Given my overwhelming success in my 257th book of science where I derive the Newton's Gravitational Constant of 6.70*10^-39 GeV/c^2 as that coming from elementary-Coulomb unit times a pretty constant of math 0.256.

(1.618*10^19)^2 x (0.256)

Heady with success, I decided to write a book on the constants of science, physics, math which I have derived or discovered. For I am tending to forget how I derived some of these constants and is quite embarrassing for me, but I am 73 years old as an
excuse.

I especially want to make explicit how I derived Fine Structure Constant. But make a whole list of constants that I tackled. I am sure I will tackle more constants in the future.

AP, King of Science
AP's 258th book of science-- List of Derived Physics & Math constants, by Archimedes Plutonium

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Tentatively I have a list of 17 constants of physics, math, chemistry, biology, science in general

1 as unit constant

94 and 231 constants in Atom Totality

Coulomb constant

Gravitational constant

Planck constant

Boltzmann's constant

Fine Structure constant

Biology time constant

0.256 constant

840 constant as compared to 105 for proton and muon

3.14159.... constant

Speed of Light

Permeability

Permittivity

1.618.... phi or golden mean constant

Rectangle of Whirling Squares Fibonacci Sequence as calculus constants

DNA angle of helix

AP

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

AP's 258th book of science-- List of Derived Physics & Math constants, by Archimedes Plutonium
4 views
Subscribe

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
Sep 29, 2023, 3:29:27 PM (yesterday)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
AP's 258th book of science-- List of Derived Physics & Math constants, by Archimedes Plutonium

Given my overwhelming success in my 257th book of science where I derive the Newton's Gravitational Constant of 6.70*10^-39 GeV/c^2 as that coming from elementary-Coulomb unit- squared times a pretty constant of math 0.256.

(1.618*10^-19)^2 x (0.256)

Heady with success, I decided to write a book on the constants of science, physics, math which I have derived or discovered. For I am tending to forget how I derived some of these constants and is quite embarrassing for me, but I am 73 years old as an
excuse.

I especially want to make explicit how I derived Fine Structure Constant. But make a whole list of constants that I tackled. I am sure I will tackle more constants in the future.

AP, King of Science
AP's 258th book of science-- List of Derived Physics & Math constants, by Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
Sep 30, 2023, 5:15:51 PM (8 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Tentatively I have a list of 17 constants of physics, math, chemistry, biology, science in general

1 as unit constant

94 and 231 constants in Atom Totality

Coulomb constant

Gravitational constant

Planck constant

Boltzmann's constant

Fine Structure constant

Biology time constant

0.256 constant

840 constant as compared to 105 for proton and muon

3.14159.... constant

Speed of Light

Permeability

Permittivity

1.618.... phi or golden mean constant

Rectangle of Whirling Squares Fibonacci Sequence as calculus constants

DNA angle of helix

AP

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
Sep 30, 2023, 11:22:15 PM (2 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, I have taken the Fibonacci sequence out to 2584.

1,1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987, 1597, 2584, ....

Now I divide every fourth number into that number, such as 610/2584 = 0.2360.... And apparently, at infinity it converges to this number 0.2360....

But the number I am interested in is the number 0.256000..... For if the Rectangle of Whirling Squares of Fibonacci Sequence were such that every fourth number divided into this number then the log spiral would close and not be a open spiral. So, 5/21
and 8/34. If that had been 5/20 instead of 5/21, then the squares would close the curve, same goes for 8/32, in fact we can drop to 8/31 and it would close.

I see the Rectangle in Whirling Squares as a calculus on 2D, and perhaps the most elementary calculus of curved figures. Of course the straight line geometry Y --> mx + b is elementary calculus on straightline figures.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
12:53 AM (1 hour ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe

Alright, now I am playing tricks on the Fibonacci sequence to see how I can get the numbers 94, 231, possibly 840 or 945.

So I make a slight modification by subtracting 1 in each turn. This sequence then becomes 2,2,3,4,6,9,14,22,35,56,90,145, 234,.... and what is the rate of curvature? It is not 0.2560000 but rather 56/234 = 0.2393.... Is it still an open curve or is it
closed???

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
1:02 AM (1 hour ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Now I probably will need 0 in this list, making my entrees so far count to 18.

Tentatively I have a list of 17 constants of physics, math, chemistry, biology, science in general

1 as unit constant

0 as measure of nothing-- it comes from temperature absolute zero and not from empty space, for we must consider Space as being Lines of EM force and to say nothing-space or no-space is contradictory. A void of space approaches 0 but then there is still
space there and is not 0. 0 is a tricky one and needed to bound in 1. From 0 to 1 carries all the small numbers and 0 is needed to make the unit measure of 1.

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
1:38 AM (now)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Let me bump the list up to 20 entries, for we definitely need 0.5 or 1/2, especially the magnetic monopole of 0.5MeV. And we need the infinity borderline.

1 as unit constant
0 as measure of nothing-- it comes from temperature absolute zero and not from empty space, for we must consider Space as being Lines of EM force and to say nothing-space or no-space is contradictory. A void of space approaches 0 but then there is

still space there and is not 0. 0 is a tricky one and needed to bound in 1. From 0 to 1 carries all the small numbers and 0 is needed to make the unit measure of 1.

94 and 231 constants in Atom Totality

0.5 for 0.5MeV magnetic monopole

1*10^604 and inverse as infinity borderline, and also 1*10^1208 the algebraic completeness

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
4:58 PM 2Oct2023
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright some Planck units area is (h-bar*G)/c^3 = 2.61*10^-70 m^2 (Wikipedia)

And volume in Planck units is Sqrt( (h-bar*c^3)/G) = 4.2*10^-105 m^3 (Wikipedia)

AP writes: focus on the fact that area and volume involve the golden mean 1.618*1.618 = 2.618, while 2.618 * 1.618 = 4.2

And the exponent gives us the much needed importance of 35 for 2*35 = 70 and 3*35= 105.

The idea here is that numbers of the very small of physics, in an Atom Totality, reflect the very large in physics, for the atom is the inverse of the Atom Totality. Numbers at large give numbers at small.

But I am far from solving why infinity borderline is 10^604. If it had been 10^840, then I could see the proton torus of 840MeV while muon is 105MeV, then I be done in derivation of infinity borderline.

However, I do notice that 10^604 with algebraic completion at 10^1208, that 1208 is evenly divisible by 8 as 151.

There has to be a concurrence to meters. Meters as length is just arbitrary-- speed of light 3.0*10^8 meters per second. Along with seconds is arbitrary. And this gets back to pi prefix 3.14, the square root of 10 prefix 3.16, and the speed of light
prefix. What I am attempting to do here, is make a Conformation of these three constants pi and speed of light meters and seconds.

The meters and seconds would _not be_ arbitrary if I adjust meters, seconds and speed of light so that Planck units and physics units all conform.

What I am saying here, is that meters and seconds come close to physics reality as numbers that come close to physics reality. Save for that minor adjustment. So that in the end, the speed of light is 3.16*10^8 adjusted meters/adjusted seconds.

Notice the square root of 100 is 10 exactly, the square root of 10,000 is 100 exactly, but odd numbers of zero digit end up with 3162277...

Is the speed of light embedded into the math pure number of the infinity borderline 10^604 and its algebraic completeness 10^1208. That is the question before me.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
5:20 PM (now)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, I think I am very close to solving this. Looking for the isotopes of Plutonium.

--- quoting Wikipedia ---

Isotopes of plutonium


Main isotopes
Decay

abun­dance
half-life (t1/2)
mode
pro­duct
238Pu
trace
87.7 y
α
234U
SF
–
239Pu
trace
2.411×10^4 y
α
235U
SF
–
240Pu
trace
6.561×10^3 y
α
236U
SF
–
241Pu
synth
14.329 y
β−
241Am
α
237U
SF
–
242Pu
synth
3.75×10^5 y
α
238U
SF
–
244Pu
trace
81.3×10^6 y
α
240U
SF
–
--- end quoting Wikipedia on plutonium isotopes ---

The longest lived plutonium is 244Pu, so subtracting 244 - 94 = 150 neutrons. The Infinity borderline-algebraic completeness is 1 step away at 151 for that of [Speed of Light]^151.

Now I need very very little adjustment to the meter or to the seconds, almost 0 need of adjustment for it is within Sigma Error.

So let me repeat again, pi is 3.14 and square root of 10 is 3.16 for a Sigma Error of 3.16/3.14 = 0.6% sigma error. And let me make that the universal Sigma Error allowed for acceptance as equality in physics.

Now many will complain a

Alright, I need the pair of fractions representing Shells and Subshells of Plutonium of 22/7 and 19/7. Plutonium has when fully occupied 22 subshells in 7 shells and as a fraction that is pi within sigma error.

Normally plutonium has only 19 subshells occupied in 7 shells and that is the log spiral number or equiangular number of 2.71828..... 19/7 within sigma error.

Alright time to write up this book and publish it before end of week.

Now to the untrained eye or untrained scientist, 22/7 and 19/7 may appear as coincidence and a little mind would then invoke numerology. However, because they come in a connected pair, with 7 the same denominator, related to the same concepts of shells
and subshells means they are significant, for they tie both constants together in a single physical reality-- plutonium atom structure.

AP

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

I need also to include the theory of nines into this list. The idea that the summation of digits of a number when a factor of 9 is special. I still do not fully understand this phenomenon. I do understand that a string of 9s greets a new scale number of
1 followed by zeros such as 999 before 1000. And it appears to have something to do with angles as 90, 180, 270, 360, 450, 540, 630, 720, 810, 900, 990, 1080, etc etc.

AP

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On the chapter of the constant of exponential constant 2.71828..... I need to do better than all of modern literature, modern day math education on this number.

What I mean is this. If we learn pi 3.14159... for the first time in a classroom as an integral dx/(sqrt(1-x^2)) from interval -1 to 1 as Weierstrass did, then we are being kookish.

If we learn pi for the first time as "twice the smallest positive number at which the cosine function equal 0" according to Landau is again being kookish in math.

And there are scores of other kookish formulations of pi.

In education, there is the most simple, most direct, most intuitive formulation of a constant.

For pi, this is the formulation of a ratio, a ratio of any circle circumference divided by diameter. It takes 3.14159... diameters of any given circle to go around the circumference of that circle.

That should and must be our first education of what pi is. Unfortunately for mathematics, the exponential constant that I like calling the equiangular constant of the logarithmic spiral 2.71828... unfortunately has never been found its formulation that
is the most simple, most direct formulation that is worth teaching in classrooms in schools.

Our teaching of 2.71828.... in schools is the same as if the Weierstrass or Landau pi teaching of pi in school.

Years back I stumbled on the very best teaching of 2.71828.... as the ratio of the circumference to a diameter in one of the squares of the log spiral set up in the Fibonacci Sequence 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21, 34, ...... For circles that ratio is 3.14159....
but for log spirals that ratio is 2.71828....

All other definitions of 2.71828... are ancillary to the most simple and basic definition.

Pi is geometry foremost, Phi is geometry foremost, would indicate to us with a logical brain, that 2.71828... is geometry and must have the root explanation and education in that root primitive definition.

AP

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

I thought it might be painful in recovering and extracting this information I wrote many years ago, but Google search in newsgroups makes it fast and easy, thanks Google!

World's finest explanation of the number "e"
1 view
Subscribe

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
Feb 10, 2015, 3:00:18 AM



to plutonium-atom-universe@googlegroups.com
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2015 02:11:23 -0800 (PST)

Subject: discovery of "e" is the pi of log spirals Re: Geometry meaning of "e"
and how we get pi+e as upper bound barrier
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2015 10:11:23 +0000


discovery of "e" is the pi of log spirals Re: Geometry meaning of "e" and how we get pi+e as upper bound barrier

Now when I went to college in 1968-1972 was the first time I learned of "e" and its special significance for rate of change. I learned it in Calculus class. But I never really felt fully comfortable with that understanding. Perhaps because it was not
geometrical enough for me. So that whenever I needed to explain "e", I had to go through all those hurdles of a algebra explanation. When explaining pi to a new student, the explanation is so super easy and the student immediately sees the connections of
circumference and diameter that it satisfies 100%, both student and teacher. But never the case with "e" with its long drawn out explaining and having to use silly things like bank account money.

So, why has no-one ever tried explaining "e" purely geometrical? Perhaps because no-one before was smart enough in math. Because I have done a search and found no-one has ever taught "e" as the "pi of the golden mean log spiral". If you take the
Rectangles of whirling squares of the Fibonacci sequence 1,1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, etc and take a fixed amount of squares as a turn, we easily can get "e" to be the "pi" of a diameter.

So, why in the history of mathematics was no-one ever able to see that before I discovered it some years past? Why? It is not difficult. The reason I believe, is that no-one ever asked if "e" was more geometrical than actually algebraic? If you never ask
yourself the question-- where does "e" appear in pure geometry, then you never will discover that "e" is the pi of log spirals.

AP
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2015 04:30:06 -0800 (PST)

Subject: "e" is to the golden mean log-spiral what pi is to a circle
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2015 12:30:06 +0000


"e" is to the golden mean log-spiral what pi is to a circle

Looking through a Google search it appears

Years 2010-2013 and on July15, 2013, I wrote this about "e":

Only it does not show the Fibonacci sequence of squares as shown in this picture from "Mathematics: A Human Endeavor" by Harold Jacobs, 1970.

Now in that Jacobs text on page 291 is a picture of a logarithmic spiral inside a rectangle of whirling squares. It is probably on the Internet somewhere, but I want the student or reader to photocopy that page of Jacobs and then get a piece of flexible
wire, and cut the wire of a length that matches the radius as shown on that page of length 55. Now, three and a tiny bit more of those 55 lengths should be as long as two of those arcs in the 55 square shown, (that is a semicircle). Now, however, using
that same wire track down the length of the wire that it takes to cover the 55 square and the 34 square and finally the 8 square, note that the 8 square has to be extended over to the right inside the 21 square.

What the student or reader should find is that it takes roughly 2.71 of the wire to cover that arc.

So here we learn the best meaning of the number "e". The number "e" is pi in hyperbolic geometry where circles are not closed but are open and spiraling outwards.

--- end quoting old post of mine ---

Back in 2013, I did not need precision and used a stiff wire to measure. But now I need more precision.

If we look at the squares of 8, 5, and 3:

For 8 square 1/4 x 3.1 x 16 = 12.4 arclength
For 5 square 1/4 x 3.1 x 10 = 7.75 arclength
For 3 square 1/4 x 3.1 x 6 = 4.65 arclength

Summing those arclengths gives 24.8

Taking the radius of the log-spiral in squares 8, 5, 3 as that of 8+1 for the center square gives a radius of 9. And 9 x 2.7 = 24.3. Not bad. So let us try larger squares of 55, 34, 21

For 55 square 1/4 x 3.1 x 110 = 85.25 arclength
For 34 square 1/4 x 3.1 x 68 = 52.7 arclength
For 21 square 1/4 x 3.1 x 42 = 32.5 arclength

Summing those results gives 170.5 and the radius for these three squares is 55+8 = 63.
Now 63x 2.7 = 170.1. So we see a convergence of three squares involving a center of the log-spiral.

So the idea here is that "e" is to the golden mean log spiral that pi is to a circle.

AP
Newsgroups: sci.math

Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
Feb 13, 2015, 2:02:31 AM



to plutonium-atom-universe@googlegroups.com
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 00:44:22 -0800 (PST)

Subject: More details on what numbers exist in New Math (32) Uni-text 9th
ed.:True Calculus #113 Correcting Math 4th ed
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 08:44:22 +0000

More details on what numbers exist in New Math (32) Uni-text 9th ed.:True Calculus #113 Correcting Math 4th ed


I need some more information to give on special numbers of Old Math which are not that special in New Math and how they differ from what Old Math thought of these numbers to how New Math views these numbers.

There are three very special numbers in Old Math, and many more, but the three that usually get spoken about are pi, e and i.

Now in New Math there are only two types of numbers whereas in Old Math there are half a dozen or more. In New Math, there are the Rationals which mathematics works on and then there are the irrationals which so to speak exist and surround the Rationals,
but which mathematics does not work on them for they end up with imprecise answers. A close analogy would be the Uncertainty Principle in physics that we are allowed only definite answers of position versus momentum even though both exist alongside one
another.

In Old Math, the numbers of pi and e were considered Reals and their Reals could be any of these four types: rational, irrational, transcendental, algebraic. In Old Math, pi and e were considered irrational and transcendental. In New Math we totally
eliminate transcendental and algebraic because when you precisely define an infinity borderline, you get rid of fakery classes of transcendental and algebraic.

In New Math, both pi and "e" are rational numbers for they are 3.14..... and 2.71..... to the 603rd digit rightwards of the decimal point as rational and finite numbers. They both still are special in New Math because they both perform in the formulas of
Circumference of Circle = pi * diameter and Circumference of Log Spiral in turns = e* turn diameter.

In New Math there are no curves at all, but rather, whenever you think you see a curve, you actually are seeing tiny straightline segments so small and when compiled has a appearance of a smooth curve when in fact it is a compilation of straightlines. So
in New Math, pi is not the number that gives a length of the curve of circumference, but gives instead, the length of tiny straightline segments adjoined. So that pi is a measure of the circumference of a polygon that looks like a smooth curve of a
circle, sometimes regular-polygon. And so, pi in New Math is still a constant and relates perimeter of polygon to diameter, but is not the hullaballoo that Old Math makes out.

In New Math, "e" is a rational number which relates to the open log spiral of its circumference of a turn with diameter. It is smaller than pi because a full circle is larger circumference than a log spiral of turn.
And "e" is also rational. And "e" relates to a regular-polygon as equiangular and self-similar.

Now in New Math, the imaginary number "i" as sqrt-1, is also a rational number and nothing special over sqrt2 or sqrt5. The irrational numbers that are square roots are not just one number but are in fact two rational numbers acting as though they were
one number. In physics, we have the analogy of the scalar and vector. The scalar is one number acting as one number, and the vector is at least two numbers acting as though it were one number entity.

In New Math, sqrt2 is not 1.4142.... but is actually two different rational numbers of 1.4142*1.4143 in 10^3 Grid where in Old Math you would get 1.999.... when multiplying root while in New Math, we actually get 2.000....

So "i" in New Math is the conjugate pair of two different rationals of -1 and +1. Now early in the text, I often wrote that a line in mathematics cannot have length yet no width and no depth. It cannot have that if it is composed of just points with no
length, no width, no depth. But a line can exist in New Math because a line contains many more irrational numbers than rational. Some line segments contain just two rational numbers as the endpoints of a line segment. So what gives lines length are the
irrationals that the lines contain, because the length of the irrational number sqrt-1 is a length from -1 to +1 which is a length of 2 units. The length that sqrt2 gives to a line segment is 1.4143-1.4142 = 0.0001 in 10^3 Grid.

So in New Math, we see numbers classified altogether far different, far better, and far easier than in Old Math with their cobbled together garbage.


--
Recently I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
Feb 13, 2015, 2:09:47 AM



to plutonium-atom-universe@googlegroups.com

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 23:47:18 -0800 (PST)

Subject: best explanation of the number "e" in New Math (33) Uni-text 9th
ed.:True Calculus #114 Correcting Math 4th ed
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 07:47:18 +0000


best explanation of the number "e" in New Math (33) Uni-text 9th ed.:True Calculus #114 Correcting Math 4th ed

best explanation of the number "e" in New Math (33) Uni-text 9th ed.:True Calculus #114 Correcti

Now the summation of pi and 2.71828.... is 5.859..... And looking to see if there are any math or physics constants with prefix digits of 5.859...

In physics there is what is called the Wien frequency displacement law constant of 5.878...*10^10 Hz*K^-1. That would be a sigma error of 5.878/5.859 = 0.3% highly acceptable. But before we can accept it, we have to give some physical explanation why a
logarithmic spiral relates to a physics frequency displacement.

AP

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 9:19:46 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Now the summation of pi and 2.71828.... is 5.859..... And looking to see if there are any math or physics constants with prefix digits of 5.859...

In physics there is what is called the Wien frequency displacement law constant of 5.878...*10^10 Hz*K^-1. That would be a sigma error of 5.878/5.859 = 0.3% highly acceptable. But before we can accept it, we have to give some physical explanation why a

logarithmic spiral relates to a physics frequency displacement.


Now if the 5.859 of sum of pi and 2.71828... applies to Wien law, then the Wien law should have a constant for wavelength with prefix that comes close to 2.71828....

And looking up the constants, sure enough we have a Wien wavelength displacement law constant, 2.897*10^-3 m*K, with a prefix of 2.887...

Now admittedly the sigma error is in excess of that for the Wien frequency law constant. For we have 2.887/2.718 = 6% sigma error while the frequency error was a meagre 0.3%. But for me, the fact that frequency and wavelength in blackbody radiation come
so close to pi+2.71 and 2.71, indicates to me there is a connection.

Now there is another Wien law constant of Wien entropy displacement law constant 3.00*10^-3 m*K with its prefix digits of 3.00, so close to either speed of light prefix 3 or to prefix of pi at 3.14.....

Since we have a string of 3 math constants close to a string of quantum mechanics constants of their prefix digits is a warning sign that they are fundamentally connected. Although at this moment I am not able to give that connection.

AP

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Some progress but quite a bit more work---


A list of discovered and derived constants of Physics and Mathematics// math-physics
by Archimedes Plutonium

Preface: This book follows my last book, my 257th book of science where I derive the gravitational constant from numbers out of electromagnetism. And whilst doing that 257th book, I had trouble remembering how I derived the elementary Coulomb constant,
the force strength of the magnetic monopole of 1.618*10^-19 C. Realizing that I will be often going back to my derived and discovered constants, I decided to list them in this book and so in the future, when I have trouble remembering, I will look for
this reference manual. I just go to this reference book if I need refreshing of facts and data. I should include how I discovered them in this reference book. And I often go to the Internet for lists of physics constants and a list of math constants.
Some decades back the Internet had web sites of special characteristics of individual numbers, but I no longer see any of those websites. Maybe they were taken down, such a pity and shame.

Cover Picture: undecided

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

1) My history of this book.

2) The Atom Totality theory and its primal axiom-postulate.

3) Decimal Grid System of Numbers, true numbers of mathematics.

4) 1 as unit constant.

5) 0, zero, the alien imported quasi number into mathematics.

6) 94 and 231 constants in Atom Totality.

7) 22/7 and 19/7.

8) 840 constant as compared to 105 for proton and muon.

9) Rectangle of Whirling Squares Fibonacci Sequence as calculus in action in 2D.

10) 1.618.... phi or golden mean constant; pi = 3.14159... and e = 2.71828...

11) Speed of Light.

12) Permeability.

13) Permittivity.

14) Fine Structure constant.

15) Coulomb constant.

16) Gravitational constant.

17) Planck's constant.

18) Boltzmann's constant.

19) Biology time constant.

20) Theory of Nines.

21) 0.256 constant.

22) 5.859 constant.

23) Infinity borderline and algebraic completeness of borderline.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The theory of nines is very amazing and dazzling. I have yet to fully understand it.

It is of course the adding of the digits of a number to see if the sum adds up to a factor of 9.

And then the amazing aspect is that any such number, for example the Fibonacci sequence number 144, is divisible by 9.

So now I play around with this idea experimenting to see if all such numbers are divisible by 9.

801 is
8001 is

1233 is
3213 is
3312 is
3321 is

Yet any other such sum of digits if not a sum of 9 or a factor of 9 no longer has that ability of division.

For example try sum of 6

231 is not factored by 6
132 is factored by 6
312 is factored by 6

So, maybe there are counterexamples to Nines theory, for which I have just not yet found.

AP

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 3:05:18 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

The theory of nines is very amazing and dazzling. I have yet to fully understand it.

It is of course the adding of the digits of a number to see if the sum adds up to a factor of 9.

And then the amazing aspect is that any such number, for example the Fibonacci sequence number 144, is divisible by 9.

So now I play around with this idea experimenting to see if all such numbers are divisible by 9.

801 is
8001 is

1233 is
3213 is
3312 is
3321 is

Yet any other such sum of digits if not a sum of 9 or a factor of 9 no longer has that ability of division.

For example try sum of 6

231 is not factored by 6
132 is factored by 6
312 is factored by 6

So, maybe there are counterexamples to Nines theory, for which I have just not yet found.

Let me try combinations, see if I can pull up a counterexample.

417582 is a factor of 9 46,398

So, time for a conjecture here.

Conjecture: given any whole number if its digits add up to a factor of 9, then the entire number is evenly divisible by 9 and it is only the 9 number that has that ability, characteristic, not 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 in Decimal Number System.

If true may also lead to another proof that Decimal System is superior to any other base system.

And if true leads me closer to an idea of why Theory of Nines, Theory of 9s is important to math and physics.

The idea is that 9 is just before we reach the last whole number in a Decimal Grid System. The 9 or 9.9 for 10 Grid, the 99, or 99.99 for 100 Grid etc etc. And so 9s serves as a Borderline for number systems. As if the last number of a system is the
infinity border between the last 9s number in that system. So for example, 9.9 is the finite borderline and then 10 is infinity in 10 Grid. And 99.99 is the finite borderline in 100 Grid before reaching infinity number 100 in 100 Grid.

As for physics, the 9.9,99.99, 999.999, 9999.9999, sequence is a curvature angle, a bending around of a circle or ellipse. So in 10 grid, 10 is 0 and 9.9 is like -1. In 100 grid, 100 is like 0, and 99.99 is a bending around into a circle where 99.99 is
like -1 ready to jump off onto 0 as 100. This is commonly known as p-adic theory in mathematics. And so theory of 9s appears to take parts of p-adic theory.

AP

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Let me try 11,111,111 is not evenly divisible by 9
Trying 111,111,111 is evenly divisible by 9
What about 1111111101 is evenly divisible by 9
What about 11111111001 is evenly divisible by 9

In the entire history of mathematics, this is likely the strangest theory of all, yet so simple in explanation-- if the digits add up to a factor of 9, then the division is evenly divided by 9.

We easily learn of angles 90, 180, 270, 360 are theory of nines. And as we divide by 2 or multiply by 2, we retain the theory of nines.

And I am going to conjecture that the theory of nines is a specific proof that decimals are the unique number system for all of mathematics, binary, base 2 or ternary base 3, or any other base cannot do mathematics, only decimal system can do mathematics.

This is a far far cry from Old Math with their Reals, their continuity and continuum, and their belief that decimals are nothing special.

AP

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 16:21:04 UTC-4, Ludwig Poehlman aka Crank Archimedes Plutonium

<SHIT>


Sick fuck just spams the whole news group. Please tell me your cancer is back in full swing!!!!!! Drop dead, you psycho dog!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, 12 October 2023 at 15:15:29 UTC-4, Crank AP

Do you notice anyone taking you seriously, you Arch Crank???????

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10/12/2023 12:36 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Conjecture: given any whole number if its digits add up to a factor of 9, then the entire number is evenly divisible by 9 and it is only the 9 number that has that ability, characteristic, not 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 in Decimal Number System.

This has been known pretty much since the adoption of the decimal system.

If true may also lead to another proof that Decimal System is superior to any other base system.

No, not unique to the decimal system. For any base N, the digits of a
number expressed in Base N will (recursively) add up to N-1 if it is
divisible by N-1. For example, in Base 16, if all the digits of a number expressed in Base 16 are divisible by 15 (F in Base 16, if using the
usual convention of digits 0-9A-F). For example, 45 is 2D in Base 16.
2+D=F (15), so 2D (45) is evenly divisible by 15.

It also works for factors of N-1. If adding the digits in Base 16 add up
to 5, A or F, it is a multiple of 5, and 5 is a factor of 15 (F). Also
if the digits add to 3, 6, 9, C or F it is a multiple of 3, a factor of
15 (F).

This also works for the decimal system (N=9), if the digits add up to 3,
6 or 9, it is a multiple of 3, since 3 is a factor of N-1 which is 9.

[snip crap]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 1:09:57 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:

On 10/12/2023 12:36 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Conjecture: given any whole number if its digits add up to a factor of 9, then the entire number is evenly divisible by 9 and it is only the 9 number that has that ability, characteristic, not 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 in Decimal Number System.

This has been known pretty much since the adoption of the decimal system.

If true may also lead to another proof that Decimal System is superior to any other base system.

No, not unique to the decimal system. For any base N, the digits of a
number expressed in Base N will (recursively) add up to N-1 if it is divisible by N-1. For example, in Base 16, if all the digits of a number expressed in Base 16 are divisible by 15 (F in Base 16, if using the
usual convention of digits 0-9A-F). For example, 45 is 2D in Base 16.
2+D=F (15), so 2D (45) is evenly divisible by 15.

It also works for factors of N-1. If adding the digits in Base 16 add up
to 5, A or F, it is a multiple of 5, and 5 is a factor of 15 (F). Also
if the digits add to 3, 6, 9, C or F it is a multiple of 3, a factor of
15 (F).

This also works for the decimal system (N=9), if the digits add up to 3,
6 or 9, it is a multiple of 3, since 3 is a factor of N-1 which is 9.

[snip crap]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 1:09:57 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:

On 10/12/2023 12:36 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Conjecture: given any whole number if its digits add up to a factor of 9, then the entire number is evenly divisible by 9 and it is only the 9 number that has that ability, characteristic, not 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 in Decimal Number System.

This has been known pretty much since the adoption of the decimal system.

If true may also lead to another proof that Decimal System is superior to any other base system.

No, not unique to the decimal system. For any base N, the digits of a
number expressed in Base N will (recursively) add up to N-1 if it is divisible by N-1. For example, in Base 16, if all the digits of a number expressed in Base 16 are divisible by 15 (F in Base 16, if using the
usual convention of digits 0-9A-F). For example, 45 is 2D in Base 16.
2+D=F (15), so 2D (45) is evenly divisible by 15.

It also works for factors of N-1. If adding the digits in Base 16 add up
to 5, A or F, it is a multiple of 5, and 5 is a factor of 15 (F). Also
if the digits add to 3, 6, 9, C or F it is a multiple of 3, a factor of
15 (F).

This also works for the decimal system (N=9), if the digits add up to 3,
6 or 9, it is a multiple of 3, since 3 is a factor of N-1 which is 9.

The screwball math nut written above under the Volney moniker is a mindless screwball of math.

The best proof that decimal system is unique to true numbers, and no other system can cope, is the fractions.

Only fractions such as 0.5 in decimals which is 1/2, or 1/3 as 0.333... can negotiate arithmetic of math. A binary or ternary or base 4, base 5 etc cannot handle fractions without gaps in arithmetic.

What the theory of Nines does for that proof of fractions is bolster it even higher. For example 81.7245 or 81.2457 is superflous where the decimal point is located. But in base 2, base 3, base 4, whatever, except base 10, is halted and thwarted in this
systems.

AP

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)