Red Giant, and unless humanity moves out to Europa, humanity goes extinct.
> >
> > ----------------------------
> > Table of Contents
> > ----------------------------
> >
> > 1) Introduction
> >
> > 2) List of 137 errors, mistakes and fakes of Old Physics.
> >
> > 3) Appendix
> >
> >
> >
> > Stockholm University
> > Math logic
> > Per Martin-Lof, Erik Palmgren, Tom Britton, Pavel Kurasov
> > Alexander Berglund, Jonas Bergstrom, Rikard Bogvad
> > Samuel Lundqvist, Annemarie Luger, Erik Palmgren
> > Torbjorn Tambour
> >
> > Rector: Astrid Soderbergh Widding
> >
> > Carl XVI Gustaf
> >
> > Stockholm Univ physics
> > Tony Hansson, Markus Hennrich, Tommy Ohlsson, Paul Crutzen,
> >
> > Swedish physics, et al
> > Bo Thide, Max Tegmark, Cecilia Jarlskog, Lars Bergstrom, Lars Samuelson
> > Anders Flodstrom, Hans Ryde, Anders Barany, Gunnar von Heijne
> > Claes-Goran Granqvist, Joakim Edsjo, Carl Falthammar, Sven Hansson, Arne Kaijser
> > Pres. Sigbritt Karlsson (KTH)
> >
> >
> > University Gothenburg
> > Bernt Wennberg
> > Aila Sarkka
> >
> > Univ Stockholm Physics dept
> >
> > Gunnar Benediktsson, Clas Blomberg, Bo Cartling
> > Olle Edholm, Goran Grimvall, Goran Lindblad
> > Hakan Snellman, Jouko Mickelsson, Anders Rosengren
> > John Rundgren
Still jealous that I know more than you? :)

On 8/5/2022 5:38 AM, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> fredag 5 augusti 2022 kl. 07:21:17 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
>> Zelos on Univ Stockholm's Olle Edholm, Goran Grimvall, Goran Lindblad
[snip crap]

> Still jealous that I know more than you? :)

He's jealous that *everybody* here knows more than he does.

Except Mitch R. AP knows more math than Mitch. Maybe.

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)

Zelos on Univ Stockholm's Hakan Snellman, Jouko Mickelsson, why can they never ask the question, which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle???
> >
> >
> > PHYSICSOPEDIA -- List of 137 fakes and mistakes of Old Physics// Student teaches professor
> > by Archimedes Plutonium
> >
> > Last revision was 5May2022. This is AP's 161st published book of science.
> > For I had to revise the parametric equation of Old Math, is a Double Function in true math; and the need to have x and y axes as a function of time t.
> >
> > Preface:
> > A Physicsopedia is a book of the overall assessment and evaluation of the state of the art of Physics. It is like a report card. It is a total view of the science and a judgement of the science, both of the past, present and the direction forward into the future. Its greatest use is to alert readers and people in science of what is wrong with their subject, and as a ancillary use, to alert students what to avoid in college as a waste of time.
> >
> > It is not in alphabetical order but mostly, rather, has a ordering of what is most important at the start and only at the very very end. For there is no index.
> >
> > Physics is the most important hard science for every other science is a specialized part of physics. And Old Physics has three key huge mistakes that this book addresses. The true theory of the Universe is the Atom Totality, not the Big Bang which is a ridiculous theory. The true electron of atoms is not the particle of 0.5MeV which turns out to be Dirac's magnetic monopole, while the true real electron of atoms is the muon of 105MeV which is stuck inside a proton torus of 8 rings of 840MeV. This causes another huge mistake, for a mistake in physics usually has a cascade effect of more and more mistakes. When we take the true electron of atoms is the muon, means the Sun and stars shine not from fusion, but from that muon thrusting through the proton torus in a Faraday law of electricity and magnetism producing electrical energy. So our Sun shines from the Faraday law, not fusion. And this implies the Sun has gone into Red Giant phase with a solar radiation increase of 0.005% yearly increase. That implies all life on Earth is in danger of going extinct as the Sun becomes more and more Red Giant, and unless humanity moves out to Europa, humanity goes extinct.
> >
> > ----------------------------
> > Table of Contents
> > ----------------------------
> >
> > 1) Introduction
> >
> > 2) List of 137 errors, mistakes and fakes of Old Physics.
> >
> > 3) Appendix
> >
> >
> >
> > Stockholm University
> > Math logic
> > Per Martin-Lof, Erik Palmgren, Tom Britton, Pavel Kurasov
> > Alexander Berglund, Jonas Bergstrom, Rikard Bogvad
> > Samuel Lundqvist, Annemarie Luger, Erik Palmgren
> > Torbjorn Tambour
> >
> > Rector: Astrid Soderbergh Widding
> >
> > Carl XVI Gustaf
> >
> > Stockholm Univ physics
> > Tony Hansson, Markus Hennrich, Tommy Ohlsson, Paul Crutzen,
> >
> > Swedish physics, et al
> > Bo Thide, Max Tegmark, Cecilia Jarlskog, Lars Bergstrom, Lars Samuelson
> > Anders Flodstrom, Hans Ryde, Anders Barany, Gunnar von Heijne
> > Claes-Goran Granqvist, Joakim Edsjo, Carl Falthammar, Sven Hansson, Arne Kaijser
> > Pres. Sigbritt Karlsson (KTH)
> >
> >
> > University Gothenburg
> > Bernt Wennberg
> > Aila Sarkka
> >
> > Univ Stockholm Physics dept
> >
> > Gunnar Benediktsson, Clas Blomberg, Bo Cartling
> > Olle Edholm, Goran Grimvall, Goran Lindblad
> > Hakan Snellman, Jouko Mickelsson, Anders Rosengren
> > John Rundgren