AP proudly announces his 223rd published book of science// Moving Earth+Moon out to a orbit near Jupiter or Mars // Engineering by Archimedes Plutonium (Amazon's Kindle)

[Archimedes Plutonium]

AP proudly announces his 223rd published book of science// Moving Earth+Moon out to a orbit near Jupiter or Mars // Engineering  by Archimedes Plutonium (Amazon's Kindle)

223rd published book of science.

Moving Earth+Moon out to a orbit near Jupiter or Mars // Engineering

by Archimedes Plutonium (Amazon's Kindle)

Preface: The Sun has gone Red Giant Phase, and will kill all life on Earth in the next 10,000 years. As of 2022, I reckon we have 1,000 years to establish a permanent human colony on Europa, and then move as much as possible to Europa in the 10,000 years. But the question remains, do we leave Earth dead to be consumed by the Sun as it gets larger and larger, or do we attempt to engineer a rescue of the entire planet Earth and move it out to near Jupiter orbit? Is it possible to move Earth to be near Jupiter, or if not Jupiter than Mars? I prefer Jupiter so as to use electricity energy that Jupiter can provide. That is the question this book attempts to answer, the feasibility of moving Earth.


Cover Picture: Is my iphone camera picture of a NASA website showing the asteroids Didymos and Dimorphos. In 2022, Dimorphos was rammed by a satellite to alter its orbit. The mission was successful.


----------------------------
Table of Contents
----------------------------

1) My history on how this engineering began.

2) Where to move Earth?-- out to Mars or out to Jupiter??

3) My 2nd greatest engineering project, first being permanent colony on Europa.

4) Feasibility mass proportion ratios of Dimorphos-Didymos versus Moon-Earth.

5) A soft collision and figure 8 pattern.

6) A Superdeterministic Universe is setting the stage for us to use nuclear missiles in a constructive manner-- move Moon+Earth out of its orbit.

7) Distance ratios in comparison.

8) My understanding of the NASA ramming of Dimorphos with a satellite in its forward motion.

9) Some Usenet sci.math antagonism may pay off.

10) AP planetary Kinematics of Motion in getting Moon+Earth out to Mars or Jupiter orbit.

11) Motion Kinematics of Mars and Jupiter.

12) Explaining to the newcomers of science, how gravity works.

13) Reviewing PBS show "First Contact: An Alien Encounter".

14) Summary and conclusion.



Product details
    •    ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0BS3KJ94F
    •    Publication date ‏ : ‎ January 10, 2023
    •    Language ‏ : ‎ English
    •    File size ‏ : ‎ 407 KB
    •    Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    •    Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
    •    Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    •    X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    •    Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    •    Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
    •    Print length ‏ : ‎ 46 pages

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Alright, not finished with this book. I have a nice opportunity to prove that the AP explanation of gravity is the correct explanation. The Sun marks out magnetic field path in Space, and then the Sun shoots electric current in that magnetic path both pushing the planet emf electromotive force and pulling the planet -- potential difference and electromagnetic induction. This is how gravity works in AP-EM Equations,-- create a magnetic field path then shoot electric current in that path to push and pull the planet.

So, clearly, one test of that mechanism is the spin of planets versus their revolution speed. Another test is tides on Earth. Does the Bay of Fundy high tide always occur at night??? So far as I see, the high tide is always at night, while the Earth in Canada is not facing the Sun. This could be proof of AP's mechanism as the electric current pushing and pulling Earth in orbit from the Sun causes the spin rotation more so on the backside of Earth not facing the Sun. In other words, gravity as in Old Physics of attraction only, a inward pull is not sufficient to explain Bay of Fundy high tide. Nor is it sufficient in explaining why all Planets have spin and the amount of that spin.

Jupiter has average speed in orbit of 13km/second, and average spin rotation of 9.9 hours
Earth has average speed in orbit of 30km/second, and average spin rotation of 24 hours
Mars has average speed in orbit of 24km/second, and average spin rotation of 24 hours 38minutes
Venus has average speed in orbit of 35km/second, and average spin rotation of 243 days
Pluto has average speed in orbit of 4.7km/second, and average spin rotation of -6.3 days
Neptune has average speed in orbit of 5.4km/second, and average spin rotation of 16hours

This is complex math because the satellites of planets cause those planets to spin rotate faster. If Earth had no moon then Earth spin would be about 365 days.

The reason that both Earth and Mars have nearly the same spin rate is because both have satellites.

But out of the spin rate contributed by Satellites, what I want to do is show the spin rate is actually a result of the Sun aft push on a planet by EMF and bow pull on planet by potential difference and electromagnetic induction pull.

I remember as a teenager in Ohio reading astronomy in the 1960s and astronomers puzzled as to where spin of planet comes from. Here in 2020s I attempt to "right that ship". And show that it comes from the fact that the mechanism of gravity is to shoot a aft push onto a planet along with simultaneously a bow pull on the planet causing the entire planet to spin.

In the AP interpretation we can see that Pluto be a -6.3 days as the aft push and bow pull can be reversed. And we see where Neptune follows in progression from Jupiter Saturn Uranus, but not Pluto.

So, has anyone found anomalies with Bay of Fundy and their Moon explanation and allowing for High tide to be at nighttime?????

AP, King of Science, especially Physics

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Yes, I needed to confirm the Bay of Fundy, high tides are always at nighttime. This is a huge anomaly for Old Physics with their gravity force and their Moon explanation. 

AP accounts for the always nighttime High tide with the true mechanism of gravity-- Sun causes magnetic paths in Space for planets to orbit, and once a planet is in that path, the Sun shoots electric current aft-a push on the planet and the same electric current in the bow of the planet-- pulling the planet in orbit, this push and pull causes the planet to orbit the Sun but also gives the planet spin rotation, and causes Bay of Fundy high tide to always be at nighttime. 

In Old Physics with their gravity mechanism, then the Bay of Fundy high tide should always be in daytime, near noon in Canada's Bay of Fundy. 

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Yes, in the Old Physics literature this is called the Spring tide with New Moon and Full Moon, and then the Neap tide with 1st Quarter and 3rd Quarter moons. But what AP is getting at is the idea the Sun is the main contributor to tides and it is the aft and bow electric current shot into Earth that causes Earth to spin and the causes tides. If Venus had oceans of water, yet it has no satellite, then Venus would also show tides. 

Also, reading the literature of Old Physics, it says some spots of Earth-- the Caribbean waters never have tides. That sounds odd, that spots of Earth where there is water, yet never have high and low tides. So if the Moon is the cause of tides in Old Physics you would expect tides whereever there is water. In New Physics, where gravity is the mechanism of Earth following in the path of Sun's magnetic field and being pushed and pulled in that path by Sun's electric current shot aft and bow of Earth, that in such a mechanism would high tide come to Bay of Fundy at nighttime, making the Caribbean region (directly south) as a tide free zone?? I do not know, and then some websites dispute the claim that all high tides in Fundy come at nighttime.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Mercury has average speed in orbit of 47.3km/second, and average spin rotation of 176 days

Venus has average speed in orbit of 35km/second, and average spin rotation of 243 days

Earth has average speed in orbit of 30km/second, and average spin rotation of 24 hours

Mars has average speed in orbit of 24km/second, and average spin rotation of 24 hours 38minutes

Jupiter has average speed in orbit of 13km/second, and average spin rotation of 9.9 hours 

Saturn has average speed in orbit of 9.6km/second, and average spin rotation of 10.5 hours

Uranus has average speed in orbit of 6.8km/second, and average spin rotation of -17 hours

Neptune has average speed in orbit of 5.4km/second, and average spin rotation of 16 hours

Pluto has average speed in orbit of 4.7km/second, and average spin rotation of -6.3 days

What I am doing here is finding the easiest proof of physics that the mechanism of gravity is Sun creates magnetic field paths then shoots electric current in that path to push and pull the planet in its motion around the Sun. This push and pull also causes the spin of the planet.

The above average orbit speeds is a direct line function starting at 47 and ending at 4.7, a virtual 10 fold difference, probably baked into the mathematics function that it be a 10 fold spread.

However the spin rotation is a jumbled mess and likely due to the fact that some planets have more satellites than others. The planets without moons have a spin matching their orbit period.

I am more interested in a Proof that gravity mechanism is this magnetic path with shooting of electric current fore and aft of planet, than I am at arriving at a formula.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

I am looking for the easiest proof of the mechanism of gravity-- Sun creates magnetic field paths for planets to follow then Sun shoots electric current in that field path to push and pull the planet in orbit. 

To find this, I am reviewing the easiest proof that Earth is round and that the Earth revolves around the Sun. What was that (easiest) proof? 

Well, almost everyone noticed in the skies that astronomy bodies were round. So all that was needed to prove Earth is round is to find its circumference. Eratosthenes in 3rd century BC calculated the Earth circumference proving Earth is round. Then again, well sailing by ship around the world was a practical proof. 

I suspect the easiest proof of the gravity mechanism is to tackle the most unbelievable part of the Old Physics mechanism of gravity--neither the Newton's "massive objects pull lighter mass objects inward toward their centers" nor their General Relativity "mass bends space and a object follows the curvature of that bent space" explains gravity. The greatest hurdle of a gravity mechanism is to explain how a planet like Earth can tip toe in front of the Sun as the Sun is moving in Space and how Earth prevents the Sun from swallowing up Earth as it is tip toing in front of the Sun. This is like a runner running in a straight line with a second runner running circles around the first runner. And the problem is, for the second runner not to be run over by the first whenever the second runner is directly in front of the first runner. 

And so, the easiest explanation of why the Sun does not swallow up Earth when the Earth is directly in front of the Sun in its forward motion, is the AP mechanism of gravity-- the Sun pushes and pulls Earth in its orbit. 

Neither the Newton "massive objects pull lighter mass objects inward toward their centers" nor the General Relativity "mass bends space and a object follows the curvature of that bent space" explains how the Earth avoids being swallowed by the Sun as it steps in front of the Sun's forward motion. For neither has the Sun itself cause the "speeding up of Earth" as the Earth steps in the Sun's forward motion. 

Only the AP mechanism gives the Sun the cause for Earth's speeding up as it moves across the front of the Sun's forward motion. 

So I suspect and believe the easiest proof that AP has the true correct mechanism of gravity, is a proof that can explain how the Earth does not get rammed by the Sun as it steps in front of Sun's forward motion. 

By the way, what time of the year does the planet Earth step in front of the Sun's forward motion??? It is called perihelion and is around January 4. When Earth is furthest away from Sun is called aphelion in early July. 

I believe this is the easiest proof of gravity mechanism is the AP mechanism. 

No other mechanism can give a planet that added speeding up when the planet steps in front of the Sun's forward motion in Space. 

So, logically, the toughest and most difficult question of force of gravity to find the true mechanism, is going to be the mechanism that most easily solves that difficult question. Only AP's mechanism speeds up a planet as it steps in front of Sun's forward motion. 



Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 12:17:55 AM UTC-6 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Mercury has average speed in orbit of 47.3km/second, and average spin rotation of 176 days

Venus has average speed in orbit of 35km/second, and average spin rotation of 243 days

Earth has average speed in orbit of 30km/second, and average spin rotation of 24 hours

Mars has average speed in orbit of 24km/second, and average spin rotation of 24 hours 38minutes

Jupiter has average speed in orbit of 13km/second, and average spin rotation of 9.9 hours 

Saturn has average speed in orbit of 9.6km/second, and average spin rotation of 10.5 hours

Uranus has average speed in orbit of 6.8km/second, and average spin rotation of -17 hours

Neptune has average speed in orbit of 5.4km/second, and average spin rotation of 16 hours

Pluto has average speed in orbit of 4.7km/second, and average spin rotation of -6.3 days

Alright, I need to verify if this is the correct linear speed of Sun at 230km/second. No wonder Mercury needs about 50km/sec to get out of the way of the Sun.

Sun 230 km/s orbital speed around Milky Way 

Mercury, 0.24 yr orbital period, 47.87 km/s orbital speed 

Venus, 0.61 yr orbital period, 35.02 km/s orbital speed 

Earth, 1 yr orbital period, 29.78 km/s orbital speed 

Moon , 27 days orbit, 1 km/s orbital speed 

Now, I am going to alter the numbers to better recognize the perihelion speed versus the aphelion speed.

Mercury has perihelion speed in orbit of  50 km/second

Venus has perihelion speed in orbit of 45km/second

Earth has perihelion speed in orbit of 40km/second

Mars has perihelion speed in orbit of 35km/second

Asteriods of Asteroid belt have perihelion speed of 30km/second

Jupiter has perihelion speed in orbit of 25km/second

Saturn has perihelion speed in orbit of 20km/second

Uranus has perihelion speed in orbit of 15km/second

Neptune has perihelion speed in orbit of 10km/second

Pluto has perihelion speed in orbit of 5km/second

Average speeds does not give me enough accuracy to pinpoint the math formula of speeds, but the Perihelion speed of a planet or collection of asteroids does indeed give the accuracy

And the formula is very simple indeed, for the formula is a subtraction of 5km/second for each magnetic field path of the Sun.

Now I cannot help but notice that 5km/second increments  and 10 planets is 5x10 = 50 km/sec. Also, 5x50 = 250km/sec and the Sun is purported to be 230km/sec. Is the measurement of the Sun's speed in the galaxy, is it off by 250-230 = 20km/sec ??? If so, well the Sun's speed in the galaxy perihelion speed should be 250km/sec and not 230km/sec.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

So, well, some list the Sun speed at 250km/second, some say it is 230km/second. That is good enough for me to say the Sun speed in Space is 250km/second, or, 5 times the speed of its speedest planet Mercury at 50km/sec. And where all the planets math formula of speed is a reduction by 5km/second.

And perhaps the greatest fault in physics education, whether High School or College, is the fault of assuming the Sun was stationary and all we worried about was the speed of planets around the Sun. No wonder so few can understand gravity, when you teach them with the assumption-- take the Sun as stationary. No wonder few people have a firm grasp of how gravity works, when all you teach is a immobile Sun with planets running around. No wonder no-one from Newton onwards would think gravity is the Sun carves out magnetic pathways and shoots electric current in those pathways to make the planet in that pathway go around and around the Sun. No wonder all physicists became dolts of the idea that mass bends space and objects follow the curvature of bent space (General Relativity-- should be renamed general bullshit).

So the true mechanism of gravity is that Sun creates magnetic field lines in Space, all the way out to Pluto, there are 10 paths created by the Sun for which each of those paths is constantly shot by the Sun a strong electric current, which aft of a planet in that path is pushed in that path and simultaneously forward of the planet is pulled by that electric current, rear is pushed by electromotive force, foreward is pulled by potential difference electromagnetic induction. EM is 10^40 stronger of a force than gravity and so you need just a tiny tiny current to do the job of gravity.

This is why you see auroras on the Jupiter and Saturn poles, evidence of the Sun's shot electric current in the magnetic pathway of Jupiter and Saturn.

And no-one in High School or College as far as I know teach students the Sun is moving at a super fast speed in Space, no-one.

And so, no-one in High School or College can ask whether Earth goes around the Sun, never stepping in front of Sun's forward motion. Or, whether each planet in turn, steps in front of the Sun's forward motion. No student can ask that question, not when the teachers and professors do not even know and all they do is "assume Sun is stationary". A feeble and debilatating education in gravity. I too went to these sick and debilatating education on gravity schools when young, and only fortunately in old age can visit the truth of gravity.

So, well, do the planets stay out of the way of Sun's forward motion pass, or, do they in turn, pass directly in front of the Sun as the Sun is traveling that horrific speed of 250km/second yet Earth going no faster than 40km/sec.

Earth, get out of the way for the Sun is coming at you at 250km/second yet you move only at 40km/sec.

So, well, what is the truth???? Do the planets move in front of the Sun's forward motion or are they tucked away moving around the Sun, but never going in front of Sun's forward motion????

It has been my understanding that each of the planets moves in front of the Sun's forward motion, each taking that risk that the Sun will not eat them up.

And, well, maybe this is science that just could not be taught until our modern day computers and Internet where we can show in live action how planets move around the Sun in the Sun's direct path of forward motion.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

The easiest proof in the world that the mechanism of gravity is --- Sun creates magnetic field paths for planets to follow and then the Sun shoots electric current in those paths to push from aft and pull from front of those planets. That is gravity as EM force. And the proof that such is the true mechanism is that each planet has a perihelion velocity far greater than its aphelion velocity, simple as that. And a beautiful proof.

But however, I forgot one big item of logic. A item of logic that should have preceded my above proof. The question of whether planets even trespass in front of the Sun in the Sun's forward motion? I should have proven that first, but maybe, it naturally is second proof in logical order.

What I am talking about, is that there is the possibility that the planets never step in front of the Sun in the Sun's direction of forward motion. There is the possibility that the plane of ecliptic, the plane that contains all the 10 planets (we include the asteroid belt as a shattered planet) orbit the Sun on the side of the Sun and none of the planets moves in front of the Sun in its forward motion which is a whopping horrific speed of 250km/second yet Earth at best moves only 40Km/sec.

So, what is the proof, easiest proof that the planets do indeed take that risk of moving in front of the Sun??? The proof would be, that the planets then would all have circular gravity orbits, not oval in shape. There would be no perihelion speed and a slow aphelion speed. The speed would be the same for each planet in a circular orbit. This is the easiest proof that the planets, in turn move directly in front of the Sun's forward motion of 250km/sec. The fact that the planets orbits are oval in shape with a perihelion and a aphelion speed proves the planets move in front of the Sun in each of their revolutions.

Is this a feature of all stars that have planets??? Must all planets be stepping in front of their parent star??? I do not know as yet.

Is this feature of gravity of moving in front of the star by a planet in the AP EM Equations??? It would be in the differentiation equation of Electric Field E' = (V/CB))' which yields not only Coulombs law but the law of gravity.

Why would all forces of gravity have to have a stepping in front of forward motion of the main massive body??? Probably because a star like the Sun does not create magnetic field paths with a great circle from its two poles, rather, it creates those paths from the great circle of the Sun's Equator, and it shoots that electric current into the magnetic field paths from the equator. It cannot shoot that electric current from the poles. And this would probably cause another EM law to oversee that the current is shoot from the equator. Perhaps the Ampere law steps in here to make certain the equator is the electric and magnetic work center. I have to do a lot more thinking on this.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Bay of Fundy as Proof of AP's Gravity Mechanism-- that gravity mechanism is the Sun creates magnetic field paths in Space-- called the ecliptic plane, and then the Sun shoots electric currents in these paths that both push and pull the planets in their orbit around the Sun.

So, well, if that mechanism is true then we should see high tide in Bay of Fundy always occurring at nighttime as the shooting electric current of the Sun pushing and pulling on Earth and making Earth spin on its axis, cause the high tide at Bay of Fundy.

That would be a solid proof of the AP gravity mechanism. And then I looked on the Internet for observations. And many said that the High tide occurs at night, not at high noon in daytime.

But then some sites said the high tide at Bay of Fundy does occur at noon in daytime.

So I was not getting the All High Tide was at night. And some high tide was at noon daytime.

But, the Bay of Fundy high tide can still serve as a "partial proof" a strong supporting evidence if a Predominantly High Tide occurs at nighttime. If a predominant number of Bay of Fundy high tide occurs at night seldom daytime is a partial proof of the AP gravity mechanism, for in that mechanism the push of the Sun's electric current around the backside of Earth away from the Sun and the pull of the electric current in the frontside is going to be larger of a force than on the side of Earth facing directly into the Sun.

I thus have to await better observations of high tide of Bay of Fundy.

But I have already found the easiest and most logical proof of AP gravity mechanism-- stepping in front of a Sun in its forward motion of 250km/second.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

In my historic 8th edition of Atom Totality Theory I wrote Electric Field as angular momentum, for both have the same units so they are the same thing, but as the years passed by, I kept favoring Electric Field over that of angular momentum

1st published book

Atom Totality Universe, 8th edition, 2017// A history log book: Atom Totality Series book 8 Kindle Edition

by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

This was AP's first published science book.

Advisory: This is a difficult book to read and is AP's research log book of the Atom Totality in 2016-2017. I want to keep it for its history value. AP advises all readers wanting to know the Plutonium Atom Totality theory to go to the 9th edition that is the latest up to date account of this theory. The reason AP wants to keep the 8th edition is because of Historical Value, for in this book, while writing it, caused the discovery of the real electron is the muon of atoms. The real proton of atoms is 840MeV and not the 938MeV that most books claim. The particle discovered by JJ Thomson in 1897 thinking he discovered the electron of atoms was actually the Dirac magnetic monopole at 0.5MeV. This discovery changes every, every science that uses atoms and electricity and magnetism, in other words, every science.

Foreward: 

I wrote the 8th edition of Atom Totality and near the end of writing it in 2017, I had my second greatest physics discovery. I learned the real electron of atoms was the muon at 105MeV and not the tiny 0.5MeV particle that J.J.Thomson found in 1897. So I desperately tried to include that discovery in my 8th edition and it is quite plain to see for I tried to write paragraphs after each chapter saying as much. I knew in 2017, that it was a great discovery, changing all the hard sciences, and reframing and restructuring all the hard sciences.

Length: 632 pages

Product details

• File Size: 1132 KB
• Print Length: 632 pages
• Publication Date: March 11, 2019
• Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
• Language: English
• ASIN: B07PLP9NDR
• Text-to-Speech: Enabled
• X-Ray:
  Not Enabled  
• Word Wise: Enabled
• Lending: Enabled
• Screen Reader: Supported
• Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

 Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #578,229 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store) 

                #1610 in Physics (Kindle Store) 

                #8526 in Physics (Books) 

                #18851 in Biological Sciences (Books) 

In that book I wrote this of the differential equation of Electric field (angular momentum). And one can easily see where the three Kepler laws come from.

Coulomb law 

(V/(i*B))' = L' 

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

L' = (i^2B - B^3- V^2i) / i^2B^2 

When we consider i' as being V and V as being B, then we get a B^3 in numerator.

The three Kepler laws are actually just one law-- that the orbit in gravity is a ellipse covers the T^2/a^3 law and covers the law of equal areas swept out in equal time.

We see the T^2/a^3 in the second term B^3/i^2B^2 only it is inverted to be not equal to 3 but inverted to be 1/3. And the reason for the inversion is that in 3D, the volume of a cylinder is 1/3 cone volume.

The actual geometry for gravity is not the ellipse, never the ellipse, but the Oval, for the perihelion cannot equal aphelion, for they equalled each other for the Sun, then the Sun would swallow up the planet if it did not move faster when it stepped in front of Sun's forward motion.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

AP corrects Kepler's 3 laws, all three were wrong//AP proudly announces his 223rd published book of science// Moving Earth+Moon out to a orbit near Jupiter or Mars// Engineering by Archimedes Plutonium (Amazon's Kindle) 

AP proudly announces his 223rd published book of science// Moving Earth+Moon out to a orbit near Jupiter or Mars// Engineering by Archimedes Plutonium (Amazon's Kindle) 

My 1st published book 

Atom Totality Universe, 8th edition, 2017// A history log book: Atom Totality Series book 8 Kindle Edition 

by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 

This was AP's first published science book. 

Advisory: This is a difficult book to read and is AP's research log book of the Atom Totality in 2016-2017. I want to keep it for its history value. AP advises all readers wanting to know the Plutonium Atom Totality theory to go to the 9th edition that is the latest up to date account of this theory. The reason AP wants to keep the 8th edition is because of Historical Value, for in this book, while writing it, caused the discovery of the real electron is the muon of atoms. The real proton of atoms is 840MeV and not the 938MeV that most books claim. The particle discovered by JJ Thomson in 1897 thinking he discovered the electron of atoms was actually the Dirac magnetic monopole at 0.5MeV. This discovery changes every, every science that uses atoms and electricity and magnetism, in other words, every science. 

Foreward: 

I wrote the 8th edition of Atom Totality and near the end of writing it in 2017, I had my second greatest physics discovery. I learned the real electron of atoms was the muon at 105MeV and not the tiny 0.5MeV particle that J.J.Thomson found in 1897. So I desperately tried to include that discovery in my 8th edition and it is quite plain to see for I tried to write paragraphs after each chapter saying as much. I knew in 2017, that it was a great discovery, changing all the hard sciences, and reframing and restructuring all the hard sciences. 

Length: 632 pages 

Product details 

File Size: 1132 KB 
Print Length: 632 pages 
Publication Date: March 11, 2019 
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC 
Language: English 
ASIN: B07PLP9NDR 

Text-to-Speech: Enabled carrot._CB192251235_.gif 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled carrot._CB192251235_.gif 

Word Wise: Enabled 
Lending: Enabled 

Screen Reader: Supported carrot._CB192251235_.gif 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled carrot._CB192251235_.gif 

Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #578,229 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store) 

#1610 in Physics (Kindle Store) 

#8526 in Physics (Books) 

#18851 in Biological Sciences (Books) 

In that book I favored Angular Momentum L rather than Electric Field E, but both are the same thing-- same units. These days I go all electric and call it Electric field. 

In that book I wrote this of the differential equation of Electric field (angular momentum). And one can easily see where the three Kepler laws come from. 

Coulomb law 
(V/(i*B))' = L' 

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

L' = (i^2B - B^3- V^2i) / i^2B^2 

When we consider i' as being V and V as being B, then we get a B^3 in numerator. 

The three Kepler laws are actually just one law-- that the orbit in gravity is a ellipse covers the T^2/a^3 law and covers the law of equal areas swept out in equal time. 

We see the T^2/a^3 in the second term B^3/i^2B^2 only it is inverted to be not equal to 3 but inverted to be 1/3. And the reason for the inversion is that in 3D, the volume of a cylinder is 1/3 cone volume. 

The actual geometry for gravity is not the ellipse, never the ellipse, but the Oval, for the perihelion cannot equal aphelion, for they equalled each other for the Sun, then the Sun would swallow up the planet if it did not move faster when it stepped in front of Sun's forward motion. 

Kepler had 3 laws, but in reality he needed just one law-- the orbit is an ellipse for in that ellipse law you derive T^2/a^3 and you derive equal areas swept out in equal time. 

However, all three Kepler laws are wrong. The correct law is that gravity forms Ovals, not ellipses. 

And what is the AP definition of a Oval???? A oval is the joining together of two different sized partial ellipses. A Oval is two different ellipses joined together at a spot in which the oval is still smooth curve with no vertices. 

Gravity forms the geometry of Oval, not the ellipse. And that is very important because with an ellipse, you would not have a planet move faster when stepping in front of the Sun's forward motion. You would not have equal areas swept out in equal time. The most perfect orbit of planets is Venus near circle as many describe it, yet when looking more closely there is Venus with perihelion 0.718 AU and aphelion of 0.728 AU, yet the dullard astronomer or physicist would say near circle or ellipse, when in reality that is a oval. 

You have gravity, only, only because the orbit is Oval with a faster speed at one end and a slower speed at the other end. 

So, well, all three Kepler laws were wrong. Kepler's first law should have been orbit is Oval. And the law of T^2/a^3 is a approximation not a law and equal areas in equal times is the angular momentum or Electric field a reflection of the idea there exists a perihelion with its fastest speed of a perihelion speed in order for each planet to move safely around the Sun going at 250Km/second, to go around the Sun and not be swallowed by the Sun. 

[Archimedes Plutonium]

AP corrects "oblate spheroid" & Kepler's 3 laws //AP proudly announces his 223rd published book of science// Moving Earth+Moon out to a orbit near Jupiter or Mars// Engineering by Archimedes Plutonium (Amazon's Kindle)

AP corrects Kepler's 3 laws, all three were wrong//AP proudly announces his 223rd published book of science// Moving Earth+Moon out to a orbit near Jupiter or Mars// Engineering by Archimedes Plutonium (Amazon's Kindle)

AP corrects Kepler's 3 laws, all three were wrong//AP proudly announces his 223rd published book of science// Moving Earth+Moon out to a orbit near Jupiter or Mars// Engineering by Archimedes Plutonium (Amazon's Kindle)

AP proudly announces his 223rd published book of science// Moving Earth+Moon out to a orbit near Jupiter or Mars// Engineering by Archimedes Plutonium (Amazon's Kindle)

In that book I favored Angular Momentum L rather than Electric Field E, but both are the same thing-- same units. These days I go all electric and call it Electric field.

In that book I wrote this of the differential equation of Electric field (angular momentum). And one can easily see where the three Kepler laws come from.

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

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

L' = (i^2B - B^3- V^2i) / i^2B^2

When we consider i' as being V and V as being B, then we get a B^3 in numerator.

The three Kepler laws are actually just one law-- that the orbit in gravity is a ellipse covers the T^2/a^3 law and covers the law of equal areas swept out in equal time.

We see the T^2/a^3 in the second term B^3/i^2B^2 only it is inverted to be not equal to 3 but inverted to be 1/3. And the reason for the inversion is that in 3D, the volume of a cylinder is 1/3 cone volume.

The actual geometry for gravity is not the ellipse, never the ellipse, but the Oval, for the perihelion cannot equal aphelion, for they equalled each other for the Sun, then the Sun would swallow up the planet if it did not move faster when it stepped in front of Sun's forward motion.

Kepler had 3 laws, but in reality he needed just one law-- the orbit is an ellipse for in that ellipse law you derive T^2/a^3 and you derive equal areas swept out in equal time.

However, all three Kepler laws are wrong. The correct law is that gravity forms Ovals, not ellipses.

And what is the AP definition of a Oval???? A oval is the joining together of two different sized partial ellipses. A Oval is two different ellipses joined together at a spot in which the oval is still smooth curve with no vertices.

Gravity forms the geometry of Oval, not the ellipse. And that is very important because with an ellipse, you would not have a planet move faster when stepping in front of the Sun's forward motion. You would not have equal areas swept out in equal time. The most perfect orbit of planets is Venus near circle as many describe it, yet when looking more closely there is Venus with perihelion 0.718 AU and aphelion of 0.728 AU, yet the dullard astronomer or physicist would say near circle or ellipse, when in reality that is a oval.

You have gravity, only, only because the orbit is Oval with a faster speed at one end and a slower speed at the other end.

So, well, all three Kepler laws were wrong. Kepler's first law should have been orbit is Oval. And the law of T^2/a^3 is a approximation not a law and equal areas in equal times is the angular momentum or Electric field a reflection of the idea there exists a perihelion with its fastest speed of a perihelion speed in order for each planet to move safely around the Sun going at 250Km/second, to go around the Sun and not be swallowed by the Sun.

So if the geometry figure of gravity is Oval, then we must examine the made up figure of "oblate spheroid". It was invented by Newton who first observed Earth varying radii.

Every planet orbit has to be a Oval so the front end of the orbit where it steps in front of the Sun going at 250Km/second and to avoid being hit by the Sun needs to speed up and get out of the way, and thus a oval orbit.

So it stands to reason that the oval geometry is likely to be the geometry of the actual planet itself as gravity pulls via erosion the surface into a shape.

Indeed, every planet is oval in shape, and none are spherical.

Of course, the shape Oval was little known to Newton, so he named it the "oblate spheroid".

If you ever seen a egg, chicken egg that is almost round, but not quite, you have seen a "oblate spheroid".

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Oval is the characteristic shape of gravity as to get out of the way of its parent body forward motion in space. We would thus expect the orbit of Io, Jupter's close in moon to be oval-orbit to get out of the way of Jupiter's forward motion. And in fact Io's orbit is indeed oval. Even the shape of Io itself physically is a oval shape, which in past history was called "oblate spheroid".

Now the reason Jupiter does not have a nice ring system is because Jupiter is moving too fast in Space at perihelion speed of 25km/second and Saturn perihelion speed of 20 km/second. At 25km/second speed is still too great a speed to keep a intact ring system, and Jupiter destroys any rings formed on a regular bases as Jupiter passes in front of Sun's forward motion.

The Oval shape is the shape of gravity in action.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

So if the geometry figure of gravity is Oval, then we must examine the made up figure of "oblate spheroid". It was invented by Newton who first observed Earth varying radii.

Newton did not observe it but calculated it theoretically, a truly remarkable deduction from a genius of science 

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Reconciling Saturn's solid body ring with satellites orbit//AP's 223rd published book of science// Moving Earth+Moon out to a orbit near Jupiter or Mars // Engineering by Archimedes Plutonium (Amazon's Kindle) 

Alright, I have a clash of observations. The Rings of Saturn are not oval orbits but solid body rotation and more like circle or ellipse. The Rings need not get out of the way of Saturn's forward motion in space, but are carried along. The Rings are ice particles and have a magnetic and electric field that carries then along, while the satellites of Saturn have a oval orbit when they each step in front of Saturn's forward motion direction.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Now the Kuiper belt is very much like a Saturn Ring to the Sun. In other words, the Sun has a ring like Saturn has rings. And the Kuiper belt is mostly frozen ice, much like Saturn Rings are frozen ice.

So, I need the math comparisons of the distance of the first ring from Saturn and the distance of the Sun to the Kuiper belt.

So we have two forms of mathematics geometry of orbits-- we have planets as being Oval orbits so that the planet can move past the Sun as the planet steps in front of the Sun's forward motion at 250Km/second. Earth has a perihelion motion of 40Km/second while the Sun is barrelling down upon poor old Earth if it does not get out of the way in time. And this is the reason of high speeds for Mercury, Venus, Earth.

But as in the Saturn satellites they have high speeds to get out of the way of Saturn's forward motion of 20km/second. But the Rings of Saturn are in Solid Body Rotation motion caused by Saturn making magnetic field paths and then shooting electric current into that magnetic field path to force the ice particles to move by a push in rear and pull in front of the particle. So the rings can be almost circular, while the satellites have to be Oval.

Mercury has perihelion speed in orbit of  50 km/second

Venus has perihelion speed in orbit of 45km/second

Earth has perihelion speed in orbit of 40km/second

Mars has perihelion speed in orbit of 35km/second

Asteriods of Asteroid belt have perihelion speed of 30km/second

Jupiter has perihelion speed in orbit of 25km/second

Saturn has perihelion speed in orbit of 20km/second

Uranus has perihelion speed in orbit of 15km/second

Neptune has perihelion speed in orbit of 10km/second

Pluto has perihelion speed in orbit of 5km/second

What I am doing here with Kuiper belt is to consider the belt as being a Sun Ring. If the math numbers compare favorably in ratio of Saturn rings, then we can call that a supporting evidence, strong supporting evidence that the Kuiper belt is the Sun's gravity Rings.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Well I did not know that until tonight, all of Saturn's moons are outside its rings. The better is the case that the rings are solid body rotation while the moons are Oval orbits. So apparently a ring needs to be close in. And that would favor the idea that the Kuiper belt is not a Ring of the Sun, unless I can say that the Kuiper belt is solid body rotation caused by Sun's gravity.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Eris of the Kuiper belt and other objects have a perihelion and aphelion, so this tells me the belt is like the asteroid belt with Oval orbits around the Sun, and thus the Kuiper belt is not a ring of the Sun with solid-body-rotation.

Now does the Titius-Bode rule make allowance for a Kuiper belt???

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Alright, after reading Forbes "Our Motion Through Space Isn't A Vortex, But Something Far More Interesting with film clips by DJ Sadhu with Vortex motion with the Helical model, then Rhys Taylor with his Side by Side motion that he claims NASA has adopted.

Forbes says that Rhys Taylor is the correct model, but I would argue that the Helical Model shown by Sadhu is the correct model because if the Side by Side model were correct, all the planets would have (eventually) circle orbits, and no need of a perihelion speed versus aphelion speed. In fact, we see the satellites of Jupiter and Saturn be a Helical Model as they move around their planet with perihelion speed.

I would say Forbes and Rhys Taylor and NASA are wrong on this with their Side by Side motion. For they negate the Logical Observance of perihelion and aphelion motion.

On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 2:46:01 AM UTC-6 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Actually the Blagg formulation is superior to the Titius-Bode rule.

Comparison of the Blagg formulation with observation

Bodies in parentheses were not known in 1913, when Blagg wrote her paper. Some of the calculated distances in the Saturn and Uranus systems are not very accurate. This is because the low values of constant B in the table above make them very sensitive to the exact form of function f.

Planets
Planet
n
Distance
Blagg Law
Mercury
−2
0.387
0.387
Venus
−1
0.723
0.723
Earth
0
1.000
1.000
Mars
1
1.524
1.524
Vesta
2
2.362
2.67
Juno
2
2.670
2.67
Pallas
2
2.774
2.67
Ceres
2
2.769
2.67
Jupiter
3
5.204
5.200
Saturn
4
9.583
9.550
Uranus
5
19.22
19.23
Neptune
6
30.07
30.13
(Pluto)
7
(39.48)
41.8

 

Jupiter system
Jupiter system
n
Distance
Blagg Law
Amalthea
−2
0.429
0.429

−1

0.708
Io
0
1.000
1.000
Europa
1
1.592
1.592
Ganymede
2
2.539
2.541
Callisto
3
4.467
4.467

4

9.26

5

15.4
Himalia
6
27.25
27.54
Elara
6
27.85
27.54
(Lysithea)
6
(27.85)
27.54
(Ananke)
7
(49.8)
55.46
(Carme)
7
(53.3)
55.46
Pasiphae
7
55.7
55.46
(Sinope)
7
(56.2)
55.46

 

Saturn system
Saturn system
n
Distance
Blagg Law
(Janus)
−3
(0.538)
0.54
Mimas
−2
0.630
0.629
Enceladus
−1
0.808
0.807
Tethys
0
1.000
1.000
Dione
1
1.281
1.279
Rhea
2
1.789
1.786

3

2.97
Titan
4
4.149
4.140
Hyperion
5
5.034
5.023

6

6.3

7

6.65

8

7.00
Iapetus
9
12.09
12.11
Phoebe
10
43.92
43.85

 

Uranus system
Uranus system
n
Distance
Blagg Law
(Miranda)
−2
(0.678)
0.64

−1

0.77
Ariel
0
1.000
1.000
Umbriel
1
1.394
1.393
Titania
2
2.293
2.286
Oberon
3
3.058
3.055Richardson formulation

In 1945 D. E. Richardson independently arrived at the same conclusion as Blagg, that the progression ratio was not 2, but 1.728:

(Source Wikipedia)

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Helical model by DJ Sadhu is correct-- Forbes and Rhys Taylor and NASA are wrong on this with their Side by Side motion. For they negate the Logical Observance of perihelion and aphelion motion. AP's 223rd book of science.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

It has been almost a decade now for me personally, that I have known of a great debate in astronomy science where some have made YouTube films of the Sun in motion in space 250Km/second and with the planets motion following the Sun. I do recall years back of a argument fight over the Helical model and the what I call the Side by Side model.

Apparently the side by side model is the one expressed true by NASA, but I think they made a huge error. I say that because of lack of Logical brains on the part of many, most scientists. They are not required to take logic in school to earn a degree in a science and they come out of school with their degree but unable to "Think straight and think clearly".

A huge omission in Old Astronomy and Old Physics is a word concept for a planet to step in front of its parent gravity body that it revolves around, a concept that describes the motion of stepping in front of the forward-motion of its parent gravity body.

I call it the perihelion velocity, when Earth steps in front of the forward motion of the Sun barrelling down on Earth at 250Km/sec, yet Earth is only moving at 40Km/sec.

In the Side by Side hypothesis, none of the planets steps in front of Sun's forward motion. They all circle around side by side of the Sun, never putting themselves in harms way by traveling in front of the Sun's forward motion. In the Helical model, all the planets and asteroid belt venture to move across the Sun in its forward motion path.

So which is correct???? For we have mostly illogical astronomers and scientists saying the Side by Side is correct. Then we have AP with those that think that Helical motion is the correct motion.

We have these Logical Observations:

1) The satellites of Jupiter and Saturn do Helical motion
2) The planets all have perihelion and aphelion, for if they did Side by Side, their orbits would be near circle, no perihelion no aphelion and no Oval orbit.
3) The satellites of planets are Oval orbit, thus helical motion.
4) Gravity appears to be a equator force from parent gravity body, and the orbits of planets follow the plane of the equator of Sun. Thus, no escaping the orbit has to be perihelion as Oval orbit.
5) If Side by Side were true, no need of perihelion Oval orbit and all gravity locked bodies would be Side by Side.

So, well, here I am in the camp of those who favor the Helical Model, for all observation evidence supports that model. Again, if Side by Side were true, it flys in the face against the fact that all satellites of planets (perhaps Uranus is an exception,-- have to investigate that) revolve around their parent body in Helical motion.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Uranus is tipped over by about 90degrees and moving in its orbit around the Sun with its rings and satellites still on the equator of Uranus. Its satellites and rings move in front of Uranus's forward motion. Satellites all have perihelion motion and Oval orbit. The Rings of Uranus are Solid Body Rotation, which again tells us that if a parent body is not moving very fast and has ice particles nearby, they can form Solid Body Rotation.

Even the oddball planet Uranus does Helical motion around the Sun and the satellites of Uranus do helical motion around Uranus itself.

So,well, one can expect that only when the Internet came along in 1990s and people started putting films and motion pictures and diagrams about planet and Sun motion, could this debate of Helical or Side by Side motion take place in a honest manner.

When in the history of physics or astronomy do we even start to see in the literature the question of the Sun moving in Space??? I mean, every book I studied in physics and astronomy all have the assumption the Sun is at rest and the only study was moving planets and other objects, but never included the Sun itself in motion.

And we can well understand why a debate of Helical versus Side by Side would only come in a environment of the Internet with all these YouTube films.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

I probably made a mistake on the moons of Uranus-- for I read "argument of perihelion" yet I do not know what argument of perihelion means, thinking it was a perihelion.

Apparently the moons of Uranus, although in motion from the equator plane of Uranus, that the moons are not stepping in front of Uranus in its forward motion. The moons of Uranus are in motion Side by Side to Uranus motion. I guess the only side by side motion in our Solar System for a group of astro bodies.

At times in the orbit of Uranus around the Sun, the Rings are stepping across Uranus in its front forward motion, so sometimes Uranus devours some of the ice particles of its rings.

I need to study Uranus far more as the oddball planet it is.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Thanks to National Geographic for their film on Uranus motion in orbit around the Sun and information.

So the moons of Uranus are coplanar to Uranus's equator and are further out than the rings of Uranus, and move along the equator plane of Uranus which is tilted 97 degrees and has the poles of Uranus moving in the plane of Sun Ecliptic Plane.

So the moons of Uranus in space move Side by Side to the planet's motion, not stepping in front of Uranus.

This would suggest the moons of Uranus are nearly perfect circles of orbit.

(Source: Universe Guide). "The orbital eccentricity is 0.0011, it is the degree at which Titania orbits close to a circular (0) orbit as opposed to an elliptical (1) orbit.

Yes, so, what AP is saying is that Helical Orbits of the planets around the Sun is a logical consequence of the fact that all the planets have perihelion and aphelion.

If NASA was correct on a Side by Side Orbit of the planets, then the planets should all be near circular, just as Titania is a Side by Side Orbit of Uranus and nearly a circle of 0.0011.

AP does not know how easy or hard it is for astronomers to measure perihelion versus aphelion data. Is it easy??? For the aphelion and perihelion measurement is one of the very most important astronomy measurements for it tells us how gravity works, and tells us if the planet or satellite moves in front of its parent gravity body, and has that perihelion velocity to get out of the way of the parent body in its forward motion.

Now looking at the largest moon of Saturn and Jupiter, we have Ganymede of periapsis 1,069,200 km and apoapsis 1,071,600km. For Titan moon of Saturn we have periapsis of 1,186,680 km and apoapsis of 1,257,060 km.

The Earth's Moon has apogee 405,400km and perigee 362,600km meaning that the Moon steps in front of Earth's forward motion in Space.

Now the largest moon of Neptune-- Triton has eccentricity of 0.000016 which nearly a perfect circle, but it is tilted from Neptune's equator plane by 156degrees and to Neptune's orbit of 129degrees and to the Sun's ecliptic by 129degrees. So Triton is a Side by Side moon motion on Neptune.

So we see time and again if a body has perihelion motion it must step in front of its parent body in its forward motion and thus Helical motion and the orbit is Oval. While if the body never steps in front of its parent body it has Side by Side motion and its orbit almost a circle.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

So we have most planets whose equator is in the Sun's ecliptic, but we have Uranus whose equator is perpendicular to Sun's ecliptic.

I am going to argue that only AP's model of the force of gravity is able to allow such a circumstance, not Newton's gravity and not General Relativity. I am going to logically argue, that only AP's model can provide for all planets including Uranus to orbit the Sun.

The AP Model is-- Sun forms magnetic field paths around the Sun's equator (forms the ecliptic) and in that field path are paths for planets to exist and these paths have strong bands and weak bands and planets exist only in the strong bands. And then the Sun shoots electric current into the strong bands for which the emf electromotive force pushes from aft of planet, pushes the planet in the strong band and simultaneously pulls the planet from in front of the planet in the magnetic path.

So we have two conditions that must be met:
1) step in front of Sun's forward motion and move around the Sun-- since Old Astronomy and Old Physics had no concept of this-- AP calls it Perihelion Velocity and is greater than Aphelion Velocity and causes the orbit of the planet to be a Oval (not a ellipse for a ellipse negates, logically the faster speed of Perihelion).

2) in the case of Uranus we have Side by Side motion of satellites like Titania, but in all other planets and their satellites we have Helical motion of their orbit.

I am going to argue that only the AP model is rich enough to provide for all these factual observed data.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

I have no idea why the concept of stepping in front of the forward motion of the Sun by its planets was discovered by Archimedes Plutonium some 5 years ago. A first discovery of that concept by AP, when some astronomer or physicist , of about 200 years ago should have discovered this concept. Even Newton should have discovered this concept and given it a name.

So I am baffled why AP should be the first to discover this concept, and I give it the name of "Stepping in Front of Forward Motion". And its accessory concept of Perihelion Velocity, a speeding up of velocity so the planet does not get run over by the Sun and swallowed by the Sun.

I have to check the literature when I first started to talk about "stepping in front of Sun's forward motion". I think it was 5 years ago.

Perhaps a explanation of why no-one discovered it before, is that really precise telescopes were only recently employed. And so if you have blurred data of Sun's speed or direction of motion, then hard to discover "stepping in front of Sun's forward motion".

What is the earliest it was known that the Sun moves at 250km/second? Was that only recently??

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Thanks to Google I was easily able to find this concept I discovered in 2017-- Earth stepping in front of Sun's forward motion. At that time was writing my 8th edition of Plutonium Atom Totality Theory, my first published book in 2019.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 20:55:20 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Actually Kepler's 3 laws explains the force of Magnetism, better than
 the force of gravity-- which is the same as magnetism
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 03:55:20 +0000


Actually Kepler's 3 laws explains the force of Magnetism, better than the force of gravity-- which is the same as magnetism

Alright, I never thought in the last 2 decades that I would go back to Kepler's laws, his three
1) ellipses
2) equal areas in equal time
3) square of period proportional to cube of axis distance

Alright, as I explained before, the Earth steps in front of the Sun's forward path of motion, and the force of gravity has to be Magnetism in order to be strong enough to get out of the way of the Sun's forward motion.

This, getting out of the way of the Sun, is both Kepler's 2nd law and 3rd law, for, in fact, Kepler's 2nd and 3rd law are one and the same law, only written in different parameters. So really, Kepler just needed two laws.

And the irony, complete irony of Kepler is that his laws describe Magnetism of Electromagnetism far better than describing Newton's math equation for gravity as G = kAA/d^2.

I say this, because the force of Gravity is described not by Newton's math nor by General Relativity, but rather the math that describes Gravity is G = (kAA+jBB)/ d^2.

You see, Newton's math and General Relativity math is gravity as a parabola path.

The addition inverse square written above of (kAA+jBB)/d^2 is math of both ellipse and circle, a closed curve path.

You see, the error of Newton and General Relativity is that their math involves only one variable

Circle  x^2 + y^2 = 1

Ellipse x^2/a^2 + y^2/b^2 = 1

Parabola x^2 = y

x and y are variables in ellipse, but in parabola, only x is a variable and makes it a open curve.

So, how is Kepler's 2nd and 3rd law about Magnetism, and gravity is equal to magnetism?

Remember the mechanics problem of Earth going around the Sun, when Earth starts to step in front of the Sun, in the Sun's path of forward motion? Remember that huge problem of why the Sun just does not plow right into Earth as it tries to cross its path.

Well, the reason there is no collision is explained by Kepler's 2nd and 3rd law-- that the Sun gives Earth a boost in energy of motion so that the Earth speeds up fantastically -- equal areas in equal time or T^2 proportional to d^3. In Magnetism, in Electricity, charge and motion alternate-- remember alternating current. Well, as Earth steps in front of the Sun's forward path of motion, the Sun alternates the speed of Earth so that Earth speeds up and crosses the forward path of Sun in a hurry. Once the Earth is out of the Sun's forward path, the Earth gives back that energy to the Sun and more, and slows down as it travels the full loop.

So, here, what we see is a supreme irony, that Kepler was describing planet motion with his three laws, but, in retrospect, his three laws describes Magnetism, how the LINES OF FORCE of a dipole magnet, that they speed up and slow down as north pole and south pole.

Gravity, and Earth going around the Sun, is magnetism.

Newton's gravity cannot speed up Earth when it steps in front of the Sun's path of motion, but magnetism as gravity forces the Earth to speed up when it enters the zone of Sun's path of motion.

General Relativity as a geometry scheme for gravity, that mass bends space and other mass follows the curvature of that bent space is totally deaf dumb and silent about Earth speeding up once it enters the zone of the Sun's forward motion path.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

So, our Solar System is abundant in examples of gravity being on the equator plane of the Sun and forcing planets to Step in Front of Forward Motion of the Sun, and same geometry for most satellites of planets. However, when we get to Uranus, the satellites still revolve around the equator of Uranus, but Uranus revolves around the Sun on its side for its equator is tilted about 90 degrees.

So, here, I have to find where gravity is in the AP-EM equations and why a 90 degree tilt upsets the satellite motion to be Side by Side and not Helical, yet the planet Uranus still Helical in motion around the Sun as it steps in the Sun's front path of forward motion.

I have to find in the AP-EM differential equations why Uranus tilted at 90 degrees makes no difference in stepping in front of Sun's forward path of motion as Helical.

Apparently the AP-EM equations can accomodate both Side by Side motion and Helical motion.

And more difficult, I need to see where in those AP-EM differential equations we have Solid Body Rotation by Rings of the gas giants and how that is also occurring in the arms of galaxies.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

223rd book of science by AP "Moving the entire Earth out to Mars and then Europa// astrophysics by Archimedes Plutonium

59 views

Subscribe 

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

5:15 PM (4 hours ago) 

to Plutonium Atom Universe

--- Quoting Dirac's "Directions in Physics" 1978, page 81 ---

If we apply it to the motion of the Moon around the Earth, our theory would require that with additive creation the Moon should be approaching the Earth by an amount we can easily calculate. It is about 2cm/year.

With multiplicative creation, the Moon should be moving away from the Earth at the same rate.

--- end Quoting Dirac's "Directions in Physics" 1978, page 81 ---

AP writes: When Dirac wrote that in 1978, the accuracy of measure to the Moon was at best 6 centimeter and so was unable to decide.

As of March 2026, National Radio Astronomy Observatory lists the rate of the Moon moving away from Earth as 3.78 cm per year.

AP writes: Now, well, Dirac never knew that the true electron of Atoms is the muon stuck inside a proton torus doing the Faraday law as the REASON for multiplicative creation, as every second that time passes by is new electrical energy (hence mass increasing) in the universe.

But for AP it is still puzzling that the Universe should be expanding due to new energy-mass being created inside all atoms as the proton and muon thrusting in Faraday Law. One would at first tend to think as the world gets more massive, it would collapse due to gravity and not expand. But that 'seeming contradiction' is resolved by the Constancy of speed of light, if you increase mass, you push masses away from one another. 

But to move entire Earth out to Mars then out to Europa will take more than just 3.78 cm per year, if we want to do it in thousands of years.

Here I propose carving up the Moon and targeting sections of Earth with precise strikes that push Earth out to Mars. Once near Mars, using carved out Mars to push Earth near Europa.

#472 book of science by AP "Moving the entire Earth out to Mars and then Europa// astrophysics by Archimedes Plutonium

AP

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

7:27 PM (1 hour ago) 

to Plutonium Atom Universe

The last time I discussed this Moving of Earth was in relation to the NASA Dart mission that collided a spacecraft into a satellite of Didymos its smaller asteroid Dimorphos in September of 2022. The result of which was not only Dimorphos was knocked out of orbit but the parent asteroid was knocked out of orbit with the Sun.

--- some search hits on Internet---

In a first, NASA changed an asteroid's orbit around the sun ...

National Geographic

https://www.nationalgeographic.com › Science

Mar 6, 2026 — Instead, the small, van-sized spacecraft ended up shrinking the asteroid's orbit by 33 minutes—thanks to the force of DART's sucker punch and ...Read more

NASA's asteroid-smashing DART spacecraft hit so hard, it ...

Space

https://www.space.com › ... › Asteroid & Comet Missions

Mar 10, 2026 — In 2022, NASA's Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) mission deliberately slammed into the asteroid Dimorphos, which orbits a larger asteroid ...Read more

New NASA Asteroid Observations Eliminate Chance of ...

NASA Science (.gov)

https://science.nasa.gov › planetary-defense › 2026/03/05

Mar 5, 2026 — Since spring of 2025, the asteroid has been unobservable from both Earth and space-based observatories except for this use of Webb to make among ...Read more

NASA changed an asteroid's orbital path around the sun, a ...

Scientific American

https://www.scientificamerican.com › article › nasa-chan...

Smashing a spacecraft into a binary asteroid system has managed to alter its path around the sun, a new analysis reveals.

The Science Behind NASA's First Attempt at Redirecting an ...

NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) (.gov)

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov › resources › teachable-moment

Oct 14, 2024 — The DART spacecraft successfully impacted the asteroid Dimorphos on September 26, reducing the period of the asteroid's orbit by 32 minutes.Read more

How NASA shifted an asteroid's orbit

The Week

https://theweek.com › Science

4 days ago — The DART mission hit an asteroid, changing its orbit around another asteroid, along with the orbit of the pair around the sun.

Missing: forces ‎| Show results with: forces

--- end search hits----

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

8:00 PM (1 hour ago) 

to Plutonium Atom Universe

No, this is not going to be my #472 book of science for my #223 is already the topic of this science.

Moving Earth+Moon out to a orbit near Jupiter or Mars // Engineering

by Archimedes Plutonium

This is AP's 223rd published book of science published on Internet, Plutonium-Atom-Universe,
PAU newsgroup is this.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe       


Preface: The Sun has gone Red Giant Phase, and will kill all life on Earth in the next 10,000 years. As of 2022, I reckon we have 1,000 years to establish a permanent human colony on Europa, and then move as much as possible to Europa in the 10,000 years. But the question remains, do we leave Earth dead to be consumed by the Sun as it gets larger and larger, or do we attempt to engineer a rescue of the entire planet Earth and move it out to near Jupiter orbit? Is it possible to move Earth to be near Jupiter, or if not Jupiter than Mars? I prefer Jupiter so as to use electricity energy that Jupiter can provide. That is the question this book attempts to answer, the feasibility of moving Earth.


Cover Picture: Is my iphone camera picture of a NASA website showing the asteroids Didymos and Dimorphos. In 2022, Dimorphos was rammed by a satellite to alter its orbit. The mission was successful.




----------------------------
Table of Contents
----------------------------

1) My history on how this engineering began.

2) Where to move Earth?-- out to Mars or out to Jupiter??

3) My 2nd greatest engineering project, first being permanent colony on Europa.

4) Feasibility mass proportion ratios of Dimorphos-Didymos versus Moon-Earth.

5) A soft collision and figure 8 pattern.

6) A Superdeterministic Universe is setting the stage for us to use nuclear missiles in a constructive manner-- move Moon+Earth out of its orbit.

7) Distance ratios in comparison.

8) My understanding of the NASA ramming of Dimorphos with a satellite in its forward motion.

9) Some Usenet sci.math antagonism may pay off.

10) AP planetary Kinematics of Motion in getting Moon+Earth out to Mars or Jupiter orbit.

11) Motion Kinematics of Mars and Jupiter.

12) Explaining to the newcomers of science, how gravity works.

13) Reviewing PBS show "First Contact: An Alien Encounter".

14) Summary and conclusion.



---------
Text
---------


1) My history on how this engineering began.


AP's 223rd book of Science// Calculating if Moon collided into Earth can push Earth out to a Jupiter orbit using the recent Dimorphos and Didymos data.

Archimedes Plutonium
Nov 8, 2022, 4:10:01 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe newsgroup

So glad the mission of ramming a satellite into Dimorphos was a success. Although my first posts on the news was that it was going to fail because the last pictures taken showed Dimorphos as a sand and rubble pile and the satellite just sinking into the pile. However I had momentary doubt as I saw that satellite take a photo of what looked like a sand and gravel pile and would be resulting in a plunge into sand and not alter the course of the asteroid.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

This likely will be one of my most beautiful exquisite books of science. For it is a subject that all humans love--- saving our Beloved Earth from the Sun gone Red Giant.

Now I wisely dropped off thinking and writing about this "Moving of Earth to Mars then Europa" in 2023, thinking that I needed to wait until enough data comes in on what happened in moving Dimorphos and Didymos.

I wanted to see if the ramming of the spacecraft was a big effect or minuscule. Besides, I needed a break and vacation away from this topic in 2023.

But now is a great time for me to resume the project, one of the greatest engineering projects of Humanity. Imagine it, we move Earth to a safer and better place. And I am sure, since all intelligent life goes through the same ordeal-- forced to move away from their star because it goes Red Giant, that they too, if they want to live and not go extinct and into oblivion, had to move their entire planet. This is a good reason we do not see Aliens--- they are too busy, moving their planet.

I was scared in 2023 that we might not be able to save Earth, and the massive math needed to figure out if this Move is possible to achieve.

I will often caution scientists to never get too involved with a topic, but lay it aside and re-examine with a fresh mind. Because if you lack the common sense to take a vacation, you end up being more of a Crank crackpot than a scientist.

So here, now in March 2026, my head is clear from 2022-2023, and I can solve most if not all of this Project. 

Actually the math is super super easy and starts with a diagram in Feynman Lectures on Physics.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Feynman in FEYNMAN LECTURES ON PHYSICS  Volume I page 2-10, 1963 

gives the following (my edited) account of the 4 interactions (forces) of 

physics with a comparison of relative coupling strengths in the table below: 

"There seem to be just four kinds of interaction between particles which , in 

the order of decreasing strength, are the strong nuclear interaction, 

electromagnetic interactions, electroweak interaction, and gravity.  The 

photon is coupled to all electromagnetic interactions and the strength of the 

interaction is measured by some number which is 1/137.  The detailed law of 

this coupling is known and is quantum electrodynamics QED.  Gravity is coupled 

to all energy and this law is also known.  Then there is the electroweak 

interaction which causes the neutron to disintegrate into proton, electron, 

and neutrino.  This law is only partly known.  The strong nuclear interaction, 

the meson-baryon interaction, has a strength of 1 on this scale and the law is 

completely unknown, although there are some known rules such as the number 

of baryons does not change in any reaction. " 

        Table 2-3.  Elementary Interactions 

        Coupling                Strength*                        Law 

Photon to charged particles   ~10 -2             Law known 

Gravity to all energy               ~10 -40      Law known 

radioactive decay                   ~10 -5         Law partially known 

Mesons to baryons               ~1      Law unknown (some rules known) 

*The strength is a dimensionless measure of the coupling constant involved 

in each interaction ( ~ means approximately equal to). 

        I change some of Feynman's teachings in the table, giving thus : (A) 

renaming weak nuclear as radioactivities (R). 

AP writes: Actually, Feynman is wrong, in that Atoms never have a nucleus, for the Muon is the electron of Atoms and stuck inside the proton torus doing the Faraday Law, so in truth the table above should have just 3 forces, the Strongest is the EM force itself. Feynman when he wrote his Lectures on Physics never Unified the Forces of Physics, leaving it for AP in 1991 to unify the 4 forces of physics all into the EM force, for the EM force has the ____only perfect particle = the Photon-Light______.

Now in 2022 I received in sci.math a post trying to figure out if it is possible to move Earth out to Mars. I was not going to get involved mathematically in 2022 or 2023 until the data of Didymos and Dimorphos was in. And I am glad I did, because it turns out the math in all of this is super easy, far easier than the below simpleton account by a nonscientist. And personally, I detest any scientist who still thinks in units of joules, ton. All scientists should convert to the only logical units of electron volts, eV, you can still use Newtons but eventually get to eV. When you do that, you show yourself as grown-up and mature in science.

In sci.math.
On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 1:23:44 AM UTC-6, bwr fml wrote:
> Let's skip most of what you have thought about and get to the real issue:
>
> Approximately how much energy would be needed to move the earth from
> the current position to the position of mars, pretty much ignoring everything else
>
> distance from earth to mars 9.6*10^7 kilometers
>
> gravitational force of the sun on the earth 3.5*10^22 newtons
>
> 9.6*10^7 kilometers * 3.5*10^22 newtons = 3.36*10^33 joules
>
> Note that is assuming the gravitational force does not decrease
> with distance from the sun. To use a decreasing gravitational
> force you will perhaps need to do an integral. But trying to do that
> sounds like it is way beyond what you have demonstrated thus far.
> Using a constant should still give us a reasonable starting approximation.
>
> So that is the energy you need applied directly to the earth.
> But how much energy is that really, is that a LOT or not so much?
> Well, think of something that has a LOT of energy in it
>
> 1 kilogram of tnt = 4.184*10^6 joules
>
> So how many kilograms of tnt are needed to do this
> (IF and ONLY IF we could directly apply all that energy
> in the right direction and do so uniformly)
>
> 3.36*10^33/(4.184*10^6) = 8*10^26 kilograms of tnt
> = 8*10^23 tons of tnt
> = 8*10^17 mega-tons of tnt
>
> So you need just a bit less than a million million million
> metric tons of tnt to move the earth out to mars.
> And you have to convert all that tnt into a nice uniform
> force on the entire earth for the entire trip.
>
> But how much is a million million million tons?
> Is that a lot or not so much? It sounds like it is a lot.
> Well, worldwide food production of the entire earth in a year
> is about 4 mega-tons each year currently.
> And (8*10^17 mega-tons/(4 mega-tons/year)=2*10^17 years.
> So if all the food production currently was magically turned
> into tnt and we did that every year at the current production
> rate then in only 2*10^17 years you would have enough
> tnt to lift the earth from the current orbit to the orbit of mars.
>
> You must check all these calculations very carefully.

Computing if Earth can be Moved to Mars and then Europa.

----------------------------------------------

So a waffler speaks of TNT, chemical energy to Move Earth. A real scientist speaks of atomic energy which is 10^38 More Powerful than chemical energy.

It is chemical energy that moved Dimorphos a "full 33 minutes faster" and Didymos whose orbital motion was 34km/hour changed by 1/(3*10^9).

So, well, the super easy math is that if the impact was a Atomic weapon, the POWER FACTOR is 10^38 greater than the chemical impact. So that 10^38 times 1/(3^10^9) is approximately 10^29 faster movement, provided of course the mass of the spacecraft was a Uranium missile and that the detonation would keep the asteroid intact and moving away at a colossal speed. Here on Earth we can control that by digging the deepest hole possible and detonating the atomic bomb in the hole well. In fact I remember reading how physicists know someone detonated a atomic bomb underground for Earth is jarred out of its orbit a fraction.

Distance from Earth to Mars is 2*10^8 km

Gravity force of Sun on Earth is 3*10^22 Newtons.

How much energy to move Earth to Mars? Is 6*10^33 Newton*meter.

The Atomic Force is 10^38 stronger than chemical force and so we need a singular Atomic Bomb blast into a deep hole where the bomb is lowered and detonated upon reaching its end of hole.

That is enough to eject Earth out of its orbit with the Sun.

As Earth is moving toward Mars, intermittently we need to add more booster blasts in the hole. Here we have astrophysicists and physicists and engineers monitoring the movement of Earth as it peels away from Sun's gravity and heads for Mars. In a metaphor, we have turned Earth, entire Earth into a rocket.

Will the Moon tag along??? I do not know, yet. But have the suspicion that if the astrophysicists and physicists time it precisely of the when the blast takes place that we can keep the Moon alongside Earth as it moves to Mars. I sincerely hope we can save the Moon. For in keeping the Moon alongside us, allows Earth to have 24 hour day and night, without the Moon 1/2 of Earth will be in full sunshine all the time and the other 1/2 of Earth permanent darkness. So yes, we want to keep the Moon. It maybe the case that we have to detonate a atomic blast into a deep hole in the Moon coinciding with Earth Moving-Day.

How much Uranium does Earth contain to make a bomb?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Uranium is as common as tin or zinc in geology, and the good news on this is that uranium seems mostly to be found in the crust.

The Atomic bomb blasts need to be coordinated with the inner and outer cores of Earth.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This all is great news, for it finally gives humanity a use for Atomic weapons that the entire Planet Earth and all its life benefits, instead of the crazy political goons who only think of killing their neighbors and stealing their land-- Putin's Russia, Netanyahu's Israel genociding Palestinians and stealing their land. Just today, some Israel idiot said Iran was an existential threat, not mentioning the fact that Israel is a genocider and existential threat on Palestinians in West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem but the fool Dondolt buys into all of that.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Moving Earth+Moon out to Mars then Europa has 2 issues of science--- a Physics mission and a Biology mission.

The Physics Mission is simple--- slowly move Earth+Moon out of its present orbit and slowly reach where Mars is at present. This is accomplished via Atomic bomb blasts making Earth be a slow climbing rocket out of present orbit.

The Biology Mission is far more daunting. To keep as much life that presently lives on Earth, keep it all intact as we slowly move out to Mars. Here the temperature heat will be the killer if not careful. 

Average temperature on Mars at present is 20 degrees C to -153 degrees C according to NASA. The coldest in Antarctica is approximately -90 C.

In order to get to Mars, we must do it slowly. So as the Sun goes Red Giant, we bomb blast Earth+Moon enough distance away from the Sun as to regulate Earth temperature to an ideal temperature that keeps as much of Earth life intact as possible.

Our final resting spot will be a close distance to Europa and Jupiter where we make Jupiter be our "almost perpetual energy battery pack". We tap into the magnetic field of Jupiter and have almost unlimited electrical energy where Earth+Moon+Europa are virtual paradise.

At the moment and present time, each year the Sun is hotter and hotter, for stars are powered not by fusion but by Faraday Law of muons thrusting through proton torus of each and every atom in the star, driving species extinction. Soon we will have to start the Atomic Bomb Moving away from the Sun.

The Greatest Upheaval to humans on Earth will have to be a Sociology Upheaval.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

As we Move Earth+Moon we can no longer have Human society under dictatorships or even democracies, but have to have a Science Council that speaks one voice composed of leading scientists. Science rules politics on Earth. 

We can no longer have economic systems of money exchange and capital markets, but a system that every human has a job in the Ultimate Goal-- get as much life to an Earth moved to Mars then Europa.

We will have to have strict rules on who can have babies and the size of Human total population.

Country borders will have to be redefined if not made obsolete. Farming for food will be a global effort, for the pay at the end of the day for every human is a warm supper amoung fellow human workers. Comradery of humans will be like never before as everyone is aware, we are Moving Earth to a new home.

A typical day in this New World is that people have jobs in helping the effort of Moving.

No wars.

Only a Common Good for all life on Earth.

What is the size of human population as we begin the Move?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

At present we are approaching 10 billion humans. Far far too much.

I believe humans should be at 2-3 billion and no more. The Science Council should make this number a top priority to establish and to enforce. The reason we have starvation, famine, wars before the Move is due in large part because humanity lets the Evilness of overpopulation dominate their lifestyle.

If the Move were started tomorrow, many people would not really notice the jolts made by the Atomic Bomb blasts moving Earth, and conceivably, many people without news would think nothing is happening as Earth is blasted slowly out of orbit. For the Sun is getting hotter and hotter each year and our Moving is keeping it cooler and cooler each year.

As I said above, huge upheaval in Social structure of how Earth works--- money economics has to change drastically. Political power has to be in a Science Council, not dictators or democracy election (look at the anti-science fool Dondolt Trump). Every human will have a job to get Earth Moved and every human will have a warm supper and comrades every day and night as humanity faces its ultimate task and mission--- save all of life on Earth and Earth itself.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Now, the drill hole where we drop the Atomic bombs to move Earth out of orbit, is most likely going to be from a Mountainous region of hard rock so the impact and detonation make the Earth be a Rocket Launch.

The biology part is actually simple for we want to save as much life on Earth as possible when we get to Mars, and eventually to Jupiter with Europa. Jupiter is essential for it offers free almost unlimited electrical energy with its strong magnetic field.

So the idea on Biology--- is that we make a slow march to Mars timing our Move to coincide with how bad the Sun gets that year in its Gone Red Giant phase.

If we are careful and precise, it would be as if we cannot sense that we are Moving and that the Sun is well behaved. The speed of moving to Mars is timed to coincide with the Sun Gone Red Giant.

Let me call this concept of linking up Move speed with rate of Sun increase in heat as a "Linked Constant". We can have mathematics apply as this.

Rate of Moving Away from Sun = rate of Solar heat increase by Sun Gone Red Giant.

But there probably will  be many surprises and problems not anticipated. The more problems we anticipate before Launch of Earth, the better off and better is our chance of success.

One problem that must be anticipated is whether current Farming for our Food is sustainable in Moving Earth? I would guess it is not. We will not know the weather patterns as we move.

A farming practice of growing Annuals such as corn, beans, wheat, oats, peppers is a weak system. And may jeopardize the entire Move. I propose that Agriculture switch to all being perennials especially trees, such as walnut, hazelnut, and other nut and fruit trees and find how to turn tree harvests into replacing corn, beans, wheat harvest. Besides, trees do not need so much work and are likely better survivors when Moving all of Earth. 

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Now it is sad to say, that our species called Homo sapiens is not a wise entity, more of a blundering along entity. Sure, we blundered into atomic energy, atomic bombs, sending man to the Moon and back. 

A better name for our species is Homo middling IQ. I say middling IQ for look at the facts, we still teach the crazy lunatic idea that slant cut of Cone is ellipse when even a Junior High School student knows both the slant cut of cylinder and slant cut of cone, cannot both be a ellipse, yet degenerate math and physics professors still teach that nonsense.

Then there is the case in point where every college and University across Earth teach that the 0.5MeV particle is the Atom's electron when in truth it is the Curie-Dirac magnetic monopole, and the true electron of Atoms is the muon at 105MeV stuck inside a proton of 840MeV doing the Faraday law with the proton torus. This is how stars and our Sun shine, not from fusion but from Faraday law. 

Yet not one of these physics cackling idiot professors have a 1/2 marble of logical intelligence to understand Proton and Muon are doing the Faraday law and powering the Sun, where our Sun has reached Red Giant Phase.

That is why, here in 21March 2026, South Dakota is 35 degrees Celsius when it should be about 5 degrees Celsius.

List of failed physicists and mathematicians:

John Baez UC Riverside:
On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 3:28:35 AM UTC-5, noTthaTguY wrote:
> ellipses are ovals, but not all ovals are elipses, of course;
> just grab a dictionary, asshole
>

UC Riverside Math Dept, provost: Cynthia Larive- chemist,
Mark Alber, John Baez, Mei-Chu Chang, Vyjayanthi Chari, Kevin Costello, Po-Ning Chen, Wee Liang Gan, Gerhard Gierz, Jacob Greenstein, Jose Gonzalez, Zhuang-dan Guan, Jim Kelliher, Sara Lapan, Michel Lapidus, Carl Mautner, Amir Moradifam, Yat Sun Poon, Ziv Ran, David Rush, Reinhard Schultz, Stefano Vidussi, David Weisbart, Fred Wilhelm, Bun Wong, Yulong Xing, Feng Xu, Qi Zhang

Mathstodon (Mathstodon logo)
John Carlos Baez: "My paper has finally appeared..."
Jul 2, 2024---... Plutonium's "the universe is a plutonium atom... Archimedes was better than the Beethoven and changed his name to Archimedes Plutonium.

Indiana Univ. James Watson, David Baxter, John M. Beggs, Raymond Co, Ceren Dag, Radovan Demisek, Rob de Ruyter, Nelson Batalon Jr. Curtis Bitner, Susan J. Brown, Regan Campbell, Danny Clark, Brenda Borntrager, Brian Davis,

Matt Wallenweg & PZ Myers Spherical Bullshit with their Test of PhD science professors

Univ Houston physics dept Ed Hungerford, Alex Ignatiev, Joseph McCauley, Mark A Meier, Shuheng Pan, Lawrence Pinsky, Audrius Brazdeikis, Rabi Ebrahim, Rebecca Forrest, Sladjana Maric, Israel Portillo
math dept Giles Auchmuty, John Hardy, Gordon Johnson, Johnny Johnson, Klaus Kaiser, Christopher Murray, Vern Paulsen, Charles Peters, David Wagner, Clifton Whyburn, Jennifer May, Nicholas Leger

Univ Colorado,Boulder Physics department: Dr.Dana Z.Anderson,Dr.Paul Beale,Dr.Andreas Becker,Dr.Joseph Berry, Dr.Meredith Betterton, Dr.John Bohn, Dr.John Cary, Dr.Noel Clark, Dr. Eric Cornell, Dr.John Cumalat, Dr.Thomas DeGrand, Dr.Oliver DeWolfe, Dr.Matthew Glaser, Dr.Victor Gurarie, Dr.Anna Hasenfratz, Dr.Michael Hermele, Dr.Murray Holland, Dr.Ed Kinney, Dr.Minhyea Lee, Dr.Heather Lewandowski, Dr.Andrew Lucas, Dr.Alysia Marino, Dr.Angelo Mascarenhas, Dr.Tobin Munsat, Dr.Margaret Murnane, Dr.Carl Wieman, Dr.Herbert Kroemer, Dr. Eric Cornell, Dr.Stanley Cohen (physiol.), Dr.John Hall, Dr.David Wineland
Univ Colorado Chem department: Dr.Niels Damrauer, Dr.Joost de Gouw, Dr.Gordana Dukovic, Dr.Joel Eaves, Dr.Steven M. George, Dr.Douglas L. Gin, Dr.Seth Marder, Dr.Joseph Michl, Dr.Richard D. Noble, Dr.Margaret Tolbert, Dr.Veronica Vaida, Dr.Rainer Volkamer, Dr.David Walba, Dr.J.Mathias Weber,Dr.Wei Zhang, Dr. Paul Ziemann, Dr.Thomas Cech


USA Air Force Academy, Colorado, Physics and Chemistry departments:
Dr.Francis Chun, Dr.Kimberly de La Harpe,Dr.Alina Gearba-Sell,Dr.Randy Knize,Dr.Matthew McHarg
Dr.James Ayers,Dr.Gary Balaich,Dr.Todd Davis,Dr.Kim Gardner,Dr.Mary Hertz,Dr.Barry Hicks,
Dr.Scott Iacono director Chemistry Research Center

US Naval Academy, physics & chem dept. Michael Manicchia atom interferometry, Raj Basu liquid crystals, Rachel Carr experimental particle physics, Elena Cimpoiasu nanomaterials and composites, Allison Hall experimental particle physics, Joel Helton experimental condensed matter, Michelle Jamer condensed matter, magnetism, Seth Rittenhouse atomic molecular and optical physics, Jeffrey R. Vanhoy fast neutron-induced reactions, Richard Witt experimental nuclear physics, Professors Wayne Pearson,Joe Urban,Amy MacArthur, Shirley Lin crystal structures of N-4, Dr.Brian H. Morrow & Prof. Judith A.Harrison molecular dynamics vapor-liquid, Prof Shirley Lin & Dr.Marianne E.Burnett &Prof Melonie A.Teichert Titration Experiment, Dr.Christopher D.Stachurski,Prof Paul C.Trulove transport properties in aprotic ionic liquids.


SLAC: Chi-Chung Kao
CERN: Eliezer Rabinovici, Fabiola Gianotti
Fermi Lab: Lia Merminga

Dr. Panchanathan , present day NSF, F.Fleming Crim, Brian Stone, James S. Olvestad, Dorothy E. Aronson

President now Lawrence Bacow

Harvard Physics dept
Jacob Barandes, Howard Berg, Michael Brenner, Adam Cohen, Eugene Demler, Michael Desai
Louis Deslauriers, John Doyle, Cora Dvorkin, Gary Feldman, Douglas Finkbeiner, Melissa Franklin, Gerald Gabrielse, Howard Georgi, Sheldon Glashow, Roy Glauber, Jene Golovchenko, Markus Greiner, Roxanne Guenette, Girma Hailu, Bertrand Halperin, Lene Hau
Thomas Hayes, Eric Heller, Jason Hoffman, Jenny Hoffman, Gerald Holton, Paul Horowitz, John Huth, Arthur Jaffe, Daniel Jafferis, Efthimios Kaxiras, Philip Kim, John Kovac, Erel Levine
Mikhail Lukin, Logan McCarty, L. Mahadevan, Vinothan Manoharan, Eric Mazur, Masahiro Morii
David Morin, Julia Mundy, Cherry Murray, David Nelson, Kang Ni, Hongkun Park, William Paul
Peter Pershan, Mara Prentiss, Lisa Randall, Matthew Reece, Subir Sachdev, Aravinthan Samuel, Matthew Schwartz, Irwin Shapiro, Isaac Silvera, Andrew Strominger, Christopher Stubbs, Cumrun Vafa, Ronald Walsworth, David Weitz, Robert Westervelt, Richard Wilson
Tai Wu, Amir Yacoby, Susanne Yelin, Xi Yin, Dr. Elias Corey (chem), Dr. Walter Gilbert (chem), Dr.Dudley Herschbach (chem), Dr.Martin Karplus (chem)

Harvard Math dept
Harvard Math dept Noam Elkies (FP),Dennis Gaitsgory (FP),Robin Gottlieb (PP),Benedict Gross (FP),Joseph Harris (FP),Heisuke Hironaka (EM),Michael Hopkins (FP),Arthur Jaffe (FP),David Kazhdan (EM),Mark Kisin (FP),Peter Kronheimer (FP),Jacob Lurie (FP),Eric Maskin (FP),Barry Mazur (FP),Curtis McMullen (FP),David Mumford (EM),Martin Nowak (FP),Gerald Sacks (EM),Wilfried Schmid (FP),Yum-Tong Siu (FP),Shlomo Sternberg (EM),John Tate (EM),Cliff Taubes (FP),Hugh Woodin (FP),Horng-Tzer Yau (FP),Shing-Tung Yau (FP)

Texas A&M math department
math.tamu.edu

Angela Allen, Michael Anshelevich, Benjamin Aurispa, Amy Austin, Dean Baskin, Guy Battle, Florent Baudier, Gregory Berkolaiko, Harold Boas, Kathryn Bollinger, Andrea Bonito, Michael Brannan, Tamara Carter, Goong Chen, Eric Chung, Vanessa Coffelt, Andrew Comech, Prabir Daripa,
Alan Demlow, Ronald DeVore, Ken Dykema, Yalchin Efendiev, Janice Epstein, Tamás Erdélyi, Simon Foucart, Erin Fry, Stephen Fulling, Rostislav Grigorchuk, Jean-Luc Guermond, Robert Gustafson, Boris Hanin, Yvette Hester, Irina Holmes, Peter Howard, Roger Howe, Bill Johnson, Maya Johnson,
Junehyuk Jung, Joe Kahlig, David Kerr, Kendra Kilmer, Joungdong Kim, Jeffrey Kuan, Peter Kuchment, Glenn Lahodny Jr, Joseph Landsberg, David Larson, Raytcho Lazarov, Sang Rae Lee,
Jennifer Lewis, Paulo Lima-Filho, Chun-Hung Liu, Benjamin Lynch, Matthias Maier, David Manuel,
Riad Masri, Laura Felicia Matusevich, Francis Narcowich, Volodymyr Nekrashevych, Constantin Onica, Patrick Orchard, Lee Panetta, Grigoris Paouris, Matthew Papanikolas, Joe Pasciak, Gregory Pearlstein, Rosanna Pearlstein, Guergana Petrova, Gilles Pisier, Alexei Poltoratski, Bojan Popov,
Eviatar Procaccia, Kumbakonam Rajagopal, Heather Ramsey, J.N. Reddy, Kamran Reihani, J. Maurice Rojas, Marco Roque-Sol, Eric Rowell, William Rundell, Vince Schielack, Thomas Schlumprecht, Todd Schrader, Sinjini Sengupta, Oksana Shatalov, Anne Shiu, N. Sivakumar,
John Slattery, Roger Smith, Frank Sottile, Peter Stiller, Emil Straube, Steven Taliaferro, Edriss Titi,
Marvin Tretkoff, Robin Tucker-Drob, Mariya Vorobets,Yaroslav Vorobets, Joe Ward, Jennifer Whitfield, Clarence Wilkerson, Sarah Witherspoon, Zhizhang Xie, Catherine Yan, Tian Yang, Philip Yasskin, Matthew Young, Guoliang Yu, Igor Zelenko, Jianxin Zhou

Texas A&M physics dept
Artem Abanov, Tom Adair, Girish Agarwal, Glenn Agnolet, Alexey Akimov, Roland Allen, Meigan Aronson, Bill Bassichis, Katrin Becker, Melanie Becker, Alexey Belyanin, Siu Ah Chin, Gregory Christian, Darren DePoy, Steven Dierker, Nelson Duller, Bhaskar Dutta, Ricardo Eusebi, Alexander Finkelstein, Lewis Ford, Rainer Fries, Ed Fry, Carl Gagliardi, John Hardy, Philip Hemmer, Dudley Herschbach, Jeremy Holt, Teruki Kamon, Helmut G. Katzgraber, Robert Kennicutt, Che-Ming Ko, Olga Kocharovskaya, Vitaly Kocharovsky, Jaan Laane, David Lee, Igor Lyuksyutov, Lucas Macri, Rupak Mahapatra, Jennifer Marshall, John Mason, Peter McIntyre, Dan Melconian, Saskia Miodszewski, Nader Mirabolfathi, Dimitri Nanopoulos, Donald Naugle, Casey Papovich, Valery Pokrovsky, Christopher Pope, Ralf Rapp, Grigory Rogachev, Joe Ross, Alexei Safonov, Wayne Saslow, Hans Schuessler, Marlan Scully, Egin Sezgin, Alexei Sokolov, Louis Strigari, Nicholas Suntzeff, Winfried Teizer, David Toback, Kim-Vy Tran, Bob Tribble, Jonelle Walsh, Lifan Wang, Robert Webb, Michael Weimer, George Welch, Wenhao Wu, Vladislav Yakovlev, Ping Yang, Dave Youngblood, Aleksei Zheltikov, M. Suhail Zubairy, Dr.Sheldon Glashow, Dr.Dudley Herschbach (chem), Dr.David Lee

MIT math dept.

Michael Artin, Martin Bazant, Bonnie Berger, Roman Bezrukavnikov, Alexei Borodin, John Bush, Herman Chernoff, Henry Cohn, Laurent Demanet, Richard Dudley, Jörn Dunkel, Alan Edelman, Pavel Etingof, Daniel Freedman, Michel Goemans, Vadim Gorin, Harvey Greenspan, Victor Guillemin, Larry Guth, Sigurdur Helgason, Anette Hosoi, David Jerison, Steven Johnson, Victor Kac, Steven Kleiman, Daniel Kleitman,
Andrew Lawrie, Tom Leighton, George Lusztig, Arthur Mattuck, Davesh Maulik, Richard Melrose, Haynes Miller, William Minicozzi, Ankur Moitra, Elchanan Mossel, Tomasz Mrowka, James Munkres, Andrei Negut, Aaron Pixton, Bjorn Poonen, Alexander Postnikov, Philippe Rigollet, Rodolfo Rosales, Giulia Saccà, Gerald Sacks, Paul Seidel, Scott Sheffield, Peter Shor, Isadore Singer, Michael Sipser, Jared Speck, Gigliola Staffilani, Richard Stanley, Harold Stark, Gilbert Strang, Daniel Stroock, Goncalo Tabuada, Alar Toomre, David Vogan

President: Sally Kornbluth
MIT physics dept
William Bertozzi, Robert Birgeneau, Hale Bradt, Bernard Burke, George Clark , Jeffrey Goldstone, Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins , Paul Joss, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon, Irwin Pless, Paul Schechter, James Young
Andrea Ghez, K. Barry Sharpless(chem), Carolyn Bertozzi(chem),Dr.Frank Wilczek,Dr.Rainer Weiss, Dr.Jerome Friedman, Dr.Wolfgang Ketterle, Dr.Richard Schrock (chem)

LIST of Failed Physicists because they still believe electron is .5MeV, in no order, and so very stupid are they in physics, for they could not even understand the physics of angular momentum of two particles 938 to .5 rather than 840 to 105 MeV

Edward Witten, John Baez, Brian Greene, Lisa Randall, Alan H. Guth, Michael E. Brown, Konstantin Batygin, Ben Bullock, Larry Harson, Mark Barton, far too stupid in physics to ask the question, which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle which AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole while the real electon is a muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. In fact so stupid is this list of so called physicists that they went through life believing the slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, when in reality it is a Oval of 1 axis of symmetry for the cone has 1 axis of symmetry but ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry. The minds of all these so called physicists are not good enough to be doing physics. In fact, so stupid in science and math are all these people that when told in High School or College that a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, they believed it, and believe in it to this day without so much as ever questioning the idea that a single cone and oval have just 1 axis of symmetry while ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, and yet many on this list were awarded science prizes. Maybe for ignorance of science but not for truth of science.

1) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
2) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
3) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
4) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sapheads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.

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
.
.
Edward Witten
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
Jennifer Kahn, Discover, science hater
Eric Francis Coppolino, newsreporter hatred of science, George Witte, St.Martin's Press science hater
Toby Howard, The Guardian, science hater

SLAC: Chi-Chung Kao
CERN: Eliezer Rabinovici, Fabiola Gianotti
Fermi Lab: Lia Merminga

David Sainsbury Cambridge chancellor
Cambridge Physics Dept
Dr.Didier Queloz (phy), Dr.Richard Henderson (chem), Dr.David Thouless (phy), Dr.Duncan Haldane (phy), Dr.John Kosterlitz (phy), Dr.Michael Levitt (chem), Dr. Venkatraman Ramakrishnan (chem), Dr.Roger Tsien (chem), Dr.Richard Schrock (chem), Dr.Alan McDiarmid (chem), Dr.John Pople (chem),
Ahnert, Alai, Alexander, Allison, Ansorge, Atature, Barker, Barnes, Bartlett, Batley, Baumberg, Bohndiek, Bowman, Brown, Buscher, Butler, Campbell Carilli, Carter, Castelnovo, Challis, Chalut, Chaudhri, Chin, Ciccarelli, Cicuta, Harry Cliff, Cole, Cooper, Cowburn, Credgington, Cross, Croze, Deschler, Donald, Duffett-Smith, Dutton, Eiser, Ellis, Euser, Field, Flynn, Ford, Friend, Gibson, Green, Greenham, Gripaios, Grosche, Guck, Gull, Haniff, Heavens-Ward, Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, Hughes, Irvine, Jardine, Jenkins, Jones, Josephson, Keyser, Khmeinitskii, King, Kotlyar, Lamacraft, Lasenby, Lester, Longair, Lonzarich, Maiolino, Marshall, Martin, Mitov, Morris, Mortimer, Moller, Needs, Norman, Nunnenkamp, Padman,Parker, Patel, Payne, Pepper, Phillips, Pramauro, Queloz, Rao, Richer, Riley, Ritchie, Sargent, Saunders, Saxena, Schneider, Scott, Scrivener, Sebastian, Simmons, Simons, Sirringhaus, Smith, Sutherland, Taylor, Teichmann, Terentjev, Thomson, Verrechia, Walker, Ward, Warner, Weale, Webber, Whyles, Withington.
 
Cambridge Math Dept
Alan Baker, Bela Bollobas, Darwin Smith, John Coates, Timothy Gowers, Peter Johnstone, Imre Leader, Gabriel Paternain  

Partial List of the World's Crackpot Logicians-- should be in a college Abnormal-Psychology department, not Logic//

Peter Bruce Andrews, Lennart Aqvist, Henk Barendregt, John Lane Bell, Nuel Belnap,
Paul Benacerraf, Jean Paul Van Bendegem, Johan van Benthem, Jean-Yves Beziau,
Andrea Bonomi, Nicolas Bourbaki (a group of logic fumblers), Alan Richard Bundy, Gregory Chaitin,
Jack Copeland, John Corcoran, Dirk van Dalen, Martin Davis, Michael A.E. Dummett, John Etchemendy, Hartry Field, Kit Fine, Melvin Fitting, Matthew Foreman, Michael Fourman,
Harvey Friedman, Dov Gabbay, L.T.F. Gamut (group of logic fumblers), Sol Garfunkel, Jean-Yves Girard, Siegfried Gottwald, Jeroen Groenendijk, Susan Haack, Leo Harrington, William Alvin Howard,
Ronald Jensen, Dick de Jongh, David Kaplan, Alexander S. Kechris, Howard Jerome Keisler, Julia F. Knight logic journal, Robert Kowalski, Georg Kreisel, Saul Kripke, Kenneth Kunen, Karel Lambert, Penelope Maddy, David Makinson, Isaac Malitz, Gary R. Mar, Donald A. Martin, Per Martin-Lof,Yiannis N. Moschovakis, Jeff Paris, Charles Parsons, Solomon Passy, Lorenzo Pena, Dag Prawitz, Graham Priest, Michael O. Rabin, Gerald Sacks, Dana Scott, Stewart Shapiro, Theodore Slaman, Robert M. Solovay, John R. Steel, Martin Stokhof, Anne Sjerp Troelstra, Alasdair Urquhart,
Moshe Y. Vardi, W. Hugh Woodin, John Woods

Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.

Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim

Eternal-September.org
Wolfgang M. Weyand
Berliner Strasse
Bad Homburg

Goethe Universitat Physics dept

Brigitta Wolff president

Jurgen Habermass
Horst Stocker
Gerd Binnig
Horst Ludwig Stormer  
Peter Grunberg

math
Alex Kuronya
Martin Moller
Jakob Stix
Annette Werner
Andreas Bernig
Esther Cabezas-Rivas
Hans Crauel
Thomas Gerstner
Bastian von Harrach
Thomas Mettler
Tobias Weth
Amin Coja-Oghlan
Raman Sanyal
Thorsten Theobald
Yury Person            

Gottingen Univ math

Metin Tolan

Dorothea Bahns, Laurent Bartholdi, Valentin Blomer, Jorg Brüdern, Stefan Halverscheid, Harald Andres Helfgott, Madeleine Jotz Lean, Ralf Meyer, Preda Mihailescu, Walther Dietrich Paravicini, Viktor Pidstrygach, Thomas Schick, Evelina Viada, Ingo Frank Witt, Chenchang Zhu

Gottingen Univ physics
Prof. Dr. Karsten Bahr
Prof. Dr. Peter Bloechl
Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bodenschatz
Prof. Laura Covi, PhD
Prof. Dr. Andreas Dillmann
Prof. Dr. Stefan Dreizler
Prof. Dr. Jörg Enderlein
Prof. Dr. Laurent Gizon
Prof. Dr. Ariane Frey
apl. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Glatzel
Prof. Dr. Fabian Heidrich-Meisner
Prof. Dr. Hans Christian Hofsäss
Prof. Dr. Andreas Janshoff
Prof. Dr. Christian Jooß
Prof. Dr. Stefan Kehrein
Prof. Dr. Stefan Klumpp
Prof. Dr. Sarah Köster
Prof. Dr. Reiner Kree
Prof. Dr. Matthias Krüger
Prof. Dr. Stanley Lai
Prof. Dr. Stefan Mathias
apl. Prof. Dr. Vasile Mosneaga
Prof. Dr. Marcus Müller
Prof. Dr. Jens Niemeyer
apl. Prof. Dr. Astrid Pundt
Prof. Dr. Arnulf Quadt
apl. Prof. Dr. Karl-Henning Rehren
Prof. Dr. Ansgar Reiners
Prof. Dr. Angela Rizzi
Prof. Dr. Claus Ropers
Prof. Dr. Tim Salditt
Prof. Dr. Konrad Samwer
Prof. Dr. Christoph Schmidt
apl. Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider
Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann
Prof. Dr. Simone Techert
apl. Prof. Dr. Michael Seibt
Prof. Dr. Peter Sollich
Prof. Dr. Andreas Tilgner
Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert
Prof. Dr. Florentin Wörgötter
Prof. Dr. Annette Zippelius

educ dept of Germany
> > Bettina Stark-Watzinger, Jens Brandenburg, Thomas Sattelberger, Kornelia Haugg, Judith Pirscher


Indian Institute of Technology

Physics dept. Anurag Sharma, Babu Sujin B, Banerjee Varsha, Bhattacharya Saswata, Bhatnagar M.C. , Chatterjee R., Chaudhary Sujeet, Das Pintu, Dhaka Rajendra S., Ghosh Joyee, Ghosh Pradipta, Ghosh Sankalpa, Ghosh Santanu, Joseph Joby, Kanseri Bhaskar, Kedar B Khare, Khare Neeraj, Kumar Sunil, Malik H.K., Mani Brajesh Kumar, Marathe Rahul, Mehta B.R. , Mehta D.S. , Mishra Amruta, Muduli P.K., Ravishankar V. , Reddy G.B. , Saxena Vikrant, Sengupta Amartya, Senthilkumaran P. ,Shenoy M.R. , Shukla A.K., Singh J.P., Singh Rajendra, Sinha Aloka, Soni Ravi Kant, Srivastava Pankaj, Varshney R.K., Vijaya Prakash G.

ETH Zurich

Joel Mesot, Gunther Dissertori
 
  Paul Biran, Marc Burger, Patrick Cheridito, Manfred Einsiedler, Paul Embrechts
  Giovanni Felder, Alessio Figalli, Norbert Hungerbuhler, Tom Ilmanen, Horst Knorrer
  Emmanuel Kowalski
  Urs Lang
  Rahul Pandharipande
  Richard Pink
  Tristan Riviere
  Dietmar Salamon
  Martin Schweizer
  Mete Soner
  Michael Struwe
  Benjamin Sudakov
  Alain Sznitman
  Josef Teichmann
  Wendelin Werner
  Thomas Willwacher
 
  Zurich ETH, physics dept
Charalampos Anastasiou, Niklas Beisert, Adrian Biland, Gianni Blatter, Marcella Carollo, Christian Degen, Leonardo Degiorgi, Gunther Dissertori, Klaus Ensslin, Tilman Esslinger, Jerome Faist, Matthias Gaberdiel, Aude Gehrmann-De Ridder, Vadim Geshkenbein, Christophorus Grab, Michele Graf, Jonathan Home, Roland Horisberger, Sebastian Huber, Thomas Markus Ihn, Atac Imamoglu, Steven Johnson, Ursula Keller, Klaus Kirch, Simon Lilly, Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner, Andre Rubbia, Werner Schmutz, Thomas Schulthess, Manfred Sigrist, Hans-Arno Synal, Matthias Troyer, Andreas Vaterlaus, Rainer Wallny, Andreas Wallraff, Werner Wegscheider, Audrey Zheludev, Oded Zilberberg
  ,Kurt Wuthrich (chem), Dr.Joel Mesot
 
  University Bern
  Christian Leumann
  Walter Benjamin
  Emil Theodor Kocher
  Kurt Wuthrich
  Daniel Vassella
  Rene Fasel
  Mani Matter

Swiss education dept. Guy Parmelin

Jan Burse Swiss stalker
On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 5:04:29 PM UTC-6, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> brain farto, why?

On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 3:00:19 PM UTC-5, j4n bur53 wrote:
> It is highly likely
ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM BANNED from. Dartmouth canteen. His wheelchair is too wide, he doesn't pass the entrance. ...Mostowski Collapse's profile photo....


SLAC: Chi-Chung Kao
CERN: Eliezer Rabinovici, Fabiola Gianotti
Fermi Lab: Lia Merminga

Stanford University, math dept.

Gregory Brumfiel, Daniel Bump, Emmanuel Candès, Gunnar Carlsson, Moses Charikar, Sourav Chatterjee, Tom Church, Ralph Cohen, Brian Conrad, Brian Conrey, Amir Dembo, Persi Diaconis, Yakov Eliashberg, Robert Finn, Jacob Fox, Laura Fredrickson, Søren Galatius, George Schaeffer, Or Hershkovits, David Hoffman, Eleny Ionel, Renata Kallosh, Yitzhak Katznelson, Vladimir Kazeev, Michael Kemeny, Steven Kerckhoff, Susie Kimport, Jun Li, Tai-Ping Liu, Mark Lucianovic, Jonathan Luk, Frederick Manners, Rafe Mazzeo, James R. Milgram, Maryam Mirzakhani, Stefan Mueller, Christopher Ohrt, Donald Ornstein, George Papanicolaou, Lenya Ryzhik, Richard Schoen, Leon Simon, Rick Sommer, Kannan Soundararajan, Tadashi Tokieda, Cheng-Chiang Tsai, Ravi Vakil, András Vasy, Akshay Venkatesh, Jan Vondrák, Brian White, Wojciech Wieczorek, Jennifer Wilson, Alex Wright, Lexing Ying, Xuwen Zhu

SLAC: Chi-Chung Kao
President: Marc Tessier-Lavigne (neuroscience)
Provost: Persis Drell (physics)

Stanford physics dept.

Douglas Osheroff, Dr.Robert Laughlin, Carl Wieman, Steven Chu,
Alexander Fetter, John Lipa, William Little, H. Alan Schwettman, John Turneaure, Robert Wagoner, Mason Yearian, Dr.Carolyn Bertozzi (chem), Dr.Roger Kornberg (chem), Dr.Michael Levitt (chem),Dr.William Moerner (chem), Dr.Thomas Sudhof (chem)

CalTech math dept

Michael Aschbacher, Alexei Borodin, Danny Calegari
Matthias Flach, Anton N. Kapustin, Alexander Kechris
Alexei Kitaev, Matilde Marcolli, Nikolai Makarov, Vladimir Markovic, Hiroshi Oguri, Eric Rains, Dinakar Ramakrishnan
Barry Simon, Richard Wilson, Tom Graber, Sergei Gukov,
Elena Mantovan, Yi NI,

Caltech Physics Dept

Felix Boehm, Steven Frautschi
Murray Gell-Mann, David Goodstein, Thomas Phillips,
John Schwarz, Barry Simon, Kip Thorne, Petr Vogel,
Rochus Vogt, Ward Whaling, Michael E. Brown,
Konstantin Batygin,  Dr.Frances Arnold (chem), Dr.Barry Barish, Dr.Rudolph Marcus (chem), Dr.Hugh Politzer


Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Physics dept
Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek, Julian S. Georg, Joel T. Giedt, Yong Sung Kim, Gyorgy Korniss, Toh-Ming Lu, Charles Martin, Joseph Darryl Michael, Heidi Jo Newberg, Moussa N'Gom, Peter Persans, John Schroeder, Michael Shur, Shawn-Yu Lin, Humberto Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang, Morris A Washington, Esther A. Wertz, Christian M. Wetzel, Ingrid Wilke, Shengbai Zhang

Rensselaer math department
Donald Schwendeman, Jeffrey Banks, Kristin Bennett, Mohamed Boudjelkha, Joseph Ecker, William Henshaw, Isom Herron, Mark H Holmes, David Isaacson, Elizabeth Kam, Ashwani Kapila, Maya Kiehl, Gregor Kovacic, Peter Kramer, Gina Kucinski, Rongjie Lai, Fengyan Li, Chjan Lim, Yuri V Lvov, Harry McLaughlin, John E. Mitchell, Bruce Piper, David A Schmidt, Daniel Stevenson, Yangyang Xu, Bulent Yener, Donald Drew, William Siegmann

Kibo Parry with his mindless 938 is 12% short of 945, yet Rensselaer Poly graduates failures like this.
On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 12:13:14 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Physics minnow
> WARNING TO ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING STUDENTS: 

AP writes: Is that why Kibo Parry (Moroney-Volney) failed Rensselaer Polytech, cannot even do percentages correctly with his 938 is 12% short of 945???  And the question now remains, can Mark Barton Univ Glasgow, Robert J. Kolker UC Berkeley do a correct percentage on failures like Kibo Parry?

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.    


Univ Virginia Steve Huffman lists science lunatics:
Reddit (symbol) r/math, 3 years ago Genius meets Lunatic: 1994 discussion between Terry Tao and Ludwig Plutonium
I remember Archimedes Plutonium and sci.math. He calculated the chromatic number of the plane: and it is 1 (color everything
..Is this crank perchance John Gabriel?

UCLA chancellor: Gene D. Block (biology)

UCLA Physics dept
Ernest Abers, Elihu Abrahams, Katsushi Arisaka, Michalis Bachtis
Eric Becklin, Zvi Bern, Rubin Braunstein, Stuart Brown, Robijn Bruinsma
Charles Buchanan, Wesley Campbell, Troy Carter, Sudip Chakravarty
W. Gilbert Clark, John Cornwall, Robert Cousins, Eric D'Hoker
Robert Finkelstein, Christian Fronsdal, Walter Gekelman, Graciela Gelmini
George Gruner, Michael Gutperle, Brad Hansen, Jay Hauser, Karoly Holczer
Huan Huang, Eric Hudson, George Igo, Per Kraus, Alexander Kusenko
Thomas Mason, George Morales, Warren Mori, Steven Moszkowski
Christoph Niemann, Kumar Patel, Roberto Peccei, Claudio Pellegrini
Seth Putterman, B. Regan, James Rosenzweig, Joseph Rudnick
David Saltzberg, William Slater, Reiner Stenzel, Terry Tomboulis, Jean Turner
Willard Libby (chem), Julian Schwinger (physics), Paul Boyer (chem), Andrea Ghez, James Fraser Stoddart (chem), Louis Ignarro (physio-medic)

UCLA math dept.

Donald Babbitt, Kirby Baker, Andrea Bertozzi, Mario Bonk, Lennart Carleson, Tony F-C Chan, Shiu-Yuen Cheng, Robert Edwards, Gregory Eskin, Hector Fattorini, Thomas Ferguson, Theodore Gamelin, John Garnett, David Gillman, Mark Green, Nathaniel Grossman, Alfred Hales, Robert Jennrich, Paul Johnson, Alan Laub, Thomas Liggett, Donald Martin, Sidney Port, James Ralston, Paul Roberts, Bruce Rothschild, Murray Schacher, Roberto Schonmann, Masamichi Takesaki, Terence Tao, Veeravalli Varadarajan, James White, Donald Ylvisaker

UCSD, Univ Calif San Diego, physics dept

Henry D.I. Abarbanel, Kam S. Arnold, Daniel P. Arovas, Richard D. Averitt, Julio T. Barreiro, Dimitri N. Basov, Steven Boggs, James G. Branson, Adam J. Burgasser, Leonid V. Butov, Alison Coil, Eva-Maria S. Collins, Max Di Ventra, Patrick H. Diamond, Fred C. Driscoll, Daniel H. Dubin,
Olga K. Dudko, Raphael M. Flauger, Michael M. Fogler, Alex Frano, George M. Fuller, Daniel R Green, Kim Griest, Benjamin Grinstein, Alexander Groisman, Tarun Grover, Jorge E. Hirsch, Michael Holst, Terence T. Hwa, Kenneth A. Intriligator, Elizabent Jenkins, Suckjoon Jun, Brian Keating, Dusan Keres, David Kleinfeld, Quinn M. Konopacky, Elena F. Koslover, Julius Kuti, Tongyan Lin, Aneesh V. Manohar, M. Brian Maple, John A. McGreevy, Thomas W. Murphy, Kaixuan Ni, Michael L. Norman, Thomas M O'Neil, Hans P. Paar, Mark Paddock, Jeremie Palacci, Tenio Popmintchev, Wouter-Jan Rappel, Karin M. Sandstrom, Ivan K. Schuller, Lu J. Sham, Vivek Sharma, Tatyana O. Sharpee, Brian Shotwell, Oleg Shpyrko, Elizabeth H Simmons, Sunil K. Sinha, Douglas E. Smith, Harry Suhl

Math dept Univ Calif, San Diego

Edward Bender, James Bunch, Thomas Enright, Ronald Evans, Jay Fillmore, Carl FitzGerald,
Michael Freedman, Adriano Garsia, Fan Graham, Leonard Haff, Hubert Halkin, Richard Hamilton, Bill Helton, Jim Lin, Alfred Manaster, John O'Quigley, Yose Rinott, Burt Rodin, Murray Rosenblatt, Linda Rothschild, Michael Sharpe, Lance Small, Don Smith, Harold Stark, Audrey Terras, Adrian Wadsworth, Nolan Wallach, John Wavrik, Daniel Wulbert

Kibo Parry Moroney math failure, here is where the fool thinks 938 is short of 945 by 12%, and he pretends he is an electrical engineer. Perhaps the first e.e. in the world that cannot do a percentage correctly

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.

Question Caltech-- is the reason you keep teaching the ellipse is a conic even when AP proved it was the oval of a slant cut into the cone (see AP's proof below). Is the reason you keep teaching the ellipse is a conic because all the professors at Caltech have a "joke mind when it comes to science, a joke like Parry is just a joke in science and a failure in science".

Purdue Univ. physics & chemistry, Akira Suzuki (chem), Dr. Virgil Barnes, Dr. Duane Carmony, Dr. Thomas Clark, Dr. David Elmore, Dr. Norman Fuchs, Dr. James Gaidos, Dr. Nicholas Giordano, Dr. Laszlo Gutay, Dr. Samuel Harris, Dr. Mark Haugan, Dr. Andrew Hirsch, Dr.Tzee-Ke Kuo, Dr. Sherwin Love, Dr. David Miller, Dr. Thomas Moffett, Dr. Paul Muzikar, Dr. Hisao Nakanishi, Dr. Van Neie, Dr.Thomas Palfrey, Dr. Anant Ramdas, Dr, Ronald Reifenberger, Dr. Rolf Scharenberg, Dr. Donald Schlueter, Dr. Paul Simms, Dr. Arnold Tubis, Dr. Robert Willmann, Dr.

Cornell Univ physics:
Jim Alexander, Tomas Arias, Ivan Bazarov, Eberhard Bodenschatz, Debanjan Chowdhury, Itai Cohen, Csaba Csaki, Veit Elser, Eanna Flanagan, Carl Franck, Lawrence Gibbons, Paul Ginsparg, Yuval Grossman, Thomas Hartman, Georg Hoffstaetter, Natasha Holmes, Chao-Ming Jian, Eun-Ah Kim, Michael Lawler, Andre Leclair, Peter Lepage, Stephen Levy, Matthias Liepe, Kin Fai Mak, Jared Maxson, Liam McAllister, Paul McEuen, Erich Mueller, Christopher Myers, Michael Niemack, Matthias Neubert, Katja Nowack, Jeevak Parpia, Ritchie Patterson, Maxim Perelstein, Daniel Ralph, Brad Ramshaw, David Rubin, Anders Ryd, James Sethna, Jie Shan, Kyle Shen, Eric Siggia, Saul Teukolsky, Julia Thom-Levy, Robert Thorne, Cyrus Umrigar, Jane Wang, Michelle Wang, Ira Wasserman, Peter Wittich

OSU math faculty
Jean-Francois Lafont, David Anderson, Chunsheng Ban, Vitaly Bergelson, Janet Best, Luis Casian, Sergei Chmutov, James Cogdell, Ovidiu Costin, Rodica Costin, Michael Davis, Andrzej Derdzinski, Zbigniew Fiedorowicz, James Fowler, Avner Friedman, Martin Golubitsky, Ian Hamilton, John Harper, Ivo Herzog, Niles Johnson, Matthew Kahle, Eric Katz, Thomas Kerler, Barbara Keyfitz, Jan Lang, Alexander Leibman, Alan Loper, Wenzhi Luo, John Maharry, Jeffrey McNeal, Facundo Memoli, Crichton Ogle, Bishun Pandey, Grzegorz Rempala, Syed Tariq Rizvi, Nimish Shah, Aurel Stan, Saleh Tanveer, David Terman, Daniel Thompson, Fei-Ran Tian, Joseph Tien, Yulong Xing, Dongbin Xiu, Bradford Findell, Gregory Baker, Robert Brown, Dan Burghelea, Timothy Carlson, Herb Clemens, Thomas Dowling, Alexander Dynin, Zita Divis, Yuval Flicker, Harvey Friedman, Christian Friesen, Ulrich Gerlach, Robert Gold, Gerald Edgar


Univ Victoria

Mendicino &Vigneault-CSISspam-mill

Chancellor
Marion Buller
President
Kevin Hall
Provost
Dr. Valerie Kuehne, PhD
Academic staff

Univ of Victoria physics dept
Justin Albert, Arif Babul, Devika Chithrani, Byoung-Chul Choi, Rogerio de Sousa, Ruobing Dong, Sara L. Ellison, Falk Herwig, Dean Karlen, Richard K. Keeler, Jody Klymak, Pavel Kovtun, Robert V. Kowalewski, Mark Laidlaw, Michel Lefebvre, Travis Martin, Julio Navarro, Maxim Pospelov, Adam Ritz, J.Michael Roney, Geoffrey M. Steeves, Kim Venn, Jon Willis 

6 Jennifer Kahn (1 April 2002). "Notes from Another Universe". Discover. Archived from the original on November 21, 2007.
7 Toby Howard (July 1997). "Psychoceramics: the on-line crackpots" (reprint). The Guardian.
8 Joseph Scott (1997-09-25). "Sometime-scientist Plutonium says science is 'gobbledygook'". The Dartmouth.

Univ Manchester Nancy Rothwell, Toby Howard (psychoceramics), Jack Dongarra
Timothy Brauch, Jim Brumbaugh-Smith, Young Lee, Robin Mitchell, Eva Sagan. Dr.Andre Geim (physics)

Univ Manchester physics dept
Robert Appleby, Richard Battye, Robert Beswick, David Binks, Michael Birse, Stewart Boogert, Jens Chluba, Chris Conselice, Brian Cox, Mark Dickinson, Justin Evans, Kieran Flanagan, Jeffrey Forshaw, Sean Freeman, Michael Garrett, Roxanne Guenette, Roger Jones, Judith McGovern, Andrew Murray, Tim O'Brien, Christopher Parkes, Patrick Parkinson, Anna Scaife

Math dept. David Bell, Roger Bryant, Christopher Dodson, John Dold, Ronald Doney, Peter Eccles, Roger Plymen, Patrick Laycock, Jeff Paris, Mike Prest, Nige Ray, Toby Stafford, Ralph Stohr, Alex Wilkie, Marcus Webb, Korbinian Strimmer, David Silvester, Mark Kambites, Andrew Hazel


Todd B. Smith
> Univ. Dayton Physics dept.
>
> Rex L. Berney
> Bob Brecha
> Bruce Craver
> John Erdei
> Thomas P. Graham
> Donald Hirst
> Jenn Hyland
> Jay Mathews
> Robert Merithew
> Brendon Mikula
> George K. Miner
> J. Michael O'Hare
> Leno M Pedrotti
> William N. Plick
> Randall Schaurer
> Elizabeth Smith
> Ivan Sudakow
> Perry Yaney
>

wiki, wiki Revision history of " James Kibo Parry Moroney"
www.exampleproblems dot com wiki
(cur | prev) 03:21, 13 March 2021 Todd (talk | contribs ... (10,274 bytes)


Berkeley physics & chemistry
UC Berkeley,

Dr.Eric Betzig (chem), Dr.George Smoot,Dr.Barry Barish,Dr.David Wineland,Dr.John Mather, Dr.Alan Heeger (chem), Dr.Robert Laughlin, Dr.Steven Chu,Dr.Gilbert N. Lewis,Dr.Harold Urey,Dr.William F.Giauque,Dr.Glenn T. Seaborg,Dr.Willard Libby,Dr.Melvin Calvin,Dr. Jennifer Doudna,Dr.Reinhard Genzel,Dr.Yuan T. Lee,Dr.Saul Perlmutter,Dr.Randy Schekman (physiology)

Dr.John Clarke, Dr.Marvin Cohen, Dr.Michael Crommie, Dr.Joel Fajans, Dr. Roger Falcone, Dr.Mary Gaillard, Dr.Gabriel Gann, Dr.Naomi Ginsberg, Dr.Heather Gray, Dr.Hartmut Haeffner, Dr.Lawrence Hall, Dr.Oskar Hallatschek, Dr.Wick Haxton, Dr.Frances Hellman, Dr.Petr Horava, Dr.Barbara Jacak, Dr.Bob Jacobsen, Dr.Steven Kahn, Dr.Dan Kasen, Dr.Edgar Knobloch, Dr.Shimon Kolkowitz, Dr.Yury Kolomensky, Dr.Alessandra Lanzara, Dr.Stephen Leone, Dr.Eric Ma,... the physics faculty reads almost as long as a army of soldiers, please forgive any names that AP left out, please forgive...

Univ California Berkeley math department

Carolyn Abbot-- geometry group theory
ian Agol -- low dimensional topology (what a relief that is for me and him, for dimensions beyond 3rd are all fakery)
Alexander Alldridge -- Supergeometry (never heard of such a thing, let's hope he can super solve Jan's error of never understanding that a entry cut near the cone apex has a asymmetrical arclength compared to exit cut)
Denis Auroux-- symplectic topology and mirror symmetry (this expertise in symmetry is called for-- so many think a cut of a cone is a ellipse when anyone with a halfbrain can see it is a oval)
Richard Bamler-- geometric analysis, differential geometry (sounds like a heavy weight in geometry and this cone problem should be easy for Richard)
Robert Bryant-- many geometry expertises
Zhiqi Chen -- differential geometry and although a visiting scholar, we should never play bias to whomever can answer the question of no ellipse is a conic but only a cylinder section
James Conway-- contact and symplectic geometry (what in the world is symplectic-- better not ask)
Heinz Cordes-- classical analysis (hope that does not mean classical Old Math)
Ved Datar-- differential geometry (now, how fast can these guys compute the arclength along sections of the cone-- fast as in 5 minutes or fast as in 2 days)
David Eisenbud-- algebraic geometry
Mark Haiman-- algebraic geometry
Jenny Harrison-- geometric measure (perhaps measuring the arclength of cone sections is what is needed)
Robin Hartshorne-- history of geometry (well, well, why does it take till 2016, for any mathematician to realize the ellipse was never a conic section, rather, it was the oval)
Wu-Yi Hsiang-- differential geometry (and a long long time ago Dr. Hsiang sent me his manuscript of a alleged proof of Kepler Packing, thanks)
Michael Hutchings-- geometry
Marina Iliopoulou-- incidence geometry
Brian Krummel -- geometric analysis
Tim Laux -- geometric analysis
David Li-Bland-- differential geometry
John Lott-- differential geometry
Kathryn Mann-- geometry
David Nadler-- geometric representation
Martin Olsson-- arithmetic geometry
Kenneth Ribet-- algebraic geometry
Alan Schoenfeld-- math education
Vivek Shende-- geometry
Isadore Singer-- geometry
Zvezdelina Stankova-- algebraic geometry
Bernd Sturmfels-- algebraic geometry
Hongbin Sun-- hyperbolic geometry (the hyperbolic geometry may come in handy in showing that the cone section cannot be an ellipse)
Peter Teichner-- geometric topology
Dmitry Tonkonog-- geometry
Michael Viscardi-- geometric representation
Alan Weinstein-- geometry
Lauren Williams-- geometry
Mariusz Wodzicki-- geometry
Joseph Wolf-- geometry
Hung-Hsi Wu-- geometry

Re: Proof of Kepler Packing//Jan Burse-Alzheimer faggot//ETH Zurich, Dietmar Salamon, Martin Schweizer, Mete Soner, looking at it
by Dan Christensen Jul 9, 2017, 11:34:05 PM


Re: 1.1Dr. John Baez is a failed mathematician-physicist with his proton of 938MeV when it is 840MeV, electron= muon //his ellipse is a conic when it never was// as phony in math and physics as kibo Parry Moroney's ellipse and Christensen 10 OR 4 =
by Dan Christensen Sep 22, 2019, 9:54:06 AM

Re: A newsgroup like sci.math is a pile of shit when you have paid stalkers like Kibo Parry M. or Dan Christensen lording over sci.math as if he owns the place-- stalking and attacking posters 7-24-365. This is why I now post a roadmap to AP's newsgr
by Alan Mackenzie  Jun 29, 2021, 2:36:04 PM


Re: Stewart failed Calculus also, and his book should be removed
by Dan Christensen
Jun 24, 2018, 10:52:49 PM

Re: 176,232-Student Victims of Michael Meighen McGill Univ by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus... 0.5MeV electron when in truth it is the muon as the real electron
by Dan Christensen Jul 2, 2021, 9:47:42 AM

Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker, Henry M. Van Driel, David J. Rowe, John W. Moffat, John F. Martin, Robert K. Logan, Albert E. Litherland, Roland List, Philipp Kronberg, James King, Anthony W. Key, Bob Holdom, Ron M. Farquhar, R. Nigel Edwards, David J. Dunlop, James Drummond, Tom E. Drake, R.Fraser Code, Richard C. Bailey, Robin Armstrong

Chancellor Rose M. Patten
Pres. Meric Gertler

Univ Toronto math dept
Mustafa Akcoglu, Spyros Alexakis, Edward Barbeau, Thomas Bloom, Man-Duen Choi, Stephen Cook, Chandler Davis, Nicholas Derzko, Eric Ellers, Ilya Gekhtman, Ian Graham, Steve Halpern, Wahidul Haque, Abe Igelfeld, Velimir Jurdjevic, Ivan Kupka, Anthony Lam, Michael Lorimer, James McCool, Eric Mendelsohn, Kunio Murasugi, Jeremy Quastel, Peter Rosenthal, Paul Selick, Dipak Sen, Rick Sharpe, Stuart Smith, Frank Tall, Steve Tanny

Univ Western Ontario math dept
Janusz Adamus, Tatyana  Barron,   Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon, Matthias  Franz, John Jardine, Massoud Khalkhali, Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon

Chancellor Kelly Meighen
President Alan Shepard
Amit Chakma (chem engr)

Univ. Western Ontario physics dept
Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang

Uppsala Univ,

Anders Hagfeldt, Alm,Assarsson,Avelin,Beas,Berg,Bill,Brannstrom,Backe,Carlsson,Dieterich,Edsjo,Eklund,Gauffin,Gustavsson,Gut,Hejhal,Hildebrandsson,Kaijser,Kirlic,Klimek,Landelius,Lindahl,Lindell,Molin,Niklasson,Pan,Persson,Randler,
> Rubinsztein,Sigstam,Skarby,Stoltenberg-Hansen,Stoyanoska,Stromquist,Sundbaum,Svensson,Taub,Tegby,Waara,Wiback,Zina,Ostergren

Stockholm University

Math logic
Per Martin-Lof, Erik Palmgren, Tom Britton, Pavel Kurasov
Alexander Berglund, Jonas Bergstrom, Rikard Bogvad
Samuel Lundqvist, Annemarie Luger, Erik Palmgren
Torbjorn Tambour  
 
Rector: Astrid Soderbergh Widding

Stockholm Univ physics
Tony Hansson, Markus Hennrich, Tommy Ohlsson, Paul Crutzen,

Swedish physics, et al
Bo Thide, Max Tegmark, Cecilia Jarlskog, Lars Bergstrom, Lars Samuelson
Anders Flodstrom, Hans Ryde, Anders Barany, Gunnar von Heijne
Claes-Goran Granqvist, Joakim Edsjo, Carl Falthammar, Sven Hansson, Arne Kaijser
Pres. Sigbritt Karlsson (KTH)


University Gothenburg
Bernt Wennberg
Aila Sarkka

Univ Stockholm Physics dept

Gunnar Benediktsson, Clas Blomberg, Bo Cartling
Olle Edholm, Goran Grimvall, Goran Lindblad
Hakan Snellman, Jouko Mickelsson, Anders Rosengren
John Rundgren

Princeton University Math dept

Michael Aizenman, Manjul Bhargava, William Browder, Tristan Buckmaster, Sun-Yung Alice Chang, Maria Chudnovsky, Peter Constantin, John Conway, Mihalis Dafermos, Gabriele Di Cerbo, Zeev Dvir, Weinan E, Charles Fefferman, David Gabai, Javier Gómez-Serrano, Robert C. Gunning, Jonathan Hanselman, Wu-Chung Hsiang, Alexandru Ionescu, Nicholas Katz, Sergiu Klainerman, Simon Kochen, Joseph Kohn, János Kollár, Elliott Lieb, Adam Marcus,
Fernando Codá Marques, Ana Menezes, Sophie Morel, Assaf Naor, Peter Ozsváth, John Pardon, Fabio Pusateri, Igor Rodnianski, Peter Sarnak, Paul D. Seymour, Tatyana Shcherbyna, Nicholas Sheridan, Goro Shimura, Yakov Sinai, Amit Singer, Christopher Skinner, Allan Sly, Elias Stein, Zoltán Szabó, Gang Tian, Hale Trotter, Vlad Vicol, Paul C. Yang, Shou-Wu Zhang

President: Christopher Eisgruber (physics)

Princeton Univ physics dept

Michael Aizenman, Philip Anderson, Robert Austin, Waseem Bakr, Bogdan Bernevig, Ravindra Bhatt, William Bialek, Frank Calaprice, Curtis Callan, Roberto Car, Paul Chaikin, Kenan Diab, Jo Dunkley, Aurelien Fraisse, Cristiano Galbiati, Simone Giombi, Thomas Gregor, David Gross, Edward Groth, Steven Gubser, William Happer, John Hopfield, Andrew Houck, David Huse, Norman Jarosik, William Jones, Andrew Leifer, Elliot Lieb, Daniel Marlow, Peter Meyers, James Olsen, Lyman Page, Alexander Polyakov, Frans Pretorius, Michael Romalis, Joshua Shaevitz, A. Smith, Shivaji Sondhi, Suzanne Staggs, Paul Steinhardt, David Tank, Christopher Tully, Herman Verlinde, Edward Witten, F.Duncan Haldane (physics), Russell Hulse (physics), Joseph Taylor (physics), Dr. David MacMillan (chem), James Peebles (physics), Daniel Tsui (physics)


Dartmouth College

Dartmouth College:Philip J. Hanlon, Joseph Helble, Asher Auel, Peter Doyle, Anne Gelb, Marcia Groszek, Ethan Levien, Peter J Mucha, Rosa C. Orellana, Scott D. Pauls, Daniel N. Rockmore, Thomas R. Shemanske, John, D Trout, Erik van Erp, John Voight, Dorothy I. Wallace, David L. Webb, Dana P. Williams, Peter Winkler
Miles P. Blencowe, Robert R. Caldwell, Brian Charles Chabover, Richard Denton, Robert A. Fesen, Marcelo Gleiser, Ryan Hickox, Mary K. Hudson, James William LaBelle, Kristina Anne Lynch, Robyn Millan, Hans Mueller, Elisabeth Newton, Roberto Onofrio, Alex Rimberg, Barrett N. Rogers, John R. Thorstensen, Lorenza Viola, Martin N. Wybourne, Joseph D. Harris, Walter E. Lawrence, David C. Montgomery, Gary Alan Wegner



Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
Physics dept
Joao Rodrigues
Somnath Bhattacharyya
John Carter
Andrew Chen
Darell Comins
Robert De Mello Koch
Arthur Every
Andrew Forbes
Kelvin Goldstein
Vishnu Jejjala
Robert Joubert
Jonathan Keartland
Nukri Komin
Bruce Mellado
Deena Naidoo
Mervin Naidoo
Alex Quandt
Elias Sideras-Haddad
Martin Ntwaeaborwa
Dr.John Burland (engr)
Dr. Aaron Klug (chem)


Durban Univ, South Africa math dept

Dr. D. Brijlall
Dr. D Day
Dr. DB Lortan
Dr. A Maharaj
Dr. S Moyo
Dr. S Rajah
Dr. D Singh

University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
Betsie Jonck
Jesse Alt
Margaret Archibald
Charlotte Brennan
Sonja Currie
Alexander Davison
Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
Marie Grobbelaar
Yorick Hardy
Meira Hockman
Sameerah Jamal
Abdul Kara
Arnold Knopfmacher
Wen Chi Kou
Christopher Kriel
Rugare Kwashira
Florian Luca
Ronnie Maartens
Carminda Mennen
Manfred Moller
Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
Augustine Munagi
Loyiso Nongxa
Bruce Watson
Yevhen Zelenyuk


Oxford University physics & chemistry
Dr.John Walker, Dr.John Kosterlitz,Dr.John Goodenough (chem),Dr.Roger Penrose,Dr.Douglas Abraham, Dr.Prateek Agrawal, Dr.Wade Allison, Dr.Arzhang Ardavan, Dr.Adam Baird, Dr.Patrick Baird, Dr. Michael Barnes, Dr. Alan Barr, Dr. Giles Barr, Dr. Tony Bell, Dr. Elliot Bentine, Dr. Steve Biller, Dr. James Binney, Dr. Stephen Blundell, Dr. Andrew Boothroyd, Dr. Nick Bultinck, Dr. Philip Burrows, Dr. Simon Calcutt, Dr. Matthew Capstick, Dr. Roger Cashmore, Dr. Andrea Cavalleri, Dr. John Chalker, Dr. Yulin Chen, Dr. Frank Close, Dr.Radu Coldea, Dr. Joseph Conlon, Dr.Susan Cooper, Dr.Garret Cotter, Dr.Richard D'Arcy, Dr. Roger Davies, Dr.Simon Davila Solano, Dr.Seamus Davis, Dr.Frederic Dreyer,Dr.Artur Ekert,Dr.Rik Elliott,Dr.Paul Ewart


Chancellor Steven Point
Math dept University British Columbia
Michael Bennett, Jim Bryan, Sabin Cautis, Albert Chau, James Collander, Daniel Coombs, Ailana Fraser, Michael Friedlander, Richard Gerd Froese, Julia Yulia Gordon, Stephen James Gustafson, Jonathan Hermon, Kalle Karu, Young-Heon Kim, Izabella Laba, Philip Loewen, Colin MacDonald, Gregory Martin, Rachel Ollivier, Cristoph Ortner, Anthony Peirce, Sebastien Picard, Yaniv Plan, Elina Robeva, Lior Silberman, Gordon Slade, Stephanie van Willigenburg, Michael Jeffrey Ward, Brian Wetton, Ben Williams, Joshua Zahl.


In sci.math or sci.physics.

Re: Dr.Terence Tao along with Dr. Gene D.Block fired from UCLA for teaching propaganda -- truth is slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse, yet UCLA continues their propaganda of ellipse as slant cut. by Dan Christensen      Nov 26, 2022, 4:39:58 PM  

Steve Huffman lists science lunatics:
Reddit (symbol) r/math, 3 years ago Genius meets Lunatic: 1994 discussion between Terry Tao and Ludwig Plutonium
I remember Archimedes Plutonium and sci.math. He calculated the chromatic number of the plane: and it is 1 (color everything
..Is this crank perchance John Gabriel?

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Humanity does not deserve the name Homo sapiens, when its current math and physics professors across planet Earth cannot see, admit the truth of such a simple thing--- Slant cut of Cone is Oval, not ellipse.

And, considering that the state-of-intelligence of our species, so ignorant and dumb as to think the 0.5MeV particle is the Atom's electron when in truth the Muon is the Atom's electron. Tells us as of today 21March 2026, that all life on Earth will go extinct and into oblivion as the Sun has gone Red Giant Phase, and no hope of the Homo Ignoramus species of sorting out the truth before it is too late.

That math and physics professors across the globe were too stupid to tell what the slant cut of cone was. While Plutonium kept telling them it is a oval for cone has but 1 axis of symmetry. And that no math or physics professor has even a 1/2 marble of intelligence.

--- quoting Wikipedia---

[Archimedes Plutonium]

No, humanity and all life on Earth will go extinct and into oblivion unless we are able enough to correct simple mistakes.

(1) Slant cut of Cone is oval, not ellipse.

(2) True electron of Atoms is the muon stuck inside a proton torus doing the Faraday law with the proton and this is how stars and our Sun shine.

--- quoting Wikipedia and the stupid Bohr atom of electron being 0.5MeV---

Bohr model

Main article: Bohr model

The Bohr model of the atom

Rutherford deduced the existence of the atomic nucleus through his experiments but he had nothing to say about how the electrons were arranged around it. In 1912, Niels Bohr joined Rutherford's lab and began his work on a quantum model of the atom.^[23]: 19

Max Planck in 1900 and ... had postulated that light energy is emitted or absorbed in discrete amounts known as quanta (singular, quantum). .... When Bohr learned from a friend about Balmer's compact formula for the spectral line data, Bohr quickly realized his model would match it in detail.^[48]: 178

--- end quoting Wikipedia and the stupid Bohr atom of electron being 0.5MeV---

AP writes:: there is no hope of humanity moving Earth or making a Europa colony as the Sun kills all life on Earth, no hope considering how stupid humanity is. For we cannot move Earth to colonize Europa as long as we harbor stupidity that slant cut of cone and that the Atom's electron is the magnetic monopole 0.5MeV particle.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Why AP's 223rd book can not be found in Amazon Kindle anymore.

I wrote this thread in January of 2023 for Amazon Kindle had not yet thrown AP out of their Kindle publishing.

Then, because AP wrote a book saying that Israel was genociding Palestinians and pushing or killing them just to steal the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza, that Kindle finally threw out all of AP.

And I ask for all authors of Kindle Amazon to drop Kindle Amazon, en masse, and find a publisher who is not just a Jew propaganda outpost.

How bad will Wikipedia and Amazon become as Jew propaganda outposts????? How bad?????

Here we can see how bad they have become and will increasingly become as long as a religion believes they are "Chosen People by God" "Allowed to steal any land that God promises to the Chosen People"

Here is Wikipedia entry on Atomic theory.

p

--- quoting Wikipedia---

Bohr model

Main article: Bohr model

The Bohr model of the atom

Rutherford deduced the existence of the atomic nucleus through his experiments but he had nothing to say about how the electrons were arranged around it. In 1912, Niels Bohr joined Rutherford's lab and began his work on a quantum model of the atom.^[23]: 19

Max Planck in 1900 and  Albert Einstein in 1905 had postulated that light energy is emitted or absorbed in discrete amounts known as quanta (singular, quantum). This led to a series of atomic models with some quantum aspects, such as that of Arthur Erich Haas in 1910^[23]: 197 and the 1912 John William Nicholson atomic model with quantized angular momentum as h/2π.^[66][67] Critically, Nicholson successfully reproduces atomic spectral lines, a challenge that Bohr's model would also need to overcome.^[51] When Bohr learned from a friend about Balmer's compact formula for the spectral line data, Bohr quickly realized his model would match it in detail.^[48]: 178

--- end quoting Wikipedia---

AP writes::: What a joke, for Einstein was a dunce fool where he was shown wrong about Quantum Mechanics, and here, now, Jews plaster Einstein's name next to every discovery, just for Jew propaganda. Einstein name should never ever be where Max Planck started quantum mechanics.

Just as Joe Kent recently resigned saying that Netanyahu and the powerful Jew Lobby in USA fooled and tricked the moron DonDolt into a Iran invasion. So too, will every Wikipedia science entry of a discovery after 1905, eventually have the name Einstein plastered up against and alongside the true discoverer, as Jew propaganda aims to saturate academics.

pp

In Geology, Wegener of Continental Drift will become Wegener-Einstein

In Biology, DNA by Watson and Crick will become Watson, Einstein, Crick

In chemistry, plutonium discovery by Seaborg,Wahl, Kennedy, McMillan will add Einstein name even though Einstein was a midget of 20th century science.

Every Wikipedia entry of science will include that Einstein contributed when in fact Einstein was a failed midget of science. And all for the purpose of Propaganda of Chosen People to steal more land Chosen by God.

Please, I ask all authors in Amazon Kindle, especially of science, to drop Kindle and go to publish were Jews do not decide on your book.

Evidence:: the Jew propaganda is so bad, that it even convinced the moron DonDolt Trump to go to war for Israel to bomb Iran.

AP, King of Science

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Alright some calculations using the data from Tsar Bomba with its 2.1 x 10^17 joules yield.

Alright, so Tsar Bomba was yield of 10^17 joules and gravity force of Sun on Earth is 10^22 newtons.

We have to multiply Newtons with a distance to turn it into energy.

To equilibrate 10^17 with 10^22, I need approximately 1 centimeter.

So that Tsar Bomba could push Earth out of orbit towards Mars by 1 centimeter.

Now that is not much.

And so I need to find out at what distance of a push outward of Earth in its orbit is Earth free of the Sun's pull of gravity. At present, the Earth is locked-into-orbit.

But there is a distance perpendicular and away from the orbit where Earth is unlocked from the Sun.

Now the best place to detonate the Atomic Bomb for Earth outward push is when the orbit is the furthest distance from the Sun-- aphelion.

AP 

[Archimedes Plutonium]

A detonation at aphelion concomitant with a detonation on the Moon to pull Earth out of its locked orbit with the Sun.

On Sunday, March 22, 2026 at 7:21:36 AM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Alright some calculations using the data from Tsar Bomba with its 2.1 x 10^17 joules yield.

(snipped)

In sci.math.
On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 1:23:44 AM UTC-6, bwr fml wrote:
> Let's skip most of what you have thought about and get to the real issue:
>
> Approximately how much energy would be needed to move the earth from
> the current position to the position of mars, pretty much ignoring everything else
>
> distance from earth to mars 9.6*10^7 kilometers
>
> gravitational force of the sun on the earth 3.5*10^22 newtons
> 

Alright, so Tsar Bomba was yield of 10^17 joules and gravity force of Sun on Earth is 10^22 newtons.

We have to multiply Newtons with a distance to turn it into energy.

To equilibrate 10^17 with 10^22, I need approximately 1 centimeter.

So that Tsar Bomba could push Earth out of orbit towards Mars by 1 centimeter.

Now that is not much.

And so I need to find out at what distance of a push outward of Earth in its orbit is Earth free of the Sun's pull of gravity. At present, the Earth is locked-into-orbit.

But there is a distance perpendicular and away from the orbit where Earth is unlocked from the Sun.

Now the best place to detonate the Atomic Bomb for Earth outward push is when the orbit is the furthest distance from the Sun-- aphelion.

I am thinking that if I coordinate a push of the Moon with its tidal forces with the Atomic bomb blast on Earth, that instead of a 1 centimeter push out of orbit can be increased to a full meter out of orbit.

And the full meter out of orbit at aphelion causes Earth to be a kilometer out of orbit by the time Earth gets to perihelion that January of the year of the detonation.

And I am hopeful that as we do this push out of orbit each successive year, that in a ten year time period, we have pushed Earth free from the Sun's gravity lock and thus Earth is moving in a linear momentum style of course out to Mars, much like a space rocket ship moves from one planet to another planet.

AP, King of Science