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.
2m views

I received a letter today of Experiment results on Water Electrolysis of weighing the hydrogen test tube versus oxygen test tube and the result is 1/4 atomic mass units of Hydrogen compared to Oxygen. If Mainstream science is correct with their water as
H2O then the result should be 1/8 in atomic mass units, however the result was 1/4.

The researcher weighing 1600 micrograms of hydrogen, using a Eisco-Brownlee-Water-Electrolysis Apparatus.

Using sulfuric acid as electrolyte on ultra pure water. Using low voltage DC of 1.5 volts, 1 amp.

I am no surprised that news of the true formula of Water is H4O comes so quickly. For not much in science is more important than knowing the truth of Water. And this means the start of the complete downfall and throwing out the sick Standard Model of
Physics, for it is such an insane theory that it cannot get past the idea of its subatomic particles as just sticks and balls, with no job, no function, no task.

The true Hydrogen Atom is H2 for all atoms need at least one capacitor a neutron for most atoms, and one of the protons in H2 serves as a neutron.

Sad that chemistry and physics throughout the 20th century were too stupid to actually weigh the mass of hydrogen and oxygen in electrolysis, no, the ignorant fools stopped at looking when they saw the volume of hydrogen was twice that of oxygen. A real
scientist is not that shoddy and slipshod ignorant, the real scientist then proceeds with -- let us weigh the hydrogen test tube mass versus the oxygen test tube mass.

Thanks for the news!!!!!

AP

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.

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

There is another experiment that achieves the same result that Water is truly H4O and not H2O, but I suspect this second method is hugely fraught with difficulty.

The prediction of H4O comes from the Physics idea that a Atom is composed, all atoms mind you, is composed of a proton torus with muon/s inside going round and round thrusting through the torus in the Faraday law and producing electricity. So that when
you have Hydrogen without a neutron, there is no way to collect the electricity produced by the Faraday law. Think of it as a automobile engine, you cannot have a engine if there is no crank shaft to collect the energy from the thrusting piston inside
the crankcase.

Same thing with an Atom, it needs 3 parts-- muon as bar magnet, proton as torus of coils, and a capacitor to storage the produced electricity. If one of those parts is missing, the entity is a Subatomic particle and not a atom.

So, when we have Hydrogen as a proton with muon inside, it is not a Atom, until it has a neutron, or, has another proton of hydrogen H2, then it is a Atom.

So that H2 is not a molecule but a Atom. H alone is a subatomic particle.

SECOND EXPERIMENT:

Much harder than Water Electrolysis.

We need to get two identical containers.

We need to be able to make pure heavy-water with deuterium. Deuterium is proton + neutron as hydrogen. Proton + proton is H2 as hydrogen.

So we have two identical containers and we fill one with pure heavy water, deuterium water.

We have the second container and we fill it with pure (light) water.

We now weigh both of them.

If AP is correct, that water is really H4O and not H2O, then both containers should weigh almost the same. Only a tiny fraction difference because the neutron is known to be 940MeV versus proton in Old Physics as 938MeV a tiny difference of 2MeV, but we
realize we have a huge number of water molecules in the two identical containers.

If water is truly H4O, the weights should be almost the same. If water is H2O, then there is a **large difference** in weights.

But the Water Electrolysis experiment is much easier to conduct and get results.

AP

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

And, there is the biological processes that apparently cannot distinguish between heavy water and that of regular normal water.

Deuterium Water is the same in biology as is normal regular water. This means that water must be H4O, due to biology as proof.

Deuterium Water in atomic mass units is 16 for the oxygen and 4 for the deuterium.

Regular normal Water in atomic mass units is 16 for the oxygen and 4 for the 4 protons in H4O.

Old Physics and Old Chemistry had regular water as H2O in atomic mass units of 16 oxygen and 2 hydrogen for 2 protons.

If biology functions whether heavy water or normal water all the same, then water itself must be H4O.

Now, there maybe some animal or plant that can separate out heavy water from H4O water???

AP, King of Science

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

Searching the literature today for where biology needs as essential deuterium water. And not too surprised that it is a essential requirement in metabolism. In fact one web site listed the need for deuterium more than the need of many minerals and
vitamins.

Now tonight I came up with two new exciting experiments to verify that Water is truly H4O and not H2O.

H4O is 4 protons with muons inside the 840MeV proton toruses.

Deuterium water is DOD. And the difference between D2O and H4O is merely the difference of 4MeV for as last reported, neutron = 940MeV and proton (with muon inside) is 938MeV, a difference of 2MeV but for water is 2+2 = 4MeV.

So these two new experiments take advantage of the fact that what we think is normal regular water is actually very close to heavy water of D2O, with only a 4MeV difference.

EXPERIMENT #3 Water layers in still pond of D2O mixed with H4O (what we thought was H2O.

So in this experiment we get a clear glass container and mix H4O with D2O. If Old Physics is correct, the heavy water should sink rapidly in the container while the light water floats to the top rapidly. And we have some sort of beam of photons that can
distinguish D2O from H4O (thought of as H2O. We obtain pure D2O and pure H4O each filling 1/2 of the container. We stir and mix them. And then we observe with the EM beam for separation. If the light water is truly H4O, it takes a long time for the D2O
to be on bottom and H4O on top. We measure the time of a settled container and determine this time from the theoretical 4MeV difference should take a long time, whereas if Old Physics is correct, the separation would be almost instantly and quick time.


EXPERIMENT #4 also plays on this minor difference of 4MeV. We devise a sort of squirt gun for D2O and a identical squirt gun for H4O (what we call H2O). We put pure D2O in one squirt gun and the H40 or light water in the other squirt gun. Both guns
forcing the water a certain distance.

If AP is correct that light water is really H4O and not H2O as we squirt both guns, where the water lands should be almost the same distance considering H4O is only 4MeV apart from D2O.

If Old Physics and Old Chemistry is correct, then D2O water is 940 + 940 = 1880MeV apart from light water of H2O, and H4O is only 4MeV apart.

So where the squirt gun lands the D2O is a very much shorter distance than a H2O land, but a H4 land distance is nearly the same as the D2O land.

These two experiments are very exciting and would be a very nice confirming evidence to Water Electrolysis actual weighing the mass in atomic mass units.

AP

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

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 5:07:13 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Searching the literature today for where biology needs as essential deuterium water. And not too surprised that it is a essential requirement in metabolism. In fact one web site listed the need for deuterium more than the need of many minerals and

vitamins.

Now tonight I came up with two new exciting experiments to verify that Water is truly H4O and not H2O.

H4O is 4 protons with muons inside the 840MeV proton toruses.

Deuterium water is DOD. And the difference between D2O and H4O is merely the difference of 4MeV for as last reported, neutron = 940MeV and proton (with muon inside) is 938MeV, a difference of 2MeV but for water is 2+2 = 4MeV.

So these two new experiments take advantage of the fact that what we think is normal regular water is actually very close to heavy water of D2O, with only a 4MeV difference.

EXPERIMENT #3 Water layers in still pond of D2O mixed with H4O (what we thought was H2O.

So in this experiment we get a clear glass container and mix H4O with D2O. If Old Physics is correct, the heavy water should sink rapidly in the container while the light water floats to the top rapidly. And we have some sort of beam of photons that

can distinguish D2O from H4O (thought of as H2O. We obtain pure D2O and pure H4O each filling 1/2 of the container. We stir and mix them. And then we observe with the EM beam for separation. If the light water is truly H4O, it takes a long time for the
D2O to be on bottom and H4O on top. We measure the time of a settled container and determine this time from the theoretical 4MeV difference should take a long time, whereas if Old Physics is correct, the separation would be almost instantly and quick
time.


Apparently this Experiment is already done and called for-- There is Uniform Distribution of heavy water Deuterium Water in the Oceans, Lakes, Ponds, Streams and Rivers. I was going through the research literature today and find that scientists discover
Uniformity of Distribution of deuterium water. This thus closes the case on Water, for uniformity of distribution of D2O implies that Water is itself H4O and not H2O.

EXPERIMENT #4 also plays on this minor difference of 4MeV. We devise a sort of squirt gun for D2O and a identical squirt gun for H4O (what we call H2O). We put pure D2O in one squirt gun and the H40 or light water in the other squirt gun. Both guns

forcing the water a certain distance.

If AP is correct that light water is really H4O and not H2O as we squirt both guns, where the water lands should be almost the same distance considering H4O is only 4MeV apart from D2O.

If Old Physics and Old Chemistry is correct, then D2O water is 940 + 940 = 1880MeV apart from light water of H2O, and H4O is only 4MeV apart.

So where the squirt gun lands the D2O is a very much shorter distance than a H2O land, but a H4 land distance is nearly the same as the D2O land.

These two experiments are very exciting and would be a very nice confirming evidence to Water Electrolysis actual weighing the mass in atomic mass units.

AP

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

The bottom of Oceans, and lakes, and rivers and streams are not heavy water, not layered from heavy to lighter, but rather regular normal water and heavy water are evenly distributed in the body.

If regular normal water was H2O with a mass difference of 1880MeV between H2O and D2O, then water bodies should be layered with heavy at the bottom, lighter near the top.

That is not the case, and that implies H4O is regular normal water with a difference of only 4MeV from D2O.

That is perhaps the best direct obvious proof that Water is H4O and not H2O.

But there are some electromagnetic forces going on between water molecules that may effect their distribution. And this needs to be pursued further. For the H4O are 4 (protons with muons inside) and the D2O is 2 D with 2 neutrons and 2(protons with muons
inside).

We open up a brand new chapter in physics history when we research how a proton+muon inside can act and behave as if it were a neutron doing the services of capacitance for the Faraday law of the other proton with muon inside. It must be a easy
transition or transformation of a proton +muon to become a neutron like particle. It would mean tearing up the proton torus and its muon into a geometry of parallel plate capacitor.

So this opens up an entirely new field of research and study in Atomic Physics, how a proton + muon transform into a neutron to service the other proton of H2, where H2 is not a molecule but a Atom of Hydrogen.

AP

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

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 4:58:10 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

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.
2m views

I received a letter today of Experiment results on Water Electrolysis of weighing the hydrogen test tube versus oxygen test tube and the result is 1/4 atomic mass units of Hydrogen compared to Oxygen. If Mainstream science is correct with their water

as H2O then the result should be 1/8 in atomic mass units, however the result was 1/4.

The researcher weighing 1600 micrograms of hydrogen, using a Eisco-Brownlee-Water-Electrolysis Apparatus.

Using sulfuric acid as electrolyte on ultra pure water. Using low voltage DC of 1.5 volts, 1 amp.

I am no surprised that news of the true formula of Water is H4O comes so quickly. For not much in science is more important than knowing the truth of Water. And this means the start of the complete downfall and throwing out the sick Standard Model of

Physics, for it is such an insane theory that it cannot get past the idea of its subatomic particles as just sticks and balls, with no job, no function, no task.

The true Hydrogen Atom is H2 for all atoms need at least one capacitor a neutron for most atoms, and one of the protons in H2 serves as a neutron.

Sad that chemistry and physics throughout the 20th century were too stupid to actually weigh the mass of hydrogen and oxygen in electrolysis, no, the ignorant fools stopped at looking when they saw the volume of hydrogen was twice that of oxygen. A

real scientist is not that shoddy and slipshod ignorant, the real scientist then proceeds with -- let us weigh the hydrogen test tube mass versus the oxygen test tube mass.

Thanks for the news!!!!!

AP

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.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/cv_D-pAi7QI

YouTube search "electrolysis of water experiment volume of hydrogen gas verses volume of oxygen gas"

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=electrolisis+of+water+experiment+volume+of+hydrogen+gas+verses+volume+of+oxygen+gas

Note the volume of hydrogen gas is twice not 4 time the volume of oxygen gas in the first link.

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

Andy Everett like Roger Penrose & Andrew Wiles, not know the difference between volume and mass

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 9:29:39 AM UTC-5, Andy Everett wrote:

Note the volume of hydrogen gas is twice not 4 time the volume of oxygen gas in the first link.

Volney on howling crazy fuckdog Oxford Univ, too stupid to weigh the mass of hydrogen versus oxygen in Water Electrolysis, is this why no-one at Oxford can admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse for you need a cylinder for ellipse

Volney says howling crazy fuckdog;NSF Dr.Panchanathan; Oxford Univ Dr.Andrew Wiles. Why Volney?? Because they are so dishonest with their slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse for you need a cylinder slant cut. Or is it their water electrolysis

Oxford Univ fools Dr.John Walker, Dr.John Kosterlitz,Dr.John Goodenough (chem),Dr.Roger Penrose, who never weigh the mass of water hydrogen and oxygen, no these clowns stop at volume of Electrolysis water, too stupid to weigh the mass to see if water is
H4O not H2O

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 11:38:41 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:

"Court Jester of Physics"
"howling crazy fuckdog> fails at math and science:

Oxford University physics & chemistry
Dr.John Walker, Dr.John Kosterlitz,Dr.John Goodenough (chem),Dr.Roger Penrose,Dr.Douglas Abraham, Dr.Prateek Agrawal, Dr.Wade Allison, Dr.Arzhang Ardavan, Dr.Adam Baird, Dr.Patrick Baird, Dr. Michael Barnes, Dr. Alan Barr, Dr. Giles Barr, Dr. Tony Bell,
Dr. Elliot Bentine, Dr. Steve Biller, Dr. James Binney, Dr. Stephen Blundell, Dr. Andrew Boothroyd, Dr. Nick Bultinck, Dr. Philip Burrows, Dr. Simon Calcutt, Dr. Matthew Capstick, Dr. Roger Cashmore, Dr. Andrea Cavalleri, Dr. John Chalker, Dr. Yulin Chen,
Dr. Frank Close, Dr.Radu Coldea, Dr. Joseph Conlon, Dr.Susan Cooper, Dr.Garret Cotter, Dr.Richard D'Arcy, Dr. Roger Davies, Dr.Simon Davila Solano, Dr.Seamus Davis, Dr.Frederic Dreyer,Dr.Artur Ekert,Dr.Rik Elliott,Dr.Paul Ewart

Dr.Panchanathan's crew of Dunning-Kruger imbeciles at NSF--

Kibo on..NSF Lloyd Whitman,Dunning-Kruger Purdue's France Anne Cordova,Fuckhole Dr.Panchanathan of science

On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 5:58:25 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:

"the FUCKHOLE of math"

On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 11:28:58 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:

"Kim Jong Un's stooge"

Kibo, does Dr. Panchanathan remind you of Dr. Silberman in the Terminator movies--rock hard insanity

Re: kibo-Parry-Moroney, the FUCKHOLE of sci.math, sci.physics
By Richard Tobin Jul 4, 2019, 9:45:05 AM

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:

---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 Olvestad, Rebecca Lynn Keiser, Vernon D. Ross, Lloyd Whitman, John J. Veysey, Scott Stanley
Purdue's France Anne Cordova
Subra Suresh
Arden Lee Bement Jr.
Rita R. Colwell
Neal Francis Lane
John Howard Gibbons 1993

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




My 3rd published book

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

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 ‏ : ‎

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 2:58:37 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Andy Everett like Roger Penrose & Andrew Wiles, not know the difference between volume and mass
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 9:29:39 AM UTC-5, Andy Everett wrote:

Note the volume of hydrogen gas is twice not 4 time the volume of oxygen gas in the first link.

Volney on howling crazy fuckdog Oxford Univ, too stupid to weigh the mass of hydrogen versus oxygen in Water Electrolysis, is this why no-one at Oxford can admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse for you need a cylinder for ellipse

Volney says howling crazy fuckdog;NSF Dr.Panchanathan; Oxford Univ Dr.Andrew Wiles. Why Volney?? Because they are so dishonest with their slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse for you need a cylinder slant cut. Or is it their water electrolysis

Oxford Univ fools Dr.John Walker, Dr.John Kosterlitz,Dr.John Goodenough (chem),Dr.Roger Penrose, who never weigh the mass of water hydrogen and oxygen, no these clowns stop at volume of Electrolysis water, too stupid to weigh the mass to see if water

is H4O not H2O

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 11:38:41 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:

"Court Jester of Physics"
"howling crazy fuckdog> fails at math and science:

Oxford University physics & chemistry
Dr.John Walker, Dr.John Kosterlitz,Dr.John Goodenough (chem),Dr.Roger Penrose,Dr.Douglas Abraham, Dr.Prateek Agrawal, Dr.Wade Allison, Dr.Arzhang Ardavan, Dr.Adam Baird, Dr.Patrick Baird, Dr. Michael Barnes, Dr. Alan Barr, Dr. Giles Barr, Dr. Tony Bell,

Dr. Elliot Bentine, Dr. Steve Biller, Dr. James Binney, Dr. Stephen Blundell, Dr. Andrew Boothroyd, Dr. Nick Bultinck, Dr. Philip Burrows, Dr. Simon Calcutt, Dr. Matthew Capstick, Dr. Roger Cashmore, Dr. Andrea Cavalleri, Dr. John Chalker, Dr. Yulin
Chen, Dr. Frank Close, Dr.Radu Coldea, Dr. Joseph Conlon, Dr.Susan Cooper, Dr.Garret Cotter, Dr.Richard D'Arcy, Dr. Roger Davies, Dr.Simon Davila Solano, Dr.Seamus Davis, Dr.Frederic Dreyer,Dr.Artur Ekert,Dr.Rik Elliott,Dr.Paul Ewart

Dr.Panchanathan's crew of Dunning-Kruger imbeciles at NSF--

Kibo on..NSF Lloyd Whitman,Dunning-Kruger Purdue's France Anne Cordova,Fuckhole Dr.Panchanathan of science

On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 5:58:25 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:

"the FUCKHOLE of math"

On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 11:28:58 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:

"Kim Jong Un's stooge"

Kibo, does Dr. Panchanathan remind you of Dr. Silberman in the Terminator movies--rock hard insanity

Re: kibo-Parry-Moroney, the FUCKHOLE of sci.math, sci.physics
By Richard Tobin Jul 4, 2019, 9:45:05 AM

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:

---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 Olvestad, Rebecca Lynn Keiser, Vernon D. Ross, Lloyd Whitman, John J. Veysey, Scott Stanley
Purdue's France Anne Cordova
Subra Suresh
Arden Lee Bement Jr.
Rita R. Colwell
Neal Francis Lane
John Howard Gibbons 1993

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

My 3rd published book

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

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, My 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)

My 250th published book.

TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY; H2 is the hydrogen Atom and water is H4O, not H2O// Chemistry

by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Prologue: This textbook is 1/2 research history and 1/2 factual textbook combined as one textbook. For many of the experiments described here-in have not yet been performed, such as water is really H4O not H2O. Written in a style of history research

with date-time markers, and fact telling. And there are no problem sets. This book is intended for 1st year college. Until I include problem sets and exercises, I leave it to the professor and instructor to provide such. And also, chemistry is hugely a
laboratory science, even more so than physics, so a first year college student in the lab to test whether Water is really H4O and not H2O is mighty educational.

Preface: This is my 250th book of science, and the first of my textbooks on Teaching True Chemistry. I have completed the Teaching True Physics and the Teaching True Mathematics textbook series. But had not yet started on a Teaching True Chemistry

textbook series. What got me started on this project is the fact that no chemistry textbook had the correct formula for water which is actually H4O and not H2O. Leaving the true formula for hydroxyl groups as H2O and not OH. But none of this is possible
in Old Chemistry, Old Physics where they had do-nothing subatomic particles that sit around and do nothing or go whizzing around the outside of balls in a nucleus, in a mindless circling. Once every subatomic particle has a job, task, function, then
water cannot be H2O but rather H4O. And a hydrogen atom cannot be H alone but is actually H2. H2 is not a molecule of hydrogen but a full fledged Atom, a single atom of hydrogen.

Cover Picture: Sorry for the crude sketch work but chemistry and physics students are going to have to learn to make such sketches in a minute or less. Just as they make Lewis diagrams or ball & stick diagrams. My 4-5 minute sketch-work of the Water

molecule H4O plus the subatomic particle H, and the hydrogen atom H2. Showing how one H is a proton torus with muon inside (blue color) doing the Faraday law. Protons are toruses with many windings. Protons are the coils in Faraday law while muons are
the bar magnets. Neutrons are the capacitors as parallel plates, the outer skin cover of atoms.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0CCLPTBDG
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ July 21, 2023
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 788 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 168 pages

Volney says howling crazy fuckdog;NSF Dr.Panchanathan; Oxford Univ Dr.Andrew Wiles. Why Volney?? Because they are so dishonest with their slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse for you need a cylinder slant cut. Or is it their water electrolysis

From the ideal gas law we know that for two volumes of gas at the same pressure and temperature the ratio of their volumes is equal to the ratio of their particle number. Twice the volume for hydrogen gas produced compared to the volume of oxygen gas in
the electrolysis experiment I linked show water forms H2O not H4O.

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

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 4:18:46 PM UTC-5, Andy Everett wrote:

From the ideal gas law we know that for two volumes of gas at the same pressure and temperature the ratio of their volumes is equal to the ratio of their particle number. Twice the volume for hydrogen gas produced compared to the volume of oxygen gas

in the electrolysis experiment I linked show water forms H2O not H4O.



Do they teach logic at the school you come from? There is a fallacy very common-- fallacy of irrelevancy. If I talk about Trees and snakes and you chime in with bees and fleas, can you understand, you should not open your mouth.


Andy sounds like Jim Pennino under a new name, same bozo-the-clown understanding of science. And brings in Ideal Gas law. Why not bring in Snell's law or say Ohm's law, or how about 2nd law of thermodynamics.

When AP insists on weighing the mass, why is that creeps like Andy dance around the issue-- everything else, peanut jelly sandwiches but never measure the mass.

Fruitcake, the whole point is to weigh the mass.

While your idiocy "assumes the mass".

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

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:15:07 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 4:18:46 PM UTC-5, Andy Everett wrote:

From the ideal gas law we know that for two volumes of gas at the same pressure and temperature the ratio of their volumes is equal to the ratio of their particle number. Twice the volume for hydrogen gas produced compared to the volume of oxygen gas

in the electrolysis experiment I linked show water forms H2O not H4O.

Do they teach logic at the school you come from? There is a fallacy very common-- fallacy of irrelevancy. If I talk about Trees and snakes and you chime in with bees and fleas, can you understand, you should not open your mouth.

Andy sounds like Jim Pennino under a new name, same bozo-the-clown understanding of science. And brings in Ideal Gas law. Why not bring in Snell's law or say Ohm's law, or how about 2nd law of thermodynamics.

When AP insists on weighing the mass, why is that creeps like Andy dance around the issue-- everything else, peanut jelly sandwiches but never measure the mass.

Fruitcake, the whole point is to weigh the mass.

While your idiocy "assumes the mass".

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

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:15:07 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 4:18:46 PM UTC-5, Andy Everett wrote:

From the ideal gas law we know that for two volumes of gas at the same pressure and temperature the ratio of their volumes is equal to the ratio of their particle number. Twice the volume for hydrogen gas produced compared to the volume of oxygen gas

in the electrolysis experiment I linked show water forms H2O not H4O.

Do they teach logic at the school you come from? There is a fallacy very common-- fallacy of irrelevancy. If I talk about Trees and snakes and you chime in with bees and fleas, can you understand, you should not open your mouth.

Andy sounds like Jim Pennino under a new name, same bozo-the-clown understanding of science. And brings in Ideal Gas law. Why not bring in Snell's law or say Ohm's law, or how about 2nd law of thermodynamics.

When AP insists on weighing the mass, why is that creeps like Andy dance around the issue-- everything else, peanut jelly sandwiches but never measure the mass.

Fruitcake, the whole point is to weigh the mass.

While your idiocy "assumes the mass".

Does your new science replace the ideal gas law?

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