```Date: Feb 10, 2013 1:10 AM
Author: plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
Subject: how much better physics would be with Axiom set -- Maxwell Equations<br> #1214 New Physics #1334 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Let me reverse the previous post so that the import, the meaning isclear. That if you take the Maxwell Equations as the axioms over allof physics, that you no longer can think about or having any meanfulconcepts or ideas that are lower than the Maxwell Equations.This is important, because all these ideas are then just fakeries ofphysics:a) quarksb) black-holesc) stringsd) Cooper pairinge) phononsf) Higgs bosonAll of those are lower than the Maxwell Equations and thus are justfantasy fiction.For example, here are two axioms of mathematics,one in number theory and one in geometry:Natural Numbers Mathematical Induction axiom:If M is a set of Natural Numbers and if it contains 1, and if wesuppose it contains k, and can thence show it contains k+1, then thatset is the set of allNatural Numbers (with 0 appended).Euclidean geometry Parallel axiom: given a line and a point not on theline there is one and only one line through that point which isparallel to the given line.Now, may point or reasoning in displaying two axioms of mathematics,is that in mathematics, mathematicians are not ignorant in wanting tofind a more primitive set of axioms.But in Physics, where physicists have never before set up theirsubject with axioms, then physicists have no guidance, no measure ofwhether they are logical, and worst of all, they constantly keeptrying to lower themselves to more primitive terms and ideas.For example, in Old Physics, they are not satisfied by saying theproton is a ball, a tiny ball particle, and so they lower themselvesto dreaming up cranky and crackpot quarks. Some are not satisfied withquarks and they dream up some more stupidity such as strings orsuperstrings. With silly accessories such as phonons and othernonsense, even Higgs boson is thrown in.Now going back to the mathematician. How silly would it be to ask amathematician, "I am not satisfied with the axiom set of geometry, andI want something lower than the point and line". What if I told themathematician I wanted a point to be composed of three quarks, or thata line as we move along the line that it picks up Higgs boson andbecomes a "thicker line". So the reader can begin to understand thatin mathematics, where precision is demanded, that they must have axiomsets, and those axioms cannot go lower, for they must be at rockbottom foundation of mathematics.Yet the physicists with their 20th century physics that neverpinpointed the axioms of physics:4 Symmetrical Maxwell Equations plus all the facts of Chemistry, thatthe physicists could never go below the Maxwell Equations in thoughtor ideas, because those equations were the final rock bottomfoundation of physics.So that when Dr. Chris talks about electrons stuck together bygravity, he has failed to recognize the Maxwell Equations do not allowthat. Or when Murray Gell Man talks about quarks, he has failed tounderstand the Maxwell Equations do not allow that. Or when Weinbergtalks about the Standard Model, he has failed to appreciate that theMaxwell Equations do not support such a contraption, or when PeterHiggs imagines the Higgs boson, that Peter has failed to understandthe Maxwell Equations as axioms never supported any of that patheticnonsense.When mathematics has its axiom sets, it does not waste the time andcareer of mathematicians trying to find more lower concepts than theaxioms. But when physics never states its axioms-- the MaxwellEquations, then it is safe to say that over half the physicists wastetheir time and their career on silly stupid concepts that are lowerthan the Maxwell Equations.Now I myself have wasted some time on looking for ideas that werelower than the Maxwell Equations can bear, and so I also have madesilly comments. So I am also guilty of silliness.--Google's archives are top-heavy in hate-spew from search-engine-bombing. Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a excellent, simple andfair archiving of AP posts for the past 15 years as seen here:http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986Archimedes Plutoniumhttp://www.iw.net/~a_plutoniumwhole entire Universe is just one big atomwhere dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
```