Message-ID:

Men of peace usually are [brave]. -- Spock, "The Savage Curtain", stardate 5906.5

tech / sci.math / Re: Andrew Wiles fraud of math//SCIENCE 16July2021 "Dutch study finds 8% of scientists have committed fraud//You are not a fraud if dumb and ignorant about math, but you are a fraud as you Run, Hide, away from data and facts.Re: Fermat status

Wiles comedy farce math charade has gone on far too long. And none of his FLT is true for Wiles is a failure in math proofs, a deluded clown of mathematics that cannot even see a slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. For the deluded stupid clown of math that is Andrew Wiles can admit a ellipse has two axes of symmetry yet a single cone has but 1 axis of symmetry, yet this ignorant failure of mathematics Andrew Wiles cannot even admit his mistake in oval- ellipse and sure cannot admit he never had a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. Wiles needs to apologize to all students in the Oxford Univ student newspaper, his apology for failing to admit his many errors of mathematics.

Below is a true proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, as simple as the fact that the number 4 is special in that 2+2 = 2x2= 4 allowing for Pythagorean triples and not allowing for triples in exponent 3 or higher.

Wiles, you are a failure of math and time you stop clowning around and charading around your worthless FLT nonsense.

World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 29Apr2021. This is AP's 6th published book.

Preface:
Real proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem// including the fake Euler proof in exp3 and Wiles fake proof.

Recap summary: In 1993 I proved Fermat's Last Theorem with a pure algebra proof, arguing that because of the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4 that this special feature of a unique number 4, allows for there to exist solutions to A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That the number 4 is a basis vector allowing more solutions to exist in exponent 2. But since there is no number with N+N+N = N*N*N that exists, there cannot be a solution in exp3 and the same argument for higher exponents. In 2014, I went and proved Generalized FLT by using "condensed rectangles". Once I had proven Generalized, then Regular FLT comes out of that proof as a simple corollary. So I had two proofs of Regular FLT, pure algebra and a corollary from Generalized FLT. Then recently in 2019, I sought to find a pure algebra proof of Generalized FLT, and I believe I accomplished that also by showing solutions to Generalized FLT also come from the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4. Amazing how so much math comes from the specialness of 4, where I argue that a Vector Space of multiplication provides the Generalized FLT of A^x + B^y = C^z.

Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem type of equations.

As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQKGW4M
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1503 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 156 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

-Dr Tao needs to publish in UCLA student newspaper that he now sees the light of day that a slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse and stop his propaganda bullshit math that Dr. Tao pollutes the minds of young students with. Why, any High School student can drop a Kerr lid (circle) into a scrolled up paper cone and eye witness the crescent moon shape added onto the circle to form a OVAL, never the ellipse, yet the bozo the clown of math Terry Tao still polluting the minds of students.
>
> On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 4:29:27 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >of Math "little stinker"
> >"psychoceramic"
> >flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
> > fails at 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.
>
> AP asks: why, Kibo Parry Moron, is Dartmouth's Hanlon and UCLA's Terence Tao, and Univ San Francisco John Stillwell and Oxford's Andrew Wiles, more dumb than a High School student in mathematics, for the High School student with a paper cone and Kerr lid can demonstrate the slant cut is a Oval, never the ellipse. Why does Hanlon, Tao, Stillwell, Pipher, Ribet, Gerald Edgar, Wiles, Hales, why do they relish in phony con art math??????
>
> Why, Kibo Parry Moron, do they let Gilbert Strang of MIT even write a calculus textbook, for that scatterbrain loser of mathematics, has defined Complex number on page 360, but the idiot fool of math, never thought that he should define what the hell are the numbers he is using all along????? Gilbert is not a mathematician but a backstreet con-artist of math. Why Gilbert is too dumb to even know that Calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. And MIT places such a math cripple in their classrooms to cripple generations of students down the line. We need an apology by Strang in the MIT student newspaper for teaching worthless b.s. that he teaches.
>
> 3rd published book
> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> •
> •
>
> Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
>
> Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
>
> In November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid.
>
> Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 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 ‏ : ‎ 50 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
>
> #11-2, 11th published book
>
> World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
> Preface:
> Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
>
> Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis".. And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.
>
> To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
>
> Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
>
>
> Product details
> ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
> Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
> Language ‏ : ‎ English
> File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
> Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages
> Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> #2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> #134 in Calculus (Books)
> #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
>
>
>
> >
> > Re: Kibo Parry Moroney stalks "AnalButtfuckManure Attacks" Dartmouth's Philip J. Hanlon, Stanford's Marc Tessier-Lavigne with his 10 OR 6 = 16; his ellipse a conic when it never was; his proton to electron at 938 to 0.5 MeV when in truth..
> > On Friday, August 14, 2020 at 11:07:05 AM UTC-5, Professor Wordsmith wrote:
> > > "Ammo: Uncured Shit pile"
> >
> > Kibo Parry Moron chimes in with--
> > On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 12:55:10 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > Hagfish of Math and Slime Eel of Physics
> > > fails at math and science:
> > >"psychoceramic" flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
> >
> > Kibo, you stalker, is that as bad as Dr. Tao not apologizing for his conic section a ellipse when in truth it is a Oval?
> >
> > Re: Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
> > > On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 9:58:42 PM UTC-5, Jan wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 2:31:46 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > > Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
> > > >
> > > > Must you post garbage?
> > >
> > > Jan, for Dr. Tao the question really is must he teach garbage like 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction and his mindless slant cut in single cone as ellipse when even a High School student can show it is a Oval.
> > > Even the moron Kibo Parry Moron with his 938 is 12% short of 945 recognizes the mindless failure of math that is Dr. Terence Tao.
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 7:25:44 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > >of Math and of Physics "spamtard"
> > > >"psychoceramic"
> > > >flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
> > >
> > >
> > > On Monday, June 15, 2020 at 1:13:27 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > Here you are!
> > > > Below you will find a simple *proof* that shows that certain conic
> > > > sections are ellipses.
> > > >
> > > > Some preliminaries:
> > > >
> > > > Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used
> > > > in the proof:
> > > >
> > > > ^ x
> > > > |
> > > > -+- < xh
> > > > .' | `.
> > > > . | .
> > > > | | |
> > > > ' | '
> > > > `. | .'
> > > > y <----------+ < x0
> > > > Cone (side view):
> > > > .
> > > > /|\
> > > > / | \
> > > > /b | \
> > > > /---+---' < x h
> > > > / |' \
> > > > / ' | \
> > > > / ' | \
> > > > x 0 > '-------+-------\
> > > > / a | \
> > > >
> > > > Proof:
> > > >
> > > > r(x) a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence
> > > >
> > > > y(x)^2 r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.
> > > >
> > > > Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 1 ...equation of an ellipse
> > > >
> > > > qed
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dr. Andrew Wiles University Oxford needs to apologize in the Oxford student newspaper for aiding and abetting fake math taught at Oxford -- his ellipse from conic sections, his Harmonic series diverges, his 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction in the error filled Boole logic, but worst of all Wiles seems to be ignorant of the fact that Calculus is geometry and thus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Andrew Wiles, publish today so no more students are brainwashed with your error filled mathematics.
> > > 
> > > 5th published book
> > >
> > > Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > > Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
> > > Preface:
> > > First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
> > >
> > > The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
> > >
> > > My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
> > >
> > > Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > File Size: 773 KB
> > > Print Length: 72 pages
> > > Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> > > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > > Language: English
> > > ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> > > Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> > > X-Ray:  Not Enabled  
> > > Word Wise: Not Enabled
> > > Lending: Enabled
> > > Screen Reader: Supported
> > > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
> > > 
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > > y
> > > | /
> > > | /
> > > |/______ x
> > >
> > > More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.
> > >
> > > In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.
> > >
> > > I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.
> > >
> > > There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.
> > >
> > > Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
> > > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > > Archimedes Plutonium

Click here to read the complete article

Wiles, you are a failure of math and time you stop clowning around and charading around your worthless FLT nonsense.

World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 29Apr2021. This is AP's 6th published book.

Preface:
Real proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem// including the fake Euler proof in exp3 and Wiles fake proof.

Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem type of equations.

As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).

Click here to read the complete article

Univ Oxford's Andrew Wiles a mega-moron in math for he has yet to come to grips with the question of slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, yet Wiles runs and hides, hides and runs from math truth. Come on out Andrew and do real math for a change instead of your con-art.

Kibo Parry Moron starting to soften his stance on slant cut in cone, realizing there is ambiguity and error. But, does that make Univ Oxford's Andrew Wiles a mega-moron in math for he has yet to come to grips with the question of slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse due to number of axes of symmetry. Why, even a smart form school student in the Oxford area can prove to the math imbecile Andrew Wiles with a paper cone and Mason or Kerr lid that the figure has a "crescent shape add on to the circle" and thus a Oval. This is surprising news because Kibo Parry Moron cannot even do percentages correctly with his 938 is 12% short of 945, but Kibo Parry Moron sniffs out a mistake in conic sections.

On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 11:51:42 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> He was looking for a proof of that, just in case it was a tricky problem
> like the ellipse being a conic section. Just going on with intuition
> can quickly mislead someone in math. Look at the ellipse problem. If
> you simply look at a diagram of a cone intersecting a plane, it
> certainly looks like the curve formed is lopsided. This fools many
> people who are poor at geometry and don't realize the center of that
> curve is off-center from the cone's axis.


3rd published book

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.

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

Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.

Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.

In November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid.

Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 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 ‏ : ‎ 50 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#11-2, 11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.

To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?

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

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

No use in bothering Andrew Wiles with the world's first valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for Wiles is a failure in such simple geometry of Oval the slant cut in single cone for a oval has 1 axis is symmetry as well as the single cone, yet the math failure Dr. Andrew Wiles still abides by a ellipse of 2 axes of symmetry is the slant cut. Univ Oxford does not have a math teacher, it has a clown like Kibo Parry Moron.

Math con-artists of conic sections Roger Penrose, Andrew Wiles, Frances Kirwan, Terry J.Lyons, Ben Green. I at least expected mathematicians to be among the most honest people on Earth. Sadly, late in life I find they are some of the most corrupt run and hide....

The math failure, con artist Andrew Wiles, get help from Frances Kirwan, Terry J.Lyons, Ben Green, Roger Penrose to help the Wiles failure of geometry-- Oval is slant cut in Single Cone, never ellipse, because only the oval and single cone have 1 axis of symmetry, not 2 that the ellipse has.

Admit to Univ Oxford student newspaper that you all made a terrible mistake on geometry conics. Be honest and truthful in math, not corrupt and selfish and seeking fame-- never truth for that is the con-artist, not the scientist.

The reason that none of Andrew Wiles, Frances Kirwan, Terry J. Lyons, Ben Green, Roger Penrose could never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, is that you are all to stupid to even see the oval is different from ellipse.

3rd published book

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.

#11-2, 11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

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.

Olcott, like Wiles, conquering true logic by flooding the world with fake logic. Only difference, Wiles is a decorated con-artist of math with his ellipse a cone slant cut when actually it is a oval. And Olcott with his mindless Boole logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Both are failures of science. Both can never admit to true math, true logic, both lust for fame and fortune and the truth of science be damn.

olcott
17
unread,
Re: Conquering the last rebuttal to H(P,P)==0 refutation of the halting problem proofs
4:59 PM


3rd published book

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.

In the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence 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..

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 827 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 ‏ : ‎ 51 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#11-2, 11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

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.

5th published book

Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
Preface:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.

The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.

My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.

Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.

Product details
File Size: 773 KB
Print Length: 72 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray:  Not Enabled  
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
 

Kibo,could Dr.Wiles even tie his shoes correctly?
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 8:17:23 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> Blowfly of Math and highly illogical

Kibo did Dr.Wiles get something correct in life, or like his math-- everything was wrong in your eyes? Of course he can never admit the truth of math slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse, you need a cylinder slant cut to get a ellipse, but did he even fail in tying his shoelaces, Kibo???
> >
> > Stalker Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney:
> > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 12:22:26 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > >"shithead oaf of math"
> > >"antiscience"
> > > fails at math and science:
> >
> > > Certifiably insane??Dr.Wiles,Dr.Tao,Dr.Stillwell,Dr.Hales,Dr.Charney
>
>
> On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 7:34:12 AM UTC-5, Angel wrote:
> >upload
>
> Kibo Parry Moroney- Volney - Angel
> new costume Kibo Parry Moron stalker???
> 
>
> > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 1:32:35 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > > >"certifiably insane"
> > > > "Court Jester of Physics"
> > > > fails at math and science:
> > > Kibo & NSF Dr.Panchanathan on Dr.Wiles,Dr.Tao,Dr.Stillwell,Dr.Hales,Dr.Charney ever do anything correct in mathematics or are they complete failures forevermore as your posts imply. Certainly they cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not the ellipse and they fail to ever do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, or are they like arthritis of the brain--forever failures of math???
> > > >
> > > > On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 8:29:19 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > > > >"not one single marble of commonsense in my entire brain"
> > > > >"Drag Queen of Math"
> > > > > fails at math and science:
> > > >
> > > > Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Beal, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Gerald Edgar, AMS, 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 is 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 right-circular cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So they could never do a geometry proof of FTC even if they wanted to. For they have no logical geometry brain to begin to do anything geometrical. 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? Not having a Logical brain to do math, for any rational person would be upset by Wiles, Tao saying truth table of AND is TFFF when it actually is TTTF. Is that why neither Terence Tao or Andrew Wiles can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe they need to take up Earle Jones offer to wash dishes or pots at Stanford Univ or where ever, for they sure cannot do mathematics.
> > > > > 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 sap-heads 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 and belong in "Abnormal Psychology" dept than in the department of logic, like Dan Christensen a laugh a minute logician? 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. Why they cannot even count beyond 1. 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.
> > > 
> > > > >
> 
> > > > > 3rd published book
> > > > >
> > > > > AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > >
> > > > > Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
> > > > >
> > > > > Product details
> > > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> > > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> > > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> > > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> > > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > •
> > > > > •
> > > > >
> > > > > Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > >
> > > > > Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
> > > > >
> > > > > Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence 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.
> > > > >
> > > > > Product details
> > > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
> > > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
> > > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 827 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 ‏ : ‎ 51 pages
> > > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > >
> > > > > #12-2, 11th published book
> > > > >
> > > > > World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > >
> > > > > Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
> > > > > Preface:
> > > > > Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
> > > > >
> > > > > Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.
> > > > >
> > > > > To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
> > > > >
> > > > > Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Product details
> > > > > ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
> > > > > Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
> > > > > Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > > File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
> > > > > Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > > > Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages
> > > > > Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> > > > > #2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> > > > > #134 in Calculus (Books)
> > > > > #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

Click here to read the complete article

Re:Kibo on>I want to fuck her corpse>AMS Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Harvard's Dr.Lisa Randall, Dr.Hau,CIA Kate Heinzelman, MIT's Anette Hosoi,Cynthia Barnhart
by Augǝl Jan 1, 2023, 7:41:27 AM
On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 12:39:12 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Hagfish of Math and Slime Eel of Physics

Re:Kibo on>I want to fuck her corpse>AMS Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Harvard's Dr.Lisa Randall, Dr.Hau,CIA Kate Heinzelman, MIT's Anette Hosoi,Cynthia Barnhart
by Augǝl Jan 1, 2023, 7:41:27 AM

On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 9:43:31 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
Kibo's hatred of the Pope, for Kibo is a insane stalker....

Re: Archimedes "Pope Arky the Last" Plutonium flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
Pluto, it's time for your punishment again, already? of Math and of Physics Archimedes "
by Volney May 2, 2023, 6:15:57 PM

Re:Kibo on>I want to fuck her corpse>AMS Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Harvard's Dr.Lisa Randall, Dr.Hau,CIA Kate Heinzelman, MIT's Anette Hosoi,Cynthia Barnhart
by Augǝl Jan 1, 2023, 7:41:27 AM

On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 12:17:11 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>it's time for your punishment again, already?

Re:Kibo on>I want to fuck her corpse>AMS Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Harvard's Dr.Lisa Randall, Dr.Hau,CIA Kate Heinzelman, MIT's Anette Hosoi,Cynthia Barnhart
by Augǝl Jan 1, 2023, 7:41:27 AM
On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 12:17:14 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>"certifiably insane"

Kibo's>I want to fuck her corpse>Heidi Jo Newberg,Elizabeth Kam,Esther A. Wertz,Kristin Bennett
> On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 12:09:52 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > I want to fuck her corpse

On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 6:21:45 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>you're telling me it's time for your punishment?
>
>"Putin's lackey"

Re:Kibo on>I want to fuck her corpse>AMS Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Harvard's Dr.Lisa Randall, Dr.Hau,CIA Kate Heinzelman, MIT's Anette Hosoi,Cynthia Barnhart
by Augǝl Jan 1, 2023, 7:41:27 AM
>




> > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > > Rensselaer math department
> > > Donald Schwendeman, Jeffrey Banks, Kristin Bennett, Mohamed Boudjelkha, Joseph Ecker, William Henshaw, Isom Herron, Mark H Holmes, David Isaacson, Elizabeth Kam, Ashwani Kapila, Maya Kiehl, Gregor Kovacic, Peter Kramer, Gina Kucinski, Rongjie Lai, Fengyan Li, Chjan Lim, Yuri V Lvov, Harry McLaughlin, John E. Mitchell, Bruce Piper, David A Schmidt, Daniel Stevenson, Yangyang Xu, Bulent Yener, Donald Drew, William Siegmann
> > > On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 12:36:39 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > > > Wood louse of Math and Bathynomus giganteus of Physics
> > > > On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 10:55:02 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > >"certifiably insane"
> > > > > fails at math and science:
> > > > > > "I want to fuck her corpse"
> > > > > "I want to fuck her corpse"
> > > > > Not again!
> > > > > I want to fuck her corpse
> > > > >
> > > > > You sicko! Why do you keep saying that?
> > > > >
> > > > > wanting to fuck her corpse
> > > > >
> > > > > I want to fuck her corpse
> > > > >
> > > > > I want to fuck her corpse
> > > > >
> > > > On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > > I want to fuck her corpse
> > > > On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 2:26:54 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > > > > Wood louse of Math and Bathynomus giganteus of Physics
> > > > > tarded:
> > > >
> > > > NSF Dr.Panchanathan, Harvard's Sheldon Glashow, Peter Higgs ever ask the question, which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle which AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole while the real electron is a muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. In fact so stupid is this list of so called physicists that they went through life believing the slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, when in reality it is a Oval of 1 axis of symmetry for the cone has 1 axis of symmetry but ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry. The minds of all these so called physicists are not good enough to be doing physics. In fact, so stupid in science and math are all these people that when told in High School or College that a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, they believed it, and believe in it to this day without so much as ever questioning the idea that a single cone and oval have just 1 axis of symmetry while ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, and yet many on this list were awarded science prizes. Maybe for ignorance of science but not for truth of science.
> > > >
> > > > 1) Too stupid to question if Thomson found Dirac's magnetic monopole and not the electron of atoms.
> > > > 2) Too stupid to realize that in the Rutherford,Geiger, Marsden Experiment when you have increase in velocity of bounce back alpha particles means head on collision with a larger proton torus, hence, the interior of gold atoms are toruses, no nucleus.
> > > > 3) Too stupid in logic to understand subatomic particles have jobs and tasks to do, not sit around on beaches sipping lemonade what Old Physics says. The proton is a 8 ring torus with muon as electron inside doing the Faraday law producing new electricity.
> > > > 4) Too stupid to understand stars and our Sun shine not from fusion but from Faraday law of each and every atom inside that star.
> > > >
> > > > 5) 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.
> > > > 6) 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
> > > > 7) 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"
> > > > 8) 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.
> > > 
> > > > > > 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
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > > I want to fuck her corpse
> > > > On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 3:21:37 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > > fails at math and science:
> > > > Kibo Parry M the 30 year stalker joined by his friends Chris Thomasson and Dan Christensen
> > > > Why Kibo, because Ruth Charney, Jill Pipher, Harvard's Dr.Hau cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse???
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Kibo Parry M on CIA Kate Heinzelman,Harvard's Dr. Hau.
> > > > Kibo on > I want to fuck her corpse
> > > > On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > > I want to fuck her corpse
> > > > Why Kibo??? Because she refuses to finish her experiment and see all the light vanishes simultaneously, or is it because she can not admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse???
> > > >
> > > > On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 12:21:30 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > >"Imp of Math"
> > > > On Monday, January 18, 2021 at 2:06:24 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > > fails at math and science:
> > > > Re: Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly??-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole (1)
> > > > By Michael Moroney 1/23/18, 44 posts 461 views
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Kibo on Kate Heinzelman
> > > > On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > > I want to fuck her corpse
> > > > Kibo Parry Moroney in 1997 blows his CIA cover-- to the entire world, mind you---
> > > > Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
> > > > >> In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes:
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 9:13:14 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > >"Court Jester of Math"
> > > >
> > > > Kibo,is Ruth Charney of AMS the model in your book, for she cannot admit the slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse as proven by AP in 2016? I know it falls on deaf ears of Kibo with his 938 is 12% short of 945. And Ruth, would the AMS publish Kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945, because the AMS certainly will not publish AP's conic proof? Maybe that is all the AMS publishes-- fake math.
> > > >
> > > > Kibo on wanting to fuck her corpse/Kate Heinzelman, question, do you not think CIA is going overboard on stalking-- I mean 30 years for the insane Kibo Parry M??
> > > >
> > > > On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > > I want to fuck her corpse
> > > > On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 3:21:37 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > > fails at math and science:
> > > > Kibo's "I want to fuck her corpse" rubbing off on Canada's Dan Christensen with his 20 year stalking of Univ Toronto's Rose M. Patten, Univ Western Ontario's Linda Hasenfratz, when Dan is a failure of math and logic with his 2 OR 1=3, and his ellipse
> > > >
> > > > Kibo Parry M the 30 year stalker joined by his friends Chris Thomasson and Dan Christensen
> > > > Why Kibo, because Ruth Charney, Jill Pipher, Harvard's Dr.Hau cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse???
> > > >
> > > > On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 10:55:02 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > >"certifiably insane"
> > > > > fails at math and science:

Click here to read the complete article

Subject	Author
Andrew Wiles fraud of math//SCIENCE 16July2021 "Dutch study finds 8% of scientis	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Andrew Wiles fraud of math//SCIENCE 16July2021 "Dutch study finds	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Andrew Wiles fraud of math//SCIENCE 16July2021 "Dutch study finds	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Andrew Wiles fraud of math//SCIENCE 16July2021 "Dutch study finds 8% of scie	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Andrew Wiles fraud of math//SCIENCE 16July2021 "Dutch study finds 8% of scie	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Andrew Wiles fraud of math//SCIENCE 16July2021 "Dutch study finds	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Andrew Wiles fraud of math//SCIENCE 16July2021 "Dutch study finds	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Andrew Wiles fraud of math//SCIENCE 16July2021 "Dutch study finds	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Andrew Wiles fraud of math//SCIENCE 16July2021 "Dutch study finds	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Andrew Wiles fraud of math//SCIENCE 16July2021 "Dutch study finds	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Andrew Wiles fraud of math//SCIENCE 16July2021 "Dutch study finds	markus...@gmail.com
Re: Andrew Wiles fraud of math//SCIENCE 16July2021 "Dutch study finds	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Andrew Wiles fraud of math//SCIENCE 16July2021 "Dutch study finds	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Andrew Wiles fraud of math//SCIENCE 16July2021 "Dutch study finds	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Andrew Wiles fraud of math//SCIENCE 16July2021 "Dutch study finds	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Andrew Wiles fraud of math//SCIENCE 16July2021 "Dutch study finds	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Andrew Wiles fraud of math//SCIENCE 16July2021 "Dutch study finds 8% of scie	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Andrew Wiles fraud of math//SCIENCE 16July2021 "Dutch study finds	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Andrew Wiles fraud of math//SCIENCE 16July2021 "Dutch study finds	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Andrew Wiles fraud of math//SCIENCE 16July2021 "Dutch study finds	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Andrew Wiles fraud of math//SCIENCE 16July2021 "Dutch study finds	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Andrew Wiles fraud of math//SCIENCE 16July2021 "Dutch study finds	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Andrew Wiles fraud of math//SCIENCE 16July2021 "Dutch study finds	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Archimedes "barking fuckdog" Plutonium flunked the math test of a	Michael Moroney
Re: Archimedes "barking fuckdog" Plutonium flunked the math test of a	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Archimedes "barking fuckdog" Plutonium flunked the math test of a	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Archimedes "barking fuckdog" Plutonium flunked the math test of a	Archimedes Plutonium
> On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 12:09:52 AM UTC-5,	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Andrew Wiles fraud of math//SCIENCE 16July2021 "Dutch study finds	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Andrew Wiles fraud of math//SCIENCE 16July2021 "Dutch study finds	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Andrew Wiles fraud of math//SCIENCE 16July2021 "Dutch study finds	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Andrew Wiles fraud of math//SCIENCE 16July2021 "Dutch study finds	Archimedes Plutonium