novaBBS - sci.math - It's not my fault...

Andrew Wiles is a shithead of math along with Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Beal, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Ben Green, Gerald Edgar, AMS, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Socratis no-one there can do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, all they can offer is a limit analysis, so shoddy in logic they never realized that "analyzing" is not the same as "proving" for analyzing in much in the same as "measuring but not proving". And yet, none can do a geometry proof and the reason is quite clear for none can even see that the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So they could never do a geometry proof of FTC even if they wanted to. Why Socratis a 3 decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Andrew Wiles and Terence Tao cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither Terence Tao or Andrew Wiles can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Socratis?? You spammer crank.
> >
> > I am confident that if a MRI scan of Socratis were to take place, that it would reveal a huge massive white spot of nerves in the brain as a deep groove circuit, with no offramps that go round and round and is seen as nothing but spam.
>
> In fact, we saw on 19May2022, former president George W Bush saying that Russia invaded Iraq, apologizing and then saying Ukraine, for a deep groove is etched into George's brain of Iraq and a fresh new groove needs to begin in George's mind that of Ukraine.
>
> But for Socratis, this deep groove is so obnoxious and sees no off ramps. Some people like to irritate other people, they spend their entire life in "irritating other people" and that is what Socratis amounts to-- daily irritating....

Why are these people failures of Math?? For none can even contemplate these 4 questions.

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

Is Jim Holt, Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason, more of propagandists like Dan Christensen than logicians? Probably because none can admit slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, due to axes of symmetry for cone and oval have 1 while ellipse has 2. Yet their minds were never good enough to see the error nor admit to their mistakes. They failed logic so badly they accept Boole's insane AND truth table of TFFF when it is TTTF avoiding the painful 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Or is it because none of these logicians has a single marble of logic in their entire brain to realize calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not a "limit analysis" for analysis is like a measurement, not a proving exercise. Analysis does not prove, only adds data and facts, but never is a proof of itself. I analyze things daily, and none of which is a proof. So are all these logicians like what Clutterfreak the propaganda stooge says they are.

> On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 9:47:42 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > You may be giving him too much credit here. Judging by his bizarre antics here, he has given up obtaining any kind of positive recognition.
> >
> > Dan
>
> Partial List of the World's Crackpot Logicians-- should be in a college Abnormal-Psychology department, not Logic//
>
> Peter Bruce Andrews, Lennart Aqvist, Henk Barendregt, John Lane Bell, Nuel Belnap,
> Paul Benacerraf, Jean Paul Van Bendegem, Johan van Benthem, Jean-Yves Beziau,
> Andrea Bonomi, Nicolas Bourbaki (a group of logic fumblers), Alan Richard Bundy, Gregory Chaitin,
> Jack Copeland, John Corcoran, Dirk van Dalen, Martin Davis, Michael A.E. Dummett, John Etchemendy, Hartry Field, Kit Fine, Melvin Fitting, Matthew Foreman, Michael Fourman,
> Harvey Friedman, Dov Gabbay, L.T.F. Gamut (group of logic fumblers), Sol Garfunkel, Jean-Yves Girard, Siegfried Gottwald, Jeroen Groenendijk, Susan Haack, Leo Harrington, William Alvin Howard,
> Ronald Jensen, Dick de Jongh, David Kaplan, Alexander S. Kechris, Howard Jerome Keisler,
> Robert Kowalski, Georg Kreisel, Saul Kripke, Kenneth Kunen, Karel Lambert, Penelope Maddy,
> David Makinson, Isaac Malitz, Gary R. Mar, Donald A. Martin, Per Martin-Lof,Yiannis N. Moschovakis, Jeff Paris, Charles Parsons, Solomon Passy, Lorenzo Pena, Dag Prawitz,
> Graham Priest, Michael O. Rabin, Gerald Sacks, Dana Scott, Stewart Shapiro, Theodore Slaman,
> Robert M. Solovay, John R. Steel, Martin Stokhof, Anne Sjerp Troelstra, Alasdair Urquhart,
> Moshe Y. Vardi, W. Hugh Woodin, John Woods
>
> Now I should include the authors of Logic textbooks for they, more than most, perpetuate and crank the error filled logic, the Horrible Error of 2 OR 1 = 3 with 2 AND 1 = 1, that is forced down the throats of young students, making them cripples of ever thinking straight and clearly.
>
> Many of these authors have passed away but their error filled books are a scourge to modern education
>
> George Boole, William Jevons, Bertrand Russell, Kurt Godel, Rudolf Carnap,
> Ludwig Wittgenstein, Willard Quine, Alfred North Whitehead, Irving Copi, Michael Withey,
> Patrick Hurley, Harry J Gensler, David Kelley, Jesse Bollinger, Theodore Sider,
> David Barker-Plummer, I. C. Robledo, John Nolt, Peter Smith, Stan Baronett, Jim Holt,
> Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
> John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason,

> > #5-1, 134th published book
> >
> > Introduction to TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 1 for ages 5 through 26, math textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > The 134th book of AP, and belatedly late, for I had already written the series of TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS in a 7 volume, 8 book set. This would be the first book in that 8 book set (one of the books is a companion book to 1st year college). But I suppose that I needed to write the full series before I could write the Introduction and know what I had to talk about and talk about in a logical progression order. Sounds paradoxical in a sense, that I needed to write the full series first and then go back and write the Introduction. But in another sense, hard to write an introduction on something you have not really fully done and completed. For example to know what is error filled Old Math and to list those errors in a logical order requires me to write the full 7 volumes in order to list in order the mistakes.
> >
> > Cover Picture: Mathematics begins with counting, with numbers, with quantity. But counting numbers needs geometry for something to count in the first place. So here in this picture of the generalized Hydrogen atom of chemistry and physics is a torus geometry of 8 rings of a proton torus and one ring where my fingers are, is a equator ring that is the muon and thrusting through the proton torus at the equator of the torus. So we count 9 rings in all. So math is created by atoms and math numbers exist because atoms have many geometry figures to count. And geometry exists because atoms have shapes and different figures.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08K2XQB4M
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ September 24, 2020
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 576 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 23 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #224,974 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #3 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> > ◦ #23 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #182 in Calculus (Books)
> >
> >
> >
> > #5-2, 45th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 2 for ages 5 to 18, math textbook series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > #1 New Releasein General Geometry
> >
> >
> > Last revision was 2NOV2020. And this is AP's 45th published book of science.
> > Preface: Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education.
> >
> > This is a textbook series in several volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education starting age 5 up to age 26. Volume 2 is for age 5 year old to that of senior in High School, that is needed to do both science and math. Every other math book is incidental to this series of Teaching True Mathematics.
> >
> > It is a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost on a daily basis. A unique first in education textbooks-- almost a continual overnight editing. Adding new text, correcting text. Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education. Volume 3 carries the Freshperson in College for their math calculus education.
> >
> > Cover Picture: The Numbers as Integers from 0 to 100, and 10 Grid when dividing by 10, and part of the 100 Grid when dividing by 100. Decimal Grid Numbers are the true numbers of mathematics. The Reals, the rationals & irrationals, the algebraic & transcendentals, the imaginary & Complex, and the negative-numbers are all fake numbers. For, to be a true number, you have to "be counted" by mathematical induction. The smallest Grid system is the Decimal 10 Grid.
> >
> > Length: 399 pages
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Product details
> > ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07RG7BVZW
> > Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 2, 2019
> > Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > File size ‏ : ‎ 2023 KB
> > Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > Print length ‏ : ‎ 399 pages
> > Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Best Sellers Rank: #235,426 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > #15 in General Geometry
> > #223 in Geometry & Topology (Books)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > #5-3, 55th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 18-19, 1st year College Calculus, math textbook series, book 3 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Last revision was 25Jun2021. And this is AP's 55th published book of science.
> >
> > Teaching True Mathematics, by Archimedes Plutonium 2019
> >
> > Preface: This is volume 3, book 3 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Freshperson students, 1st year college students of age 18-19. It is the continuation of volume 2 for ages 5 through 18 years old.
> >
> > The main major topic is the AP-EM equations of electricity and magnetism, the mathematics for the laws of electricity and magnetism; what used to be called the Maxwell Equations of Physics. The 1st Year College Math has to prepare all students with the math for all the sciences. So 1st year college Math is like a huge intersection station that has to prepare students with the math they need to do the hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etc. What this means is, 1st year college is calculus that allows the student to work with electricity and magnetism. All the math that is needed to enable students to do electricity and magnetism.. In Old Math before this textbook, those Old Math textbooks would end in 1/3 of the text about Arclength, vector space, div, curl, Line Integral, Green's, Stokes, Divergence theorem trying to reach and be able to teach Maxwell Equations. But sadly, barely any Old Math classroom reached that 1/3 ending of the textbook, and left all those college students without any math to tackle electricity and magnetism. And most of Old Math was just muddle headed wrong even if they covered the last 1/3 of the textbook. And that is totally unacceptable in science. This textbook fixes that huge hole and gap in Old Math education.
> >
> > And there is no way around it, that a course in 1st year College Calculus is going to do a lot of hands on experiment with electricity and magnetism, and is required of the students to buy a list of physics apparatus-- multimeter, galvanometer, coil, bar magnet, alligator clip wires, electromagnet, iron filing case, and possibly even a 12 volt transformer, all shown in the cover picture. The beginning of this textbook and the middle section all leads into the ending of this textbook-- we learn the AP-EM Equations and how to use those equations. And there is no escaping the fact that it has to be hands on physics experiments in the classroom of mathematics.
> >
> > But, do not be scared, for this is all easy easy easy. For if you passed and enjoyed Volume 2 TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, then I promise you, you will not be stressed with Volume 3, for I go out of my way to make it clear and understandable.
> >
> > Warning: this is a Journal Textbook, meaning that I am constantly adding new material, constantly revising, constantly fixing mistakes or making things more clear. So if you read this book in August of 2019, chances are it is different when you read it in September 2019. Ebooks allow authors the freedom to improve their textbooks on a ongoing basis.
> >
> > The 1st year college math should be about the math that prepares any and all students for science, whether they branch out into physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, or math, they should have all the math in 1st year college that will carry them through those science studies. I make every attempt possible to make math easy to understand, easy to learn and hopefully fun.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07WN9RVXD
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ August 16, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1390 KB
> > • Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 236 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #1,377,070 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #411 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #2,480 in Calculus (Books)
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > #5-4, 56th published book
> >
> > COLLEGE CALCULUS GUIDE to help students recognize math professor spam from math truth & reality// math textbook series, book 4 Kindle Edition
> >
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> >
> > #1 New Releasein 15-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> >
> >
> > This textbook is the companion guide book to AP's Teaching True Mathematics, 1st year College. It is realized that Old Math will take a long time in removing their fake math, so in the interim period, this Guide book is designed to speed up the process of removing fake Calculus out of the education system, the fewer students we punish with forcing them with fake Calculus, the better we are.
> > Cover Picture: This book is part comedy, for when you cannot reason with math professors that they have many errors to fix, that 90% of their Calculus is in error, you end up resorting to comedy, making fun of them, to prod them to fix their errors. To prod them to "do right by the students of the world" not their entrenched propaganda.
> > Length: 54 pages
> >
> >
> > Product details
> > File Size: 1035 KB
> > Print Length: 64 pages
> > Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
> > Publication Date: August 18, 2019
> > Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
> > Language: English
> > ASIN: B07WNGLQ85
> > Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> > X-Ray:  Not Enabled  
> > Word Wise: Not Enabled
> > Lending: Enabled
> > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
> > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #253,425 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> > #38 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> > #318 in Calculus (Books)
> > #48 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
> >  
> > #5-5, 72nd published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 4 for age 19-20 Sophomore-year College, math textbook series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Preface: This is volume 4, book 5 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Sophomore-year students, students of age 19-20. It is the continuation of volume 3 in the end-goal of learning how to do the mathematics of electricity and magnetism, because everything in physics is nothing but atoms and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. To know math, you have to know physics. We learned the Calculus of 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. But we did not learn the calculus of those equations for 3rd dimension. So, you can say that Sophomore year College math is devoted to 3D Calculus. This sophomore year college we fill in all the calculus, and we start over on all of Geometry, for geometry needs a modern day revision. And pardon me for this book is mostly reading, and the students doing less calculations. The classroom of this textbook has the teacher go through page by page to get the students comprehending and understanding of what is being taught. There are many hands on experiments also.
> >
> > Cover Picture shows some toruses, some round some square, torus of rings, thin strips of rings or squares and shows them laid flat. That is Calculus of 3rd dimension that lays a ring in a torus to be flat in 2nd dimension..
> > Length: 105 pages
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0828M34VL
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 2, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 952 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 105 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #242,037 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #36 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #219 in Calculus (Books)
> >
> >
> > #5-6, 75th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 5 for age 20-21 Junior-year of College, math textbook series, book 6 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium 2019
> >
> > This is volume 5, book 6 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Junior-year students, students of age 20-21. In first year college Calculus we learned calculus of the 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. And in sophomore year we learned calculus of 3rd dimension to complete our study of the mathematics needed to do the physics of electricity and magnetism. Now, junior year college, we move onto something different, for we focus mostly on logic now and especially the logic of what is called the "mathematical proof". Much of what the student has learned about mathematics so far has been given to her or him as stated knowledge, accept it as true because I say so. But now we are going to do math proofs. Oh, yes, we did prove a few items here and there, such as why the Decimal Grid Number system is so special, such as the Pythagorean Theorem, such as the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus with its right-triangle hinged up or down. But many ideas we did not prove, we just stated them and expected all students to believe them true. And you are now juniors in college and we are going to start to prove many of those ideas and teach you "what is a math proof". Personally, I myself feel that the math proof is overrated, over hyped. But the math proof is important for one reason-- it makes you better scientists of knowing what is true and what is a shaky idea. A math proof is the same as "thinking straight and thinking clearly". And all scientists need to think straight and think clearly. But before we get to the Mathematics Proof, we have to do Probability and Statistics.. What you learned in Grade School, then High School, then College, called Sigma Error, now becomes Probability and Statistics. It is important because all sciences including mathematics needs and uses Probability and Statistics. So, our job for junior-year of college mathematics is all cut out and ahead for us, no time to waste, let us get going.
> >
> > Cover Picture: is a sample of the Array Proof, a proof the ellipse is not a conic but rather a cylinder cut wherein the oval is the slant cut of a cone, not the ellipse.
> >
> > Length: 175 pages
> >
> >
> > Product details
> > ASIN : B0836F1YF6
> > Publication date : December 26, 2019
> > Language : English
> > File size : 741 KB
> > Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> > Screen Reader : Supported
> > Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > Word Wise : Not Enabled
> > Print length : 175 pages
> > Lending : Enabled
> > Best Sellers Rank: #3,768,255 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #3,591 in Probability & Statistics (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #19,091 in Probability & Statistics (Books)
> >
> >
> >
> > #5-7, 89th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 6 for age 21-22 Senior-year of College, math textbook series, book 7 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium 2020
> >
> > Last revision was 6Feb2021.
> > Preface: This is the last year of College for mathematics and we have to mostly summarize all of mathematics as best we can. And set a new pattern to prepare students going on to math graduate school. A new pattern of work habits, because graduate school is more of research and explore on your own. So in this final year, I am going to eliminate tests, and have it mostly done as homework assignments.
> >
> > Cover Picture: Again and again, many times in math, the mind is not good enough alone to think straight and clear, and you need tools to hands-on see how it works. Here is a collection of tools for this senior year college classes. There is a pencil, clipboard, graph paper, compass, divider, protractor, slide-ruler. And for this year we spend a lot of time on the parallelepiped, showing my wood model, and showing my erector set model held together by wire loops in the corners. The plastic square is there only to hold up the erector set model.
> >
> > Length: 110 pages
> >
> > Product details
> > ASIN ‏ : ‎ B084V11BGY
> > Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 15, 2020
> > Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > File size ‏ : ‎ 826 KB
> > Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Print length ‏ : ‎ 110 pages
> > Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Best Sellers Rank: #224,965 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #345 in Mathematics (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #373 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #2,256 in Physics (Books)
> >
> > #5-8, 90th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 7 for age 22-26 Graduate school, math textbook series, book 8 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium 2020
> >
> > Last revised 1NOV2020. This was AP's 90th published book of science.
> >
> > Preface: This is College Graduate School mathematics. Congratulations, you made it this far. To me, graduate school is mostly research, research mathematics and that means also physics. So it is going to be difficult to do math without physics. Of course, we focus on the mathematics of these research projects.
> >
> > My textbook for Graduate school is just a template and the professors teaching the graduate students are free of course to follow their own projects, but in terms of being physics and math combined. What I list below is a template for possible projects.
> >
> > So, in the below projects, I list 36 possible research projects that a graduate student my like to undertake, or partake. I list those 36 projects with a set of parentheses like this (1), (2), (3), etc. Not to be confused with the chapters listing as 1), 2), 3), etc. I list 36 projects but the professor can offer his/her own list, and I expect students with their professor, to pick a project and to monitor the student as to his/her progresses through the research. I have listed each project then cited some of my own research into these projects, below each project is an entry. Those entries are just a help or helper in getting started or acquainted with the project. The entry has a date time group and a newsgroup that I posted to such as sci.math or plutonium-atom-universe Google newsgroups. Again the entry is just a help or helper in getting started.
> >
> > Now instead of picking one or two projects for your Graduate years of study, some may select all 36 projects where you write a short paper on each project. Some may be bored with just one or two projects and opt for all 36.
> >
> > Cover Picture: A photo by my iphone of a page on Permutations of the Jacobs book Mathematics: A Human Endeavor, 1970. One of the best textbooks ever written in Old Math, not for its contents because there are many errors, but for its teaching style. It is extremely rare to find a math textbook written for the student to learn. Probably because math professors rarely learned how to teach in the first place; only learned how to unintentionally obfuscate. The page I photographed is important because it is the interface between geometry's perimeter or surface area versus geometry's area or volume, respectively. Or, an interface of pure numbers with that of geometry. But I have more to say on this below.
> > Length: 296 pages
> >
> > Product details
> > ASIN ‏ : ‎ B085DF8R7V
> > Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 1, 2020
> > Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > File size ‏ : ‎ 828 KB
> > Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > Print length ‏ : ‎ 296 pages
> > Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Best Sellers Rank: #224,981 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #13 in General Geometry
> > ◦ #213 in Geometry & Topology (Books)
> >
> >
> >
> > #5-8, 160th published book
> >
> > MATHOPEDIA-- List of 80 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// Student teaches professor Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Last revision was 28Apr2022. And this is AP's 160th book of Science.
> > Preface:
> > A Mathopedia is like a special type of encyclopedia on the subject of mathematics. It is about the assessment of the worth of mathematics and the subject material of mathematics. It is a overall examination and a evaluation of mathematics and its topics.
> > The ordering of Mathopedia is not a alphabetic ordering, nor does it have a index. The ordering is purely that of importance at beginning and importance at end.
> > The greatest use of Mathopedia is a guide to students of what not to waste your time on and what to focus most of your time. I know so many college classes in mathematics are just a total waste of time, waste of valuable time for the class is math fakery. I know because I have been there.
> > Now I am going to cite various reference sources of AP books if anyone wants more details and can be seen in the Appendix at the end of the book.
> > I suppose, going forward, mathematics should always have a mathopedia, where major parts of mathematics as a science are held under scrutiny and question as to correctness. In past history we have called these incidents as "doubters of the mainstream". Yet math, like physics, can have no permanent mainstream, since there is always question of correctness in physics, there then corresponds questions of correctness in mathematics (because math is a subset of physics). What I mean is that each future generation corrects some mistakes of past mathematics. If anyone is unsure of what I am saying here, both math and physics need constant correcting, of that which never belonged in science. This then converges with the logic-philosophy of Pragmatism (see AP's book of logic on Pragmatism).
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09MZTLRL5
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 2, 2021
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1149 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 65 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

Click here to read the complete article

Why are these people failures of Math?? For none can even contemplate these 4 questions.

Click here to read the complete article

Why are these people failures of Math?? For none can even contemplate these 4 questions.

Click here to read the complete article

Why Socratis a 3 decades long spammer of sci.math,

> > But for Socratis, this deep groove is so obnoxious and sees no off ramps. Some people like to irritate other people, they spend their entire life in "irritating other people" and that is what Socratis amounts to-- daily irritating....

You ... are the King of American Spammers ... You have written a 24 page Spam book in this one ...
but ... you have not written a single line of your Mat. Special.

I've been a researcher for 22 years ... to find out how T.d.i works .. After ... I understand you don't know
Use it and get everything wrong .. in the beginning My Theory was: T..u.n.ze- = Theory of the only neutral zero- in
later I understood that the neutral is necessary .. but it had to ..apply to all the small Units, and ..I created the T.n.p-

It is normal that the Researcher...has to go...beyond the Known..so it's easy for him to get it wrong...until he solves--
Now I know perfectly..The T.n.p. and .. the T.d.i. And I know that .. No Prof ... including you..understands..The T.d.i.
And therefore he is wrong. Therefore..Now I am able to explain To Prof..La Vera T.d.i..which works according to mine
Theory..T.n.p. which represents ..in a direct way..The Unique and Simple Logic...which is needed in Mathematics ...

======= T.d.i.===================T.n.p.======0.1*0.1 = 0.01m^2 =100c^2 || 1i * 1i = 100c^2 = 1i^2
0.1 *0.1 *0.1 = 0.001m^3 || 1i *1i *1i =1000c^3 = 1i^3
0.1* 0.1 *1 =0.01m*3 ====||===== 1i *1i *10i = 10i^3
0.1 *1 *1 = 0.1m^3 =====||==== 1i *10i *10i = 100i^3...ecc..

Know that .. Mathematics Science Has Understand that I'm Reason, So Nobody Is Against It ..
Unfortunately they do not have the conscience to say it .. since they should change profession-

====> 0.5 *8 = 5i *80i = 400i^2 ==> For 1i = 1dm.
0.1 *0.5 *8 = 1i*5i*80i = 400i^3

====> 0.5 *10 = 5i *100i =500i^2
0.1*0.5 *10 = 1i *5i*100i =500i^3

====> 0.5 *6 = 5i * 60i = 300i^2
0.2 *0.5 *6 = 2i*5i *60i = 600i^3

If you were not conditioned you would understand that the neutral
=====> must be 1dm, if and when I start with 1i.
How it should be 1c..if and when I start from 1cm.
How it should be• ....if and when I start from 1mm.

Greetings from Socratis T.n.p. : 200• =20c =2dm =0.2m.Lin.
20c*50c*600c = 600'000c^3 = 600 Liters.
2i *** 5i *** 60i == 600i^3 ==== 600 liters.
0.2 * 0.5 ** 6 == 0.6m^3 ==== 600 Liters.

The Three..results are equivalent .. and without commas ... Who knows Why ?
I thank God .... for giving me.... intelligence..... Logic..... and... Patience... for
Create and ... explain The Logic T.n.p. of the reason why ... the Genius does not admit ...
...or do not understand.. the T.n.p. I do not care. I just need to know that.... being perfect,
is worthy of being considered and Used .. by Beings of normal Intelligence- :)))

Some Theorems Created by Socratis:

7^3 + 9^3 = 16 *(7*9 +2^2) = 16m *67m^2 = 1072m^3-
7^2 + 9^2 = 14*9 +2^2 = 130m^2.
(7 + 9 )^2 = 14*18 +2^2 = 256m^2-

Andrew Wiles is a math failure along with Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Beal, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Ben Green, Gerald Edgar, AMS, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Socratis no-one there can do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, all they can offer is a limit analysis, so shoddy in logic they never realized that "analyzing" is not the same as "proving" for analyzing in much in the same as "measuring but not proving". And yet, none can do a geometry proof and the reason is quite clear for none can even see that the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So they could never do a geometry proof of FTC even if they wanted to. Why Socratis a 3 decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Andrew Wiles and Terence Tao cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither Terence Tao or Andrew Wiles can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Socratis?? You spammer crank.
> >
> > I am confident that if a MRI scan of Socratis were to take place, that it would reveal a huge massive white spot of nerves in the brain as a deep groove circuit, with no offramps that go round and round and is seen as nothing but spam.
>
> In fact, we saw on 19May2022, former president George W Bush saying that Russia invaded Iraq, apologizing and then saying Ukraine, for a deep groove is etched into George's brain of Iraq and a fresh new groove needs to begin in George's mind that of Ukraine.
>
> But for Socratis, this deep groove is so obnoxious and sees no off ramps. Some people like to irritate other people, they spend their entire life in "irritating other people" and that is what Socratis amounts to-- daily irritating....

Why are these people failures of Math?? For none can even contemplate these 4 questions.

Click here to read the complete article

On Thursday 16 June 2022 at 03:24:15 UTC + 2 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>> I am confident that if a MRI scan of Socratis were to take place, that it would reveal a huge massive white spot of nerves in the brain as a deep groove circuit, with noofferamps that go round and round and is seen as nothing but spam.

You don't know what you are saying, dear .. King of American Spammers:
The T.d.i. is a derivative system .. so:
0.1 *0.1 *1 = 0.01m^3 = 10i^3 = 10 Liters as => 1i *1i *10i == 10i^3
0.1 *1 *1 = 0.1m^3 = 100i^3 = 100 Liters as => 1i *10i *10i =100i^3.

I know very well that it is not you who have modified the T.d.i.
But I know well that a Scientist like you ... Should Understand and Reintegrate the System-
Instead You ... run a wrong system like any Monkey Copians ...
You should be wondering how you do it and how do you teach how to produce small or large volumes.
If you don't know .. your math is worth NOTHING. without Volumes ...

I have created many theorems .. and you?
I created the T.n.p. that finds Direct results .. and You?
You just made the Monkey .. I'm sorry I can't save you- :)))

Greetings from Socratis: 11^3 +15^3 = 26* (11*15 +4^2) = 26m * 181m^2 =4ì706m^3-

Why are these people failures of Math?? For none can even contemplate these 4 questions.

Click here to read the complete article

Why are these people failures of Math?? For none can even contemplate these 4 questions.

Click here to read the complete article

Andrew Wiles, the dumbfuck of mathematics, cannot even accept a simple proof slant cut of cone is Oval. A proof by AP dating back to 2016, and here it is 2022, and the dumbfuck of math-- Andrew Wiles still in denial.

--- quoting from my published math proof that slant cut is OVAL, never ellipse ---

Array:: Analytic Geometry proof that Cylinder section= Ellipse//Conic
section = Oval, never ellipse

Array proof simply means we cut out all details and get to the very heart of the proof. No sideshow dressing, just the heart of the proof.

ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse::

E
__
.-' `-.
.' `.
/ \
; ;
| G c | H
; ;
\ /
`. .'
`-. _____ .-'
F

Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E

In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.

The side view of a cylinder is this

| |
| |
| |

That allows cE to be the same distance as cF

But the side view of the cone is

/\E
/c \
F / \

The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF make that distance larger than cE


> Kibo Parry M highlights what a failure in geometry that Dr. Tao is, with his ellipse the slant cut of a cone.
>
> On Friday, July 22, 2022 at 2:04:31 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On 7/21/2022 8:40 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 2:57:32 PM UTC-7, plutonium....@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 4:44:55 PM UTC-5, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > >>> Evidence rules, AP... got any?
> > >
> > >> Too bad Paul Alsing cannot comprehend nor understand a math proof, why Paul is all about memorization, memorizing false science is his forte.
> > >
> > Once again, Plutonium attacks the poster with ad hominems rather than
> > discuss the math or the physics.
> > > Actually, I did pretty well with math proofs, I earned several degrees in college that decorate my walls...
> > >
> > > So, from what I understand from your "book"?, this is your so-called proof...
> > >
> > > "Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse."
> > >
> > > Do you call this a mathematical proof, AP? Really? I would like you to provide evidence that proves that an ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry because I know for sure that you are just making this up as you go along. The definition if an ellipse not not ever include such a requirement.
> > >
> > > The verbal description of an ellipse is quite simple... "Ellipse Definition
> > > An ellipse is the locus of points in a plane, the sum of whose distances from two fixed points is a constant value. The two fixed points are called the foci of the ellipse."
> > >
> > > You want the math? No problem...
> > >
> > > https://www.cuemath.com/geometry/ellipse/
> > >
> > > ... just scroll down until you see "Ellipse Equation"... which you won't understand... that's it!
> > >
> > > That's it. Simple. No mention of "2 axes of symmetry", which you have just made up. As always, if you have evidence to the contrary, let's see it! You can't possibly provide this support because you made it all up!
> > >
> > > Like I told others here (you know, Jimbo and Mitch), if brains were dynamite, you could not blow your hat off!
> > >
> > > Evidence rules, AP... got any?
> > Once again, evidence rules, Plutonium drools.
> >
> > Plutonium's claim centers around the fact he's trying to show there is
> > only one axis of symmetry AROUND THE AXIS OF THE CONE. The center of the
> > ellipse formed by a plane intersecting a cone has a center NOT ALONG THE
> > AXIS OF THE CONE AT ALL. Plutonium's claim is like saying the curve:
> > (x-1)²+2y² = k²
> > isn't an ellipse because it doesn't have two axes of symmetry because
> > it's not symmetric around the point (0,0). It's not, because it's
> > symmetric around the point (1,0)!
> > >
> >
> > I think it's simple to prove the ellipse has two axes of symmetry since
> > the formula for an ellipse has only even powers of x and y (once
> > coordinates are shifted), so if AP (or anyone else) could prove the
> > intersection of a cone and plane has only 1 axis of symmetry (around any
> > point) it would show it's not an ellipse, but multiple proofs do show it
> > does have the formula of an ellipse. Unfortunately (for AP):
> >
> > 1) Many proofs exist that the curve has the formula for an ellipse;
> > 2) AP has no idea how to create/derive/write a mathematical proof anyway.
> >
> > I asked this before, and I'll ask again: In the general case, the
> > intersection of the axis of a cone and the ellipse formed by an
> > intersecting plane is not the center of an ellipse. It is also not
> > through either focus of the ellipse (someone showed me a proof of this)..
> > I'll ask: Does the intersection of the plane-cone ellipse and cone axis
> > have a name? Any special mathematical properties? If we were to examine
> > this point for the orbits of the various planets, comets etc., would we
> > see anything interesting there?

Andrew Wiles, the dumbfuck of mathematics like Socratis, cannot even accept a simple proof slant cut of cone is Oval. A proof by AP dating back to 2016, and here it is 2022, and the dumbfuck of math-- Andrew Wiles still in denial.

Can Socratis do a percentage correctly or is he a failure in that also? Does Socratis mountain of spam show Socratis also with 938 is 12% short of 945.. I bet Wiles can do a percentage correctly but not the 30 year spamming jackarse Socratis nor Kibo Parry M.
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.

Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E

In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.

The side view of a cylinder is this

| |
| |
| |

That allows cE to be the same distance as cF

But the side view of the cone is

/\E
/c \
F / \

The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF make that distance larger than cE

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:02:38 PM UTC-7, Socratis T.n.p. wrote:
> It's not my fault if you don't know how to use the T.d.i. which is derivative from m^2 and m^3-
> To help you .. I created the T.n.p. = Small Neutral Theory.
> That says : 1i^2 = 100c^2 e 1i^3 = 1000c^3 = 1000g. = 10hg = 1kg = 0.001m^3.
>
> 1mm = 1•.....1cm = 1c...1dm = 1i.
> 1m =1000•...1m =100c...1m =10i
>
> 1c * 10c = 1c ? ...........1c *10c = 10c^2 = 0.01*0.1 = 0.001m^2 ...... => √ 0.001 = 3.162c.
> 10c *10c = 1c ? ...........10c *10c =100c^2 = 0.01m^2 = 100c^2 |||||| => √0.01 = 0.1 =10c
> 1c * 100c = 1c ?............1c *100c =100c^2 = 0.01m^2 = 100c^2 ||||| => √0.01 = 0.1 =10c
> 10c*100c= 10c ?..........10c*100c = 1000c^2 = 0.1m^2 =1i * 10i = 10i^2 => √0.1=31.62.c
> 100c*100c = 100c ?....100c*100c = 10'000c^2 =1m^2. =10i *10i =100i^2=> √100i =10i=100c.
>
> 1c *1c *100c = 100c^3 = 100g. = 0.01 *0.01 *1 = 0.0001m^3 => 3√0.0001 =0.0464 =4.64c
> 1c *10c*100c =1000c^3 =1000g.=1kg = 0.01 * 0.1= 0.001m^3 => 3√0.001 = 0.1 = 10c = 1i.
> 10c*10c*100c =10'000c^3 =====10kg =0.1*0.1* 1 = 0.01m^3 => 3√0.01 = 0.215 =21.544c,
> 10c*100c*100c=100'000c^3 ==100kg = 0.1* 1 * 1 = 0.1m^3. => 3√0.1 =0.4645i =46.4158c
> 100c*100c*100c=1000'000c^3=1000kg =10i *10i *10i =1m^3 => 3√1000i^3 = 100c = 10i
>
> Set theory is correct if you use it as a derivative from 1m^2 and 1m^3.
> You can understand it only if you understand..the theory of the small neutral = T.n.p.
> Your Ancient Genes ... They had neither ... the T.n.p. nor the .. dm = 1i.
>
> Only for lack of 1i ... they had to make 0.1..a depend on 1.
> If they had 1i..now you would use the T.n.p. and would you understand ...
> perfectly that: 0.1 * 2 * 2 = 1i * 20i * 20i = 400i^3. = 0.4m^3 ..
>
> If you ask me why I tell you that all integers are tens of 1i. = 10c = 100 •.
> So you should either, you could, understand: 20i*20i =400i^2 =4m^2=>2/0.1=20i.
> You may have no problem recognizing that 1000i^3 > 1000i^2 = 10m^2.
>
> Thank you for answering. Hello from Socratis- :)))
> (a+b)^2 = 4ab +d^2 ==========> (6+5)^2 = 4*30 +1 =121m^2.
> a^2+b^2 = 2a*b +d^2 ========> 6^2 +5^2 = 2*30 +1 = 61m^2.
> a^3+b^3 = (a+b)*(a*b +d^2) => 6^3+5^3 = 11*(30+1)=341m^3.
>
> If crazy people created..Theorems and Theories..Perfect as the T.n.p ...
> then I would stop being a researcher to become + Crazy.
> But I love and respect myself: being aware of my work ...
> e .. I understand that there are no Profs who explain .. the real T.d.i.

What is this?

85 * 13 = 1105

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

>> But I love and respect myself: being aware of my work ...
>> e .. I understand that there are no Profs who explain .. the real
>> T.d.i.
>
> What is this? 85 * 13 = 1105

255
85
1105

kibo parry morony, what the fuck name is that?? A slabovian, a khakhole, a
nazi of uKraine.

======= T.d.i. ===========T.n.p. ==============
1 * 1 * 1 =======1m^3 ==> 10i *10i *10i = 1000i^3
0.1 *1 *1 ====== 0.1m^3 ==> 10i *10i * 1i = 100i^3
0.1*0.1* 1======0.01m^3 ==>10i * 1i * 1i = 10i^3
0.1*01*0.1===== 0.001m^3 ==> 1i * 1i *1i = 1.kg.
0.01*0.1*0.1====0.0001m^3 ==>1c *1i *1i=1hg.
0.01*0.01*0.1===0.00001m^3 ==>1c *1c*10c = 10c^3=10g
0.01 *0.01*0.01= 0.000001m^3 ==> 1c *1c *1c = 1c^3 =1g.
0.001*( 0,01)^2 = 0.0000001m^3 ==> 1• *1c *1c = 100mg.
(0.001)^2 *0.01 = 0.00000001m^3 ==> 1• *1• *1c = 10mg.
(0.001)^3 ====== 0.000000001m^3 ==> 1• *1• *1• = 1mg.
Socratis e T.n.p. 9^3 +11^3 =20 *(9*11 +2^2) = 2060m^3

Can Socratis do a percentage correctly or is he a failure in that also? Does Socratis mountain of spam show Socratis also with 938 is 12% short of 945.. I bet Wiles can do a percentage correctly but not the 30 year spamming jackarse Socratis nor Kibo Parry M.
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.


Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E

In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.

The side view of a cylinder is this

| |
| |
| |

That allows cE to be the same distance as cF

But the side view of the cone is

/\E
/c \
F / \

The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF make that distance larger than cE

--- quoting from my published math proof that slant cut is OVAL, never ellipse ---

Array:: Analytic Geometry proof that Cylinder section= Ellipse//Conic
section = Oval, never ellipse

Array proof simply means we cut out all details and get to the very heart of the proof. No sideshow dressing, just the heart of the proof.

ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse::

E
__
..-' `-.
..' `.
/ \
; ;
| G c | H
; ;
\ /
`. .'
`-. _____ .-'
F

Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E

In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.

The side view of a cylinder is this

| |
| |
| |

That allows cE to be the same distance as cF

But the side view of the cone is

/\E
/c \
F / \

The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF make that distance larger than cE

Socratis, why is Andrew Wiles blimey idiot that still thinks Ec is the same distance as cF, what a blimey idiot failure of math that Wiles is, and Oxford Univ naming a building after him? Why I would not even name a outhouse after him.

ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse::

E
__
.-' `-.
.' `.
/ \
; ;
| G c | H
; ;
\ /
`. .'
`-. _____ .-'
F

Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E

In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.

The side view of a cylinder is this

| |
| |
| |

That allows cE to be the same distance as cF

But the side view of the cone is

/\E
/c \
F / \

The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF makes that distance larger than cE.

Why are these people failures of Math?? For none can even contemplate these 4 questions.

Click here to read the complete article

physics morons George F. Smoot,David J. Gross fail on real electron is the muon.
On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 6:02:38 PM UTC-5, Socratis T.n.p. wrote:
> It's not my fault

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

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

President: Marc Tessier-Lavigne (neuroscience)
Provost: Persis Drell (physics)

Stanford physics dept.

Alexander Fetter, John Lipa, William Little, Douglas Osheroff, David Ritson, H. Alan Schwettman, John Turneaure, Robert Wagoner, Stanley Wojcicki, Mason Yearian

Cambridge Physics Dept

Ahnert, Alai, Alexander, Allison, Ansorge, Atature, Barker, Barnes, Bartlett, Batley, Baumberg, Bohndiek, Bowman, Brown, Buscher, Butler, Campbell Carilli, Carter, Castelnovo, Challis, Chalut, Chaudhri, Chin, Ciccarelli, Cicuta, Harry Cliff, Cole, Cooper, Cowburn, Credgington, Cross, Croze, Deschler, Donald, Duffett-Smith, Dutton, Eiser, Ellis, Euser, Field, Flynn, Ford, Friend, Gibson, Green, Greenham, Gripaios, Grosche, Guck, Gull, Haniff, Heavens-Ward, Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, Hughes, Irvine, Jardine, Jenkins, Jones, Josephson, Keyser, Khmeinitskii, King, Kotlyar, Lamacraft, Lasenby, Lester, Longair, Lonzarich, Maiolino, Marshall, Martin, Mitov, Morris, Mortimer, Moller, Needs, Norman, Nunnenkamp, Padman,Parker, Patel, Payne, Pepper, Phillips, Pramauro, Queloz, Rao, Richer, Riley, Ritchie, Sargent, Saunders, Saxena, Schneider, Scott, Scrivener, Sebastian, Simmons, Simons, Sirringhaus, Smith, Sutherland, Taylor, Teichmann, Terentjev, Thomson, Verrechia, Walker, Ward, Warner, Weale, Webber, Whyles, Withington.

Cambridge Math Dept

Alan Baker
Bela Bollobas
Darwin Smith
John Coates
Timothy Gowers
Peter Johnstone
Imre Leader
Gabriel Paternain

Caltech Physics Dept

Barry Barish, Felix Boehm, Steven Frautschi
Murray Gell-Mann, David Goodstein, Thomas Phillips,
John Schwarz, Barry Simon, Kip Thorne, Petr Vogel,
Rochus Vogt, Ward Whaling, Michael E. Brown,
Konstantin Batygin

UCLA chancellor: Gene D. Block (biology)

UCLA Physics dept
Ernest Abers, Elihu Abrahams, Katsushi Arisaka, Michalis Bachtis
Eric Becklin, Zvi Bern, Rubin Braunstein, Stuart Brown, Robijn Bruinsma
Charles Buchanan, Wesley Campbell, Troy Carter, Sudip Chakravarty
W. Gilbert Clark, John Cornwall, Robert Cousins, Eric D'Hoker
Robert Finkelstein, Christian Fronsdal, Walter Gekelman, Graciela Gelmini
George Gruner, Michael Gutperle, Brad Hansen, Jay Hauser, Karoly Holczer
Huan Huang, Eric Hudson, George Igo, Per Kraus, Alexander Kusenko
Thomas Mason, George Morales, Warren Mori, Steven Moszkowski
Christoph Niemann, Kumar Patel, Roberto Peccei, Claudio Pellegrini
Seth Putterman, B. Regan, James Rosenzweig, Joseph Rudnick
David Saltzberg, William Slater, Reiner Stenzel, Terry Tomboulis, Jean Turner

UCSD, Univ Calif San Diego, physics dept

Henry D.I. Abarbanel, Kam S. Arnold, Daniel P. Arovas, Richard D. Averitt, Julio T. Barreiro, Dimitri N. Basov, Steven Boggs, James G. Branson, Adam J.. Burgasser, Leonid V. Butov, Alison Coil, Eva-Maria S. Collins, Max Di Ventra, Patrick H. Diamond, Fred C. Driscoll, Daniel H. Dubin,
Olga K. Dudko, Raphael M. Flauger, Michael M. Fogler, Alex Frano, George M. Fuller, Daniel R Green, Kim Griest, Benjamin Grinstein, Alexander Groisman, Tarun Grover, Jorge E. Hirsch, Michael Holst, Terence T. Hwa, Kenneth A. Intriligator, Elizabent Jenkins, Suckjoon Jun, Brian Keating, Dusan Keres, David Kleinfeld, Quinn M. Konopacky, Elena F. Koslover, Julius Kuti, Tongyan Lin, Aneesh V. Manohar, M. Brian Maple, John A. McGreevy, Thomas W. Murphy, Kaixuan Ni, Michael L. Norman, Thomas M O'Neil, Hans P. Paar, Mark Paddock, Jeremie Palacci, Tenio Popmintchev, Wouter-Jan Rappel, Karin M. Sandstrom, Ivan K. Schuller, Lu J. Sham, Vivek Sharma, Tatyana O. Sharpee, Brian Shotwell, Oleg Shpyrko, Elizabeth H Simmons, Sunil K. Sinha, Douglas E. Smith, Harry Suhl

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Physics dept
Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek, Julian S. Georg, Joel T. Giedt, Yong Sung Kim, Gyorgy Korniss, Toh-Ming Lu, Charles Martin, Joseph Darryl Michael, Heidi Jo Newberg, Moussa N'Gom, Peter Persans, John Schroeder, Michael Shur, Shawn-Yu Lin, Humberto Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang, Morris A Washington, Esther A. Wertz, Christian M. Wetzel, Ingrid Wilke, Shengbai Zhang

Harvard Physics dept
Jacob Barandes, Howard Berg, Michael Brenner, Adam Cohen, Eugene Demler, Michael Desai
Louis Deslauriers, John Doyle, Cora Dvorkin, Gary Feldman, Douglas Finkbeiner, Melissa Franklin, Gerald Gabrielse, Howard Georgi, Sheldon Glashow, Roy Glauber, Jene Golovchenko, Markus Greiner, Roxanne Guenette, Girma Hailu, Bertrand Halperin, Lene Hau
Thomas Hayes, Eric Heller, Jason Hoffman, Jenny Hoffman, Gerald Holton, Paul Horowitz, John Huth, Arthur Jaffe, Daniel Jafferis, Efthimios Kaxiras, Philip Kim, John Kovac, Erel Levine
Mikhail Lukin, Logan McCarty, L. Mahadevan, Vinothan Manoharan, Eric Mazur, Masahiro Morii
David Morin, Julia Mundy, Cherry Murray, David Nelson, Kang Ni, Hongkun Park, William Paul
Peter Pershan, Mara Prentiss, Lisa Randall, Matthew Reece, Subir Sachdev, Aravinthan Samuel, Matthew Schwartz, Irwin Shapiro, Isaac Silvera, Andrew Strominger, Christopher Stubbs, Cumrun Vafa, Ronald Walsworth, David Weitz, Robert Westervelt, Richard Wilson
Tai Wu, Amir Yacoby, Susanne Yelin, Xi Yin

Chancellor Cynthia Barnhart
President: L. Reif (electrical engineer)

MIT physics dept
William Bertozzi, Robert Birgeneau, Hale Bradt, Bernard Burke, George Clark , Jeffrey Goldstone, Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins , Paul Joss, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon, Irwin Pless, Paul Schechter, James Young

Cornell Univ physics:
Jim Alexander, Tomas Arias, Ivan Bazarov, Eberhard Bodenschatz, Debanjan Chowdhury, Itai Cohen, Csaba Csaki, Veit Elser, Eanna Flanagan, Carl Franck, Lawrence Gibbons, Paul Ginsparg, Yuval Grossman, Thomas Hartman, Georg Hoffstaetter, Natasha Holmes, Chao-Ming Jian, Eun-Ah Kim, Michael Lawler, Andre Leclair, Peter Lepage, Stephen Levy, Matthias Liepe, Kin Fai Mak, Jared Maxson, Liam McAllister, Paul McEuen, Erich Mueller, Christopher Myers, Michael Niemack, Matthias Neubert, Katja Nowack, Jeevak Parpia, Ritchie Patterson, Maxim Perelstein, Daniel Ralph, Brad Ramshaw, David Rubin, Anders Ryd, James Sethna, Jie Shan, Kyle Shen, Eric Siggia, Saul Teukolsky, Julia Thom-Levy, Robert Thorne, Cyrus Umrigar, Jane Wang, Michelle Wang, Ira Wasserman, Peter Wittich

Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker, Henry M. Van Driel, David J. Rowe, John W. Moffat, John F. Martin, Robert K. Logan, Albert E.. Litherland, Roland List, Philipp Kronberg, James King, Anthony W. Key, Bob Holdom, Ron M. Farquhar, R. Nigel Edwards, David J. Dunlop, James Drummond, Tom E. Drake, R.Fraser Code, Richard C. Bailey, Robin Armstrong

Univ. Western Ontario physics dept
Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang

> > Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,
> > Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish
> > David J. Thouless_, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita
> > Arthur B. McDonald
> > Francois Englert
> > Saul Perlmutter
> > Brian P. Schmidt
> > Adam G. Riess
> > Makoto Kobayashi
> > Toshihide Maskawa_
> > Yoichiro Nambu_
> > John C. Mather
> > George F. Smoot
> > Roy J. Glauber_
> > David J. Gross
> > Hugh David Politzer
> > Frank Wilczek
> > Raymond Davis Jr. _
> > Masatoshi Koshiba_
> > Riccardo Giacconi_
> > Gerardus 't Hooft
> > Martinus J.G. Veltman_
> > Jerome I. Friedman
> > Henry W. Kendall_
> > Richard E. Taylor_
> > Carlo Rubbia
> > Simon van der Meer_
> > William Alfred Fowler_
> > Kenneth G. Wilson_
> > James Watson Cronin_
> > Val Logsdon Fitch_
> > Sheldon Lee Glashow
> > Steven Weinberg_
> > .
> > .
> > little fishes
> > .
> > .
> > Layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = subtraction of either 3 or 2, while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV
> >
> > Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass
> > Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu
> > more and more layers of error thinking physics
> > .
> > .
> > Edward Witten
> > John Baez
> > Brian Greene
> > Lisa Randall
> > Alan H. Guth
> > Michael E. Brown
> > Konstantin Batygin
> > Ben Bullock
> > Larry Harson
> > Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
> > Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
> > None at all - he was a raving nutter.
> > Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley
> > Jennifer Kahn, Discover, science hater
> > Eric Francis Coppolino, newsreporter hatred of science, George Witte, St.Martin's Press science hater
> > Toby Howard, The Guardian, science hater
> >
> >
> > #2-1, 137th published book
> >
> > Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> >
> >
> > #1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory
> >
> > This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so I can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me.
> >
> > Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics community updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast, as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to.
> >
> > Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory.
> > And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
> > Length: 64 pages
> >
> > Product details
> > • File Size : 790 KB
> > • Publication Date : October 5, 2020
> > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > • Print Length : 64 pages
> > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > • Language: : English
> > • ASIN : B08KS4YGWY
> > • Lending : Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory
> > ◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> >
> > #2-2, 145th published book
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
> > Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and errors and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the halls and corridors of education.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN : B08PC99JJB
> > • Publication date : November 29, 2020
> > • Language: : English
> > • File size : 682 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > • Print length : 78 pages
> > • Lending : Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
> > ◦ #344 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books)
> >
> > #2-3, 146th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3
> > Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science, you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the science. I further believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later years of physics courses, we can always pick up on details. So I devote this senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this textbook. Now Asimov's book is full of error and mistakes, and that is disappointing but all of Old Physics is full of error. On errors and mistakes of Old Physics, the best I can do is warn the students, and the largest warning of all is that whenever someone in Old Physics says "electron" what they are talking about is really the Dirac magnetic monopole. And whenever they talk about the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, they are talking about huge huge grave mistakes, for the true atom is protons as 8 ringed toruses with a muon stuck inside of a proton doing the Faraday law and producing those magnetic monopoles as electricity. I use Asimov's book as a template but in the future, I hope to rewrite this textbook using no template at all, that is if I have time in the future.
> > Cover Picture: Is the book The History of Physics, by Isaac Asimov, 1966 and on top of the book are 4 cut-outs of bent circles representing magnetic monopoles which revolutionizes modern physics, especially the ElectroMagnetic theory.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08RK33T8V
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 28, 2020
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 794 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 123 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #4,167,235 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #15,099 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #91,163 in Physics (Books)
> >
> >
> > #2-4, 151st published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4
> > Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Preface: This is AP's 151st book of science published. It is one of my most important books of science because 1st year college physics is so impressionable on students, if they should continue with physics, or look elsewhere for a career. And also, physics is a crossroad to all the other hard core sciences, where physics course is mandatory such as in chemistry or even biology. I have endeavored to make physics 1st year college to be as easy and simple to learn. In this endeavor to make physics super easy, I have made the writing such that you will see core ideas in all capital letters as single sentences as a educational tool. And I have made this textbook chapter writing follow a logical pattern of both algebra and geometry concepts, throughout. The utmost importance of logic in physics needs to be seen and understood. For I have never seen a physics book, prior to this one that is logical. Every Old Physics textbook I have seen is scatter-brained in topics and in writing. I use as template book of Halliday & Resnick because a edition of H&R was one I was taught physics at University of Cincinnati in 1969. And in 1969, I had a choice of majors, do I major in geology, or mathematics, or in physics, for I will graduate from UC in 1972. For me, geology was too easy, but physics was too tough, so I ended up majoring in mathematics. If I had been taught in 1969 using this textbook that I have written, I would have ended up majoring in physics, my first love. For physics is not hard, not hard at all, once you clear out the mistakes and the obnoxious worthless mathematics that clutters up Old Physics, and the illogic that smothers much of Old Physics.
> >
> > Maybe it was good that I had those impressions of physics education of poor education, which still exists throughout physics today. Because maybe I am forced to write this book, because of that awful experience of learning physics in 1969. Without that awful experience, maybe this textbook would have never been written by me.
> >
> > Cover picture is the template book of Halliday & Resnick, 1988, 3rd edition Fundamentals of Physics and sitting on top are cut outs of "half bent circles, bent at 90 degrees" to imitate magnetic monopoles. Magnetic Monopoles revolutionizes physics education, and separates-out, what is Old Physics from what is New Physics.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09JW5DVYM
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 19, 2021
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1035 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 386 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #4,874,333 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #526 in Electromagnetic Theory
> > ◦ #1,321 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #9,546 in Electromagnetism (Books)
> >
> >
> >
> > #2-5, 174th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 2nd year College
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition
> >
> > Preface: At the moment this is a physics book for 2nd year College. But as the months and years go by I intend to convert it into a textbook of about 200 to 300 pages. It is mostly about thermodynamics for in my own college education 1968-1972 at University of Cincinnati, I took physics thermodynamics in the 2nd year (if memory has not failed me).
> > Cover-Picture: Is a iphone photograph of the Chemistry textbook I used at UC 1968-1972 with my own paper cut-outs of magnetic monopoles. Pictured are 4 bent circles, bent at 90degrees from diameter and each bent circle is a individual magnetic monopole.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09TKL4HMC
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 27, 2022
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 675 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 41 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> >
> >
> >
> > #2-6, 177th published book
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Atoms, 3rd year College
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition
> >
> > Preface: I come to teaching physics for 3rd year College as the Architecture of Atoms. My writing style will be prose-narrative, until I add on exercise problems and convert it into a textbook. The 1st year College, has to be the equations and laws of electricity and magnetism. For the primal-axiom over all of physics is-- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. The 2nd year College is thermodynamics. And now the 3rd year College physics has to teach the Architecture, the geometry of the inside and exterior surface of the atom. One of the greatest faults, misery, and anti-science teaching of Old Physics is their denial that subatomic particles have to be something more than tiny balls tiny spheres that do-nothing, perform nothing, function as nothing. That the proton and neutron and true electron=muon, has to be matter with a function and purpose and design and task and job. This is a year of physics teaching of the architecture of the atom.
> > Cover Picture: A iphone photograph of my book chemistry book, a long time favorite of mine of CHEM ONE, 2nd edition, Waser, Trueblood, Knobler, 1980, and page 307 of that book. Why this page? Because it was instrumental in my discovery of the true Architecture of Atoms. Not many professors of chemistry or physics dive into the Shrodinger Equation that results in a meaningful teaching of "matter waves". Matter waves are the heart of understanding the geometry of Atomic Architecture.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09VFH9QST
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2022
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 823 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 74 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> >
> >
> >
> > #2-7, 178th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Light Waves & Energy, 4th year College
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Kindle edition)
> >
> >
> > Preface: This is 4th year College Physics and the important ideas of physics to learn as last year undergraduate school is the architecture and geometry of the Light Wave & Energy in physics. This is New Physics and not Old Physics. New Physics is defined as physics that knows and uses the true electron of atoms is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus and doing the Faraday law, creating new electrical energy that is storaged in the neutrons of atoms until they grow from 1eV into 945MeV and then create a new higher atomic numbered atom or emitted as radioactivity. Old Physics mistakenly identified the electron of atoms as the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. In 3rd year College we studied the architecture of the interior of atoms. In 4th year College we study the architecture of Light Waves & Energy.
> >
> > The template book for 4th year College is Feynman's 1985 book of QED.
> >
> > Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of the template book for this book. Feynman's 1985 QED, quantum electrodynamics, showing my plastic toy model of DNA and my cut-outs of 4 bent circles that each bent circle represents one magnetic monopole. I arranged the monopoles into a single strand of a cycloid wave.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09W58XGDW
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 21, 2022
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 824 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 66 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > #2-9, 161st published book
> >
> > PHYSICSOPEDIA -- List of 137 fakes and mistakes of Old Physics// Student teaches professor Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Last revision was 24Apr2022. This is AP's 161st published book of science.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09N18QPP1
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 3, 2021
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1139 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 82 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > y z
> > | /
> > | /
> > |/______ x
> >
> > More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.
> >
> > In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.
> >
> > I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.
> >
> > There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.
> >
> > Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > Archimedes Plutonium

Click here to read the complete article

Subject	Author
It's not my fault...	Socratis T.n.p.
Re: It's not my fault...	Socratis T.n.p.
Re: It's not my fault...	Socratis T.n.p.
Re: It's not my fault...	bwr fml
Re: It's not my fault...	bwr fml
Re: It's not my fault...	Socratis T.n.p.
Re: It's not my fault...	Socratis T.n.p.
Re: It's not my fault...	Socratis T.n.p.
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	V õ l u r
Re: It's not my fault...	Socratis T.n.p.
Re: It's not my fault...	Lucrezio S
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Socratis T.n.p.
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Socratis T.n.p.
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Ross A. Finlayson
Re: It's not my fault...	Cole Battaglia
Re: It's not my fault...	Socratis T.n.p.
Re: It's not my fault...	Lucrezio S
Re: It's not my fault...	Socratis T.n.p.
Re: It's not my fault...	Socratis T.n.p.
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Lucrezio S
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Socratis T.n.p.
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Lucrezio S
Re: It's not my fault...	Lucrezio S
Re: It's not my fault...	Lucrezio S
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science	Dan Christensen
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Socratis T.n.p.
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Volney
Re: It's not my fault...	Lucrezio S
Re: It's not my fault...	Socratis T.n.p.
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Archimedes "psychoceramic" Plutonium flunked the math test of a	Volney
Kibo's Parry Volney drones to Ukraine to end the war by April??	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Kibo's Parry Volney drones to Ukraine to end the war by April??	Lucrezio S
Re: Kibo's Parry Volney drones to Ukraine to end the war by April??	Socratis T.n.p.
Re: Kibo's Parry Volney drones to Ukraine to end the war by April??	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Kibo's Parry Volney drones to Ukraine to end the war by April??	Lucrezio S
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Lucrezio S
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Socratis T.n.p.
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	V
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: It's not my fault...	Archimedes Plutonium

I'm a Lisp variable -- bind me!

tech / sci.math / It's not my fault...