AP's 260th book of science-- List of Derived Physics & Math constants, by Archimedes Plutonium
51m views
Subscribe

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 29, 2023, 3:29:27 PM

AP's 258th book of science-- List of Derived Physics & Math constants, by Archimedes
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 30, 2023, 5:15:51 PM

Tentatively I have a list of 17 constants of physics, math, chemistry, biology, science in general 1
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 30, 2023, 11:22:15 PM

Alright, I have taken the Fibonacci sequence out to 2584. 1,1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144,
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 1, 2023, 12:53:17 AM

On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 11:21:42 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Alright, I
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 1, 2023, 1:02:28 AM

Now I probably will need 0 in this list, making my entrees so far count to 18. Tentatively I have a
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 1, 2023, 1:38:22 AM

Let me bump the list up to 20 entries, for we definitely need 0.5 or 1/2, especially the magnetic
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 2, 2023, 3:04:40 AM

Now this book is mostly a listing of previous work I have done. A listing of constants and not much
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 2, 2023, 4:58:06 PM

Alright some Planck units area is (h-bar*G)/c^3 = 2.61*10^-70 m^2 (Wikipedia) And volume in Planck
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 2, 2023, 5:20:42 PM

Alright, I think I am very close to solving this. Looking for the isotopes of Plutonium. --- quoting
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 3, 2023, 12:43:54 AM

Alright, I need the pair of fractions representing Shells and Subshells of Plutonium of 22/7 and 19/7
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 3, 2023, 12:49:18 AM

Alright, I need the pair of fractions representing Shells and Subshells of Plutonium of 22/7 and 19/7
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 3, 2023, 6:39:18 PM

I need also to include the theory of nines into this list. The idea that the summation of digits of a
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 7, 2023, 12:41:23 AM (13 days ago)

One of the reasons I wanted to do this book, was because I suspected my Boltzmann constant derivation
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 9, 2023, 5:25:40 PM (10 days ago)

On the chapter of the constant of exponential constant 2.71828..... I need to do better job than all
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 9, 2023, 7:03:08 PM (10 days ago)

I thought it might be painful in recovering and extracting this information I wrote many years ago,
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 9, 2023, 7:08:04 PM (10 days ago)

Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com> Feb 13, 2015, 2:02:31 AM    to
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 9, 2023, 9:22:50 PM (10 days ago)

Now the summation of pi and 2.71828.... is 5.859..... And looking to see if there are any math or
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 10, 2023, 12:03:04 AM (10 days ago)

On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 9:19:46 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Now the summation of
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 10, 2023, 11:29:53 AM (10 days ago)

Some progress but quite a bit more work--- A list of discovered and derived constants of Physics and
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 11, 2023, 3:07:35 PM (9 days ago)

The theory of nines is very amazing and dazzling. I have yet to fully understand it. It is of course
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 11, 2023, 11:37:08 PM (8 days ago)

On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 3:05:18 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > The theory of
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 12, 2023, 2:20:44 PM (8 days ago)

Let me try 11111111 is not evenly divisible by 9 Trying 111111111 is evenly divisible by 9 What about
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 13, 2023, 2:57:45 AM (7 days ago)

Unfortunately this has become my 260th book of science, no longer my 258th for I am stalled by
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 13, 2023, 3:21:17 PM (7 days ago)

Yes indeed this is my 260th book for I was not aware that it would be a 100 pages or more. And with
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 13, 2023, 10:08:22 PM (6 days ago)

1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55,89 2,2,4,6,10,16,26,42,68 3,3, 6,9,15,24,39,63 4,4, 8,12,20,32,52,84 5,5, 10,
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 14, 2023, 4:16:02 PM (6 days ago)

Alright that was yesterday, and today is 14Oct2023. There is a smaller grid system than the 10 Grid
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 14, 2023, 9:42:47 PM (5 days ago)

On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 1:41:37 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > On Saturday,
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 14, 2023, 9:45:53 PM (5 days ago)

In AP's 260th book// Only the Decimals form a valid Arithmetic & Math Number System-- Binary,
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 17, 2023, 1:39:44 PM (3 days ago)

AP's 260th book of science// Derived Constants of Math-- bringing down a closed figure to that of
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 17, 2023, 2:06:26 PM (3 days ago)

So we take a circle, say a unit circle of diameter 1 has a circumference of 3.14159..... Now we want
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 17, 2023, 11:20:28 PM (2 days ago)

Alright the complexity of the circumference of the ellipse. --- quoting the Internet on this
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 17, 2023, 11:44:36 PM (2 days ago)

Now my first reaction to this rather bewilderment. Because I consider the ellipse to be a squashed
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 17, 2023, 11:59:23 PM (2 days ago)

On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 11:44:02 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Now my first
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 18, 2023, 12:17:10 AM (2 days ago)

Now this is not the first time of some goofball prankster attacking me and other people, by rigging
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 18, 2023, 3:57:37 PM (2 days ago)

On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 12:13:45 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Now this is not
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 19, 2023, 12:46:55 AM (yesterday)

Alright, things are becoming much clearer to me on this vexing issue of the complexity of ellipse
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
1:22 AM (15 hours ago)

On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 12:43:39 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math: >
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
10:35 AM (6 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, doing some experimenting here, today.

So I take the circle and enclose it inside a square and throw away one side of the square. This tells me the value of pi is at least 3. But it does not tell me the 0.14159.... portion of pi.

So I go to the next figure of a regular-pentagon and put a circle inside it.

I use a ruler and measure the diameter of 3 cm, and the side of regular pentagon as 2.2cm.
Here the circle gives me 3*3.14159 = 9.424 while regular pentagon gives me 2.2*5= 11. And sigma error would be 11/9.424 = 16.7%

Now I go to a regular-hexagon and put a circle inside it.

I again use ruler and measure circle diameter is 4 cm and side of regular-hexagon is 2.3cm.
Here the math gives me 4*3.14159= 12.566 versus 2.3*6 = 13.8. And sigma error of 13.8/12.566 = 9.8%

Now a regular octagon enclosing a circle, and I measure circle at 2.7cm with side of regular octagon 1.1cm. The math gives me 2.7*3.14159 = 8.482 and 1.1*8 = 8.8 for a sigma error of 8.8/8.482 = 3.7%

Now I am using regular polygons with circles inside from the Internet, and not drawing these myself.

So I go to a 12-gon, a regular 12 gon and on the Internet with a circle inside. I measure it as 3cm diameter circle with sides of 12-gon as 0.8cm. The math gives me 3*3.14159 = 9.424 and 0.8*12 = 9.6 for a sigma error of 9.6/9.424 = 1.8%.

In doing this exercise, gave me pause of thought, for what is a proof that always a straightline figure that has a curved closed figure inside it, what is a proof that the straightline figure is larger in perimeter than the perimeter of the curved figure.

So I need a proof that the enclosing figure perimeter is always larger than the interior figure perimeter.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
4:36 PM (now)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Looks like I am going to end this book on a note of Proof, something unexpected, I would say, very unexpected.

Often we replace or substitute a Axiom of math with sheer commonsense.

If you have a round like closed figure inside a closed straightline figure, what is there to say that the perimeter of the closed straightline figure is always large than the inscribed closed curve figure?? Such as a circle inside a regular hexagon?

I see no axiom of Old Math nor of New Math that states-- perimeter of inscribed is smaller than perimeter of circumscribed.

Do we need that as a axiom or postulate or can it be proven from existing axioms?

I would say it can be proven if we can prove a link between area and perimeter of a figure. So that all circles inside a regular n-gon is a smaller circumference than the perimeter because it is obvious the area of n-gon is larger.

But we need a link to area and perimeter, and I see no link up as yet. Perhaps Calculus can link up area with perimeter. For the well known Y--> 1/x curve, that the area of the entire first quadrant is larger than the area consumed by the curve 1/x. And
what of successive curves 1/x^2 then 1/x^3 seem to converge upon the two axes themselves of x axis and y axis.

So I am caught by surprise that this book on constants-- helping me remember how the most important constants of math and physics are derived is ending up with a Proof.

AP, King of Science

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

Alright, I need to include also the question of surface area and volume, not just perimeter and area.

And this is likely to have to be a Axiom of mathematics and cannot be derived as a theorem.

And sort of tells us why we need axioms in the first place, as otherwise unprovable statements.

These axioms would be as such:

1) The perimeter of a closed figure inside another closed figure is a smaller perimeter than the perimeter of enclosing figure.

2) The surface area of a closed figure inside another closed figure is a smaller area than the surface area of enclosing figure.

Up until now, mathematics took those two ideas for granted, not recognizing they needs postulates or axioms to cover the issue.

And these axioms also serve another purpose--debunk the lunatic theory of topology. Topology is the mathematics of "bending". However, bending is not a concept of mathematics, never was, never will be. Topology is a topic that shows how silly and insane
cranks of math can become.

Bending is a engineering physics and chemistry topic, not a mathematics topic. How about a sour and sweet math? Or a color mathematics. How about mathematics dealing with "hairs and hairy". All of which are as ludicruous as bending in mathematics.

I mention bending because I am sure the fools and cranks of Old Math that gravitated towards topology will come up with silly stupid figures of where a encapsulated figure closed and inside a larger closed figure has a greater perimeter, or vis a vis a
greater surface area than the enclosing volume.

Topology is rife with ludicrous notions that are contradictory to intuition. Only because, topology is not a mathematical science, but imagination run amok.

AP

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

Volney (CIA) selling CalTech because they cannot do Water Electrolysis properly-- forgetting to actually weigh the mass of hydrogen compared to oxygen, and stop at observing volume. Caltech science is so shoddy of logical reasoning.


Volney, who can weigh
Felix Boehm, Steven Frautschi
Murray Gell-Mann, David Goodstein, Thomas Phillips,
John Schwarz, Barry Simon, Kip Thorne, Petr Vogel,
Rochus Vogt, Ward Whaling, Michael E. Brown,
Konstantin Batygin, Dr.Frances Arnold (chem), Dr.Barry Barish, Dr.Rudolph Marcus (chem), Dr.Hugh Politzer
the hydrogen and oxygen in Water Electrolysis, for it is unusual that Caltech physics is so shoddy in logical thought as to think of stopping Water Electrolysis by observation of Volume and not weighing the masses.


Volney Physics failures..CalTech_Dr.David Goodstein,Dr.Frances Arnold (chem), Dr.Barry Barish, Dr.Rudolph Marcus (chem), Dr.Hugh Politzer NSF Dr.Panchanathan,Alejandro Adem, Purdue Univ_France Cordova,

Physics failures..Rensselaer,Dr.Esther A. Wertz,Dr.Heidi Jo Newberg,Dr.Glenn Ciolek,Dr.Charles Martin,Dr.Joseph Darryl Michael,NSF Dr.Panchanathan,Alejandro Adem,Purdue Univ_France Cordova,..

Why Volney?? Because they are so sloppy and slipshod in Physics experiment of Water Electrolysis, stopping and ceasing the experiment before weighing the mass of the hydrogen compared to mass of oxygen. Is it that they are stupid silly thinking volume
and mass are the same. For AP needs to prove decisively, if Water is really H4O or H2O. And of course, this experiment would destroy the Standard Model-- that post-diction theory of physics that never gave a single prediction in all of its tenure.

And they even know that a weighing balance of Quartz Crystal MicroBalance has been around since the 1960s, what are they waiting for???

Or is it because they cannot admit the truth of math geometry that slant cut of cone is oval, not ellipse for you need the symmetry of slant cut of cylinder to yield a ellipse.


This is Volney-Kibo Parry Moroney spam (CIA connected drag net spam b.s.), and no matter how much you report it to Google Abuse-- they cannot kick the miscreant out-- I suggest reporting this spam to your Congress-person. Not only do they stalk you for
30 years but destroy the newsgroup they pollute. Just look at sci.chem which is a destroyed newsgroup. The Google Abuse report only hides the miscreant, but the next day-- new fresh b.s.spam is there.


Kibo Parry Moron-Volney blowing his cover with the CIA in 1997
Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
On Sunday, June 8, 1997 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:

In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes:

Re: Dan is the Kibo Parry Moroney Volney CIA equivalent for Canada-- using Usenet but destroying newsgroups of science in the process


Volney
3
Dan Christensen using TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS at Univ Western Ontario instead of the fake Old Math calculus with its thousands of rules and memorization of trig functions. New Math has 1 rule-- Power Rule
9:03 PM


,
Volney
3
WM using AP's TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS to teach 13-14 year olds CALCULUS, those heading for Gottingen & Uni Berlin for AP reduced Calculus to its most simple form-- add or subtract 1 from exponent.
9:01 PM


182b-Volney uses TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS to teach 13-14 year olds CALCULUS, those heading for Berkeley,Caltech, Stanford, for AP reduced Calculus to its most simple form-- add or subtract 1 from exponent.
8:52 PM


,
Volney
2
Volney uses TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS to teach 13-14 year olds CALCULUS, those heading for Berkeley,Caltech, Stanford, for AP reduced Calculus to its most simple form-- add or subtract 1 from exponent.
8:45 PM

Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen
, …
Volney
14
unread,
Re: Dr.Terence Tao along with Dr. Gene D.Block fired from UCLA for teaching propaganda -- truth is slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse, yet UCLA continues their propaganda of ellipse as slant cut.
8:43 PM



Caltech Physics Dept

Felix Boehm, Steven Frautschi
Murray Gell-Mann, David Goodstein, Thomas Phillips,
John Schwarz, Barry Simon, Kip Thorne, Petr Vogel,
Rochus Vogt, Ward Whaling, Michael E. Brown,
Konstantin Batygin, Dr.Frances Arnold (chem), Dr.Barry Barish, Dr.Rudolph Marcus (chem), Dr.Hugh Politzer

Apparently Kibo realized he was a science failure when he could not even do a proper percentage. But then one has to wonder how much he paid to bribe Rensselaer to graduate from the school in engineering unable to do a percentage properly???? For I
certainly would not hire a engineer who cannot even do proper percentage.


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.

Why Volney?? Because they stop short of completing the Water Electrolysis Experiment by only looking at volume, when they are meant to weigh the mass of hydrogen versus oxygen?? Such shoddy minds in experimental physics and chemistry.

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Physics dept Dr.Martin Schmidt (ee), Dr.Ivar Giaever
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 Friday, June 7, 2019 at 12:13:14 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:

Physics minnow
WARNING TO ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING STUDENTS:

What warning is that Kibo Parry failure of science-- warning that insane persons like Kibo Parry Moroney Volney spends their entire life in a hate-mill, never doing anything in science itself. And paid to stalk hate spew

Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney blowing his cover with the CIA in 1997

Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
On Sunday, June 8, 1997 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:

In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes:

---quoting Wikipedia ---

Controversy
Many government and university installations blocked, threatened to block, or attempted to shut-down The World's Internet connection until Software Tool & Die was eventually granted permission by the National Science Foundation to provide public

Internet access on "an experimental basis."
--- end quote ---

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Dr. Panchanathan , present day
NSF Dr. Panchanathan, F. Fleming Crim, Dorothy E Aronson, Brian Stone, James S Ulvestad (math), Rebecca Lynn Keiser, Vernon D. Ross, Lloyd Whitman, John J. Veysey (physics), Scott Stanley
France Anne Cordova
Subra Suresh (bioengineer)
Arden Lee Bement Jr. (nuclear engineering)
Rita R. Colwell (microbiology)
Neal Francis Lane
John Howard Gibbons 1993

Barry Shein, kibo parry std world
Jim Frost, Joe "Spike" Ilacqua

Canada-- NSERC , Alejandro Adem (math) , Navdeep Bains, Francois-Philippe Champagne

News starting to come in that AP's Water Electrolysis Experiment proves the true formula of Water is H4O, not H2O is starting to come in.

Aug 30, 2023, 10:19:20 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
News starting to come in that AP's Water Electrolysis Experiment proves the true formula of Water is H4O, not H2O is starting to come in.

I received a letter today