Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #686812 > unrolled thread

Is it Faraday's Law or New Ohm's law that puts mass into Faraday's coil and puts mass in Faraday's bar magnet? 24&25 Maximum Electricity Coil theory

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Is it Faraday's Law or New Ohm's law that puts mass into Faraday's coil and puts mass in Faraday's bar magnet? 24&25 Maximum Electricity Coil theory Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 11:37 -0700
    Re: Univ of Western Ontario, a failed university with teachers like Dan Christensen attack dogs in sci.math, failures failures failures moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-24 00:36 +0000
    8-Maximum Electric Coil theory-- how inside of atoms works //teaching Logic in Grade School, TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS/ Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 19:31 -0700
      Re: 8-teaching Logic in Grade School, TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-25 20:29 +0000

#686812 — Is it Faraday's Law or New Ohm's law that puts mass into Faraday's coil and puts mass in Faraday's bar magnet? 24&25 Maximum Electricity Coil theory

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 11:52:26 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: 24-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// AP-Maxwell Equations has Angular
 Momentum in them, but not the Old Maxwell Equations alone for they have no
 angular momentum
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 18:52:27 +0000


24-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// AP-Maxwell Equations has Angular Momentum in them, but not the Old Maxwell Equations alone for they have no angular momentum

Alright, slowly but painfully I am coaxing out the answers I seek. Starting a few days ago, I was having trouble in pinpointing what is the bar magnets for subatomic particles in atoms that does the Faraday Law. I nailed the protons and neutrons as being the coil windings in Faraday's Law, but I could not nail what the bar magnets were. Which slowly made me come to the AP-Maxwell Equations.

We have to ask a deep and abiding stark question of the role of mass in Faraday's Law. Old Maxwell Equations are totally deaf, dumb and silent on mass in the Faraday law. Puzzling how no physicist ever dreamed up a experiment ever since 1830s with Faraday's law of induction, even Maxwell himself bypassed this question. The question is, what is the physics of mass of the coil versus mass of the bar magnet that makes electricity. Why did no physicist bother with this question? Probably because at the theory of electromagnetism, all the physicists feel that "generalization is all mighty" and to get rid of details in physics as dirty fuzzy details. The quest to be "so so general" that it throws out the details. One of those details is mass involved in Faraday's law. What is the formula of mass for bar magnet, coil, and electricity produced. You cannot find that answer in Old Maxwell Equations.

But the new AP-Maxwell Equations has a very stark clear answer.

Voltage in AP equations is the electric field and there is no two different concepts of voltage on one hand and electric field on the other hand. No, those two are the same thing.

And the Ohm's law is no longer just V = iR with R as resistance, no that is childish. For Resistance is none other than angular momentum times magnetic field. So what we have is not V = iR but rather V = iBL where B= magnetic field and L = angular momentum.

--- quoting from my Atom Totality textbook 2017 ---

----Ampere-Maxwell law----
Now differentiating 

V' = (i*B*L)' 

Using the Product Rule of Calculus. Which is (fgh)' = f'gh + fg'h + fgh'

V' = i'*B*L + i*B'*L + i*B*L' 

= i*B*L + i*V/m^2*L + i*B*spin energy

= i*B*L + i^2 + i*B*spin energy


Justification:: Applying these experimental results::

(i) The derivative of voltage is current A or i. 

"To put this relationship between voltage and current in a capacitor in calculus terms, the current through a capacitor is the derivative of the voltage across the capacitor with respect to time. Or, stated in more simple terms, a capacitor's current is directly proportional to how quickly the voltage across it is changing." (web)

(ii) The derivative of charge is current. 

"The momentary current is given by the derivative of the electric charge by time. i(t) is the momentary current i at time t in amps (A). Q(t) is the momentary electric charge in coulombs (C). deltaQ is the electric charge in coulombs (C), that flows at time duration of delta t. " (web)

(iii) The derivative of current is current, rate of change of the current.

(iv) The derivative of magnetic field B is V/m^2. This makes B as proportional to 1/s^2 go to 1/s^3, to go from B looking to more like V. So you turn B into a quasi state V

(v) The derivative of momentum is force, and angular momentum m^2/s is force to energy m^2/s^2.

Now the above result of V'  = 2 i_accel * R_ordered, which is basically V' = 2iR is Ampere-Maxwell law where a current in, yields two overall currents.


-----Faraday law-----

More differentiating 

(V/(i*L))'  = B'

Using the Quotient Rule, which is (f/gh)' = (f'gh - fg'h - fgh')/ (gh)^2

(V/i*L)' = (V'*i*L - V*i' *L - V*i*L') / (i*L)^2

= (i^2L - ViL -Vi spin)/ i^2L^2

Now applying the rules again::

(i) The derivative of voltage is current A or i. 

(ii) The derivative of charge is current. 

(iii) The derivative of current is accelerated current, call it i_accel 

(iv) The derivative of Resistance R is more ordered more patterned resistance, let me call it R_ordered. 

We have (V'R - VR') / R^2 =( iR - VR_ordered ) / R^2

Since V= iR we have (iR - iR^2_ordered)/ R^2

This ends up as (i - iR_ordered)/R

So that can be written as this, (i + i (-R_ordered)) / R where you have a direction of motion of R_ordered 

This of course is the Faraday law with Lenz law as -R_ordered

--- end quote ---

So we see in the AP-Maxwell Equations, we end up with mass in the Faraday Law.

Now I can unravel what is the bar magnets inside of atoms-- is it the valence electrons, or is it the prior S orbital before the P orbital? Or, what?

AP


Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 16:58:55 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: 25-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// AP-Maxwell Equations has Angular
 Momentum in them, but not the Old Maxwell Equations alone for they have no
 angular momentum
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 23:58:55 +0000

25-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// AP-Maxwell Equations has Angular Momentum in them, but not the Old Maxwell Equations alone for they have no angular momentum


Faraday law   

Is 

B' = (V/(i*L))' 

and then reducing it we end up with 

B' = 1/L - VB/i^2L - V/L^2 

Where we have electricity and Lenz law come out. I get electricity in spades (slang) in the middle term VB/i^2L and I get Lenz law in third term V/L^2. However, I get something totally new and missed by Maxwell, a imparted spin on the apparatus of 1/L. What this is, is the fact that electricity is circular motion, and what more circular is there, than the electric motor itself. So oddly enough, the Old Maxwell Equations never really tells you that electric motors spin in circles.

The L is angular momentum. And angular momentum has mass.

Old Ohm's law was V = iR where R is resistance. New Ohm's law is V = iBL where R = BL and B is magnetic field and L is angular momentum.

What does this tell us about the mass of a bar magnet in Faraday law relative to the mass of the closed loop coil in Faraday Law?

Well, the changing magnetic field in Faraday law, B', produces an electric current, and is inversely proportional to the Angular Momentum, the mass. So, if we have a coil of say 8 windings for proton, then the inverse of 8 is 1/8. And so, a proton composed of 8 muons, as coil, then the bar magnet as B is 8/8 = 1 muon.

This tells me the muon is the bar magnet, but it does not indicate how many muons are the bar magnet in various atoms or molecules.

AP

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#686854 — Re: Univ of Western Ontario, a failed university with teachers like Dan Christensen attack dogs in sci.math, failures failures failures

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:

>Univ of Western Ontario, a failed university with teachers like Dan 
>Christensen attack dogs in sci.math, failures failures failures

Attacking the wrong Dan Christensen? It sounds like you are the one
failing, not the Dan here.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#686860 — 8-Maximum Electric Coil theory-- how inside of atoms works //teaching Logic in Grade School, TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS/

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 23:05:09 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: 26-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// tricky pondering-- is it New
 Ohm's law for mass or Faraday Law?
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 06:05:09 +0000

26-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// tricky pondering-- is it New Ohm's law for mass or Faraday Law?

Alright, I answered a question earlier about why a .5MeV electron cannot do a chemical bonding to a 938 MeV proton of two hydrogen atoms in H2. The short answer is such as N3, where 3 electrons of one N bond with 3 electrons of another N, and if the electrons were 105 MeV, you are talking about 6 x 105 = 630 MeV angular momentum with each proton being 840 MeV. Alternatively, in Old Physics ripping apart N2 would be angular momentum of .5 + .5 + .5 + .5 + .5 + .5 = 3 MeV. Dissociation energy of N2 in eV is somewhat around 10 eV, where Chemistry bonding is 10^-6 that of nuclear physics. 

Newsgroups: sci.math 
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 20:10:29 -0700 (PDT) 

Subject: Re: discovery of what is the bar magnet in Faraday's law for atoms 
 and molecules 
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> 
Injection-Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 03:10:30 +0000 

Fair enough, take the Old Physics viewpoint then the New Physics. 

Old Physics thought the electron was that tiny particle of .5MeV and their proton was 938 MeV, almost 2,000 more massive and when a hydrogen atom collides with another hydrogen atom to form the covalent bond, their physics was that two of these .5 MeV angular momentum particles form a bond affecting the two protons of course, and now circle those two near-by protons each of 938 MeV. 

New Physics says the electron is 105 MeV with proton at 840 MeV so in the collision, is a collision of two 105MeV which is 210 MeV with two near-by protons of 840 MeV each. 

AP 



On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 6:58:59 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> 25-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// AP-Maxwell Equations has Angular Momentum in them, but not the Old Maxwell Equations alone for they have no angular momentum 
> 
> 
> Faraday law   
> 
> Is 
> 
> B' = (V/(i*L))' 
> 
> and then reducing it we end up with 
> 
> B' = 1/L - VB/i^2L - V/L^2 


Alright, in this, I do not know if I need the Angular Momentum after the Faraday law is worked, or before the Faraday law with just New Ohm's law 

As in V = iBL 

If it is the New Ohm's law that I deduce what is the bar magnet then it is a direct linear relationship of the mass in L and the mass in B, magnetic field. Implying there is a mass in Voltage. 

And here, like in the question of animal CO2 versus fire CO2 produced from fire, whether those are two isomers different from one another, and only an experiment can tell the truth of the matter. 

Here again, only an experiment can begin to unravel the truth. Now I have a coil of copper and a bar magnet, and the coil far outweighs the bar magnet, but then how do we determine the amount of current produced that ties together the mass of magnet to the mass of coil? Seems as though we can pick them arbitrarily. 

Could we say, that the .5MeV in some atoms of radioactive decay points to a Faraday law where a muon of 105 MeV is producing that .5MeV by thrusting through 8 windings of a proton of 840MeV? 

If I can spot where a .5MeV monopole is emitted out of a radioactive atom, then I can reverse engineer that atom's internal Faraday hardware, deduce the windings and deduce how many valence muons thrusting through to produce the .5MeV emission. 

Now, here, we get the idea that some radioactivity, in a sense can emit .5 MeV particles forever, and not really any half-life, but, forever. So, some of these radioactive atoms that emit .5MeV particles, and seem to never-- miss a beat --- so to speak, have no half life but are forever emitters. For as long as these atoms move through Space, they eat up Space-- thrusting bar magnet in coil, and convert that Space to a monopole of .5 MeV. A nice proof of this, in physics, is measure a emitter and if it ever-- speeds up emissions, means it has no half live but an emitter forever. In Old Physics, their view and understanding of radioactivity with half-life, implied the emission is either steady constant rate or a rate slowing down. In New Physics, since Faraday law is the driving mechanism in all atoms, we can have a speeded up rate of radioactivity. 

> 
> Where we have electricity and Lenz law come out. I get electricity in spades (slang) in the middle term VB/i^2L and I get Lenz law in third term V/L^2. However, I get something totally new and missed by Maxwell, a imparted spin on the apparatus of 1/L. What this is, is the fact that electricity is circular motion, and what more circular is there, than the electric motor itself. So oddly enough, the Old Maxwell Equations never really tells you that electric motors spin in circles. 
> 
> The L is angular momentum. And angular momentum has mass. 
> 

Easy to make a mistake, in this, do I focus on Faraday's law of B' or do I focus on New Ohm's Law of V= iBL for mass consideration of a bar magnet versus coil. Now we can have uniformity in making the magnet out of iron and the coil out of iron wire. 


> Old Ohm's law was V = iR where R is resistance. New Ohm's law is V = iBL where R = BL and B is magnetic field and L is angular momentum. 
> 
> What does this tell us about the mass of a bar magnet in Faraday law relative to the mass of the closed loop coil in Faraday Law? 
> 
> Well, the changing magnetic field in Faraday law, B', produces an electric current, and is inversely proportional to the Angular Momentum, the mass. So, if we have a coil of say 8 windings for proton, then the inverse of 8 is 1/8. And so, a proton composed of 8 muons, as coil, then the bar magnet as B is 8/8 = 1 muon. 
> 
> This tells me the muon is the bar magnet, but it does not indicate how many muons are the bar magnet in various atoms or molecules. 
> 
> 

These ponderings are always tricky, is it an inverse linear relationship of magnet mass to coil mass, or is it a just linear as in New Ohm's Law. 

Will sleep on it. 

AP 

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 12:00:31 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: 27-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// Breakthrough-- using Aufbau
 where the Aufbau is a torus geometry
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 19:00:31 +0000


27-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// Breakthrough-- using Aufbau

Finally hit a breakthrough, and, let me happily note, that what I am doing independently in math at this very moment is doing geometry of conic sections, cylinder sections, and there is no way in the world that the Mind and brain are chemicals sloshing around to form ideas or memory, and what the mind and brain truly are-- are a pipe to the godhead of the Atom Totality, a radio receiver to the Nucleus of the Atom Totality, because, well, my research is coming to an intersection of my math currently going on blending perfectly and exactly with my physics I am trying to conquer. Two independent strains of research meeting is impossible unless all thoughts of all minds were messages sent from the godhead.

Earlier I spoke of the Torus of Tokamaks being maximum possible electricity as a geometry design. That means the Nucleus and interior of all atoms is a torus geometry. For physics of atoms would not know how to make partial electricity, fractional electricity,-- Nature only does maximum electricity.

So now, looking at CHEM ONE, 2nd ed., Waser, Trueblood, Knobler, 1980, page 327, Figure 16-3 Schematic Energy-Level Diagram for a Many-Electron Atom

That picture on page 327 is actually a Aufbau, but is something more, for if you look closely and carefully the 1s to 2s to 2p to 3s to 3p to 4s to 3d to 4p to 5s to 4d to 5p to 6s to 4f to 5d

If you look carefully you can make out that the Aufbau as geometry is a TORUS.

AP



Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 13:32:13 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: 28-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// Breakthrough-- using Aufbau
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 20:32:13 +0000

28-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// Breakthrough-- using Aufbau

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 12:50:58 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS// Breakthrough in Conic Sections along with Physics
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 19:50:59 +0000

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS// Breakthrough in Conic Sections along with Physics

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS// Breakthrough in Conic Sections along with Physics//chapter 4 

Now I am doing physics simultaneously with math of conic sections, totally separate and independent of one another, except I have run into a intersection of the two, at this moment. This intersection is supporting evidence that the mind and brain of intelligent life is not chemically based machine, but is rather a radio receiver machine that picks up ideas and thoughts from out-of-body, photons shot from the Nucleus of the Atom Totality that gives every creature his/her/its ideas and thoughts of what to do next. Superdeterminism, no free will. 

So, I was looking for Maximum Electricity in a geometry configuration and found it in the tokamak Torus geometry and if you look at the Aufbau of elements, the chart of energy levels, you can make out that this Aufbau is itself a torus geometry. 

Now, a Cylinder is plane Euclidean geometry for if we take a plane sheet of paper and with one circular fold we have a cylinder. Now, if we could take that cylinder and bend it around without breaking or tearing it we would have a torus. With paper that is impossible but with closed loops as a cylinder with gaps in between consecutive loops we easily form a torus from a cylinder. And that is what Faraday coil is-- gaps between successive closed loops. 

Now, we constructed a Cylinder from a flat plane sheet of paper. Can we construct a cone from a flat plane sheet of paper? The question I am asking here is a devious question on my part, for if we had a cone of paper and cut it on one cut from base to height tip of cone in a straightline cut, can we fold that cut cone to lie perfectly flat? We can do the same thing with a cylinder, cut it, and it is a plane itself. But what is the cut cone? Is it ever able to be a flat Euclidean surface? Or is there some integral curvature to a cone, that a cone is impossible to lie flat in Euclidean geometry? And what do we call this integral curvature of cone? Do we call it as in physics-- a Cylinder has 0 spin while a cone has an intrinsic 1/2 spin. 

Now, further, can we lie a Cone flat, if we are given 2 straightline cuts, perhaps 4 straightline cuts where those 4 are somewhat triangle shaped? 

Now this is important for my physics, of torus and electricity, because the fill in of gaps between closed loops of the wire coil, so you can fold a cylinder to be a torus, those gaps are somewhat similar to the cone not being able to lie flat. 

So, what the Torus shape for maximum electricity, is the Aufbau, and each new proton and muons that build the elements, those are windings of a coil, and the gaps between proton windings, that empty space gap is the neutron windings. 

And the bar magnet which I have had a difficult time of understanding finally becomes clear, or more clear. The bar magnet to make maximum electricity in Faraday's law are all the lower energy levels themselves folded into a torus and that is the bar magnet. So for instance the first energy level of 1s in helium is a torus and then in beryllium is a 2s torus with the 1s torus inside it acting as bar magnet, then for 2p of neon, is a torus that has 2s torus inside 2p and the 1s torus inside of 2s. This makes sense if you want Maximum Electricity of Faraday law. And, it makes sense in that the Chemical Bond is a completion of a torus, such as say N2 molecule, where the partial filled torus of one Nitrogen atom's 2P is filled by the second nitrogen atom. Where one of the Nitrogen atom's 2P is a full torus with its 1S inside 2S inside the filled 2P and adjacent is the second Nitrogen atom as a torus of just 2S with 1S inside. This gets rid of Lewis structure altogether as merely a erroneous mnemonic device. 

Now for O2 we have one O filled of its 2P with toruses 2s and 1s inside the 2P torus, but with the second oxygen we have the 2S torus filled with 1S torus inside, but we have 2 extra valence muons left over and what they do is form a second 2S, call it the 2S_x and 2S_y. 

So, Chemistry bonding is altogether new and different, as a torus design. 

AP 


Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 13:37:46 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: 28-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// Breakthrough-- using Aufbau
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 20:37:46 +0000

One of the most famous of all science experiments but now we put it through more rigorous testing to prove Maximum Electric Coil. 

—-quoting Wikipedia —- 

The Geiger–Marsden experiment(s) (also called the Rutherford gold foil experiment) were a landmark series of experiments by which scientists discovered that every atom contains a nucleus where all of its positive charge and most of its mass are concentrated. They deduced this by measuring how an alpha particle beam is scattered when it strikes a thin metal foil. The experiments were performed between 1908 and 1913 by Hans Geiger and Ernest Marsden under the direction of Ernest Rutherford at the Physical Laboratories of the University of Manchester. 




8-teaching Logic in Grade School, TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS// Maximum Electric Coil theory-- how inside of atoms works

#3-8  Toto Space Product in Geometry Logic// Teaching True Mathematics 

Alright, I am going to need a 3-9 lesson on just the use of Logic in language and how the student can use logic to think better and more clearly. Remember, that we do not use math everyday of our lives but we do have to think everyday of our lives and so thinking clearly --- logic ---- is more important to know than is math. So lessons 3-9 and 3-10 are going to be exercises in using Logic in language and thinking. And I hope the schools across the world will coordinate these logic lessons with their language lessons, such as here in the USA, coordinate these lessons with teaching of English in Grade School even High School. 

Alright, this is going to be the toughest concept for 14 year olds to learn, but one of the most important concepts, that prepares the student to go on in all the sciences, and mathematics. 
Because it is so tough, I ask the teachers to bring in a model, so the student has a visual model always in her/his mind. A beautiful model it is-- at that. 


GEOMETRY LOGIC = Set theory 
  
1) Toto Space Product (multiply) 
2) Union (add) 
3) Set Difference (subtract) 
4) Intersection (divide) 
5) Cardinality (Existence quantifier) 
6) Cartesian Product (Universal quantifier) renamed to Cartesian Universal Function 

Of the six operators above, this Toto Space is perhaps the most important because it is the entire geometry in which these six operators work in, and on top of that, it is this operator that provides motion in geometry to form geometry figures. The motion is a "spin". 

So, we have a lot of work to do on this last but important operator. 

Now this is a very very complicated lesson, the most complex complicated lesson so far in this textbook, and so I have to especially tone down the message, and make it accessible to 14 year olds. Now recently on TV, I was watching a animal display of the late Irwin Australian animal enthusiast, of his son who the announcer said was 14 years old. That is a relief to me, for I know that Robert Irwin could easily learn this full entire lesson. For at one time in my life, in the mid 1970s I was living and teaching math in Melbourne Australia, and sort of forgot, since then, what 14 year olds minds were capable of learning. In fact, watching Robert, I kind of think I am too soft on 14 year olds. 

So, to make doubly sure that this lesson is accessible to 14 year olds minds, I ask the teacher to construct two models before classroom teaching of this lesson. One model is a sheet of graph paper with the x-axis on the bottom of the sheet going out in integers to 100, 0 to 100 in integers, and the y-axis going upwards to only that of 10, 0 to 10 in integers. Now this is difficult to write all 100 integers on the x-axis, so the students are going to have to write them tiny tiny numbers to fit all 100 integers in the bottom of the graph paper. I had to erase them twice before I got the right size to fit them all in. Once done, then get another stiff waxy paper, like a magazine cover then bent the two together to form a cylinder and tape it on the inside. The students will do this model in class. 

The second model is a globe presented by the teacher, and built at home and on a paper cut out of a square box paper write ten integers of 10 grid 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 on x-axis and do the same for y-axis and scotch tape that to the globe make the square box cutout be the same proportion as the cylinder so that 90 other numbers is the circumference around the globe that the square box does not cover. The square paper should be about 1/10 the circumference around the globe. 

A visual demonstration is worth a thousand or more words in class, something the students will remember far longer than the words or numbers spoken or written. And this demonstration is very important for it charts all we do in the future of mathematics-- its infinity ideas, and its realm where math is played out. 

Now the students are going to bring a graph paper and do the cylinder once they see the teacher's model of cylinder. 

Now I am more concerned that we teach 14 year olds this operator in any sort of depth and detail, no, not concerned about mastery of Toto Space, even though it will be many years before they take Calculus. But the concept behind Toto Space is so important that if we do not teach it to 14 year olds, they have a good chance of being corrupted and polluted with fake math with their fake infinity notions. So by age 14, fake infinity of Old Math is very much competing with true math and we want to catch the students by age 14, so they are not polluted in mind over infinity. 

Now the Toto Space Product is truly a product and it is very nice to know we need the Cartesian Universal Function of the prior lesson. Now the 10 Grid would be this--- first we list all of 10 Grid 

0, .1, .2, .3, .4, .5, .6, .7, .8, .9, 1.0, 1.1, ... , 9.8, 9.9, 10.0 

Here we did it for 8 year olds in chapter 1, lesson 1-1 

9.0, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5 9.6, 9.7, 9.8, 9.9, 10.0 
8.0, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 8.8, 8.9, 
7.0, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9, 
6.0, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 
5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 
4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 
3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 
2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 
1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 
0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 

Only we want them all in a straightline to be the x-axis or y-axis 

0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, only my computer give out here 

If we do not count 0.0 then there are 10 x 10 = 100 numbers there in the 10 Grid. But, the Toto Space Product of 10 Grid is 10^2 = 100 and all of the numbers in 100 Grid. 

100 Grid numbers are these 

0.00, .01, .02, .03, .... , 99.98, 99.99, 100.00 

Not counting 0.00, how many numbers are there in 100 Grid? Well, there are 100 integers and there are 100 decimal fractions between any two consecutive or successor integers. That means, say, between 1 and 2 there are 100 decimal fractions, between 2 and 3 there are 100 decimal fractions. So between 0 and 100 there are 100 integers and between any two consecutive integers there are 100 decimal fractions, hence, 100 x 100 = 10,000. 

So, the Toto Space of 10 Grid is 10,000 numbers along the x-axis and 10,000 along the y-axis. And so, what is the Cartesian Universal Function of 10,000 along x-axis and 10,000 along y-axis? 

It is 10,000 times 10,000 or 10,000^2 which is what-- any student know? It is 10^8 as answer. So the body of Toto Space for 10 Grid is that of 10^8, which is 1 with eight zeroes after it. It is 100,000,000 which is hard on my eyes so I use commas. 

So for the 10 Grid, we have 100 numbers along x-axis and 100 along y-axis which makes a Cartesian Universal Function be that of 100x100 = 100^2 = 10,000. The Toto Space of 10 Grid is 10^2 = 100 and in 100 Grid there are 10,000 numbers along x-axis and 10,000 along y-axis. That means the Cartesian Universal Function of 10,000 by 10,000 is 100,000,000. 

The body of coordinate graphed points of 10 Grid is 10,000 points on the graph paper. The Toto Space of 10 Grid is 100 points on x-axis, 100 on y-axis causing the body of points to be 100,000,000. 

So in 10 Grid we have 100 points on a graph for x-axis. Yet the Toto Space of 10 Grid is 10,000 points on x-axis. Those other 9,900 points such as 10.01, 10.02, 10.03, . . . 99.98, 99.99, 100.00 are curling back around to 0 in a circle. 

More later,.... 

AP 



#3-9  Many examples and exercises in using Algebraic Logic // Teaching True Mathematics 

These last two lessons are going to be long lessons and I ask for the teachers in schools across the world to use this lesson of logical fallacies with the English class (or whatever language your country speaks) to teach logical fallacies in English class. For of primary importance is the student be able to think straight and clear and logical, for it is little use to teach a student language and math if they cannot think straight or clear in the first place. Why teach a student percentage, yet the student goes off and borrows money where he can do the percentage correctly, but never learned or was taught that he should not be borrowing in the first place. 


Alright, in life, while doing science and physics and mathematics, I have found the greatest hole in knowledge and understanding of the world around us, is a lack of ability to think straight and to think clearly. Logic is the subject that is focused on thinking straight and thinking clearly. Math needs logic, but logic does not need math. 

And I am finding that most professors of mathematics at colleges and universities are terribly terribly lacking in Logic. Just recently in May of 2018, I am showing the world of mathematics that Euler's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem in exponent 3, of A^3 + B^3 = C^3 has no integer solutions and where Euler thought he had a proof, yet, it turns out he had no proof. For Euler thought and all the mathematicians after Euler thought also, he had proven FLT for exponent 3. Turns out, Euler made a huge huge logical mistake, and that 1770 Euler's so called proof contained a major Logical flaw but no mathematician from 1770 onwards had the logical mind to see and understand the flaw. 

His logical flaw can be abbreviated to this sentence. 

If, if A,B,C were all even, then they are -not- two odds and one even, A,B,C are two odds and one even, then they have no solution to A^3 + B^3 = C^3. Therefore, A,B,C all even has no solution to A^3 + B^3 = C^3 

Students and teacher, do you sense why that is a logically flawed statement? 

Here is a analog of the above flaw. 

If,if I have pancreas cancer, then I will die soon, I get the job working for the company and then life happily ever after. Therefore, pancreas cancer I live happily ever after. 

You see the logical mistake made? I call it an entanglement of two If--> then operators. You cannot entangle two separate IF--> Then statements and have them always true. 

Call it a DOUBLE CONDITIONAL and it is a erroneous argument. It's structure is If, if..then, then. It is a material conditional inside a material conditional. It is Euler's fake proof of FLT exp3. 

Am looking for the best example: 

If, if I go to France, then I stay in Paris, I go to France then I eat gourmet bread. Therefore I eat gourmet bread in Paris. 

If, if I go to College, then I study physics, I go to College then I romance the women. Therefore I study physics of women. 

Looking for the best one of these DOUBLE CONDITIONALS 

Most common Logic fallacy is ad hominem--2nd most common-- nonsequitur TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS 

Discovery of a new logic principle by AP, the DOUBLE CONDITIONAL// is it the same as non-sequitur in logic? 

Alright amazed in that Copi in his book Introduction to Logic does not include the Non Sequitur fallacy. Was looking for examples, and found some in Wikipedia under Formal Fallacy 

1) "Some of your key evidence is missing, incomplete, or even faked! That proves I'm right!" 

2) "The vet can't find any reasonable explanation for why my dog died. See! See! That proves that you poisoned him!" 

3) Life is life and fun is fun, but it's all so quiet when the goldfish die. 
(source: Wikipedia) 

So, what I am thinking is that I have in the Double Conditional, the If, if-->then, --> then the formal way of writing the Non Sequitur. 

I mean Double Conditional = Nonsequitur and that two if-->then with one if then inside the bigger if then is a NonSequitur. 

So let us apply that to the above three examples in Wikipedia: 

1) If, if some of your key evidence is then missing, incomplete or even faked, then, that proves, I'm right. 

2) If, if the vet can't find any reasonable explanation for why my dog died, then, that be the case, that proves that you, then poisoned him. 

3) If, if life is life and fun is fun, then it's all so quiet, then the goldfish dies. 

So in all three examples above the final "then...." do not really follow from the 
If... if-->then...then, that final then does not follow from prior If..if-->then 

Most of living life is doing logic, in the mind and in everyday conversation, in our actions and reactions and what we do every moment of the day is either the use of Good Logic or fallacy. This is why it is more important to teach students how to think straight and clear than to be teaching them how to do mathematics. Math needs logic, but logic does not need math. 

So, to finish off Grade School mathematics, it is very important that we teach students not just details of numbers and geometry but teach students how to think straight, think clearly, think logically, even more important than just teaching mathematics. For logic is bigger than mathematics. And the reason Euler's 1770 flub of FLT was never recognized until 2016 as a error, is because people in mathematics never learned what Logic is all about. 

Here in this textbook we teach Logic along with mathematics, for it is more important that every day we think clearly and think straight than it is for the few times you need to think mathematically. 
Every thought of every day should be logical thoughts and only rarely do you need in a day to think mathematically. 

The below examples are from Copi, Introduction to Logic, 1972 

If Socrates is a man then Socrates is mortal. 
Socrates is a man. 
Therefore Socrates is mortal. 


All men are mortal. 
Socrates is a man. 
Therefore Socrates is mortal 

All cows are mammals and have lungs. 
All horses are mammals and have lungs. 
All men are mammals and have lungs. 
Therefore probably all mammals have lungs. 



#3-10  Many examples and exercises in using Geometry Logic // Teaching True Mathematics 

My pictures below turned out quite nicely on the internet format. 

Here I need mostly examples and exercises in set theory, for all of set theory is Geometry Logic. But I need exercises that are in common everyday living. 

We do Venn diagrams, only the diagrams here will be different from the diagrams seen on the Internet or in books. 


_____________ 
|      A                | 
|     _______     | 
|     |             |    | 
|     |        __ |__|____ 
|     |       |     |    |       | 
|__ |___ |__ |__|       | 
      |       |     |            | 
      |       |__ |___C__| 
      |_B____ | 


  
1) Toto Space Product (multiply) 
2) Union (add) 
3) Set Difference (subtract) 
4) Intersection (divide) 
5) Cardinality (Existence quantifier) 
6) Cartesian Product (Universal quantifier) renamed to Cartesian Universal Function 

The Union of A U B U C is 
_____________ 
|                        | 
|                        | 
|                        | 
|                        |____ 
|                                | 
|__                            | 
      |                          | 
      |              ______| 
      |______ | 

The Union of A U B is 

_____________ 
|                        | 
|                        | 
|                        | 
|                        | 
|                        | 
|__                __|   
      |             |           
      |             | 
      |______ | 


What is the Union of A U C, of B U C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687088 — Re: 8-teaching Logic in Grade School, TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:


>#3-9  Many examples and exercises in using Algebraic Logic // Teaching 
>True Mathematics

>These last two lessons are going to be long lessons

Here is some True Mathematics which will probably become long lessons:

Below you will find a simple *proof* that shows that certain conic 
sections are ellipses.

Some preliminaries:

Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used 
in the proof:

              ^ x
              |
             -+- <= x=h
         .'   |   `.
        .     |     .
        |     |     |
        '     |     '      
         `.   |   .'
 y <----------+ <= x=0
             
Cone (side view):
                 .
                /|\
               / | \
              /b |  \
             /---+---' <= x = h
            /    |'   \
           /   ' |     \
          / '    |      \
x = 0 => '-------+-------\
        /    a   |        \

Proof:

r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x  and  d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x,  hence

y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.

Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1  ...equation of an ellipse

qed

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web