Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Re: Edward Witten flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test

328 views

Skip to first unread message

Message has been deleted

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,

Mar 19, 2018, 9:56:52 PM3/19/18

On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 6:34:16 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Physics lifelong-generation Test & Edward Witten flunked it
>
> Now in each generation of about 50 years, there is a big question in science which the general population participates in-- for example Continental Drift from about 1930 to 1970. And from 1980 to present the question is Climate Change. Big science questions where the general public participates in.
>
> Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test. It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist, never.
>
> Now, Physics has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.
>
> PHYSICS TEST::
>
> 1) You studied momentum in physics, especially angular momentum, and, can you have Chemistry and the Chemical Bond, the ionic, covalent, metallic bonding, if the Proton was 938MeV while electron is .5MeV. Or, can this bonding exist only when the Proton is 840 MeV, electron = muon = 105 MeV, and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. So, which is it. Chemistry exists only if 840 to 105 MeV for angular momentum sake or 938 to .5?
>
> So, all physicists who studied and thought they mastered physics, turns out, they are so pitiful, so pathetic in physics understanding of just about anything, that they believe you can have Chemistry with a 938 MeV proton with a .5 MeV electron.
>
> Edward Witten flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test.
>
> AP

Edward is a modern Leonardo Da Vinci...

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Mar 19, 2018, 10:33:31 PM3/19/18

On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 8:56:52 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> Edward is a modern Leonardo Da Vinci...

Is Witten better than Jackson Pollock at throwing paint onto a canvas below his legs, and calling it a painting? For Witten surely cannot do physics-- so dumb is he in physics that he still thinks a 938 MeV proton and .5MeV electron can commit to a Covalent bond in chemistry. That is really stupid, for it shows Witten never even mastered Angular Momentum, yet they have him there at Advanced Study in Princeton. He should be out as a shop salesman or cafeteria cook at Princeton, not in physics.

AP

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,

Mar 19, 2018, 10:54:13 PM3/19/18

On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 7:33:31 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 8:56:52 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Edward is a modern Leonardo Da Vinci...
>
> Is Witten better than Jackson Pollock at throwing paint onto a canvas below his legs, and calling it a painting? For Witten surely cannot do physics-- so dumb is he in physics that he still thinks a 938 MeV proton and .5MeV electron can commit to a Covalent bond in chemistry. That is really stupid, for it shows Witten never even mastered Angular Momentum,

He believes there can only be Kerr black holes because there
is No absolute rest in his angular momentum...
Schwarzschild or black holes without momentum
will never form.

Mitchell Raemsch

benj

unread,

Mar 20, 2018, 12:48:28 PM3/20/18

Hey ARchie, your drool cup is full again! Didn't I tell you to stop
using aluminum cookware?

☑ ...and STILL can't answer 'why stalker lists of uninvolved profs'...

☑ ...and Archie's actual response is completely unrelated to the topic...

☑ ...and the critic's comment has embarrassing (to AP) portion removed...
☑ ...to the extent the comment is no longer recognizable...
☑ ...includes random snippets by other critics, spammers or babblers...

☐ ...which are attributed to yet other critics, spammers or babblers...
☐ ...followed by yet another repost of the "12 Failures of Plutonium"...
☐ ...or the "you gotta draw pictures of calculus" repost...
☐ ...and includes the dumb ascii art cat/owl thing...
☐ ...as well as ascii art of Archie's butthole...
☑ ...and Archie doesn't realize ascii art is so 1980s...

☑ ...and Archie brings up a "mistake" (in his view) from months ago...
☑ ...which, of course, is not actually a mistake...

☑ ...and Archie invents yet more "mistakes" (that are not mistakes)...
☐ ...and Archie really wears out the "a beer short of a 6 pack" joke...
☐ ...but he still doesn't realize he's about 5 beers short...
☐ ...and Archie can't get over the shame of messing up percentages...

☐ ...and Archie is envious that I weighed the electron and he didn't...
☐ ...Archie asks Google Groups to do something they can't do...
☑ ...Google Groups poster. 'Nuf said.

Archimedes Plutonium Lameness score: 17. Is the Thorazine starting to
take effect?

Message has been deleted

Michael Moroney

unread,

Apr 24, 2018, 1:46:17 PM4/24/18

Physics Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails:

>On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 11:42:10 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:

>Michael Moroney writes:
>7:17 AM (3 hours ago)

>>Archie, you science failure, you need to address Porat as Sir Porat or
>>Your Greatness. Before he was reduced to babbling babytalk, at least he
>>was designing bridges while you were learning better ways on how to fail.

>AP writes:: Moroney, do please submit to DNA testing as a proven-25 year
>insane stalker like you, compared to Jan Bielawski, Jan Burse, Dan
>Christensen, Karl Olav Nyberg, Zelos Malum, probably have the same
>genetic defects that make you obsessive stalkers. Probably all of you
>have a defect on the Y chromosome.

Yes, Archie, you should take a DNA test. Schizophrenia tends to run in
families so it almost certainly has a genetic component. If you take a
DNA test, perhaps it will flag your defective gene(s).

Message has been deleted

Michael Moroney

unread,

Of course, that changes all of electricity, as we understood it in 1897 through 2017. So some time in the future, few people will understand what took place from 1897 through 2017, when all scientists thought the atom was a proton at 938MeV, neutron 940MeV and electron at .5MeV. Of course, my very first proof of the Real Electron is 105 MeV was instantaneous to my mind--chemical bonding, chemical bonding-- is it possible to have covalent bonding with 938 to .5 ?? For if the Real Electron is 105 MeV then the Real Proton cannot be 938, but had to be 840MeV, and then, chemical bonding covalent of 105 versus 840, all makes sense.

This entire discovery was caused by a noting in 2016, that it takes 9 muons to make a proton (plus or minus less than 1%) To me, in science, I know all physics has outside "noise" and so when you say plus or minus less than 1%, means to me, anyway, that 9 muons = 1 proton. Now, sorry, but it took me another year from 2016 to 2017, to say-- Real Proton = 840 MeV. Sadly, to discover that 9 muons = 1 proton in 2016, took another year in 2017 to subtract 105 from 945 to see that the Real Proton was 840MeV.

And the instantaneous proof that came to my mind, is, well, you just cannot have Chemistry, the Chemical bond of covalent, if the electron is .5MeV and the proton 938MeV, for the angular-momentum is just not there to make covalent bonding. If the Real Electron is 105MeV and Real Proton is 840MeV then you have sufficient numbers of MeV for angular momentum to create covalent bonding in atoms.

But let me in this preface tell the story of how Electricity was imagined to be from 1897 to 2017. Electricity with the electron assumed as .5 MeV and proton at 938 MeV, that electricity in this view was seen as a electron particle that is wishy washy, here now, gone a second later flowing in a wire as electricity. In the new true view of electricity, electron = 105 MeV, proton = 840 MeV, it is rare for that electron of hydrogen atoms to ever leave its proton, and what electricity is-- is this monopole particle that assumes either a +1 or -1 charge and is fickle, for it can be attached to a hydrogen atom and with little to no encouragement, go flying off along a copper wire. Only, flying is a metaphor, for the Monopole is a photon or a neutrino dressed up (superposition) with .5MeV charge energy. So the monopole is a wave, a closed loop wave that becomes the shape of the closed loop wire itself. At the moment, I am rebuilding a crystal radio set I had as a Xmas gift from my father way back in about 1968. You see, the radio wave is a magnetic monopole, it is not an electron out of some atom.

I need to build this Preface into a good logical history expose of how feeble was the understanding and teaching of What the Real Electron was in science from 1897 to 2017.

How utterly feeble it is, to have millions of students around the world sitting in classes, hearing the teacher, the instructor saying that the electron is a .5MeV particle that runs along copper wires and yields electricity.

When the real truth is, that electrons are very heavy particles of 105 MeV, 1/8 the mass of the proton at 840 MeV, and it is rare, extremely rare that this massive Real Electron ever leaves its proton, but that these magnetic monopoles flit around, flit here, flit there, flit almost everywhere, and these monopoles are electricity.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 13:32:28 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment--
Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV

From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>

Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 21:32:28 +0000

Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole, after all

Experimental PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon
by Archimedes Plutonium

PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon

1st proof is chemical bonding cannot exist with momentum of 938 versus .5MeV
Chemical Bonds are covalent, ionic, metallic. You simply cannot get atoms to bond if the electron is thought of as the .5MeV particle, only with a muon at 105 MeV and the proton at 840 MeV with neutron at 945 MeV do you have the physics of angular momentum that allows bonding in Chemistry. The .5MeV particle was, all along a magnetic monopole of a photon with .5 MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 18:28:06 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: short history of subatomic particles of Physics Re: True Chemistry--
2018 textbook

From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>

Injection-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 01:28:07 +0000

short history of subatomic particles of Physics Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook

In my textbook True Chemistry, those new early pages, I need a chronology of history of how we viewed atoms, their constituent elementary particles, and electricity. For the blame as to not knowing the .5MeV particle was not the electron but a magnetic monopole, is the conceit of the minds of physicists, or should be say the naivety of the minds of physicists is that they were blown away by +1 and -1 charge. If we had taken off the table the electric charge. Then when JJ Thomson discovered this 1897 particle of .5MeV, if electric charge was not a issue, then Thomson, in my opinion would have realized it could not be the electron.

So let me make a rough sketch of the history involved, the pertinent history.

1861-1864, Maxwell wrote " A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field"-- a complete theory of electricity tying together magnetism, as EM, electromagnetism theory. Perhaps the single greatest physics book, or book in general, before the Atom Totality textbook.

1897, J.J. Thomson discovers a .5MeV particle, with a -1 charge, which he names as electron, thinking it is the electron of atoms, which, it turns out by 2017 is the Dirac magnetic monopole, and the muon is the real-electron.

1913, the Bohr model of the Atom, which gives no working role for its elementary subatomic particles of proton, electron, neutron, photon (of which the magnetic monopole is a photon with a charge energy-- or a neutrino with charge energy). Sadly, the Bohr model is lacking any sort of physical role for these subatomic particles, other than to say, let there exist a proton, let there exist a electron. It is this lack of a job or role or working marching order for subatomic particles that should have alerted all chemists, all physicists, that they have a looney tune model of the atom. In the true model of the Atom, come 2017, is that the elementary particles are doing a Faraday Law and Ampere Law sort of like a dance, a job, a commitment for their existence, inside the Atom, conducted by those protons and muons. Where protons as a coil and muon electron as a bar magnet creates new monopoles, converting Space into monopoles, and stored in neutrons as capacitors, which a hydrogen atom grows to become a deuterium atom etc etc. In other words, the creation of new atoms and heavier atoms is the job of existing atoms.

1917-1920, Rutherford discovers the proton of what he thought was 938 MeV

1931, Dirac with a paper on magnetic monopoles which in order to satisfy the quantization of electricity, which implies that monopoles must exist.

1932, Chadwick discovered the neutron of 945 MeV. Now they discovered these particles, like the neutron and proton but would have to wait years before they refined their masses on how much mass they had.

1936, Anderson & Neddermeyer discover the muon particle of 105 MeV. I do not know what year they found out it weighed 105 MeV.

Now, the big question is why are the minds of physicists so backwards, so empty of Logical thought, because when the proton was discovered by Rutherford in 1917 and could measure its mass to be roughly 940 MeV and then Thomson's particle of .5MeV. So, the puzzling question is from 1917 to 2017 is a span of time of 100 years, and the astonishment that in those 100 years, every physicist, every chemist knew of the Covalent bond of chemistry, every one of them knew what angular momentum was, or had a reasonable notion of what angular momentum means-- at least we thought they knew, yet not a single scientist ever had the thought run through their mind-- stop a minute-- how can a covalent bond of chemistry exist if the proton was 938 versus .5MeV electron ?? How, how is that possible. When that is only possible if the proton was 840 versus 105 MeV. Is the simple and short answer-- no physicist in the 20th century had a good decent logical mind to think straight, to think clear.

AP

Experimental Proofs and Definitions

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 23:00:27 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron =

105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV

From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 06:00:28 +0000

Now here is a new proof that belongs in the first page.

Now chemistry is all about the nature and behavour of the last electrons of atoms, while the protons and neutrons of atoms play little role in chemistry. So well if that malarkey is true then the electrons flowing in copper should turn copper wire into nickel wire. Should turn iron atoms into manganese.

And why is it not doing such? Because the .5MeV particle is not the electron but a magnetic monopole and the real-electron = muon of atoms stays firmly in place with Real Proton=84MeV.

In New Chemistry atomic number is the same if you count Real Electron =105MeV or count protons.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 12:44:41 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: definition of Chemistry is all wet behind the ears in Old Chemistry
Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV,

Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV

From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 19:44:41 +0000

definition of Chemistry is all wet behind the ears in Old Chemistry Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV

- hide quoted text -
On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 1:00:31 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Now here is a new proof that belongs in the first page.
>
> Now chemistry is all about the nature and behavour of the last electrons of atoms, while the protons and neutrons of atoms play little role in chemistry. So well if that malarkey is true then the electrons flowing in copper should turn copper wire into nickel wire. Should turn iron atoms into manganese.
>
> And why is it not doing such? Because the .5MeV particle is not the electron but a magnetic monopole and the real-electron = muon of atoms stays firmly in place with Real Proton=84MeV.
>
> In New Chemistry atomic number is the same if you count Real Electron =105MeV or count protons.
>

Alright, when I went to college in 1968, Univ Cincinnati, taking Freshman Chemistry (may have been sophomore year?) one of the first things we learned from the instructor is that Chemistry is about the electrons, the last few electrons of any atom. I remember the book used was Mortimer's Chemistry: A Conceptual Approach. I no longer have the textbook edition I used, but a later edition, the 4th ed. of Mortimer, 1979.

Now, Mortimer attempts to define Chemistry on page 1 by saying : "Chemistry may be defined as the science that is concerned with the characterization, composition, and transformation of matter. This definition, however, is far from adequate." Further on, Mortimer writes: "The focus of chemistry, however, is probably the chemical reaction." Trouble is, though Mortimer never defines or tells us what "chemical reaction" is. And probably the reason the UC instructor said words to the effect-- "Chemistry is about the behavior of the last electrons of atoms."

And so, what we have here, in terms of Logic, we have a massive contradiction, a massive counterintuitive definition of Chemistry. So if the science of Chemistry is basically, not all but the bulwark of chemistry is the study of the last electrons in any atom, then in electricity flow in copper, with Old Chemistries stupid notion the electron is the .5MeV particle, then, right before your very eyes, all copper wire should turn to nickel wire because is the nickel atom has 28 electrons and the copper has 29 electrons, as the electron flows into the appliance, it deprives all the copper atoms of an electron and thus, making those copper atoms become nickel atoms, even though they still have 29 protons.

You see, the only way to resolve Old Chemistry's dilemma, is to consider, that the .5MeV particle was never the electron at all, but was Dirac's Magnetic Monopole that Dirac strived to find in his lifetime for the monopole was the carrier of electricity. Electricity is not the flow of electrons, but the flow of magnetic monopoles-- those, .5MeV particles.

The Real Electron, like the Real Proton hardly ever move outside the atom they are confined in. It takes enormous amount of energy to move any electron inside an atom and that is because the Real Electron is 105MeV, what is called the muon in physics, and the Real Proton is 840MeV.

So, Old Chemistry-- every book that assumes the electron is .5MeV is now a defunct worthless trash book. Old Chemistry starts off their science with a crazy contradiction, a counterintuitive definition of Chemistry-- for they say-- Chemistry is about the last electrons of atoms, yet their ideas would thus cause copper wire to change into nickel wire by just the flow of electricity. When the Real Electron = muon, it stays behind with its 840MeV proton, securely fastened to the proton, and what is flowing as electricity is a .5 MeV magnetic monopole.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:32:03 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: new early page of textbook, explaining the hole in Old Chemistry Re:
True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 21:32:04 +0000

new early page of textbook, explaining the hole in Old Chemistry Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook

- hide quoted text -
On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 2:44:48 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 1:00:31 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Now here is a new proof that belongs in the first page.
> >
> > Now chemistry is all about the nature and behaviour of the last electrons of atoms, while the protons and neutrons of atoms play little role in chemistry. So well if that malarkey is true then the electrons flowing in copper should turn copper wire into nickel wire. Should turn iron atoms into manganese.
> >
> > And why is it not doing such? Because the .5MeV particle is not the electron but a magnetic monopole and the real-electron = muon of atoms stays firmly in place with Real Proton=84MeV.
> >
> > In New Chemistry atomic number is the same if you count Real Electron =105MeV or count protons.
> >
>
> Alright, when I went to college in 1968, Univ Cincinnati, taking Freshman Chemistry (may have been sophomore year?) one of the first things we learned from the instructor is that Chemistry is about the electrons, the last few electrons of any atom. I remember the book used was Mortimer's Chemistry: A Conceptual Approach. I no longer have the textbook edition I used, but a later edition, the 4th ed. of Mortimer, 1979.
>
> Now, Mortimer attempts to define Chemistry on page 1 by saying : "Chemistry may be defined as the science that is concerned with the characterization, composition, and transformation of matter. This definition, however, is far from adequate." Further on, Mortimer writes: "The focus of chemistry, however, is probably the chemical reaction." Trouble is, though Mortimer never defines or tells us what "chemical reaction" is. And probably the reason the UC instructor said words to the effect-- "Chemistry is about the behavior of the last electrons of atoms."
>
> And so, what we have here, in terms of Logic, we have a massive contradiction, a massive counterintuitive definition of Chemistry. So if the science of Chemistry is basically, not all but the bulwark of chemistry is the study of the last electrons in any atom, then in electricity flow in copper, with Old Chemistries stupid notion the electron is the .5MeV particle, then, right before your very eyes, all copper wire should turn to nickel wire because is the nickel atom has 28 electrons and the copper has 29 electrons, as the electron flows into the appliance, it deprives all the copper atoms of an electron and thus, making those copper atoms become nickel atoms, even though they still have 29 protons.
>
> You see, the only way to resolve Old Chemistry's dilemma, is to consider, that the .5MeV particle was never the electron at all, but was Dirac's Magnetic Monopole that Dirac strived to find in his lifetime for the monopole was the carrier of electricity. Electricity is not the flow of electrons, but the flow of magnetic monopoles-- those, .5MeV particles.
>
> The Real Electron, like the Real Proton hardly ever move outside the atom they are confined in. It takes enormous amount of energy to move any electron inside an atom and that is because the Real Electron is 105MeV, what is called the muon in physics, and the Real Proton is 840MeV.
>
> So, Old Chemistry-- every book that assumes the electron is .5MeV is now a defunct worthless trash book. Old Chemistry starts off their science with a crazy contradiction, a counterintuitive definition of Chemistry-- for they say-- Chemistry is about the last electrons of atoms, yet their ideas would thus cause copper wire to change into nickel wire by just the flow of electricity. When the Real Electron = muon, it stays behind with its 840MeV proton, securely fastened to the proton, and what is flowing as electricity is a .5 MeV magnetic monopole.
>

Sad that I have to go to physics to get a good enough definition of a chemical reaction. I go to Feynman Lectures on Physics, 1963, page 1-6 and 1-7

--- quoting ---

Chemical reactions

In all of the processes which have been described so far, the atoms and the ions have not changed partners, but of course there are circumstances in which the atoms do change combinations, forming new molecules. This is illustrated in Fig. 1-8. A process in which the rearrangement of the atomic partners occurs is what we call a chemical reaction.

--- end quoting Feynman ---

I have not located any author who comes outright saying "Chemistry is basically the study of the last electrons of atoms".

But the above is as close as we need to get on the fact that Old Chemistry is a Contradiction in Terms, and that Old Chemistry is Counterintuitive, if it wants people to believe that the electron is .5MeV, proton is 938 MeV and neutron is 940 MeV.

In my discovery that the Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton= 840MeV, and neutron = 945MeV, leaving behind the .5MeV particle as Dirac's magnetic monopole. My discovery of all of that, stems from a day in 2016 when looking at tables of masses of elementary particles, I saw the muon at 105 and the proton at 938 MeV and said to myself, -- lo and behold, that is less than 1% of being 9x105 = 945. I said to myself, lo and behold 945/938 = 1.007, or, in percentage is .7%, less than 1%, and to me, that means they are really equal, that 9muons = 1 proton.

So, with that magnificent discovery in 2016 that a proton was just 9 muons, I did not assemble that beautiful discovery just yet, that the proton had to be actually just 840 MeV. Leaving me to wonder in 2017, what in the world is the .5MeV if the real-electron=105MeV, real proton = 840 MeV and thus, in 2017, I soon realized the vagabond tiny particle .5MeV was what Dirac was chasing after all his life, and ironic he was a electrical engineer before becoming a theoretical physicist.

Anyway, with the discovery that these .5MeV particles were never the electrons of atoms, I sought for proofs that the Real Electron was 105MeV and the first proof I thought of was the bonding of Chemistry, the angular momentum needed to bond a Covalent bond or Ionic bond or Metallic bond. Those bonds could never occur when the proton to electron is 938 versus .5 MeV. Bonding in Chemistry needs a ratio of at least 8 to 1, as in 840 to 105 MeV. So that was my first proof.

But reflecting on this history, now in March of 2018, I need to revamp the entire Old Chemistry. Because, well, Chemical Atoms can be classified far far far better with Atomic Number = number of muons inside an atom. Chemistry is better when we say that carbon is 6 muons, that hydrogen is 1 muon that helium is 2 muons, instead of this silly proton count of atoms. For Chemistry, basically is all about the actions and reactions of the real electron = muon. And the muons in atoms are almost, just as secure in that atom as the protons of that atom. If you think it is terribly difficult to remove a proton from an atom, well, it is almost as difficult to remove the muon from that atom.

So the Chemical Table of Elements based on atomic number = number of protons, is better served, if it is based on atomic number = number of muons.

And thus, the hideous conclusions of Old Chemistry, that you can have a copper wire conducting electricity thinking it is the flow of electrons out of the copper atoms, a truly truly hideous notion, because in reality, the flow of electricity is never the flow of electrons, but the flow of magnetic monopoles-- the particle that Dirac needed to make electromagnetism a fully complete and symmetrical theory. For without the magnetic monopole, EM theory had a huge hole in it, a fake theory until that hole was plugged.

So, see for yourself, for if Old Chemistry is correct then electricity in a copper wire would turn it into a nickel wire. But it never does that, because electricity was never about electrons flowing, it was about monopoles flowing and the copper wire remains as copper.

AP

bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb

Message has been deleted

Michael Moroney

unread,

Jul 21, 2018, 9:58:36 PM7/21/18

> AP is on your side-- dear students Re: 6-Trigonometry: Why AP gutted and
>disemboweled Old Math's evil monster Trigonometry

Beware, students and teachers of Clay County, South Dakota! Mr. Plutonium
is not content to be a Failure of Math and Physics all by himself. He is
trying to get friendly with you because he wants you to fail as well!

If you see a creepy guy handing out free Trigonometry books, run away!

Message has been deleted

Henrietta Foreskineater

unread,

Sep 7, 2018, 10:37:22 AM9/7/18

You're boring and stupid.

Everyone hates you.

Nothing you post is true.

Nothing you post is interesting.

You are a total waste of bandwidth and other resources.

You are a total waste of oxygen.

Nothing you post.

Message has been deleted

Michael Moroney

unread,

Sep 12, 2018, 11:04:13 PM9/12/18

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails:

>On Wednesday, September 12, 2018
>Dan Christensen writes:
>7:55 AM (1 hour ago)
>>WARNING TO STUDENTS:

>AP writes: pretty stupid of John Conway to never admit the ellipse is never
>a conic, always a cylinder section,

Did I hear ellipse? Here you are!!

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

Message has been deleted

Michael Moroney

unread,

Sep 20, 2018, 6:57:43 PM9/20/18

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails:

>AP writes: say there Moroney how is your Gay Bed and Breakfast in Boston
>going for you? Is there showering included in the price? And is it
>wheelchair accessible

What's this, Plutonium? You are looking for a gay bed and breakfast in
Boston? One with "group" showers and is wheelchair accessible for your
crippled mind? When are you visiting Boston? I don't know anything that
can help you, as I told you that's not for me, but Boston does have a
large gay community so you should be very happy there. Enjoy your visit!

Oh, here's a spare wheelchair for your crippled mind.

🧠
♿

Message has been deleted

Michael Moroney

unread,

Sep 25, 2018, 8:52:51 AM9/25/18

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails:

>kibo-shein-stalkershitparade-Moroney loves AP's theory that Starpower is

You really just don't get it, do you, Pluto.

I already told you that I know your weakness. It is your logorrhea.
If I wanted to, I could have lots of fun at your expense by playing
on your logorrhea, and your logorrhea compulsion would make you
miserable. But I don't want to. Don't make me change my mind.

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Feb 15, 2019, 10:58:45 AM2/15/19

On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 11:29:18 PM UTC-6, por...@gmail.com wrote:
> many years I was lonely with my Y Circlon
> and Y circlon mechanism
> suddenly as time goes on
> I find more and more crocks
> becoming new 'owners and ''inventors of that idea
> and findings
>

AP writes: when does the Porat stealing machine ever stop? He stole from Lord Kelvin and now plans to steal every science work that contains the words helix, circle, atom. Did he learning stealing from Einstein where Einstein stole E = mc^2 without as much as a single reference to all those who found E=mc^2 decades earlier?

> On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 8:56:52 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Edward is a modern Leonardo Da Vinci...
>
> Is Witten better than Jackson Pollock at throwing paint onto a canvas below his legs, and calling it a painting? For Witten surely cannot do physics-- so dumb is he in physics that he still thinks a 938 MeV proton and .5MeV electron can commit to a Covalent bond in chemistry. That is really stupid, for it shows Witten never even mastered Angular Momentum, yet they have him there at Advanced Study in Princeton. He should be out as a shop salesman or cafeteria cook at Princeton, not in physics.
>

Proofs ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section by
Archimedes Plutonium
--------------------
AP's proof the ellipse is never a Conic Section, always a Cylinder section, and how the proof works

Let us analyze AP's Proof

On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 6:57:36 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Array:: Analytic Geometry proof that Cylinder section= Ellipse//Conic
section = Oval, never ellipse

Now I did 3 Experiments and 3 models of the problem, but it turns out
that one model is superior over all the other models. One model is the
best of all.

That model is where you construct a cone and a cylinder and then
implant a circle inside the cone and cylinder attached to a handle so
that you can rotate the circle inside. Mine uses a long nail that I
poked holes into the side of a cylinder and another one inside a cone
made from heavy wax paper of magazine covers. And I used a Mason or
Kerr used lid and I attached them to the nail by drilling two holes
into each lid and running a wire as fastener. All of this done so I
can rotate or pivot the circle inside the cylinder and cone. You need
a long nail, for if you make the models too small or too skinny, you
lose clarity.

ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse::

E
__
.-' `-.
.' `.
/ \
; ;
| G c | H
; ;
\ /
`. .'
`-. _____ .-'
F

Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E

In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.

The side view of a cylinder is this

| |
| |
| |

That allows cE to be the same distance as cF

But the side view of the cone is

/\E
/c \
F / \

The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF make that distance larger than cE

The above is a view of a ellipse with center c and is produced by the
Sectioning of a Cylinder as long as the cut is not perpendicular to
the base, and as long as the cut involves two points not larger than
the height of the cylinder walls. What we want to prove is that the
cut is always a ellipse, which is a plane figure of two axes of
symmetry with a Major Axis and Minor Axis and center at c.

Side view of Cylinder EGFH above with entry point cut at E and exit
point cut at F and where c denotes the central axis of the cylinder
and where x denotes a circle at c parallel with the base-circle of
cylinder

| |
| | E
| |
| |
|x c |x
| |
| |
| |
|F |
| |
| |
| |

So we can see that the distance cE = cF in cylinder for the walls are Parallel to one another, giving distance symmetry

But in the Cone, the walls are not parallel, shortening the distance cE compared to cF. Leaving only one axis of symmetry that of EF. The oval is the conic section of a cut at a slant, while the cylinder cut at a slant is a ellipse. The Oval has just one axis of symmetry.

So, what is the proof that figure EGFH is always an ellipse in the
cylinder section? The line segment GH is the diameter of the circle
base of cylinder and the cylinder axis cuts this diameter in half such
that Gc = cH. Now we only need to show that Fc = cE. This is done from
the right triangles cxF and cxE, for we note that by Angle-Side-Angle
these two right triangles are congruent and hence Fc = cE, our second
axis of symmetry and thus figure EGFH is always an ellipse. QED

Array proof:: Analytic Geometry proof that Conic section= Oval// never ellipse

ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Conic Section is a Oval, never an ellipse::

A
,'" "`.
/ \
C | c | D
\ /
` . ___ .'
B

The above is a view of a figure formed from the cut of a conic with
center c as the axis of the cone and is produced by the Sectioning of
a Cone as long as the cut is not perpendicular to the base, and as
long as the cut is not a hyperbola, parabola or circle (nor line).
What we want to prove is that this cut is always a oval, never an
ellipse. An oval is defined as a plane figure of just one axis of
symmetry and possessing a center, c, with a Major Diameter as the axis
of symmetry and a Minor Diameter. In our diagram above, the major
diameter is AB and minor diameter is CD.

Alright, almost the same as with Cylinder section where we proved the
center was half way between Major Axis and Minor Axis of cylinder,
only in the case of the Conic, we find that the center is half way
between CD the Minor Diameter, but the center is not halfway in
between the Major Diameter, and all of that because of the reason the
slanted walls of the cone cause the distance cA to be far smaller than
the distance cB. In the diagram below we have the circle of x centered
at c and parallel to base. The angle at cx is not 90 degrees as in
cylinder. The angle of cAx is not the same as the angle cBx, as in the
case of the cylinder, because the walls of the cone-for line segments-
are slanted versus parallel in the cylinder. Triangles cAx and cBx are
not congruent, and thus, the distance of cA is not equal to cB,
leaving only one axis of symmetry AB, not CD.

/ \A
x/ c \x
B/ \

Hence, every cut in the Cone, not a hyperbola, not a parabola, not a
circle (not a line) is a Oval, never an ellipse.

QED

--Archimedes Plutonium

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ . . | . /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
--------------- -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
--------------- --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / . . | . \ .

http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/  whole entire Universe is just one big atom  where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

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

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

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

0 new messages