Univ-Virginia_Steve Huffman (Reddit) on science Lunatics
Archimedes Plutonium
Born
August 29, 1943 (age 81)
Alma mater
- Dalhousie University (BSc, MSc)
- California Institute of Technology(PhD)
Known for
Solving the solar neutrino problem
Awards
- Benjamin Franklin Medal (2007)
- Henry Marshall Tory Medal (2011)
- Nobel Prize in Physics (2015)
- Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics (2016)
Scientific career
Fields
Astrophysics
Institutions
Thesis
Excitation energies and decay properties of T = 3/2 states in 17O, 17F and 21Na. (1970)
Doctoral advisor
Charles A. Barnes
Univ Virginia James Ryan, Steve Huffman (Reddit) on lunatics.... I'm gonna make a YouTube video about it... Genius meets LunaticUniv.Virginia James Ryan, Steve Huffman (Reddit) on lunatics Adam Riess, Terence Tao, Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish, F. Duncan M. Haldane, Arthur McDonald, Sheldon Glashow, George SmootLunatic Steve Huffman,Terence Tao cannot admit the truth of math; none at UCLA can admit slant cut of cone is oval, not ellipse. And none can admit polynomial is the only valid function reducing calculus to add or subtract 1 from exponent and thus calculus supereasy. But worst of all, none can admit 9 x muon rest mass equals neutron rest mass within sigma error raising the question that the true electron of atoms is the muon, not the Dirac magnetic monopole = 0.5MeV.
Lunatic Steve Huffman & lunatic Terry Tao still failing in calculus with their sado-masochistic calculus as torture chambers, vomiting and nervous breakdowns. Both too stupid and ignorant of math to understand Polynomials as the only valid function throughout mathematics and making calculus as supereasy-- just add, subtract 1 from exponent.Reddit's "Genius meets Lunatic" Steve Huffman meets Terence Tao
--- quoting Wikipedia---Terence TaoTao in 2021
Born
17 July 1975 (age 49)Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Citizenship
- Australia
- United States[3]
Alma mater
Known for
Partial Differential Equations, Analytic Number Theory, Random matrices, Compressed Sensing, Combinatorics, Dynamical Systems
Spouse
Laura Tao
Children
2
Awards
Fields Medal (2006)showList
Scientific career
Fields
Harmonic analysis
Institutions
University of California, Los Angeles
Thesis
Three Regularity Results in Harmonic Analysis[3] (1996)
Doctoral advisor
Elias M. Stein
Doctoral students
Monica Vișan
--- end quoting Wikipedia---
1) Too stupid to question if Thomson found Dirac's magnetic monopole and not the electron of atoms.
2) Too stupid to realize that in the Rutherford,Geiger, Marsden Experiment when you have increase in velocity of bounce back alpha particles means head on collision with a larger proton torus, hence, the interior of gold atoms are toruses, no nucleus.
3) Too stupid in logic to understand subatomic particles have jobs and tasks to do, not sit around on beaches sipping lemonade what Old Physics says. The proton is a 8 ring torus with muon as electron inside doing the Faraday law producing new electricity.
4) Too stupid to understand stars and our Sun shine not from fusion but from Faraday law of each and every atom inside that star.
5) 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.
6) 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
7) 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"
8) 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.
9) Never took logic, or not enough, to understand Pauli Exclusion Principle forbids black holes.
10) Too stupid in mind to understand for the Atomic Theory to be a law of science requires the Universe itself be a Atom.
11) Far far too stupid to insist the Polynomial is the only valid function in all of math, thus reducing Calculus to a mere add or subtract 1 from exponent and making Calculus ----Super super easy
12) So stupid in physics that they never took a course in Logic in College to be able to think straight and clear and thus able to understand that physics has no Black Holes nor does it have a Big Bang for both violate the Pauli Exclusion Principle. duh duh duh
> > 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 ; University of Glasgow
> > 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, Discover magazine, crank-crackpot 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
> >
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)
My 3rd published book of science.
AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
In the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence proof. Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse.
#12-2, My 11th published book
World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.
To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
My 283rd published book of science.
Psychopathology of why math professors refuse to make Calculus super-easy and stop torturing students// psychology in math
by Archimedes Plutonium
Preface: AP is sick and tired of Old Math and Old Math professors who refuse to correct and revise what math they teach. Calculus as taught today is a torture chamber, of vomiting during exams, and nervous breakdowns all because math professors do not switch to the super-easy calculus, where the only valid function of mathematics is the polynomial, making calculus super, super easy. And AP can teach calculus in Junior High School, so easy as it is. Old Math teaches fake calculus, that is tough and incomprehensible to students with a mindless limit analysis, expecting students to accept a rectangle with 0 width having interior area for integral, and their derivative as tangent to the function graph at a point when it should be predicting the next point of the function graph. Mistake after mistake after mistake, when instead of 1,000 page calculus textbooks, AP can teach calculus with only 100 pages and where students love calculus, love math, and find math the easiest of all the sciences.
This book is more of a psychology book asking and analyzing why Old Math professors delight in punishing students rather than teach calculus in the easiest way possible.
Cover Picture: My iphone photograph of some of my TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbooks sold on Amazon's Kindle. The world's first math textbooks that take a student from 5 years old through graduate school written by one author alone. Focus on the far right top as the textbook that teaches ages 5 to 18. TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 2 for ages 5 to 18, math textbook series, book 2. TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbooks is written by one author who carries the student through all their math needs from age 5 to age 26. When one author does all math textbooks, there is coherence and logical flow in math education, not a disruption and discontinuity and oddball stuff that does not fit together. And especially those students who move from one school to another.
Univ Virginia math dept: Peter Abramenko, Julie Bergner, Mikhail Ershov, Jeffrey Holt, John Imbrie, Thomas Koberda, Slava Krushkal, Thomas Mark, Jennifer Morse, Ken Ono, Andrei Rapinchuk, Christian Reidys, Jim Rolf, Charles Dunki, Ira Herbst, James Howland, Craig Huneke, Thomas Kriete, Nicholas Kuhn, Irena Lasiecka, Barbara MacCluer, Kevin McCrimmon, Karen Parshall, Loren Pitt, Donald Ramirez, James Rovnyak, Leonard Scott, Lawrence Thomas, Roberto Triggiani, Harold Ward
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
An other Archimedes Plutonium rant about irrational numbers Reddit · r/badmathematics 10+ comments · 6 years ago He claimed that numbers beyond the borderline were irrational and infinite. Also, 0 was irrational. 1994 discussion between Terry Tao and Ludwig Plutonium Apr 26, 2021 I know what is going on with Archimedes Plutonium, I think. : r ... May 24, 2023 What conspiracy theory do you believe in and why? - Reddit Apr 9, 2018 Math Conspiracy : r/math - Reddit Dec 24, 2013 More results from www.reddit.com
.jpg)
Born
14 September 1951 (age 73)[2][3]
Nationality
British, Slovenian
Citizenship
United Kingdom
Slovenia
Education
St Paul's School, London
Alma mater
University of Cambridge (BA, PhD)
Known for
Haldane pseudopotentials in the fractional quantum Hall effect
Quantum anomalous Hall effect
Awards
Scientific career
Fields
Condensed matter theory
Institutions
Thesis
An extension of the Anderson model as a model for mixed valence rare earth materials (1978)
Doctoral advisor
Philip Warren Anderson[1]
Doctoral students
Ashvin Vishwanath[1]
--- quoting Wikipedia---
Born
8 August 1931 (age 93)
Education
Known for
Spouses
Children
4
Relatives
Lionel Penrose (father), Roland Penrose (uncle), Jonathan Penrose (brother), Oliver Penrose (brother), Shirley Hodgson (sister), Antony Penrose (cousin)
Awards
Scientific career
Fields
Mathematical physics, tessellations
Institutions
Thesis
Tensor Methods in Algebraic Geometry (1957)
Doctoral advisor
John A. Todd
Other academic advisors
W. V. D. Hodge
Doctoral students
1
Univ Virginia James Ryan, Steve Huffman (Reddit) on lunatics.... I'm gonna make a YouTube video about it... Genius meets LunaticUniv.Virginia James Ryan, Steve Huffman (Reddit) on lunatics Adam Riess, Terence Tao, Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish, F. Duncan M. Haldane, Arthur McDonald, Sheldon Glashow, George Smoot
2
Lunatic Steve Huffman,Terence Tao cannot admit the truth of math; none at UCLA can admit slant cut of cone is oval, not ellipse. And none can admit polynomial is the only valid function reducing calculus to add or subtract 1 from exponent and thus calculus supereasy. But worst of all, none can admit 9 x muon rest mass equals neutron rest mass within sigma error raising the question that the true electron of atoms is the muon, not the Dirac magnetic monopole = 0.5MeV.
3
Lunatic Steve Huffman & lunatic Terry Tao still failing in calculus with their sado-masochistic calculus as torture chambers, vomiting and nervous breakdowns. Both too stupid and ignorant of math to understand Polynomials as the only valid function throughout mathematics and making calculus as supereasy-- just add, subtract 1 from exponent.Reddit's "Genius meets Lunatic" Steve Huffman meets Terence Tao
4
Steve Huffman on Univ Virginia failing in all facets of science--- failures in science-- so stupid they cannot even admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse.
1) Too stupid to question if Thomson found Dirac's magnetic monopole and not the electron of atoms.
2) Too stupid to realize that in the Rutherford,Geiger, Marsden Experiment when you have increase in velocity of bounce back alpha particles means head on collision with a larger proton torus, hence, the interior of gold atoms are toruses, no nucleus.
3) Too stupid in logic to understand subatomic particles have jobs and tasks to do, not sit around on beaches sipping lemonade what Old Physics says. The proton is a 8 ring torus with muon as electron inside doing the Faraday law producing new electricity.
4) Too stupid to understand stars and our Sun shine not from fusion but from Faraday law of each and every atom inside that star.
5) 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.
6) 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. Read AP's textbook--
Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors// Teaching True Logic series, book 1
by Archimedes Plutonium
This is AP's 5th 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:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
7) 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"
8) 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.
9) Never took logic, or not enough, to understand Pauli Exclusion Principle forbids black holes.
10) Too stupid in mind to understand for the Atomic Theory to be a law of science requires the Universe itself be a Atom.
11) Far far too stupid to insist the Polynomial is the only valid function in all of math, thus reducing Calculus to a mere add or subtract 1 from exponent and making Calculus ----Super super easy
12) So stupid in physics that they never took a course in Logic in College to be able to think straight and clear and thus able to understand that physics has no Black Holes nor does it have a Big Bang for both violate the Pauli Exclusion Principle. duh duh duh
13) Hopelessly stupid in science when they see Accelerated Polar Ice Cap melt and run to their dumbarse computer modeling with CO2 greenhouse gas, when it is the Sun gone Red Giant because Sun and stars shine from Faraday law, not fusion. As every proton in the Sun is having muons thrust through the proton torus producing electrical energy.
14) Is there any university in the entire world that requires its scientists to have 2 years of Logic study-- the AP corrected Logic not the crazy error filled Boole logic, so they can at least try to think straight, think clearly--- Answer is--- no.
Archimedes Plutonium
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
Archimedes Plutonium
Mr. James E. Ryan and Mr. Ian Baucom why cannot a single professor of science at University Virginia admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse.
And why cannot a single University of Virginia professor of science see that the truth table of Logic AND and OR were mixed around, for even the failure of Logic of Franz notices something horribly fishy in that
On Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 3:05:40 PM UTC-5, Me (Franz) wrote:
> On Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 12:02:25 AM UTC+2, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> > 1) 10 OR 4 = 14
>
> Right! Python:
>
> def OR(x, y):
> return operator.or_(x, y)
>
> print(OR(10, 4))
>
> ==> 14
>
> > 10 AND 4 = 14
>
> Nope. Python:
>
> def AND(x, y):
> return operator.and_(x, y)
>
> print(AND(10, 4))
>
> ==> 0
>
> > 2) ellipse was never a conic
>
> Nope. Need to see my proof again?
>
> Some preliminaries:
>
> Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used
> in the proof:
>
> ^ x
> |
> -+- <= x=h
> .' | `.
> . | .
> | | |
> ' | '
> `. | .'
> y <----------+ <= x=0
>
> Cone (side view):
> .
> /|\
> / | \
> /b | \
> /---+---' <= x = h
> / |' \
> / ' | \
> / ' | \
> x = 0 => '-------+-------\
> / a | \
>
> Proof:
>
> r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence
>
> y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.
>
> Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1 ...equation of an ellipse
>
> qed
Mr. Ryan, how long will Univ Virginia be a braindead school of science, teaching nothing but propaganda error filled science??? And calculus classrooms nothing but torture chambers, unable to realize the Polynomial is the only valid function of math, making calculus as simple as add or subtract 1 from exponent??? How long will UV be a anti-science school???
failing in all facets of science--- failures in science-- so stupid they cannot even admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse.
_1) Too stupid to question if Thomson found Dirac's magnetic monopole and not the electron of atoms.
_2) Too stupid to realize that in the Rutherford,Geiger, Marsden Experiment when you have increase in velocity of bounce back alpha particles means head on collision with a larger proton torus, hence, the interior of gold atoms are toruses, no nucleus.
_3) Too stupid in logic to understand subatomic particles have jobs and tasks to do, not sit around on beaches sipping lemonade what Old Physics says. The proton is a 8 ring torus with muon as electron inside doing the Faraday law producing new electricity.
_4) Too stupid to understand stars and our Sun shine not from fusion but from Faraday law of each and every atom inside that star.
_5) 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.
_6) 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. Read AP's textbook--
Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors// Teaching True Logic series, book 1
by Archimedes Plutonium
This is AP's 5th 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:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
_7) 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"
8) 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.
_9) Never took logic, or not enough, to understand Pauli Exclusion Principle forbids black holes.
_10) Too stupid in mind to understand for the Atomic Theory to be a law of science requires the Universe itself be a Atom.
_11) Far far too stupid to insist the Polynomial is the only valid function in all of math, thus reducing Calculus to a mere add or subtract 1 from exponent and making Calculus ----Super super easy
_12) So stupid in physics that they never took a course in Logic in College to be able to think straight and clear and thus able to understand that physics has no Black Holes nor does it have a Big Bang for both violate the Pauli Exclusion Principle. duh duh duh
_13) Hopelessly stupid in science when they see Accelerated Polar Ice Cap melt and run to their dumbarse computer modeling with CO2 greenhouse gas, when it is the Sun gone Red Giant because Sun and stars shine from Faraday law, not fusion. As every proton in the Sun is having muons thrust through the proton torus producing electrical energy.
_14) Is there any university in the entire world that requires its scientists to have 2 years of Logic study-- the AP corrected Logic not the crazy error filled Boole logic, so they can at least try to think straight, think clearly--- Answer is--- no.
Steve Huffman on math lunatics Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao,
Steve Huffman University of Virginia, Alexis Ohanian
Reddit (symbol) An other Archimedes Plutonium rant about irrational numbers Reddit · r/badmathematics 10+ comments · 6 years ago An other Archimedes Plutonium rant about irrational numbers ... In Grid Systems, you are exact only to the Grid, and forget about the beyond. "The ...
Archimedes Plutonium
Cannot understand slant cut of cylinder is truly ellipse but in cone it is oval? Do they have cataracts in their eyes or are they simpleton fools failures of math like you, Steve Huffman a sci.math math failure???--- quoting Wikipedia------ end quoting Wikipedia---Huffman's broadcast on math lunatics starting with Terry Tao UCLA, unable to admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse for it appears everything Terry does in math is a memorization of a Wikipedia page.
--- quoting Wikipedia on Conic Section, for Jimmy Wales with his fascist editors never allow the truth of science into any of their entries of science in Wikipedia, not even a simple geometry of slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse------ end quoting Wikipedia on Conic Section---
Steve Huffman (Reddit) on math lunatics. Steve is John Baez a math lunatic for he refuses to admit the truth about slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse. And of course revealing how much a math failure John is, unable to recognize that if the polynomial is the only valid function in all of math, makes calculus super easy. But no-one can penetrate the dense shell of a math lunatic, not Baez, not Wiles not Tao.
Steve Huffman on math lunatics Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao,
Steve Huffman University of Virginia, Alexis Ohanian
Reddit (symbol) An other Archimedes Plutonium rant about irrational numbers Reddit · r/badmathematics 10+ comments · 6 years ago An
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
-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.
In AP's 68th book of science
EXPERIMENT
Through the years since 2016, one experiment stood out and I often used it in explanations of the thousands of posts on the Internet news groups of sci.math and sci.physics. Easy simple experiment involving a paper cone you can fold yourself, such as the cover of a magazine rolled up makes a cone and a Kerr or Mason lid. As you rest the lid in the cone, you see the circle when parallel to base, but tilt that Kerr lid just at a slant angle and what you see forming is not an ellipse for the upper part is not-symmetrical with the lower parts. This figure that is formed from the slant cut is a oval. To achieve a ellipse, the walls have to be symmetrical such as a cylinder. The slant cut of a cylinder is indeed a ellipse.
In November 2019, I often posted this sketch diagram so that High School students can see how easy it is to "see in the mind's eye, that the ellipse is a cylinder cut, never a cone cut".
But then the foolish math professors at CalTech and Stanford, of Harvard and Princeton, at the AMS, American Mathematical Society, are so stupid on these topics that they cannot tell apart a ellipse from a oval.
1. looking down from cone apex
bottom
______
,'"^ "`.
/ \
| | slant cut into cone is oval, never ellipse
\ /
'. .'
" '
top
2.
/\
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
3.
__
.-' `-.
.' `.
/ \
; ; B
| |
; ;
\ /
`. .'
`-._____.-'
4.
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | slant cut of cylinder is always a ellipse, never a oval due to the fact
| | a cylinder has two axes of symmetry, while a cone has just 1 axis
| | of symmetry
| |
| |
| |
Archimedes Plutonium
- The never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus: His flagship idea posits that the slant cut of cone is ellipse, when is actually a oval. In his conceptualization, both Wiles and Tao were so idiotic in math, there small minds could never understand that Numbers, true numbers of math had to be discrete, just like quantum mechanics is discrete, yet these math failures keep abiding with Reals and its continuum. [1]
- Alternative Mathematical Proofs: No wonder Wiles, Tao could never do a Riemann Hypothesis or counterexamples to Fermat's Last Theorem, for they cannot even tell what the True Numbers of Math are. [1]
Re: _Kibo's ..--Oxford Uni Dr. Andrew Wiles. Why Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney, is it because Dr. Wiles runs and hides when faced with the question of slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse? Or is it because Dr. Wiles fails math with ne
by V's profile photo
V May 13, 2023, 1:25:11 AM
Re: _Kibo's ..--UCLA Dr. Terence Tao. Why Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney, is it because Dr.Tao runs and hides when faced with the question of slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse? Or is it because Dr.Tao fails math with never a geometry...
by
V's profile photo
V
May 13, 2023, 12:44:05 PM
by Volney 10:40 AM, 18Sep2023
Re: Can_Dr.Thomas Hales,Dr.Ken Ribet_Dr.Andrew Wiles,Dr.Terry Tao,Jeffrey Rubard,MitchR_Admit to their mistakes-- never a geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, and thus all their mathematics is bogus
by
Jeffrey Rubard
2:35 PM 16Aug2023
Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Is Oxford's Dr.Wiles,UCLA Dr.Tao,Pittsburgh'sDr.Hales using TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS by Archimedes Plutonium for improved Calculus teaching, no vomiting in exams,no nervous breakdown, no torture chamber asks Kibo Parry-Volney
by Volney 10:40 AM, 18Sep2023
_AI Overview Reddit Steve Huffman, UCLA Terence Tao_AI Overview_Reddit is banned in Australia and most of Western civilization as a anti-science platform is a notorious Usenet-era internet personality and eccentric theorist. Terry Tao is primarily known for persistently posting unconventional, unsound theories in mathematics and physics—most notably the "slant cut of cone is ellipse when it is really a Oval" theory, which claims the Huffman and Tao failed math for neither can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is a giant failure. [1]