Shitheads David Ritz & Tim Skirvin forger machines in sci.physics sci.math

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Shithead Tim Skirvin forges Harvard's Dr. Hau experiment of slow light by turning out the source light and watching in fascination that all the light goes out instantly, even the slow light inside the BEC medium.


On Sunday, January 3, 2021 at 10:59:17 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> David Ritz shits in face Angus Wilkinson, Angel Cabrera, Georgia Tech, M.G.Finn, Christoph J. Fahrni question, do you have more forgers than students of science at Georgia Tech???
> > > David Ritz
> > > >> Re: Happy New Year! AP's 1st book I AM A LUNATIC published in 1937
> Tim Skirvin shits in face Murray Gell-Mann, Anthony Leggett, Jessie Shelton, Anne Sickles, Timothy Stelzer, Michael Stone, Dale van Harlingen, James Wiss, encouraging forgeries of AP


Shithead David Ritz forges Harvard's Dr. Hau experiment of slow light by turning out the source light and watching in fascination that all the light goes out instantly, even the slow light inside the BEC medium.

And what does that prove? It proves AP is correct that light is not a straight line arrow open ended, but rather, light is like electricity a complete closed loop, with the source as part of the closed loop. Why is that important? It is quantum entanglement and it destroys the mindless chatter of the double slit experiment.

53rd published book

Quantum Entanglement, Physics series for High School, book 7 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Quantum Entanglement was shown on NOVA in January 2019 with Austrian physicists at a mountain telescope gathering data. NOVA tried to explain Quantum Entanglement, but the below probably does a better job of explaining. Especially explaining to High School students what is going on, and why.

A much easier and nicer experiment proving Quantum Entanglement and explaining why it exists; the mechanism behind it; is Harvard's Dr. Hau slow light experiments, once the laser light is turned off.

Cover Picture is my photo of a Google search of terms "slow light BEC".
Length: 21 pages

Product details
File Size: 1789 KB
Print Length: 21 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publication Date: July 26, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07VMZ698G
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 



DR HAU FAILURE


Kibo Parry Moroney shits in face Dr. Hau of Harvard and Nick Thompson, Wired magazine. Kibo Parry Moroney is paid (who knows, a million dollars a year paid to stalk AP) and is a failure of science but not a failure at sniffing out cheap jobs like stalking people. His failures are huge-- with his 10 OR 2 = 12, with AND as subtraction. His stupidity stretches so far as to think an ellipse is a slant cut into a cone when that is actually a oval, and the mindless creep can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. A taste of how dumb dirt ignorant of a science failure is kibo Parry Moroney just look at where he says 938 is 12% short of 945. No wonder Rensselaer kicked his sorry arse out of that otherwise fine institution, but Washington DC is where kibo can get the millions of dollars to sit on his arse and stalk harrass all day long on the Internet.

Kibo analbuttfuckmanure Parry Moroney shit in face


Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,
Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish
David J. Thouless, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita

Arthur B. McDonald
Francois Englert
Saul Perlmutter
Brian P. Schmidt
Adam G. Riess
Makoto Kobayashi
Toshihide Maskawa
Yoichiro Nambu
John C. Mather
George F. Smoot
Roy J. Glauber
David J. Gross
Hugh David Politzer
Frank Wilczek
Raymond Davis Jr.
Masatoshi Koshiba
Riccardo Giacconi
Gerardus 't Hooft
Martinus J.G. Veltman
Jerome I. Friedman
Henry W. Kendall
Richard E. Taylor
Carlo Rubbia
Simon van der Meer
William Alfred Fowler
Kenneth G. Wilson
James Watson Cronin
Val Logsdon Fitch
Sheldon Lee Glashow
Steven Weinberg
.
.
little fishes
.
.
Layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = subtraction of either 3 or 2, while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV

Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass
Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu
more and more layers of error thinking physics
.
.
John Baez
Brian Greene
Lisa Randall
Alan H. Guth
Michael E. Brown
Konstantin Batygin
Ben Bullock
Larry Harson
Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
None at all - he was a raving nutter.
Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley
Edward Witten



On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.

Quoting Wikipedia—

In the early 1990s, as public awareness grew of the Internet and Usenet, Parry received publicity, including a cover story in Wired magazine..
--- end quote ---

Wired (magazine) editor in chief, Nicholas Thompson

Yoo, Nick, Nick yoyo, is Wired going to have Kibo Parry the Man of the Century for Wired? How a antiscience arsehole gets paid a million for stalking on Internet??????

Harvard's Dr.Hau versus AP on SLOW LIGHT EXPERIMENT

Dr. Hau has what she calls SLOW LIGHT that was shot into a BEC medium that slows it down for her. She must have the viewpoint or theory, then, that light waves are a open straight line arrow ray understanding of light.

Compare that viewpoint with AP's view of light, as a closed loop circuit, much like electricity itself, and that although light looks to be straightline arrow ray from source, the source is always "in the closed loop circuit". Here, AP views light as a very thin narrow closed loop. Much like a electric extension cord appears to be a straightline arrow, when in fact it is a closed loop with its copper wire inside separated by a distance of the separation of the two prongs that you plug into the wall outlet.

So, who is correct about LIGHT? Is Harvard's Dr. Hau straightline arrow for light correct. Or, is AP's closed loop with source always connected in the Closed Loop?

TEST to see who is correct. The test is real simple, turn the Slow Light Experiment source light off, just switch it off. If AP is correct, all the BEC slow light vanishes along with all the other light in the experiment, all at the same instant of time, even though the so called "slow light" was at a crawl. If Dr. Hau is correct with her straightline arrow view of light, then the slow light would still be active and moving in her BEC medium once the switch was off. If AP is correct, then the Slow Light, no matter how slow it is, instantly vanishes along with the light from the source that is not inside the medium, instantly vanishes altogether.

So, what is Harvard's Dr. Hau excuse for not completing her experiment by doing this test? Is she too dumb? Is she too lazy? Or, is she hateful of a AP success of a physics understanding?

FURTHER TESTS: I solemnly believe I will win the above test. But I am unsure of the further result of a movable source. The above test is a static source, but what happens if we move the source, keep it on but move it? Here, like in Quantum Entanglement viewpoint, the Slow Light inside the BEC should make adjustments of its movement because the slow light source is moving, and if the source comes upon a blockage, say a black sheet of paper, it is as if a switch had turned it off. But I am not sure if the BEC slow light remains active, or has just become dimmed while the source was behind a black sheet of paper. So here we have a whole whole whole slew of testing of what we call Quantum Entanglement.

So, why is Harvard stubborn and idiotic about slow light? Is it all because, no-one at Harvard wants to ever admit AP is correct, and that they rather be in the weeds, stay in the weeds, rather than ever ever give AP credit? In other words-- the little minds that compose Harvard University, and not really a center of education.


I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.

There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers.

1-Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium