Re: TOTAL FORGERY, and ask Google and others to expunge completely from Usenet and Google

9 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted

David Ritz

unread,
Jan 1, 2021, 7:29:42 PM1/1/21
to
On Friday, 01 January 2021 11:53 -0800, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

>> Re: Happy New Year! AP's 1st book I AM A LUNATIC published in 1937

> Has the above forger hacked into my computer itself?????

Above what, Archie Pu? Without so much as a pointer to the newsgroup
where the forgery appeared, let alone a Message-ID, it is a bit
difficult to determine what you're on about.

Your computer may or may not be hacked, but the absence of evidence one
way or the other will leave you guessing, as usual. It's your brain
that's hacked (cracked).

> Recently Google sent me a email saying the PRIVACY of email is not
> really up to snuff

Google sent the same message to all their users. While you may be
(short bus) special, you are not receiving anything especially created
and crafted for you, Archie.

Did you follow Google's recommendations and review your privacy and
security settings?

> So is the forgerer someone inside of Google?

No, you dimwitted Usenet personality[*].

http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=160954490000
Message-ID: <rsngd8$2dae$1...@neodome.net>

Please note, the message headers include an abuse contact address.

Injection-Info: neodome.net; mail-complaints-to="ab...@neodome.net"

Recommendations:

Get a real News-reader. As hard as it is to believe, G2 (Google
Groups) is even more useless in its current iteration.

Buy yourself a clue, as you'll never find one if left to your
own devices.

[*] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet_personality

--
David Ritz <dr...@mindspring.com>
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
different results." -- attrib. Albert Einstein

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
Jan 1, 2021, 7:50:18 PM1/1/21
to
This is the forged post in sci.physics

Happy New Year! AP's 1st book I AM A LUNATIC published in 1937
9 views
Subscribe
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
9:51 AM (9 hours ago)



to
Through faith in god I have maintained the strength to endure.
I need all of you to listen very carefully to me. I share a common bond
with all of you and many of u knw me to the core. The revelation I'm
about to share with all of you takes the utmost of courage and through
this courage should demonstrate my utmost conviction despite my internal
struggles to reconcile these factual and very real experiences. Those of
you in Omaha - have you noticed a recent barrage of audible signals,
amplified sounds, mufflers, trains, pattern-based bird calls all
throughout the city at every hour of the night? For the past 4 weeks I
have been noticing gradual physical changes to just about everyone, from
teeth growing, becoming more crooked and jagged, pupils becoming more
and more dilated and losing their round shape, skin on the face, neck,
and arms, changes to bone structure in the forehead area, more
pronounced veins and tendons, etc etc. These changes have been startling
yet apparently oblivious to the people affected including myself until 4
weeks ago. At that moment I must have unknowingly broke away from this
"spell" with a series of events documented, recorded, observed by
others, yet the conclusion made is so "far fetched" it requires a
significant leap of faith by all of you to acknowledge.



These factual and witnessed experiences include a barrage of frequencies
blasted at my house for weeks, automobiles, trucks, and planes following
my every move blasting ms with sounds. Military planes flying at low
altitude circling my house, blasting sound, and as of late blasting
sound across all of Omaha. I have all of this recorded, including 6
military planes in a 30 min span yesterday as well as me being
surrounded by vehicles blasting me with high and low frequencies. The
end result is that I too am showing these transformative features,
observed by others, which include the following: Obvious growth in
multiple teeth, gradual changes to my skull appearing as multiple ridges
forming from brow to hairline, gradual pupil dilation, obvious skin and
swelling changes in my right arm which is now entirely water resistant,
new veins that have formed in my forearm, etc. It has been extremely
difficult to reconcile why these physical changes are occurring and even
worse the mental changes observed in individuals. I have recorded
multiple sounds including hard drive clicks, all kinds on different
sounds, and most predominantly pattern based bird calls all over the
city at all hours of the day. Interestingly enough my hard drive on my
laptop has been clicking non stop for at least 6 months and I never
found it odd until now. Last night to try and drown out the noises I dug
out a homedics sound machine purchased 10 years ago and cycled through
the sounds. I went to the jungle button and the exact same bird patterns
appeared. You need to listen - these patterns have been implanted in our
products for decades, from hard drive clicks, to motor cycle sounds, to
airplanes, to mufflers, to fan noises, to refrigerators, to just about
every product on the market. I can only speculate that the intent was to
get the population adjusted to these sounds and frequencies as normal.
Now that they are being blasted we are desensitized to them. This has
been an agenda in the works for decades. Listen carefully - these
frequencies are causing physical and mental changes in everyone. I have
the symptoms myself acknowledged by all friends, colleagues, and family
and despite all of the evidence it's difficult for about everyone to
make this leap. Additionally these changes are making us susceptible to
being hosted by other entities, as I have observed this hundreds of
times. Yesterday I followed 3 individuals that were tailing me and upon
following them they drove back to their homes, unaware that they were
even following me. Clear sign if being under some suggestive influence.
Whether these are demons or reptilian entities is still TBD, but the
fact they rely on technology to invoke these changes could indicate they
are some sort of advanced race with advanced capabilities. Research the
annunaki, as they were documented by our earliest ancestors as creating
humans as a genetic hybrid race for slave labor. Could it be that they
are invoking surpressed genes by using frequencies to cause these
changes to better control and manipulate the expanding human population?
Please do not dismiss this. I was told years ago to "write this down and
tell the world". I chalked this up to a very spiritual event but did not
realize the meaning until now. This is for real and you need to protect,
be self-determined, unite, and have faith. I couldn't possible have the
imagination to make this stuff up. Look at the facts and draw Ur own
conclusions. This is really happening and I need you all to share this
and remember to protect yourselves from these beings mentally and from
these frequencies

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

Michael Moroney

unread,
Jan 2, 2021, 1:36:27 AM1/2/21
to
David Ritz <dr...@mindspring.com> writes:

>Recommendations:

> Get a real News-reader. As hard as it is to believe, G2 (Google
> Groups) is even more useless in its current iteration.

> Buy yourself a clue, as you'll never find one if left to your
> own devices.

What's amusing is that Plutonium has no idea what you're talking about,
despite the fact he has been posting his drek to Usenet since at least
1993, before there even was any such a thing as Google Groups. Meaning
he SHOULD know of the existence of real news readers, since he must have
used them!

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
Jan 2, 2021, 10:10:28 AM1/2/21
to
Georgia Tech, M.G.Finn, Christoph J. Fahrni, Angus Wilkinson, 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
>

No wonder Georgia Tech like Dr. Thorp of SCIENCE magazine are bozo the clowns with Lewis 8 Structure, too stupid to realize it must be Lewis 6 Structure in order for CO and N3 having higher dissociation energy than does O2. Bozo the clowns of science lack logic, and so they run out and hire stalking nitwits like David Ritz to forge AP


STEALING DR THORP SCIENCE magazine


Kibo Parry Moroney shits in face Dr.Thorp, Dr.Chandler Davis as thieves of science from Internet and Newsgroups.

On Sunday, December 13, 2020 at 3:40:13 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>struggling for relevance

AP writes: do not be fooled by the several people posting under the name Michael Moroney as a "open hate spam line"



AP writes: is that why Dr.Thorp and Dr. Chandler Davis steal from AP?

Which steals better, MitchR, Dr.Thorp, or Dr. Chandler Davis. Some in the journal of science business have just not transitioned to our new world where you have to also include Internet and Newsgroups as reference.



88th published book
Theft & Stealing ideas of science in the era of the internet// Ways to prevent and combat stealing// Sociology series, book 10 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)


3_H. Holden Thorp fails Chemistry, now tries to steal AP 2004 work on "Dog, first domesticated animal" Kindle book of AP's. Kibo Parry Moroney confirms theft-- see below.


Ask Dr. Thorp when in the world he has no brains to do proper chemistry. Ask him why he believes in Lewis 8 Structure, when it has been known for decades that CO then N2 have the highest bonded dissociation energy. Thus, if you had at least one logical marble of a brain, you would understand that the highest dissociation energy tells you what the Lewis Structure must be. It cannot be Lewis 8 Structure but has to be Lewis 6 Arm Structure. If it were Lewis 8, then O2 would have the highest dissociation energy, not CO.

Is this why Dr. Thorp was dismissed out of chemistry? He just does not have one logical marble? But it appears the no logical marble of Dr. Thorp is allowing SCIENCE magazine to steal, and steal away the AP theory of DOG, FIRST DOMESTICATED ANIMAL of year 2004, published in the book of that same title in Amazon's Kindle.

But it appears that SCIENCE is trying very hard to steal AP's theory.

And all I asked for was inclusion on a correction page of SCIENCE, but Dr. Thorp is headstrong in his stealing ways.

Is SCIENCE magazine trying to steal away AP's theory-- Dog-First Domesticated Animal, or, will they do the proper etiquette of a Corrections page in a future edition?
4 views
Subscribe

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Nov 17, 2020, 1:01:25 PM (4 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe


Is SCIENCE magazine trying to steal away AP's theory-- Dog-First Domesticated Animal, or, will they do the proper etiquette of a Corrections page in a future edition?

Nov 17, 2020, 12:53 PM
to sci.physics, sci.math, plutonium-atom-universe
In that 30OCT2020 issue of SCIENCE AAAS, on page 523 has a list of references and notes and the oldest date is this.

8. G.H.Perry et al..Nat. Genet. 39. 1256 (2007).

Well, AP's Dog-- First Domesticated Animal has a long long history of Usenet posts going back to 2004. So, no, AP is not going to have his theories, any one of them, stolen from him.

I have asked SCIENCE to include my name in a future corrections page of Dog-First Domesticated Animal.

Is SCIENCE magazine AAAS, trying to steal AP's theory-- Dog-- First Domesticated Animal// Looks like it in 30OCT2020 issue pages 522 & 557. I did not see the name Archimedes Plutonium in the references. There are four major offending words in ....
6 views
Subscribe

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Nov 14, 2020, 7:08:20 PM (3 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe

Is SCIENCE magazine AAAS, trying to steal AP's theory-- Dog-- First Domesticated Animal// Looks like it in 30OCT2020 issue pages 522 & 557.

I did not see the name Archimedes Plutonium in the references. There are four major offending words in these two articles on pages 522 and 557 and contents page-- " dog, first domesticated animal".

Unless SCIENCE can include the name Archimedes Plutonium in a future edition, saying-- forgot to cite AP in reference to dog domestication. Then AP is forced to include SCIENCE magazine in his book-- Theft and Stealing of Intellectual Property.



22nd published book
Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Amazing that just watching TV of science shows, one can formulate a true theory of science. Now my theory needs research, but it basically says the dog was the first farm animal, the first domesticated animal of the wolf, that became food for early homo sapiens. We tend to think of herbivores being the first domesticated animals, but I tend to think the dog comes as first domesticated animal. Many good lines of research are suggested below in the text.

Cover picture: are three dogs, the light brown one is Indy and her two daughters. Indy comes from the Waziristan mountains as a shephard dog.Indy is very smart.
Length: 50 pages

Product details
File Size: 3076 KB
Print Length: 50 pages
Publication Date: March 17, 2019
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQ5CPKG
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #429,006 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#93 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#469 in Evolution (Kindle Store)
#648 in Biology (Kindle Store)

Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog// Anthropology series, book 2
by Archimedes Plutonium

Preface: Amazing that just watching TV of science shows, one can formulate a true theory of science. Now my theory needs research, but it basically says the dog was the first farm animal, the first domesticated animal of the wolf, that became food for early homo sapiens. We tend to think of herbivores being the first domesticated animals, but I tend to think the dog comes as first domesticated animal. Many good lines of research are suggested below in the text.

Cover picture: are three dogs, the light brown one is Indy and her two daughters. Indy comes from the Waziristan mountains as a shepherd dog.Indy is very smart.


From: a_plu...@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.misc,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo
Subject: how dogs evolved from wolves; TV NOVA show; 1st domesticated farm animal theory
Date: 5 Feb 2004 15:07:00 -0800
Lines: 76


A few days ago I watched a NOVA program on the variety of dogs with
talk of their evolution from that of wolves. Quite an interesting
program. However there are very many gaps of logic in the discussion
of how dogs came from wolves.

There was proffered the usual old theory that wolf babies make nice
pets and hominids would have come upon wolf babies and raised them in
their living camps.

Then there was a scientist who proffered a different theory suggesting
that dumpsites of early humans was a place to pick up easy food for
those wolves tolerant of human nearby presence.

I am going to offer a third theory which sort of incorporates the
above two. Let me call the above by their main mechanism. The first is
that of "Baby Pet" theory
and the second would be called the "Dumpsite" theory.

My theory would be called the "First Domesticated Farm Animal" theory.

The logical gap in theories one and two is that they confer little to
no advantage to the hominids or early humans involved, unless you want
to say that having a pet confers advantage over disadvantage of the
time spent on the pet, or as in the dumpsite theory that of the
spectacle of semi-wolves near camp is some sort of advantage.

My theory of "First Domesticated Animal" as the mechanism of how dogs
evolved from wolves makes the most sense because it confers the most
advantage to hominids or early humans. Here is how it works. Hominids
or Early Humans found wolf babies and would take them back to their
camp. They are too little and young to eat now, but as they grow older
fed from the snacks around the campsite (the dump) then they would be
large enough for food to eat.

Here I would have to research as to how easy or hard it would be to
have sheep or cattle hang around close to the campsite so that when
they got large enough they would be dinner. You see, I have the
suspicion that wild wolf babies are the animal that has the greatest
tendency to hang around the campsite than any other wild animal baby.
And thus, wolves would have been the first domesticated animal which
is rather surprising because they are carnivores and most of us would
guess that the first domesticated animal would have been a herbivore.
But I doubt that any baby herbivore would have stayed around the human
campsite as steadfast as a pet baby wolf until it grows to enough size
to eat.

Remember we are talking of primitive and savage hominids and early
humans who when looking at pets see them more as future food.

Which brings up very many good questions. Was the Dog the first
domesticated animal? I think it was. I say this because the wild wolf
baby imprints on a human better than a wild-any-other-animal. And
because of this imprinting the baby wolf would have stayed nearby the
humans until it grew of a size wherein one of the hungry hominids or
early humans ate the pet for dinner.

The Dump theory is okay in that the baby wolf would have wandered no
further away than the dump. And when the wolf was of a eatable size
would have been enticed by some scrap food bones and then killed and
eaten. Sounds gory and awful but that is probably the true sequence of
events that lead from wolves to the evolution of dog. And as this
relationship continued, the semi-wild wolf or dog had ears that drooped
and had a disposition to not run away.

We can measure the drooping ears of cattle or other domesticated
animals compared to their wild counterparts. As early man ate more and
more dogs for their dinners they wanted dogs that would hang around
the dumps and had droopy ears and not prone to run away.

And after hominids or early humans domesticated the wolf by becoming
the dog, they then got the idea that other animals such as cattle or
sheep can be domesticated for future dinners as well as the dog.

AP

From: a_plu...@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,soc.history
Subject: dog farming formed the first Human or Hominid farm
Date: 8 Feb 2004 12:12:05 -0800
Lines: 27

Based on a NOVA TV show recently watched. And my theory that dogs
evolved from wolves because they are an easy steady and stable food
supply.

Query: if we pose a query or question as to what would the first, yes
the very first Farm in the entire history of the Human or perhaps
Hominid history, then I think most of us would conjure up the images
of say early humans planting corn seeds or something like that.
Perhaps some would not conjure up some plant seeds but would instead
think of confining buffalo or some sort of animal resembling sheep or
cattle.

But I believe that the first ever farm by the earliest humans was a
dog farm. Where they rounded up baby wolves and brought them into the
campsite and fed them until a large enough size to eat. And they would
not roam far from the campsite because they were imprinted forming a
natural fence as to their roaming away from the humans. It could have
been cats since cats are also easily imprinted.

I do believe the dog would be the first ever Human farm. And then
other animals brought into the campsite area and then later, much
later would be to plant crops where these dogs and cats and other
animals were confined.

AP

20 July 2019 Note: reading the above, got me to thinking that not only was the dog, dog food for early humans, and the dog being the first farm animal, but the advantage of a dog around the campsite, barking at say wild animals approaching such as big cats, or worse yet, rival early human clans, would have been a huge advantage that the early humans gained, in addition to food by eating the dog. Dog barking is a huge advantage to owners when you want a alarm system. And the barking dog certainly is the best animal I know of as a alarm system.

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Nov 14, 2020, 7:35:25 PM (3 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
I am forwarding a copy of the below post to Editor in Chief, H. Holden Thorp, sciencemag.org.

Of the thousands upon thousands of new ideas in science that AP has committed, I am not willing to give up a single one of them, to any ransacking marauding thiefs. Unless the name Archimedes Plutonium appears in a future correction page of references to this article on dogs-- first domesticated animal, then I shall enter the offending person/s in AP's book of Theft and Stealing.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Nov 17, 2020, 5:40:41 PM (4 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe


Comparing the stealing of Porat versus MitchR versus Chandler Davis of Math. Intelligencer magazine

Well it is easy to compare their stealing ways.

Porat would read a "good nice new idea", and really really like it. And so his reaction was to pop up in the author's thread and accuse that author of stealing the new idea from Porat. Such stealing behavior gets old very very fast for the original author.

MitchR stealing ways is less offensive, less in-your-face stealing than Porat, but none-the-less as aggravating. What MitchR does is scout around in sci.math and sci.physics for new ideas. Once he spots one, he rewords the new idea and posts his rewording in a new thread pretending he is the discoverer of a brand new idea of science. Actually, AP has met people like this in real life, where they listen to someone talk about a new idea and reword it so that they feel they have no need of footnoting or citing original source. For there are thousands of people who think that rewording a new idea gives them the right to call it "their new idea".

Chandler Davis when he was editor of Mathematical Intelligencer in Toronto Canada in the 1990s early 2000 printed a article on the mistakes in the Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof, not Chandler but two other authors. Trouble was, the article was almost a pure lifting, a stealing of AP's posts in sci.math over Euclid Infinitude of Primes. And I emailed Chandler asking for a correction page inclusion of my work in a future issue of the magazine. Turns out that Chandler was "stupid old school of thought" thinking that Usenet and Internet are just "for free to steal all you want". So, what AP ended up doing is publishing Chandler Davis's brash stealing of AP's work in AP's book. All that Chandler had to do was simply include a two line cite of Archimedes Plutonium in his magazine, but no, for I guess a thief is always a thief, and looking for a excuse.

So, what turned out in the case of Chandler Davis refusal to publish priority rights of intellectual property, that now, Chandler Davis is published in AP's book of stealing on the Internet. Fair sailing Chandler...

88th published book

Theft & Stealing ideas of science in the era of the internet// Ways to prevent and combat stealing// Sociology series, book 10 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

New True Ideas in Science are very difficult to come by.

And many communities and countries ignore or deny the practice of footnoting, citing reference source, or quoting, but are societies who live up to that of mass stealing.

At minimum, every school education should and must teach how we "do not steal" by teaching footnote, reference cite, quoting. I learned it in High School, but across the world, most never learned this.

I learned footnoting, citing sources reference, and quoting in High School English classrooms, thank you Wyoming High School, near Cincinnati Ohio, one of my most valuable lessons, because it teaches us not only honesty, but prepares us for becoming scientists and grappling with the truth of the world, without stealing it.

It was August of 1993 that I first arrived on the Internet in the sci.math, sci.physics and many other Newsgroups of Usenet. I had already copyrighted my Atom Totality theory and was protected in that manner of copyrights. But I wanted more protection so I published in the Dartmouth College newspaper many of my discovered ideas of 1990 through August 1993. So I had a double wall of protection of Library of Congress copyright but also, Dartmouth College newspaper. But then with the arrival onto Usenet newsgroups, sci.physics, sci.math, sci.chem, sci.bio.misc, sci.physics.electromag, sci.astro, and many more newsgroups. I saw that as a third layer of protection of my newly discovered ideas.

However, starting August 1993, it was plainly clear to me that this Internet posting of my ideas, that it is easy to steal those ideas.

Length: 147 pages

Product details
File Size: 783 KB
Print Length: 147 pages
Publication Date: February 13, 2020

Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B084T87JGY

Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #250,786 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#4742 in Counseling & Psychology
#2013 in Medical General Psychology
#7248 in Science & Math (Kindle Store)

AP is hoping that he does not have to include the recent steal by SCIENCE magazine 30OCT2020, page 523 with a missing reference and note citation.

15. Archimedes Plutonium, Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author), 2004, published 2019.

I am hoping this does not end up being another Chandler Davis of Mathematical Intelligencer type of steal, where the editors of SCIENCE AAAS look upon everything on Usenet and Internet and Amazon's Kindle as just fertile grounds and fertile fields of stealing.

I ask for the above (15) inclusion on a correction page of SCIENCE magazine. New true ideas in Science are terribly difficult to come by, and keeping that in mind, I am not willing to lose a single new idea I ever discovered.








#1-3, 74th published book

HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

In 2016-2017, AP discovered that the real proton has a mass of 840 MeV, not 938. The real electron was actually the muon and the muon stays inside the proton that forms a proton torus of 8 rings and with the muon as bar magnet is a Faraday Law producing magnetic monopoles. So this book is all about why researchers of physics and engineers keep getting the number 938MeV when they should be getting the number 840 MeV + 105 MeV = 945 MeV.

Cover Picture is a proton torus of 8 rings with a muon of 1 ring inside the proton torus, doing the Faraday Law and producing magnetic monopoles.
Length: 17 pages

Product details
• Publication Date : December 18, 2019
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 17 pages
• File Size : 698 KB
• ASIN : B082WYGVNG
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled

Dr. Chandler Davis when editor of Mathematical Intelligencer, steals the work of AP's Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof, work I had done in early 1990s and there Davis publishes my work under names of different authors in 2009. Davis and Thorp just have not accepted the idea that Internet is "not free stealing grounds".

Quoting from my book-- Theft & Stealing ideas of science in the era of the internet// Ways to prevent and combat stealing// Sociology series, book 10
by Archimedes Plutonium




Newsgroups: sci.physics, soc.history, sci.math
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:22:23 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri, Sep 9 2011 1:22 pm
Subject: Scardigli and arXiv, and QM of Titius-Bode rule priority? new book: #9 Usenet sci.newsgroups theft-without-proper-attribute

On Sep 9, 1:17 am, Archimedes Plutonium

<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:

(snipped in large part)

Now I need to shorten the title of this book and so far I have adopted
this as the title:
"Usenet sci.newsgroups theft-without-proper-attribute"
Maybe I can improve that even more, along the way
As mentioned often in this book, of the newness of the Internet and 
Usenet and that newness 
will create problems with the old media way of publishing science 
ideas. There were 
numerous problems in old media coverage of science, but when Usenet 
came around circa 1990, 
the proper attribute for new ideas had to be re-examined. And it left 
decades open of 
misappropriation of new ideas.
Now Mr Scardigli mentions above that he inserted a "errors corrected 
and more references cited" 
as a second edition to his first edition. I still do not see where he 
references Archimedes Plutonium 
Usenet posts to sci.physics on the Titius Bode Rule as quantum 
mechanics.
But what Mr. Scardigli has done by using a correction page to update, 
offers us a solution to 
the problem of "theft-without-proper-attribute." And this is what I 
tried to get Chandler Davis 
editor of Mathematical Intelligencer to do with his published article 
of "Prime Simplicity" of 2009 
was to include in a future correction page of Mathematical 
Intelligencer the name of Archimedes Plutonium 
with the referencing of my thousand or so Usenet posts on the subject 
for which I had priority.
So whereas the Usenet science newsgroups offers superior date-time- 
group for new ideas. The Usenet can be 
corrected of theft-by-improper-attribute by the insertion of the 
reference in a "Correction Page".
So that if Mr. Scardigli were to include Archimedes Plutonium, posts 
to sci.physics in a future correction page, then this episode is over 
with and ended. And if Chandler Davis with Mathematical Intelligencer 
in a future correction page of that magazine cites Archimedes 
Plutonium: posts to sci.math on Euclid Infinitude of Primes corrected, 
then that issue is over with.
So we begin to see the problem and it is a huge problem, and we begin 
to see a clearcut solution by authors, that they can correct priority 
rights through a Correction page citing those earlier sources.
Now I want to talk briefly about the opposite and rather insidious 
phenomenon that is occurring on Usenet as a publishing medium, that 
was there also in old media publishing but not so obnoxious and not so 
widespread. It is what can be considered the inverse of not including 
a reference to that of over-including a reference to the detriment of 
the source. What I am talking about is what has been dubbed as 
"bombing, Google bombing or 
search engine bombing." So that when you are reading a article about 
coal, you have reference to old articles written by Archimedes 
Plutonium to the planet Mars and whether Mars has coal.
Science before the Internet was worried about citing original sources. 
With the Internet a new problem arises 
where search engines are hyper-sensitive and will list references to 
authors for which the only element in common was a few words.
So in science, we still have the problem of proper citation to 
scientists with original ideas, but we also have a new problem on our 
hands of drowning authors of science with the pollution of search 
engine bombing 
on those authors. In a sense, this happened in old media science where 
a tabloid press would talk about a 
famous scientist, for which that scientist would rather that the 
tabloid never discussed him or his work, 
at all.

Newsgroups: sci.anthropology, sci.anthropology.paleo, sci.math
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 22:18:41 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Wed, Sep 14 2011 12:18 am
Subject: Richard W. Young and stonethrowing theory priorities new book: #10 Usenet sci.newsgroups theft-without-proper-attribute

In the mid 2000s a search for the stonethrowing theory in Google
delivered not Archimedes Plutonium first but delivers Richard W 
Young
with his tiny blurb on the 
Stonethrowing theory in a Journal of
Anatomy of 2003.
This example of taking ideas from the Usenet science newsgroups 
without proper attribute is seen clearly by Dr. Young, and this case 
will show and exemplify the new era of publishing of science is more 
important about having a date time group stamp than where the article 
is published. This case of Dr. Young shows us the superiority of 
publishing first to Usenet and then going back and having the slow old 
way of publishing take its course.
What Dr. Young teaches us about science publishing, is to post the 
abstract to the Usenet first since its speed is superior and then have 
the article published in the slow process of 
peer review journal.
We have a historical case to recall in biology itself where Wallace 
had the ideas of evolution before or simultaneous to that of Darwin.
So let me go through my archive of posts to fetch out what happened on 
the issue of Dr. 
Young, stonethrowing theory and Archimedes Plutonium. And from this 
case study, I think 
everyone will be convinced that speed of recorded date time group is 
more important than 
where it is published, and the superiority of Usenet for the date time 
group stamp.


Newsgroups: sci.anthropology, sci.anthropology.paleo, sci.math
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 22:50:40 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Wed, Sep 14 2011 12:50 am
Subject: Re: Richard W. Young and stonethrowing theory priorities new book: #11 Usenet sci.newsgroups theft-without-proper-attribute

I am going to repost an older post of mine of 2007 where I lay out the
particular's of the Dr. Young
case and priority rights and where the new medium of Usenet publishing
is trampled on by the old medium.
--- quoting old post of mine ---
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology, sci.math, sci.physics 
From: a_plutonium <a_pluton...@hotmail.com> 
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:08:57 -0700 
Local: Tues, Jul 31 2007 2:08 am 
Subject: Is Dr. Young (California emeritus) trying to steal the 
Stonethrowing theory from Archimedes Plutonium; ethics about 
referencing the Internet vis a vis science journals 
 
Book: "STONETHROWING THEORY, THE DOMINANT THEORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY", 
Archimedes Plutonium 
Internet book published 2002-2007 (assimilated in March 2007 in 
sci.anthropology.paleo, sci.med, sci.physics) 
############################## 
J Ant. 2003 January; 202(1): 165-174. 
Copyright © Anatomical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2003 
Evolution of the human hand: the role of throwing and clubbing 
Richard W Young 
Editor-in-chief 
Gillian M. Morriss-Kay 
University of Oxford 
E-mail: gillian.morriss-...@anat.ox.ac.uk 
Managing Editor 
Edward Fenton 
E-mail: ja...@anat.ox.ac.uk 
Receiving Editors 
Julia Clarke 
North Carolina State University 
E-mail: Julia_Cla...@ncsu.edu 
--- quoting from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1571064 
Journal of Anatomy 2003 January; 202(1): 165-174. 
Evolution of the human hand: the role of throwing and clubbing 
Richard W Young 
Correspondence Dr Richard W. Young, 2913 Hollyridge Drive, Los 
Angeles, CA 90068, USA. 
Accepted November 22, 2002. 
Abstract 
It has been proposed that the hominid lineage began when a group of 
chimpanzee-like apes 
began to throw rocks and swing clubs at adversaries, and that this 
behavior yielded 
reproductive advantages for millions of years, driving natural 
selection for improved throwing 
and clubbing prowess. 
---- end quoting ---- 
----------------- quoting old post -------------- 
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology, sci.logic 
From: Archimedes Plutonium <a_pluton...@dtgnet.com> 
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 08:24:18 -0500 
Local: Mon, Aug 12 2002 7:24 am 
Subject: Logic applied to Anthropology 
(most snipped to save space) 
This accurate stone-thrower would thus create a Hominid species in 
Asia 
from the Orangutan line and almost simultaneously create a different 
Hominid species in Africa from the Chimpanzee line. Perhaps another 
Hominid species created from the Gorilla line. 
------------------ end quoting old post ---------------- 
Finally, in December of that same year 2002, spurred by the TV show 
talking about Orrorin found in Kenya by Pickford and others, gave 
me the impetus to develop the Stonethrowing theory in full force. 
---------------- quoting old post 
------------------------------------------- 
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology, sci.bio.paleontology, sci.anthropology 
From: Archimedes Plutonium <a_pluton...@dtgnet.com> 
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 03:02:43 -0600 
Local: Wed, Dec 11 2002 3:02 am 
Subject: Ourran man of Kenya "Secrets of the Dead" found by Martin & 
Brigitte 
I hope I got the spellings correct. Wanted to post this while still 
fresh on the mind after watching 2 or 3 Tuesday programs on the TV 
with NOVA, Secrets of the Dead. Tuesday night seems to be turning 
out as the best night for science on the TV. 
Anyway, I post this because recently I came up with my own theory of 
Anthropology which basically says that the evolution of humans was 
primarily one major aspect-- stonethrowing. Stonethrowing, according 
to my theory, created the human and prehuman species. Stonethrowing 
created bipedalism for primates. So I was anxious to hear about 
Ourran 
man as discovered by Martin and Brigitte in Kenya. Ourran man was 
also called the Millenium Man since he was found in year 2000. Ourran 
man is dated to 6 million years old. 
I was rather struck by what theory in anthropology was held before. 
The theory that the Savannahs of Africa increased, forests lost and 
this increase in savannah gave rise to the theory that savannahs 
caused bipedalism. 
If you do not mind me saying so, but I think the Savannah mechanism 
is 
a stupid sort of theory to posit as the cause for bipedalism. 
According to my theory, bipedalism goes hand in hand (forgive the 
pun) 
with stonethrowing. Increasing stonethrowing puts demands on the body 
anatomy to be more bipedal. 
And then this program of Secrets of the Dead had Mr. Johanson and 
Martin and Brigitte announce a new theory for bipedalism. They looked 
at orangutans and think that specific height of trees places a demand 
for Ourran to sort of walk bipedally in parts of the tree canopy. 
Again, if you don't mind me saying but that is rather a stupid sort 
of 
theory. 
There should be a reverse Occam's Razor that says if given various 
competing 
theories, choice the theory which is the strongest theory. And quite 
clearly, the 
stonethrowing mechanism giving rise to bipedalism is the strongest 
theory. 
I was curious to see if Martin and Brigitte turned up any stones in 
their digs for 
Ourran Man. I suspect that neither Martin nor Brigitte are skilled 
enough in 
detecting stones used by Ourran Man. I feel confident that if a more 
skilled team 
were working in Kenya in the vicinity of Ourran Man that many stones 
used by 
Ourran Man would be discovered. 
Now, there was one piece of evidence in this program that casts 
dispersions upon 
my stonethrowing theory. The evidence that Ourran Man had rather 
curved 
fingers for use in tree climbing and swinging. I suppose apes and 
monkeys have 
curved fingers. Curved fingers would not mesh well with 
stonethrowing. 
How do I reconcile that evidence? I can reconcile it by saying that 
the 
curved 
fingers of Ourran were not Ourran's fingers but that of a ape or 
monkey 
and that 
Martin and Brigitte wrongly ascribed those fingers to Ourran when 
they 
were not. 
Or, I can say that the disappearance of curved fingers was a long 
gradual process 
just as brow anatomy changes took a long time. That curved fingers 
were 
not an 
impediment in stonethrowing but that as time went on, the 
stonethrowing 
demands eliminated the curved fingers altogether so that by the time 
of 
Lucy 
of 2 million years ago, curved fingers were absent altogether in 
stonethrowers. 
Is there any evidence that Ourran was a stonethrower from the 
anatomy? 
I would say quite definitively yes in the fact of the teeth structure 
was half 
and half vegetarian and meateating. Ourran's teeth resemble modern 
humans teeth to a large extent and that would indicate alot of meat 
in 
the 
diet. 
So I think that if Ourran Man is studied in more detail in the future 
it will be discovered that the site has many Ourran stones used for 
stonethrowing and that Ourran was mostly a stonethrowing predator. 
Archimedes Plutonium, a_pluton...@hotmail.com 
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots 
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies 
----------------- end quoting old posts----------------------------- 
---- quoting Dr. Young on bipedalism in his January 2003 publication 
--- 
"Improved dynamic upright balance on more powerful legs and resilient 
feet in the service of throwing and clubbing would have made upright 
locomotion more efficient, leading to its increasing use and 
eventually 
culminating in habitual bipedalism. (Several other unique human 
anatomical and behavioural features can also be accounted for by 
this approach: Young, 2002)." 
--- end quoting Dr. Young --- 
############################################# 
Since I am lately "on about" intellectual property rights of 
scientists, about priority of discovery 
and about that of proper referencing and giving credit to where 
credit 
is due. The realm of intellectual 
discovery is an arena in which new ideas come very infrequently and 
especially important new ideas. 
So this arena is fiercely competitive and sometimes even highly 
dishonest. University "professors" are 
graded by their community by the number of publications and 
especially 
publications with "new ideas". 
So it is easy to see and understand that intellectual discoveries and 
property rights is not something 
to dismiss or take lightly. 
In the case of Don Wortzman over the "Atom Universe" or "Atom 
Totality", there is suspicious behavior 
as to Don's dating where he has the year 19100. Does he mean the year 
"2000"? Or is the year 19100 
a way of undermining or subterfuging the date of Archimedes 
Plutonium's date of discovery? And another 
facet of Don Wortzman's "Atom Universe" is that it is only posted to 
a 
website but websites are 
notorious for not having a verifiable date, since author of a website 
can claim any date they wish. 
Another upsetting feature of Don Wortzman's website and that of Dr. 
Young's website on Stonethrowing 
is that they appear before Archimedes Plutonium's website on the 
theories involved. I say upsetting in that 
Don Wortzman has about a couple of pages on Atom Universe whereas 
Archimedes Plutonium has 
about 3,000 Internet posts on Atom Universe, yet Google search engine 
delivers Don Wortzman's site 
before Archimedes Plutonium. The same thing goes for Dr. Young's 
article on Stonethrowing yet 
Archimedes Plutonium has written thousands of pages on Stonethrowing 
theory and yet Google search 
delivers Young's first. 
I emailed several of the editors of the journal in which Dr. Young 
published his comments on Stonethrowing 
theory. I emailed Gillian M. Morriss-Kay and he replied that he had 
to 
go on a trip and would answer me 
when he returned, but I never received a answer. 
Basically what upsets me about Dr. Young's journal article and Dr. 
Gillian M. Morriss-Kay is that their 
journal does not have in place the ability to see if the Internet has 
had information that needs to be 
referenced by the authors of upcoming articles to be published. 
If someone, like Dr. Young, had read sci.anthropology in year 2002, 
and read my posts about Stonethrowing 
theory would have been the basis for Dr. Young's 
(1) chimpanzee-like apes 
(2) how stonethrowing drove the evolution of ape-like becoming human 
(3) and what Dr. Young calls "habitual bipedalism" 
So all three of those concepts were covered by me on the Internet in 
year 2002, and then in 2003 comes 
out the Dr. Young publication in the journal. 
So I had Dr. Young's ideas covered one year earlier or before that of 
his journal article. 
What I am upset about is that the editors of the journal will not 
reference the Internet posts of 2002. 
I simply asked Gillian M. Morriss-Kay to reference that 2003 article 
by Dr. Young with a reference to 
my 2002 posts to the Internet. 
I have the priority of discovery of those ideas, beating Dr. Young by 
one year. 
I think the Internet was "too new" and still is rather new to the 
journal publication way of doing science. 
And that many editors feel the Internet has few if any worthy posts 
that need be referenced. And that the 
Internet, to these old time editors, is a medium which can be 
ransacked of ideas and not requiring any 
reference to the Internet once the ideas are plucked and later 
published in a hardcover journal. 
Whether Dr. Young was reading my posts in year 2002 about 
Stonethrowing theory and subsequently used 
my ideas and never referenced me, is besides the point. The point is 
that those ideas appeared first on 
the Internet in 2002, and then later in year 2003 the same ideas 
appeared in a journal. 
So what I was asking of Gillian M. Morriss-Kay was to print a 
reference to my 2002 posts on Stonethrowing 
theory in a upcoming edition of this journal, much like what most 
newspapers such as the New York Times 
has as a "correction section" where they correct past mistakes. 
I have written an entire book on the subject of Stonethrowing theory 
which if all my posts were assembled 
would be probably a thousand pages or more. 
So it is high time that science journals realize that the Internet 
science newsgroups have to be watched 
and referenced as per new ideas. And that some scientists read the 
newsgroups and are tempted to 
steal ideas from others and then reword the ideas and publish in a 
journal pretending as though they 
discovered those new ideas. 
The very nice thing about the Internet is that the ideas are all date 
time grouped. There is no question that 
I posted those ideas in 2002, whereas the journal in which Dr. Young 
published has few date-time group 
verifiability. 
Science journals and journal editors have to get used to the idea 
that 
the Internet is just as good as their 
journal itself as far as "doing science" and in many facets of doing 
science, the Internet is superior to the old 
hardcover journals such as the facet of "speed". No journal can 
compete with the Internet as to "speed" of 
getting the news out. 
I suspect Gillian M. Morriss-Kay thinks I have no case against Dr. 
Young and for that reason he never 
bothered to answer my email. But the case is important and the case 
is 
about science journals that have 
not grown up yet and matured yet to realize that the Internet is a 
valid medium of reporting science, especially 
new ideas in science and that the old journals must adapt to 
reference 
the Internet.


David !Achimedes Ritz

unread,
Jan 4, 2021, 12:09:15 AM1/4/21
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Saturday, 02 January 2021 06:36 -0000,
in article <rsp49a$nuh$2...@pcls7.std.com>,
This is far from my first encounter with Ludwig. On several
occasions, I have attempted to introduce Archie Pu, the reality
challenged clueless cluck, to various bits of useful information and
recommendations, all for naught. In the past, Tim Skirvin has also
attempted to lend a helping hand, only to have Archie turn on him.
Of course Archie attempting to conjure Skirv is a bit silly, as Tim
retired from Usenet over a decade ago.

<aside>
No, Archie, no one can remove the forgery from Giggle Grips, let
alone Usenet, as you demand.
</aside>

Archie's been a world class crank for years. Sadly, he appears to be
even farther around the bend, than I recollect. It seems someone
suggested Archie take a flying leap at his own asshole, which he
interpreted literally and went for it head first. The old asshat now
seems to be suffering from severe hypoxia and general hysteria. With
his current interest in coprophagy and associated fecal fixation,
perhaps he should consider a new career at a potter's wheel.

So, I became curious why Archie Pu began attacking Georgia Tech and
apparently associating me with this institution. I am not a
physicist, an academic nor do I play one on Usenet, unlike some folks.
It now appears Archie is accusing David Finkelstein of posting
forgeries from the grave.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Finkelstein

That Archie copies and pastes the body of the forgery into his post,
while claiming it is the forgery, doesn't exactly help matters. A
block of text is a block of text; nothing more, nothing less. Of
course, this is Archie of whom we're speaking.

==

When Archie began posting lists of names, apparently from his enemies
list, it did pique my curiosity regarding the forgery, which prompted
him to stumble drunkenly into the news.* hierarchy.

Message-ID: <rsngd8$2dae$1...@neodome.net>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=160954490000

neodome.net is a news service, with which I have no historical
familiarity. It's been around for a few years, so I thought I'd have
a look. neodome.net fretures a number of anonymity features, for
NNTP. My telnet session, excerpted below, can be found at
http://dritz.mako.ath.cx/20210103_neodome_sci.phyisics.txt .

news.neodome.net appears to be an open NNTP server running INN 2.6.3.
The server appears to be wide open. While I have no interest in
posting through this server, I ran some NNTP commands, in order to
cull some usable data. Here are some highlights:

$ telnet news.neodome.net 119
Trying 95.216.243.224...
Connected to neodome.net.
Escape character is '^]'.
200 news.neodome.net InterNetNews NNRP server INN 2.6.3 ready (posting ok)
GROUP sci.physics
211 47259 23471 70824 sci.physics
HELP
100 Legal commands
ARTICLE [message-ID|number]
AUTHINFO USER name|PASS password|GENERIC program [argument ...]
BODY [message-ID|number]
CAPABILITIES [keyword]
COMPRESS DEFLATE
DATE
GROUP newsgroup
HDR header [message-ID|range]
HEAD [message-ID|number]
HELP
IHAVE message-ID
LAST
LIST [ACTIVE [wildmat]|ACTIVE.TIMES [wildmat]|COUNTS [wildmat]|DISTRIB.PATS|DISTRIBUTIONS|HEADERS [MSGID|RANGE]|MODERATORS|MOTD|NEWSGROUPS [wildmat]|OVERVIEW.FMT|SUBSCRIPTIONS [wildmat]]
LISTGROUP [newsgroup [range]]
MODE READER
NEWGROUPS [yy]yymmdd hhmmss [GMT]
NEWNEWS wildmat [yy]yymmdd hhmmss [GMT]
NEXT
OVER [range]
POST
QUIT
STARTTLS
STAT [message-ID|number]
XGTITLE [wildmat]
XHDR header [message-ID|range]
XOVER [range]
XPAT header message-ID|range pattern [pattern ...]
Report problems to <use...@neodome.net>.
.
POST
340 Ok, recommended message-ID <rstuv0$ip8$1...@neodome.net>
.
441 Missing required From: header
XPAT MESSAGE-ID 23471-70824 *@neodome.net>
221 Header or metadata information for MESSAGE-ID follows (from overview)
36881 <r1d337$1pip$1...@neodome.net>
55324 <regnk9$2m9i$2...@neodome.net>
[ snip 108 Mesage-IDs ]
64916 <rlqaop$1172$1...@neodome.net>
70625 <rsngd8$2dae$1...@neodome.net>
.
HEAD 70625
221 70625 <rsngd8$2dae$1...@neodome.net> head
Path: news.neodome.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Achimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Happy New Year! AP's 1st book I AM A LUNATIC published in 1937
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2021 07:51:17 -0800
Organization: Neodome
Message-ID: <rsngd8$2dae$1...@neodome.net>
Reply-To: plutonium....@gmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2021 15:51:04 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: neodome.net; mail-complaints-to="ab...@neodome.net"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/68.12.1
Content-Language: en-US
X-Mozilla-News-Host: news://news.neodome.net:119
Xref: news.neodome.net sci.physics:70625
.
HEAD 36881
HEAD 55324
[ snip 108 HEAD requests ]
HEAD 64916
HEAD 70625
221 36881 <r1d337$1pip$1...@neodome.net> head
Path: news.neodome.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: LOL <l...@anon.net>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.checkmate,talk.politics.guns,sci.physics,comp.misc
Subject: Girls can't code
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 19:43:18 -0500
Organization: Neodome
Message-ID: <r1d337$1pip$1...@neodome.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2020 00:43:20 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: neodome.net; mail-complaints-to="ab...@neodome.net"
Content-Language: en-US
X-Mozilla-News-Host: news://neodomea5yrhcabc.onion:119
Xref: news.neodome.net alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:75409 alt.checkmate:72974 talk.politics.guns:51436 sci.physics:36881 comp.misc:1067
.
[ snip 110 sets of headers ]
221 70625 <rsngd8$2dae$1...@neodome.net> head
Path: news.neodome.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Achimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Happy New Year! AP's 1st book I AM A LUNATIC published in 1937
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2021 07:51:17 -0800
Organization: Neodome
Message-ID: <rsngd8$2dae$1...@neodome.net>
Reply-To: plutonium....@gmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2021 15:51:04 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: neodome.net; mail-complaints-to="ab...@neodome.net"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/68.12.1
Content-Language: en-US
X-Mozilla-News-Host: news://news.neodome.net:119
Xref: news.neodome.net sci.physics:70625
.
QUIT
205 Bye!
Connection closed by foreign host.

So, I collected the headers from 112 articles posted via
news.neodome.net. I then ran some General Regular ExPresison match
queries, for string matches contained in the file.

$ grep ^From: neodome_sci.phyisics.txt | count
9 From: Greta Baine <gbaine@brane_mail.net>
5 From: "Hoofington P. McSnort" <hoof...@onionmail.com>
4 From: Herp Derpington <herp...@mitchmail.com>
4 From: Hank Hill <h...@hotmail.com>
4 From: Hank Hill <Hhil...@gmail.com>
4 From: Dave Parker <dparker188@dave_mail.net>
4 From: Buck Futter <buckf...@buckfutter.com>
4 From: Betsy Anal Devos Kibo Moroney Perry Buttfuck Anal Manure Party
4 From: "Efftard K. Donglemeier" <eff...@yourmom.com>
4 From: "Boner J. Skidmark" <bonerjs...@newsmail.com>
3 From: Pancho Valvejob <pancho_va...@neckmail.com>
3 From: Nomen Nescio <NomNesTrollFag@your_mom.net>
3 From: Eduardo Fahqtardo <el_fah...@hotmoms4you.net>
3 From: Danny Donaldson <dd...@marty.net>
3 From: Betsy Kibo Moroney Perry DeVos Anal Manure Buttfuck
2 From: Stu Davidson <sb...@davids.com>
2 From: Rick1234567S <rick_s...@yahoo.ca>
2 From: Mutt Buncher <rovlonimsky@mitchs_mom.net>
2 From: Mutt Buncher <muttb...@hotmail.com>
2 From: Herp Derpington <herp_t...@jerkmail.net>
2 From: Hank Hill <h...@hankmail.net>
2 From: Ezekiel Petrov-Slonimsky <zekieetrovlonimsky@mitchs_mom.net>
2 From: Dave Parker <dpark...@hotmain.com>
2 From: Dave Parker <dpark...@fakemail.net>
2 From: Achimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
2 From: "I. P. Freely" <ipfre...@morphnet.net>
2 From: "Hoofington P. McSnort" <hoffp...@newsmail.net>
2 From: "Eddie \"Fish Basket\" Reynolds Jr." <ef...@gmail.com>
1 From: Uncle Hal <HalMcTr...@gmail.com>
1 From: Tchokanma Balzalot <t...@gmail.com>
1 From: Steve Parker <spar...@hotmail.com>
1 From: Rudy Canoza <j_ca...@gmx.com>
1 From: Rick Richardson <RickRickUri...@gmail.com>
1 From: Richard Cranium <rick...@yourmom.com>
1 From: Professor Wordsmith <pword...@wordmail.com>
1 From: Pete Peterson <PeePeeUrin...@gmail.com>
1 From: Nipples the Clown <nipda...@clownpenis.fart>
1 From: Mutt Buncher <muttb...@mitchmail.com>
1 From: LOL <l...@anon.net>
1 From: Kibo Moroney Devos Anal Betsy Buttfuck Manure Perry
1 From: Greta Baine <gba...@hotmail.com>
1 From: Dingus Dirtbag McGee <ddm...@gmail.net>
1 From: Buffalo Custardbath <yekieetrovlonimsky@mitchs_mom.net>
1 From: Buck Futter <buk...@clownpenis.fart>
1 From: Buck Futter <buckf...@hotmail.com>
1 From: Bet A Grain <bettagrain@brane_mail.net>
1 From: Bert Davidson <bd...@davids.com>
1 From: Antonio Buck Futter <abf...@futter.com>
1 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=b1or_Dingus?= <the_di...@sombrero.net>
1 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=b1or_Dingus?= <din...@nitwot.com>
1 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=b1or_Dingus?= <Dingm...@mailservice.com>
1 From: "Efftard K. Donglemeier" <inv...@example.net>
1 From: "Efftard K. Donglemeier" <efdong...@hootmail.com>
1 From: "Eddie \"Boiled Alabama Turkey\" Henderson Jr." <EdBoAl...@gamil.com>
1 From: "Boner J. Skidmark" <nar...@hootmail.net>

Interestingly, these From headers appear to match many, if not most,
of Archie Pu's cast of characters, yet here they are, all posting
through the same open news server.

$ grep -1 ^User-Agent: 20210103_neodome_sci.phyisics.txt | count
113 Injection-Info: neodome.net; mail-complaints-to="ab...@neodome.net"

112 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
1 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101

66 Thunderbird/68.11.0
32 Thunderbird/68.12.0
11 Thunderbird/68.10.0
4 Thunderbird/68.12.1

Thunderbird is a very popular newsreader, but this does not appear to
me, to be a coincidence. Please make your own inferences.

==

Last of all, as Archimedes Plutonium decided to spew his frothing
lunacy into the news.* hierarchy, it gave me a chance to look at what
he's been up to. It seems Archie Pu has taken to spamming for his
self published books -- and I use the term 'book' loosely -- including
identical boiler plate in all his shared wisdom^W delusional
fantasies. That's right, the sole whinging queen of topicality, in
sci.physics and sci.math, is a network abusing, spamming fuckwit.

- --
David !Archie Ritz <dr...@mindspring.com>
"There is nothing worse than having a spare couple of hours and you
can't find an open server to abuse." - Tim Thorne - 26 Dec 1998

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iF0EARECAB0WIQSc0FU3XAVGYDjSGUhSvCmZGhLe6wUCX/Ki+AAKCRBSvCmZGhLe
61wuAKCtKD0rXMsQJHBgcHoVeV5UxMGUAwCgw3jICeu9yOCnU0HklTWpVoJzqtw=
=Xd2A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,
Jan 4, 2021, 12:47:22 AM1/4/21
to
David Ritz shits in face Harvard's Dr.Hau M.G.Finn, Angel Cabrera, Georgia Tech, Christoph J. Fahrni, Angus Wilkinson, 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


DR HAU FAILURE


On Wednesday, December 23, 2020 at 2:47:38 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> WARNING TO STUDENTS, PARENTS and TEACHERS:

AP writes: do not be fooled by the several people posting under the name Michael Moroney as a "open hate spam line"

AP writes: sad the education system of USA where the govt pays a 1 million dollars for a stalker failure of science like Kibo Parry Moroney pays him $1 million to stalk in sci.math, sci.physics, yet probably, not sure pays Harvard physicists like Dr. Hau 1/5 the amount to actually teach and research physics. (Please check on exact amounts)

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.

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.




Kibo 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.




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


David Ritz and Tim Skirvin forgery machinery. AP does not appreciate forgeries of him


Douglas Beck, Bryan Clark, Lance Cooper, Univ Illinois, why is Skirvin allowing the dumping of trash books/tests in sci.math//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's Magnetic Monopole

Charles Gammie, Russell Giannetta, Nigel Goldenfeld, Univ Illinois, why is Skirvin allowing the dumping of drug ads in sci.physics//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's Magnetic Monopole

Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall

12 PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon
by Archimedes Plutonium

Proofs that the Real Electron=muon and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall

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.


2nd proof with the direct observance some years back in Poland of a 840 Mev particle along with 105 MeV particle of the hydrogen atom.

Hello, well i found the below on the internet. I need a 840MeV particle that is the Real Proton. I have asked to look for it in the production of Muons. Is the below a production of muons along with 840 MeV particles?

Quoting

Indication For A Broad J(pc) = 2++ Meson At 840-mev Produced In The Reaction Pi- P ---> Pi+ Pi- N At High |t|
K. Rybicki, I. Sakrejda (Cracow, INP)
1985 - 10 pages

Z.Phys. C28 (1985) 65-74
DOI: 10.1007/BF01550250
Abstract (Springer)
The reaction π−p→π+π−n has been studied at 17.2 GeV/c and 63 GeV/c. A partial wave analysis shows a fairly broad (∼250 MeV) resonance at about 840 MeV. This object, already visible in moments of the angular distribution, is produced in theD wave with helicitym=2 via unnatural exchange. The cross section for the reaction π−p→D2U(840)n is only by an order of magnitude lower than that of ϱ(770) and falls likepLAB−2.1±0.3. We have not been able to explain this object by systematic experimental effects like acceptance and/orN* reflections; neither is the nature of the resonance (if real) clear to us.
--- end quote ---


3rd proof-- pull plug out of electrical socket and notice light flash. That flash of light was the magnetic monopoles as photons with charge energy of .5MeV, for the monopoles compose all electric currents.

4th proof is that the radius of the hydrogen proton shrinks too much when a muon is injected and that contradicts Standard Model. The reason is obvious-- the proton is 840 MeV electron is muon and then you add a second muon.

--- Quoting from www, Ars Technica, Researchers orbit a muon around an atom, confirm physics is broken ---

So, the proton radius puzzle remains a puzzle. The team behind this new work point to a number of measurements that could potentially help clarify it. Some of them involve better measurements with normal electrons; others involve scattering muons off protons themselves to see if there's an unknown force at work. The latter would tell us whether anything beyond the Standard Model will be needed to explain this puzzle.

--- end Quote ---

5th proof electrochemical battery is not explainable as Faraday law unless you concede the battery is a thrusting bar magnet, and thus, the battery is explained as a dipole magnet of the anode and cathode and the electrolyte solution is the ferromagnetism of spins all lined up. And thus a current in the circuit is because the battery as a thrusting magnet forces monopoles down the circuit wire.

6th proof, spin is charge, and charge is spin and the only particle for that is a ratio of permittivity to permeability as that of 10^-6/ 10^-12 is a charge energy of 10^6 or 1 MeV for photon charge energy, and that leaves the proton, electron=muon, monopole with .5MeV charge energy.


7th proof the Maxwell Equations are not symmetrical without current being the flow of magnetic monopoles.

8th proof, now, a straightforward proof that the muon is the real-electron can come from ion theory. The trouble is that weeding out a proof of electron = muon, is that we get entangled with the magnetic monopole. So, the proof is simple for ion theory, to prove the muon = real electron. Take for example iron Fe atoms, they are 26 protons, 26 electrons=muons
Now iron has ion states of -4, -2, -1, +1, +2, +3, +4, +5 +6, +7
So, suppose the electron = .5MeV particle and not the 105 MeV particle
That would mean Iron can exist as iron with 26 protons and only 19 electrons at one extreme and 26 protons and 30 electrons at the other extreme.
Now in Maxwell theory, there is a law that enforces Conservation of Energy, called the Lenz law in Faraday law. Otherwise, you have unlimited energy and Nature does not have unlimited energy.
So that in atoms, the protons become a thrusting bar magnet and the electrons= real-electrons are the closed loop of wire (inert gases are closed loop wires and why bonding exists is to close the loop of real-electron structure).
So, the proof that .5MeV are not electrons, is that iron bonds readily with other iron forming a compound of iron, the metal iron and metallic bond is due to iron atoms wanting to close the loop of their 26 Real Electrons. They close that loop by the metallic bond. That means, the existence of ions from -4 to +7 is unrelated altogether from Electron configuration. That ions are some other particle behavior but not the electron nor proton behavior.
The reason iron exists as iron from Fe-4 to Fe+7 is that the particle .5MeV is a surface interloper particle of atoms, it is a add-on particle not the integral electron of atoms. If the monopole were the electron we break conservation of energy by all these interlopers. The reason the chemical table is all built around the inert gases, is because Faraday's law must be obeyed and thus atoms with a closed loop of their electrons seek no bonding of electrons= muons. But atoms that have no closed loop of their muons, seek that closed loop structure and thus, they form covalent, ionic, metallic bonds with other muons of other atoms.

9th Proof. In Chemistry, it is rare, that a atom loses or gains any Real-Electron=muon.
And that is a 9th proof that Real Electron=muon, that beta decay in Old Physics, was not the electron of atoms but the transfer of Magnetic Monopoles.
The only real radioactive decay mode is the helium nucleus-- alpha decay
But there is never a Real Electron decay for that would mean muons spewed out of atoms. Nor do we see protons spewed out of atoms, Real Proton = 840 MeV. The so called hydrogen nucleus of a 938 MeV is not radioactive decay, for it is still a 840 proton + 105 muon = hydrogen atom.

10th Proof. Well, I spoke of the internal heart or core of the concept of Chemistry, that the proton/s and electron/s are two parts of the Faraday Law. The protons are the thrusting bar magnet and the electrons= muons forms the closed loop of wire. Essentially that is the heart and core of atomic physics, a replay of Faraday's law with protons and electrons.

But, however, the electrons= muons only forms a closed loop wire for Faraday's law in the inert gases, the helium, neon, argon, etc and all other atoms want to have that closed loop configuration. Thus, is borne the Chemistry of bonding. Chemistry is borne. So that one atom without a closed loop configuration bonds with another atom to achieve that goal. So chemistry bonding is that of muons bonded to other muons in different atoms.

Now, can these .5 MeV particles fulfill the atoms need to make their muons a closed loop? Obviously not, because ions of atoms such as Fe, iron, swing from -4 to +7 in ions, so that proves ions cannot solve a atom's problem of its electron structure being less than closed loop. Only muons of other atoms can fulfill a atom's need to be closed loop.

11th Proof. Solving the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly, alongside proton radius shrunk
--- Quoting from www, Ars Technica, Researchers orbit a muon around an atom, confirm physics is broken ---

So, the proton radius puzzle remains a puzzle. The team behind this new work point to a number of measurements that could potentially help clarify it. Some of them involve better measurements with normal electrons; others involve scattering muons off protons themselves to see if there's an unknown force at work. The latter would tell us whether anything beyond the Standard Model will be needed to explain this puzzle.
--- end Quote ---

Now in re-reading that Ars article on proton radius shrinking when a hydrogen atom of 840 MeV proton with electron = 105 MeV and then a second muon is tried to be compounded-- will of course, shrink the proton radius for the two muons with 1 proton all three are centered at the center of the proton.

But in re-reading was mentioned an anomaly I was not familiar with-- Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly.

And reading some results of that, I find surprizing for it was Feynman who claimed Electrodynamics was the supreme physics theory in accuracy of prediction.

But the anomaly is off by a mere .1%, which seems very very small to be not even an anomaly. Trouble is, the electron of Old Physics was found to be so accurate as to be described as physic's most precise finding ever, and that makes the .1% discrepancy ever so much larger.

Now, I was able to explain away the proton radius anomaly because the proton is not 938 MeV but is 840 MeV and the electron is not the .5MeV particle but rather is 105 MeV.

So, can I explain away the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly. I believe I can easily. For if you consider that what Old Physics measured as the electron magnetic moment was none other than the monopole as a dressed up photon magnetic moment. And it is easily seen that in EM theory the permeability constant is "exact" no uncertainty at 1.26*10^-6 H/m.

So, it is no wonder that Old Physics thought their electron magnetic moment in Quantum Electrodynamics was so ultra ultra precise-- for, they never measured the magnetic moment of the electron, but instead a magnetic monopole of the dressed up .5 MeV particle.

Then, when it came time to measure the magnetic moment of the muon, the real-true-electron, there is this .1% discrepancy, but there are discrepancies in the proton and neutron etc.

So, once we realized the Real Electron is the muon, afterall, there is no magnetic moment anomaly.

12th proof -- Static Electricity Re: Proofs that the Real Electron=muon

Alright, I need a 12th proof, for I do not want to neglect what is probably our first encounter with electricity-- static electricity. As we walk across a carpet and touch something we experience a spark. Trouble with static electricity, is that the concept makes out the atom as a flimsy structure, really really flimsy structure that electrons of atoms can be picked off so easily, and from very many diverse materials. One would think the structure of atoms was built of stronger stuff. And that is what the Electron = Muon concept is about, that it is so very very hard to separate a electron from its atom, just like separating a proton out of a nucleus. So the subject of static electricity is this interloper particle, this surface superficial particle that is easily "whipped up" as the magnetic monopole, just as easy as producing electricity in a Faraday Law demonstration of a thrusting bar magnet in closed loop of wire. For, we can easily imagine that our walk across a carpet is similar to a thrusting bar magnet and then the closed loop wire is when we touch something, having built up some monopoles in our body.

Old Physics would say that we picked up electrons on the carpet, and as we touch something, remit that imbalance of electrons.

New Physics would say that we picked up magnetic monopoles.

Now let us look at other static electric experiments. For when we rub a glass rod (+1) with silk, or rub a plastic rod (-1) with wool. Here again, Old Physics would say we pick off electrons of atoms.

New Physics would say, no, the atoms are still composed of all their electrons and protons. The only thing changed with the rubbing is that energy of the rub transfers to the magnetic monopole energy-- packets of .5MeV monopoles of charge energy. And the energy of rubbing becomes monopoles. These are those closed Lines of Force of a magnet, and the moment we touch something these stored up monopoles, flow from our body to that of the touched object.

How is that a proof the electron = muon?

Simple, in that the carpet, or plastic rod (-1) with wool or glass rod (+1) with silk, are materials that are electrically neutral substances, for the rubbing action was transformed not into free electrons, but was formed into monopoles. These substances remain electrically neutral, and the only change is that the rub created magnetic monopoles-- some + charged monopoles, some - charged monopoles, and these monopoles are superficial to the atoms where they formed.

Static Electricity is merely stored monopoles. Monopoles are conservation of energy, for the rubbing had to be transformed into some energy packets and that is-- monopoles of charge energy.

In the experiment of where we pick up bits of paper from either the glass rod or the plastic rod due to static electricity. What is happening here, is that the rod is not involved with the Real Electrons of atoms, but is involved with the superficial surface charged particle that is the magnetic monopole.

Now the electroscope is explained much much easier with magnetic monopoles rather than the silly electrons on one leaf pushing away the electrons on the second leaf.

For consider instead a closed loop line of force between the two leafs

/\
O

Where the leafs start out as ||

Then comes the charged rod of monopoles sending down a monopole closed loop O that pushes apart the two leafs.

Now i have two gold leafs and if true should leave the push apart looking more like this () rather than this /\. And that is what i have ()

by Archimedes Plutonium
------------------
-------------------

Tim Skirvin ttp://www.math.uiuc.edu/~tskirvin/

Is this Tim Skirvin under the guise of Nadegda also under "vote wrangler" and under _...@__.__ and emailadd, and under USA/CANADA Call text that is filling up sci.physics with spam junk?

I thought Skirvin's job was to keep sci.physics clean, not in polluting the newsgroup.

Serg io writes
11:17 AM (3 minutes ago)

when responding, please take time to delete the extra newsgroups

alt.checkmate
talk.politics.guns
alt.fan.cyberchicken
alt.usenet.kooks
alt.politics
soc.men
alt.fan.jai-maharaj (etc)

those groups are *infested with trolls*, some really 'sick' ones, and
invites them to post in sci.physics too.


Drs.Klaus Schulten, Stuart Shapiro, Timothy Stelzer
Drs.Rosalyn Sussman Yalow, Brian Josephson, John Bardeen, Leon Cooper of Univ Illinois, why is Skirvin not cleaning up sci.physics//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = monopole

Sir Peter Mansfield, Anthony J. Leggett, Norman Ramsey, Rosalyn Sussman Yalow, Brian Josephson, John Bardeen,Leon Cooper, J. Robert Schrieffer, Murray Gell-Mann, Emilio Segrè, Tsung-Dao Lee, Chen Ning Yang, John Bardeen, Polykarp Kusch, Peter Abbamonte, Peter Adshead, Douglas Beck, Bryan Clark, Lance Cooper, Karin Dahmen, Thomas Faulkner, Jeffrey Filippini, Eduardo Fradkin, Bryce Gadway, Charles Gammie, Nigel Goldenfeld, George Gollin, Robert Leigh, Virginia Lorenz, Kevin Pitts, Klaus Schulten, Stuart Shapiro, Timothy Stelzer

Univ. Illinois, Urbana Champagne Physics Dept.
Peter Abbamonte, Peter Adshead, Aleksei Aksimentiev, Douglas Beck, Alexey Bezryadin, David Ceperley, Yann Chemla, Bryan Clark, S. Cooper, Karin Dahmen, Brian Demarco, James Eckstein, Aida El-Khadra, Thomas Faulkner, Jeffrey Filippini, Eduardo Fradkin, Bryce Gadway, Charles Gammie, Russell Giannetta, Nigel Goldenfeld, George Gollin, Matthias Perdekamp, Gilbert Holder, Benjamin Hooberman, Alfred Hubler, Taylor Hughes, Seppe Kuehn, Thomas Kuhlman, Paul Kwiat, Anthony Leggett, Robert Leigh, Virginia Lorenz, Gregory MacDougall, Vidya Madhavan, Naomi Makins, Nadya Mason, Jose Mestre, Mark Neubauer, Edward Seidel, Mats Selen, Paul Selvin, Stuart Shapiro, Jessie Shelton, Anne Sickles, Timothy Stelzer, Michael Stone, Dale van Harlingen, James Wiss

UIUC Univ

Tim Skirvin



..
.- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
, . `.' ' `.
.' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
. ; .' . `. ;
; . ' `. . '
. ' ` `. |
. '. '
. 0 0 ' `.
' `
; `
.' `
; U `
; '; `
: | ;.. :` `
: `;. ```. .-; | '
'. ` ``.., .' :' '
; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' Hi, I am Tim Skirvin and my job at Usenet was not fun until David Ritz and I start to forge people like AP on Usenet and then the fun and fireworks really begins
` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` `. ````'''''' ' '
` . ' '
/ ` `. ' ' .
/ ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
/ .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
/ .'' ; ` .' `
...'.' ; .' ` .' `
"" .' .' | ` .; \ `
; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
:' | ' ` , `. `
| ' ` ' `. `
` ' ` ; `. |
`.' ` ; `-'
`...'




/\-------/\
\::O:::O::/
(::_ ^ _::)
\_`-----'_/
You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Illinois?

And, even though you-- professors of physics/math, want to remain silent and stupid in Real Electron= muon/Calculus, your students deserve better.


74th published book

HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

In 2016-2017, AP discovered that the real proton has a mass of 840 MeV, not 938. The real electron was actually the muon and the muon stays inside the proton that forms a proton torus of 8 rings and with the muon as bar magnet is a Faraday Law producing magnetic monopoles. So this book is all about why researchers of physics and engineers keep getting the number 938MeV when they should be getting the number 840 MeV + 105 MeV = 945 MeV.

Cover Picture is a proton torus of 8 rings with a muon of 1 ring inside the proton torus, doing the Faraday Law and producing magnetic monopoles.
Length: 17 pages

Product details
• Publication Date : December 18, 2019
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 17 pages
• File Size : 698 KB
• ASIN : B082WYGVNG
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled

#1-4, 105th published book

Atom Geometry is Torus Geometry // Atom Totality series, book 4 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Since all atoms are doing the Faraday Law inside them, of their thrusting muon into a proton coil in the shape of a geometry torus, then the torus is the geometry of each and every atom. But then we must explain the neutrons since the muon and proton are doing Faraday's Law, then the neutron needs to be explained in terms of this proton torus with muon inside, all three shaped as rings. The muon is a single ring and each proton is 8 rings. The neutron is shaped like a plate and is solid not hollow. The explanation of a neutron is that of a capacitor storing what the proton-muon rings produce in electricity. Where would the neutron parallel plates be located? I argue in this text that the neutron plates when fully grown from 1 eV until 945MeV are like two parallel plate capacitors where each neutron is part of one plate, like two pieces of bread with the proton-muon torus being a hamburger patty.

Cover Picture: I assembled two atoms in this picture where the proton torus with a band of muons inside traveling around and around the proton torus producing electricity. And the pie-plates represent neutrons as parallel-plate capacitors.
Length: 39 pages

Product details
• Publication Date : March 24, 2020
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• ASIN : B086BGSNXN
• Print Length : 39 pages
• File Size : 935 KB
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,656,820 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#6413 in Mathematics (Kindle Store)
#315 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
#4953 in Physics (Kindle Store)



#1-5, 112th published book

New Perspective on Psi^2 in the Schrodinger Equation in a Atom Totality Universe// Atom Totality series, book 5
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

I first heard of the Schrodinger equation in college chemistry class. We never actually did any problem solving with the equation, and we were only told about it. Then taking physics my next year in college and after I bought the Feynman Lectures on Physics, just for fun for side reading, three volume set did I learn what this Schrodinger equation and the Psi^2 wavefunction was about. I am not going to teach the mathematics of the Schrodinger equation and the math calculations of the Psi or Psi^2 in this book, but leave that up to the reader or student to do that from Feynman's Lectures on Physics. The purpose of this book is to give a new and different interpretation of what Psi^2 is, what Psi^2 means. Interpretation of physics experiments and observations turns out to be one of the most difficult tasks in all of physics.

Cover Picture: a photograph taken of me in 1993, after the discovery of Plutonium Atom Totality, and I was 43 years old then, on a wintery hill of New Hampshire. It is nice that Feynman wrote a physics textbook series, for I am very much benefitting from his wisdom. If he had not done that, getting organized in physics by writing textbooks, I would not be writing this book. And I would not have discovered the true meaning of the Fine Structure Constant, for it was Feynman who showed us that FSC is really 0.0854, not that of 0.0072. All because 0.0854 is Psi, and Psi^2 is 0.0072.
Length: 20 pages

Product details
• ASIN : B0875SVDC7
• Publication Date : April 15, 2020
• File Size : 1134 KB
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 20 pages
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Language: : English
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Lending : Enabled
• Best-sellers rank #2,437,191 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
• #313 in 30-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
• #1,064 in General Chemistry & Reference
• #7,594 in General Chemistry


#1-6, 135th published book

QED in Atom Totality theory where proton is a 8 ring torus and electron = muon inside proton doing Faraday Law// Atom Totality series, book 6 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 

Since the real true electron of atoms is the muon and is a one ring bar magnet thrusting through the 8 ring torus of a proton, we need a whole entire new model of the hydrogen atom. Because the Bohr model with the 0.5MeV particle jumping orbitals as the explanation of Spectral Lines is all wrong. In this vacuum of explaining spectral line physics, comes the AP Model which simply states that the hydrogen atom creates Spectral lines because at any one instant of time 4 of the 8 proton rings is "in view" and the electricity coming from those 4 view rings creates spectral line physics.

Cover Picture: Is a imitation of the 8 ring proton torus, with my fingers holding on the proton ring that has the muon ring perpendicular and in the equatorial plane of the proton rings, thrusting through. This muon ring is the same size as the 8 proton rings making 9 x 105MeV = 945MeV of energy. The muon ring has to be perpendicular and lie on the equator of the proton torus. Surrounding the proton-torus would be neutrons as skin or coating cover and act as capacitors in storing the electricity produced by the proton+muon.


Product details
• File Size : 587 KB
• ASIN : B08K47K5BB
• Publication Date : September 25, 2020
• Print Length : 25 pages
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Lending : Enabled


#1-7, 138th published book
The true NUCLEUS of Atoms are inner toruses moving around in circles of a larger outer torus// Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden Experiment revisited // Atom Totality Series, book 7 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

The geometry of Atoms of the Table of Chemical Elements is torus geometry. We know this to be true for the torus geometry forms the maximum electricity production when using the Faraday Law. We see this in Old Physics with their tokamak toruses attempting to make fusion, by accelerating particles of the highest possible acceleration for the torus is that geometry. But the torus is the geometry not only of maximum acceleration but of maximum electrical generation by having a speeding bar magnet go around and around inside a torus== the Faraday law, where the torus rings are the copper closed wire loop. The protons of atoms are 8 loops of rings in a torus geometry, and the electron of atoms is the muon as bar magnet, almost the same size as the proton loops but small enough to fit inside proton loops. It is torus geometry that we investigate the geometry of all atoms.
Length: 41 pages

Product details
• Publication Date : October 9, 2020
• File Size : 828 KB
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print Length : 41 pages
• ASIN : B08KZT5TCD
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled

#2-1, 137th published book

Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)



#1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory

This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so I can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me.

Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics community updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast, as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to.

Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory.
And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
Length: 64 pages

Product details
• File Size : 790 KB
• Publication Date : October 5, 2020
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 64 pages
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Language: : English
• ASIN : B08KS4YGWY
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory
◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads

Michael Moroney

unread,
Jan 4, 2021, 12:11:40 PM1/4/21
to
David !Achimedes Ritz <dr...@mindspring.com> writes:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1

>On Saturday, 02 January 2021 06:36 -0000,
> in article <rsp49a$nuh$2...@pcls7.std.com>,
> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:

>> David Ritz <dr...@mindspring.com> writes:

>>> Recommendations:

>>> Get a real News-reader. As hard as it is to believe, G2 (Google
>>> Groups) is even more useless in its current iteration.

>>> Buy yourself a clue, as you'll never find one if left to your own
>>> devices.

>> What's amusing is that Plutonium has no idea what you're talking
>> about, despite the fact he has been posting his drek to Usenet since
>> at least 1993, before there even was any such a thing as Google
>> Groups. Meaning he SHOULD know of the existence of real news
>> readers, since he must have used them!

>This is far from my first encounter with Ludwig. On several
>occasions, I have attempted to introduce Archie Pu, the reality
>challenged clueless cluck, to various bits of useful information and
>recommendations, all for naught. In the past, Tim Skirvin has also
>attempted to lend a helping hand, only to have Archie turn on him.

Yes, unfortunately for Archie, he seems to have a huge gaping hole in
his (il)logic regarding how to treat someone who happens to disagree with
something he says. I have seen him respond to new people who stumble on
his posts and comment on them. He seems to give them between 1 and 3
attempts to "see the light" and agree with him before he lashes out and
attacks them, calling them failures of science/math or whatever. And he
is incapable of learning much of anything. And yes he has gone around
the bend more lately.

Interesting info about the forgery.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages