AP's 33rd book--- Was the Saber-Toothed-Tiger, Smilodon, Paleontologists most laughable mistake? // Was the 4 tusked Gomphothere the 2nd joke? Paleontology series, book 1 by Archimedes Plutonium This is AP's 33rd published book of science published
Archimedes Plutonium
*Was the Saber-Toothed-Tiger, Smilodon, Paleontologists most laughable
mistake? // Was the 4 tusked Gomphothere the 2nd joke? Paleontology series,
book 1*
by Archimedes Plutonium
This is AP's 33rd 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: Ever since I was a teenager in High School, I was troubled with
the saber-toothed tiger-- how evolution could have built such an animal.
But I was not logical in mind as a teenager, and had to wait until now to
let my logical mind survey that perplexing question. To an extraordinary
claim in science-- huge teeth that an animal cannot cope with, requires
extra-special evidence and proofs of science. How can evolution theory
(even though it is a rule or algorithm) (see my Superdeterminism replaces
Darwin Evolution book), how can evolution produce an animal with teeth that
"get in the way of everything" as the animal goes through life. So, I am
asking the science community to completely re-examine the fossil evidence
of Smilodon. I do not have that evidence available, but the entire
Paleontology community can make the evidence available. For what I suspect
is that the tiger never had saber-teeth and that those teeth found in digs
or tar pits, were the teeth of Entelodonts or some ungulate horn or walrus
type animal teeth. In other words, I question the claim there ever existed
a cat with huge canine teeth.
Cover Picture: What spurred me onto this small book was a few days ago
seeing the cover of Science News showing a Saber-Toothed Tiger. And how
utterly ridiculous for a tiger to have those teeth. And just as ridiculous
that grown scientists believe such nonsense without questioning it.
--------------------------
Table of Contents
--------------------------
1) Science News, 30March, 2019, with cover picture of Saber Tooth Tiger
opens up deep wounds of science in Archimedes Plutonium.
2) So I can remember back to High School seeing the Saber Tooth Tiger and
wondering— how is that animal going to eat with those teeth always in the
way.
3) In science, extraordinary claims, require special extra supporting
evidence, not just your run of the mill evidence.
4) AP begins to focus on the true likely owner of those saber teeth-- not
the tiger but its prey animal the walrus.
5) Is the Gomphothere, the 4 tusked elephant paleontologists second joke?
6) Added information by Science News 22Jun2019 on Smilodon.
7) Cat teeth anatomy examination.
8) Eagerly waiting for a DNA analysis of Smilodon saber teeth (I bet they
come from a walrus).
9) Is this another joke in Paleontology, as if they do not have enough
jokes already, the herbivore crocodile, what is next, the tree-with-wings?
10) Testing the DNA of skull of Smilodon with testing the saber teeth.
11) News of the Dire-Wolf and its extinction reminds me of Smilodon
history, only Smilodon is _probably_ a modern day cat like the jaguar.
12) Hippopotamus evolution into whale.
-------
Text
-------
*1) **Science News, 30March, 2019, with cover picture of Saber Tooth Tiger
opens up deep wounds of science in Archimedes Plutonium.*
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 19:37:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
To: Plutonium Atom Universe <plutonium-a...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Did Paleontologists get it all wrong about the sabre toothed
tiger-- not teeth but horns of some ungulate-- I am guessing
Did Paleontologists get it all wrong about the sabre toothed tiger-- not
teeth but horns of some ungulate-- I am guessing.
Could be some walrus type of animal.
Anyway, Smilodon, the sabre-toothed tiger. I have never actually believed
it was a tiger, for how could evolution go so far as to disfavor a organism
with teeth too large to eat, and to use as a weapon.
So, with this Science News, 30March, 2019 with cover of a sabre-toothed
tiger. I open the question of -- how could this have been a mistake of
Paleontology. I ask, what animal could the scientists have mixed up with?
Some ungulate with horns and where the tiger kept bringing his prey meat
near its den site and then fossilized together with the tiger. So that
future paleontologists would be so dumb to never ask questions and think
that the horn was the tiger's teeth.
So, I ask the paleontologists, prove, prove, prove that those were the
teeth of the tiger, and not some horns of another species.
On Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 12:08:58 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote in plutonium-atom-universe:
Here i am asking for a complete review over all sabre tooth tiger fossils
to see if those disadvantageously long teeth were horns of a different
animal. I cannot see evolution evolving such obstructive teeth.
So on smilodon i want proof.
So far i see no complete smilodon skull fossil. Teeth are separated. So
smilodon may have normal big cat teeth.
This topic needs a total review— and i think what happened in the past is
media hype of a sabre tiger just to gain publicity but not actual science
reality.
Prove the Smilodon actually owned sabre teeth.
On Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 12:27:39 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote in plutonium-atom-universe:
Another puzzling aspect of Smilodon is that it is claimed to have gone
extinct, a puzzling extinction. But, i would contend that if there never
existed a sabre toothed tiger in the first place but a mistaken horn as
teeth, then the smilodon is our today’s living big cats.
So i call the entire paleontology science to make a thorough review of
smilodon. For it is likely the smilodon was a joke of science.
On Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 1:42:01 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote
in plutonium-atom-universe:
I was looking at warthog teeth and look similar to smilodon. Did the
warthog live in the Americas, though?
I found no smilodon skull with all teeth intact.
Do we have a large cat today whose canine base is large but whose canine
teeth is small.
I am thinking that all warthog teeth found in the tar pits were mistakenly
thought to be smilodon’s teeth.
On Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 9:36:09 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote
in plutonium-atom-universe:
Looking for warthogs in Americas during time of smilodon. There was
entelodonts, a predator pig.
Saw that the first discovery of Smilodon, he thought it was a prehistory
hyena.
*2) **So I can remember back to High School seeing the Saber Tooth Tiger
and wondering— how is that animal going to eat with those teeth always in
the way. *
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2019 08:20:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
To: Plutonium Atom Universe <plutonium-a...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Did Paleontologists get it all wrong about the sabre toothed
tiger-- not teeth but horns of some ungulate-- I am guessing
So i can remember back to High School seeing the Sabre Tooth Tiger and
wondering— how is that animal going to eat with those teeth always in the
way.
So with the Science News magazine of 30 March 2019 and the ridiculous cover
showing a cat with two canine teeth as large as its head itself— insults my
logical intuition. Insults me so much that i am willing to go out on a
limb— and say — the paleontologists likely messed up badly — by putting the
horns of a ungulate or the tusks of a warthog or walrus onto a cat.
Yes, i am willing to go out on that limb— for it is so far removed of what
we think of as evolution— that we want extra proof those teeth belonged to
the cat. Farfetched ideas require an extra burden of scientific evidence
and proof.
On Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 12:47:38 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote in plutonium-atom-universe:
Now, let us begin to list all the crazy incompatible things a Smilodon had
to do if it truly was the owner of huge sabre teeth. For best guess is the
sabres were horns of a prey ungulate or the tusks of a pig animal.
Objections:
1) eating is terribly difficult— almost as if the mouth were caged in by
the teeth
2) grooming the tiger’s coat especially for parasites, difficult
3) how could the mother even lick her newborn or carry them to a den or new
location
4) the sabres would help small prey get away as the sabres would push the
prey away from the mouth.
5) in mating the male would kill the female inadvertently as it latches
onto female neck.
The more and more i think about Smilodon, the more i am convinced paleo
scientists have a clown joke, not science of Smilodon.
On Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 1:10:34 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote
in plutonium-atom-universe:
This is what we know for certain that South American jaguars have the
strongest jaws of any cat as they were recently filmed hunting and taking
down a alligator, on a Nature tv episode.
We can compare the jaw and canine socket of a jaguar and Smilodon jaw. My
guess here is the socket of jaguar and smilodon canine socket are almost
the same socket. Suggesting the sabre belonged to a ungulate horn or
peccary tusk or walrus type animal.
If true, then Smilodon never had sabre teeth. And in the 1800s when these
fossil tigers were being discovered— the choice for paleo scientists was
get fame and fortune with a sabre cat or stay unknown with discovery of a
“fossil cat nothing remarkable”.
On Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 1:43:23 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Alright some pictures from the Evolution Institute and a quote:
“When the specimens had been thoroughly examined by Wysocki and his team at
Clemson University, it was seen that Smilodon had a retention of the
deciduous canines while the permanent ones were growing in. This means that
the cats had four upper canines at the same time! This is seen somewhat
with big cats such as lions, but the baby teeth are only present for a few
months while the adult teeth grow in. When we look at Smilodon the older
canines remain in place for nearly a year while the saber teeth grow in.”
Question: how can paleo scientists be sure that the picture was not a
warthog type pig with tusk rather than tiger.
On Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 4:32:49 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote
in plutonium-atom-universe:
Source: Scientific American on internet
—quoting—
Entelodonts are widely regarded as omnivores that scavenged dead animals
and, at least sometimes, caught and ate live ones. Evidence for this
omnivorous lifestyle comes from their pointed incisors, recurved, pointed,
serrated canines*, serrated premolars and an unusually mobile** jaw joint.
Further evidence comes from studies on bite strength (Effinger 1998,
Joeckel 1990) and from bite marks left on the bones of other mammals (Hunt
2005). Oh yeah, and there’s the discovery of a pile of bitten-in-half
little camels from the Early Oligocene, the marks on their bones matching
the tooth anatomy of the entelodont Archaeotherium (Sundell 1999).
— end quote —
AP writes:
Now the sabres of a hippo look very similar to these smilodon alleged
teeth. And if the entelodont had sabre teeth this is likely where the
mistake occurred. That sabre teeth found near a cat fossil belonged not to
the cat but to entelodont. And the smilodon never went extinct but rather
is now the jaguar— the most powerful jawed cat. My best guess.
On Monday, April 1, 2019 at 1:03:44 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in
plutonium-atom-universe:
Interesting read on walruses with their huge canine tusk. They use that
tusk for breathing holes in the ice. So we can see how it advantages the
walrus. But totally ridiculous on a cat.
Question: would there have been walruses in the habitat of smilodon.
The hippo has sabre tusks in its mouth and wondering if the entelodont had
tusks in its mouth.
We need a whole-scale new investigation on Smilodon to determine if it was
the owner of saber-teeth.
On Monday, April 1, 2019 at 2:43:53 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in
plutonium-atom-universe:
Quoting Wikipedia
There is a debate about how both the scimitar-tooth and the dirk-tooth
evolved in felines and other mammals. the two sides of the debate revolve
around whether it was derived from a sexual dimorphic trait or if it was
completely natural selection that drove the creation of these phenotypes.
The argument for sexual dimorphic origins stems from the fact that in
mammals sexual dimorphic traits manifest as tools for males to compete for
females. It is believed that the scimitar-tooth and the dirk-tooth were
originally only in males for use in competition but then with the rise of
mega-herbivores it became favorable for females to take up the trait as
well. The natural selection side of the debate argues that the scimitar and
dirk-tooth both evolved because of the unfilled niche of predation of
megaherbivores so the trait evolved to take advantage of said niche.
—- end quote —-
AP writes: looking into sloth claws as both scimitar tooth and smilodon
tooth. Perhaps what happened is the claws of sloths were mistaken as teeth
of cats.
On Monday, April 1, 2019 at 3:02:33 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in
plutonium-atom-universe:
Quoting Wikipedia on other trapped cats where smilodon was found in tar
pit:
†Panthera leo atrox (American lion)
†Panthera onca augusta (Pleistocene North American jaguar)
Puma concolor (cougar)
AP writes: good this suggests none of the cats had saber teeth, for if
panthers were sharing the same habitat as smilodon, then they all had the
same sort of teeth.
*3) In science, extraordinary claims, require special extra supporting
evidence, not just your run of the mill evidence.*
Now, this is the first day of April 2019 what we commonly know as April
Fool's Day in the USA where you play a practical joke on others. But AP,
Archimedes Plutonium never plays jokes when it comes to science. No,
science is sacred to me, never to play jokes with. But I am about 75% sure
that the Smilodon, the saber toothed tiger was a joke in science history.
Perhaps never a "intentional joke" but still a joke of common sense
reasoning and intuition. For, look at any picture of a cat with teeth so
huge that it would hinder that cat throughout its living life. Does
evolution work like that? Well, antlers of some ungulates burdens the
owner, except during mating season, where they are a advantage. But can
huge teeth ever be an advantage to a cat? Is there ever a situation in
which those huge teeth help its cat owner? Honestly I cannot think of where
such huge teeth ever benefits the owner, for every time the cat opens its
mouth-- the teeth are in the way.
Back in 1989 was an extra-ordinary news report from Utah by
Pons-Fleischmann of their experiment with cold fusion in a chemistry beaker
where electricity run through a palladium creates fusion of hydrogen atoms.
It was a remarkable claim, and my theme of Smilodon, is it was a remarkable
claim that ever a cat existed with huge saber teeth. When science ever has
remarkable claims-- then -- science must have remarkable proving evidence.
The Pons-Fleischmann claim never materialized as being true.
So, the theme I am driving home in this small book-- Whenever science makes
a claim that is out of the ordinary, that is somewhat counterintuitive, it
is the burden of those scientists to provide extra-ordinary proof and
evidence their claim is true.
So far, no-one in the Paleontology community has provided this
extra-ordinary proof and evidence the tiger ever had huge teeth. In fact,
no-one in the Paleontology community has asked for a entire review of the
case of tigers with big teeth. And this is alarming because, as I read the
history and see that the first big teeth were discovered in South America
and skull separate from teeth, makes me awfully suspicious that the entire
history of saber toothed tigers is a history of publicity and not of actual
true science.
It is worth repeating a major theme in science-- if the claim is
extra-ordinary, then the proof needs extra-ordinary evidence.
The fact of the matter, that Paleontology science has never held a
all-out-review of the evidence for Smilodon, looks more to the idea that
the tiger never really was the owner of such huge teeth.
If a Paleontologist tomorrow found a fossilized snake and in the same rock
matrix, found fossilized wings. We demand extra ordinary proof that the
snake had wings, before we accept that idea.
Summary Comments: I cannot access the literature of Smilodon. The best I
can do at this moment is write this tiny book, urging the Paleontology
community to get their act together and review the entire situation of
Smilodon. Hold a conference if need be. But do not ignore this request, for
by ignoring you only make the Paleontology community far worse than being a
laughing stock joke of science. Show strong proving evidence, such as
intact skulls with intact teeth. As far as I know, there are none. And I do
not mean where someone inserted teeth into a socket hole.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 13:06:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Physics mistake with the 0.5MeV particle no better than
Paleontology's
mistake with saber toothed tiger// which is the more laughable?
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2019 20:06:18 +0000
Physics mistake with the 0.5MeV particle no better than Paleontology's
mistake with saber toothed tiger// which is the more laughable?
Was the Saber-Toothed-Tiger, Smilodon, Paleontologists most laughable
mistake?
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
But the mistake in Physics is far more impacting of all sciences and is no
joke whatsoever with its electron being 0.5MeV when the true electron is
the muon. As for Paleontology, we can laugh because it is easy to confuse a
fossil matrix where you find the bones of a walrus type tusk animal next to
a cat species, and easy to see that paleontologists would err.
But then when Rutherford and Bohr found a 0.5MeV particle and thought it
was the atom's electron, that was a real bad joke, for it indicated they
never learned what Angular Momentum means in physics, and that you could
not have Chemistry bonding of covalent with proton at 938MeV, electron
0.5MeV, when they really are 840MeV opposed to 105MeV.
So paleontologists made a laughable mistake with no real dire consequences.
But Physicists made a top world class mistake in all of science with their
electron at 0.5MeV.
*4) AP begins to focus on the true likely owner of those saber teeth-- not
the tiger but its prey animal the walrus.*
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 13:18:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Physics mistake with the 0.5MeV particle no better than
Paleontology's
mistake with saber toothed tiger// which is the more laughable?
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2019 20:18:52 +0000
I need a walrus type species near the tar pits of California during the
time of Smilodon and the below excerpt from Wikipedia gives me that type of
subtropical walrus with tusks that were mistaken to be the canines of
Smilodon.
Quoting Wikipedia:
Two subspecies of walrus are widely recognized: the Atlantic walrus, O. r.
rosmarus (Linnaeus, 1758) and the Pacific walrus, O. r. divergens (Illiger,
1815). Fixed genetic differences between the Atlantic and Pacific
subspecies indicate very restricted gene flow, but relatively recent
separation, estimated at 500,000 and 785,000 years ago. These dates
coincide with the hypothesis derived from fossils that the walrus evolved
from a tropical or subtropical ancestor that became isolated in the
Atlantic Ocean and gradually adapted to colder conditions in the Arctic.
From there, it presumably recolonized the North Pacific Ocean during high
glaciation periods in the Pleistocene via the Central American Seaway.
--- end quoting Wikipedia ---
On Friday, April 5, 2019 at 1:55:10 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in
plutonium-atom-universe:
This subtropical walrus appears to be a footnote from
^ a b Hoelzel, A. R., ed. (2002). Marine mammal biology: an evolutionary
approach. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 978-0-632-05232-5.
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2019 00:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
To: Plutonium Atom Universe <plutonium-a...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Physics mistake with the 0.5MeV particle no better than
Paleontology's mistake with saber toothed tiger// which is the more
laughable?
Now it maybe possible to obtain fossil DNA from Smilodon and the sabers.
As i said before, extraordinary claim requires extra burden of proof. Test
the bones of Smilodon and alleged saber to see if DNA matches.
AP
Alright, today is 5 April 2019 and I reached the end of the line on
research into Smilodon, on literature available to me on Smilodon and on
fossil record on Smilodon. I can only pry so far into the knowledge of
Smilodon before the entire Paleontology community needs to get involved.
And for them to share what data and information they have on Smilodon. I
raised the issue of Science, science as a whole-- Extraordinary Claims
require Extraordinary Proof. The claim of a cat with enormous canine teeth
requires special extra proof, for those teeth get in the way of that cat's
life. Evolution does not work with evolving into disadvantageous body
parts. A cat with saber teeth is a disadvantage for the life of that cat,
not a advantage. So what could those saber teeth be from what animal if not
a cat? Well, I would guess the evolution of the bear into a walrus in the
Ice Ages of geologic history. One of the literature above mentions a
tropical to subtropical walrus. And walrus have large canines. The canines
of walrus are advantages of ice hole for breathing for the walrus and for
protection of the walrus against polar bears, perhaps orcas.
So, since a saber tusks on a cat is of little to no use, only getting in
the way of the cat living its life, I would guess that all these saber
teeth found in Smilodon fossil digs, are the teeth of a small walrus that
lived during the time of Smilodon, and that Smilodon preyed upon these
smaller walruses. This is not uncommon for cats to prey on larger animals,
for we have recorded on camera of jaguars attacking alligators and with
their powerful jaws-- strongest jaws of any cat alive-- they routinely take
down alligators.
So, call together a worldwide Paleontology conference, seminar, symposium,
bringing together all the data and information on the Smilodon fossil
record, and iron out the question-- do those saber teeth belong to a cat,
or was there a huge mistake and the teeth belong to another animal species.
AP
*5) Is the Gomphothere, the 4 tusked elephant paleontologists second joke?*
Comment: Alright on Wednesday 19 June 2019, on Iowa PBS was a program (Wedn
is science night) called "When Whales Walked: Journeys in Deep Time" with
caption reading: Scientists follow clues from the fossil record and use
technology to make exciting new discoveries. 8-10pm. This was a 2 hour long
program and delightful to watch. And I was thinking of my Smilodon book as
the program progressed, will there be another fossil find that I would **
logically object to ** I wondered as the show progressed. So they had 4
animals in the show, each about 1/2 hour long, starting with whales, then
crocodiles then birds, (maybe I have that turned around), and finally
elephants. No problems with the fossil finds and paleontology claims so
far, but in the elephant section, well, they showed and talked about this 4
tusked animal called a Gomphothere. And then, all bets off, for me, for
this seems too silly to be true.
Just like the Saber Toothed Tiger, in that evolution does not work to
hinder an animal as it goes through life. And so for these claims that an
animal had unusual body parts that hinders the animal. I ask for Extra
Evidence and Proof that the Saber tooth tiger had those canines. For the
more likely case is, that paleontologists want money fame and fanfare and
make the crazy claim the tiger had those saber teeth, even though it
debilitated the animal in living out its life.
So on the one hand, you get a paleontologist making a fortune and museums
packed with visitors, and fame and fortune to the paleontologist, all
because it is claimed a tiger really had those teeth.
So, I am a Logical scientist, not a fame and fortune seeker. And when
something goes by that which makes us wince, and convulse by thinking a
tiger evolved canines that hindered that animal all its life long. Then I
say-- give me added extra proof that sabers found with tigers truly
belonged to the tiger and were not the teeth of a walrus type animal which
the tiger had preyed upon. So that every Smilodon fossil ever found never
had the saber teeth attached, and the paleontologist is running a scam of
science, just to garner fame, fortune and public interest.
So as I was watching this program on PBS of "When Whales Walked" and the
section on the elephants with this 4 tusk Gomphothere. The same alarm bells
of my Logical Mind went off. How or why would evolution craft a animal with
4 tusks when 2 tusks are ample enough and 2 tusks can hinder, let alone
have 2 more. Were there fierce predators during the time of Gomphothere
that they needed 4 tusks?
So here again, like Smilodon, when a science runs into absurd and
exaggerated claims, we want that science to review and provide a extra
ordinary proof that such 4 tusked animals actually existed. Because it is
so much easier by Logic to simply say, they found the extra two tusks of a
animal in which the skeleton disappeared alongside a animal with its two
tusks and its body was mostly intact. In other words, they found 4 tusks
because there were two individual animals, each with 2 tusks. And no 4
tusked animal existed.
As I said before that:
Extraordinary Claims in science require extraordinary proof.
I bet that there is no Gomphothere fossil with all 4 tusks intact. And that
all Gomphothere fossils found to date has two tusks intact with the extra 2
tusks separated.
Paleontologists-- prove me wrong on Smilodon, and prove me wrong on
Gomphothere, else, you are the butt of the jokes.
Research Notes as of 25 June 2019.
*6) Added information by Science News 22Jun2019 on Smilodon.*
Alright, belatedly I examined some recent science news and to my delight
and surprise, Science News followed up on their cover picture of a
Smilodon, Saber Toothed Tiger cover picture of 30March 2019, with added
information in 22June 2019 page 17. So I quickly took a new photo with this
added information. The added photo is of two Smilodon fossils from South
America.
And claiming that the saber teeth were used to pierce the skull of rivals
for females or for food, claiming that the pierced hole in one of the
skulls fits the saber teeth.
Dubious, very very dubious and skepticism should reign here. But we see
quite vividly two examples of fossils of Smilodon.
If we remove the saber teeth in both samples what we are left with is 6
teeth on one skull and 6 + 8 on second skull.
I am a cat owner, not that I want to be, but because cats make my place
their home and so I am forced to help them through life. And I have studied
them now for 19 years ever since moving back to South Dakota. One thing I
know for sure about cat teeth anatomy is that they have molars where on the
side of their mouth they do a lot of chewing. They eat mostly from the
sides of their mouth with their grinding molar teeth. Any reader can easily
pull up pictures of cat teeth and jaws.
So, if the Smilodon had those huge sabers, implied they had No Grinding
Molars, for the sabers would have interfered with grinding teeth.
That leads me to suspect what happened was that saber teeth were found with
fossil Smilodon and those sabers belonged to a walrus type of animal the
Smilodon preyed upon.
Did the paleontologists of Smilodon run a similar science scam and hoax on
Smilodon, that Dawson ran on Piltdown Man as a ancient prehuman fossil,
where he claimed he found a descendent of humans as a fossil but where he
really prefabricated a fossil hoax? Is the Saber Toothed Tiger a fossil
hoax?
For me, anyway, this is sadly looking to be the case. That perhaps some
unscrupulous scientist grinded down the molars and tried fitting on the
stump of the molars with a saber teeth that belonged to a walrus animal.
*7) Cat teeth anatomy examination.*
To claim a tiger had huge saber teeth is to claim that tiger had no
functioning grinding molars. And so, actually, I do not think anyone in the
paleontology community stopped and ask whether canines this large is
compatible with other teeth functioning in the tiger. So that can the
molars function as molars when you have a canine of this size and
placement. About the only questions seemingly asked is what use was the
saber teeth, as the 22JUN Science News discusses. But no-one asking whether
such teeth would make other teeth nonfunctional-- hence, never belonged to
the tiger. And in the fossil skull shown, looks as though the saber teeth
of the upper skull and the lower skull were all cemented in place. So that
all 4 sabre teeth were cemented in place and did not come intact with the
skull. So that if this is true, then we can expect the attachment of the
sabres were to the molars. And one can easily see that we just take a
Smilodon fossil skull, and grind down the molars so that we attach sabre
teeth.
And so, it is highly probable that the Smilodon never went extinct, but
exists today as one of the big cats species in North America and South
America. Perhaps that South American jaguar that routinely hunts caiman
crocodiles.
Now, let me switch over to the recent PBS show on elephants and the
Gomphothere as seen in the 4-part-section show on PBS of "When Whales
Walked".
There was another PBS show quite recently discussing living elephants on
NATURE and the opening scenes of that program was 4 tusks but no bodies (if
I remember it correctly). And by the end of the program, the wildlife
photographers had suggested the cause of those 4 tusks was two bull males
fighting and hit by lightening and killed from lightening.
So, what I am saying, is that there never was a elephant like animal with 4
tusks, but rather, in the fossil record, you often find several tusks
together, and that does not imply, I repeat, does not imply that one
individual was the owner of all 4 tusks.
Again, the motivation, is that paleontology is often cut and dry and
boring, and so, some like to spice up that science by making ridiculous
claims for their fossil finds. A museum is not going to be filled by the
general public if the Smilodon was just a old ancient cat with normal
teeth. But if you claim the cat had huge saber teeth, you fill up the
museum and you propel the scientist to fame and fortune.
Research Notes as of 26 June 2019.
Alright, I was looking at skulls of cougar, mountain lions and their lower
canine almost matches their larger upper canine. So it is reasonable to
expect that the genetics of evolution would favor both upper and lower
canines to evolve together, sort of like in-tandem evolve together, so that
if the upper gets larger, the lower gets larger. Looking at the skull of
Smilodon in Science News 22 June, we see the lower canine as it should be
for a mountain lion yet the upper canine totally out of proportion. Now
looking at walrus skulls, and we see just the same curvature of teeth as we
see the curvature of these Smilodon canines.
Now, I wonder if those Smilodon saber teeth still have DNA, and if so, we
run a DNA testing, and there are plenty plenty of saber teeth in the tar
pits of California where the La Brea Tar Pits of Los Angeles has the
largest collection of Smilodon fossils. And as a note: California has made
the Smilodon the state fossil. And would it not be more laughable, if they
find out that their fossil is a fakery, and would that thus, lower the
scientific power or prowess of the entire state of California, that how
could say CalTech or Stanford or Berkeley be schools of science, yet, they
could not even get a fossil correctly done.
So, now, here is a nice plan of research by those paleontologists of
California to redeem themselves. Take some alleged tiger saber teeth and
run a DNA test on them and see if the Smilodon teeth are actually a walrus
animal, or a ungulate horn, or a ancient boar pig tusk.
*8) Eagerly waiting for a DNA analysis of Smilodon saber teeth (I bet they
come from a walrus).*
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 12:00:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: DNA test Smilodon for final answers// Was the
Saber-Toothed-Tiger,
Smilodon, Paleontologists most laughable mistake? // Was the 4 tusked
Gomphothere the 2nd joke? Archimedes Plutonium
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 19:00:41 +0000
DNA test Smilodon for final answers// Was the Saber-Toothed-Tiger,
Smilodon, Paleontologists most laughable mistake? // Was the 4 tusked
Gomphothere the 2nd joke? Archimedes Plutonium.
Alright, the entire science story of Smilodon is going nowhere, nowhere at
all until a DNA analysis is performed on Smilodon fossils.
Since those cats come from about the same time period as Neanderthal and
since Neanderthal supplied DNA to research. Makes sense that Smilodon
fossils should yield testable DNA.
Once such a DNA testing on Smilodon is begun, in this manner can we fully
say whether or whether not the saber teeth belonged to the cat, or was a
walrus tooth or some other animal tooth.
And the testing may have to be in Germany where they did the Neanderthal
DNA.
What I predict as the outcome-- I predict it will be found that the saber
teeth was not the cats, but a walrus. And I further predict that
geneticists can find the chromosomes where the canine teeth of cats is
connected in parallel evolution of the lower teeth to the upper teeth,
meaning, that if the saber teeth were the cats, the lower canine teeth
should have evolved to become larger also-- suggesting, here again that the
saber teeth did not belong to Smilodon.
This story of Smilodon must now be a priority of DNA testing. And the
fossils are relatively young in age so should have plenty of DNA to test.
And the tar pits should have protected and preserved the DNA.
It is befuddling as to why no-one has sought to DNA test the Smilodon
before now.
Research Notes as of 27 June 2019.
Early in this book I have stated I do not know the data of Smilodon
fossils, and have asked the entire Paleontology Community to open up on all
the information and data of the Smilodon. That was March 2019, saying that
the data and information of all that is known of Smilodon has to be opened
up. For it is my suspicion and my guess that not a single fossil of an
intact skull with all its teeth of Smilodon has ever been found. Not a
single one entire intact skull with all the teeth. Further, my suspicion
and guess, is that every Smilodon fossil of saber teeth has been found
separate of a Smilodon skull. Every saber teeth of Smilodon has to be glued
or cemented to a skull. Am I correct on these guesses? For the Paleontology
community has certainly not been forthcoming on openness of data and
information. As if they are deliberately trying to evade science.
So in closing, I ask again, is it true, that there exists no fossil
Smilodon with skull and in tact teeth especially the saber teeth? Is it
true that zero, zip, nada, nought, not one single saber tooth is attached
to a jaw or skull of a fossil Smilodon. And that all saber teeth of alleged
Smilodon come separated from a skull, separate from a jaw. And all are
glued or cemented onto a jaw or skull by museums and artisans. And it is
very very obnoxious that the Paleontology community hides that data.
If so, it looks very much in favor of AP's conjecture-- there never existed
a cat with those saber teeth. And that the saber teeth belonged to some
ancient pig with tusks, or walrus with tusks or some ungulate with tusk
like horns.
I cannot force the Paleontology community to come forthright, and open up
their data and information on Smilodon, but I can ridicule them for not
opening up.
And once they are open and forthright on getting the science and truth
about Smilodon, one of the first things that needs be done is DNA testing
of those fossils, especially the saber teeth. For as this book is all
about-- Extraordinary Claims in Science-- require-- Extraordinary Proof and
Evidence in Science. DNA testing would be that Extraordinary Evidence.
*9) Is this another joke in Paleontology, as if they do not have enough
jokes already, the herbivore crocodile, what is next, the tree-with-wings?*
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 21:40:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
To: Plutonium Atom Universe <plutonium-a...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: A herbivore crocodile? Apply the test of extra evidence Re: DNA
test Smilodon for final answers// Was the Saber-Toothed-Tiger, Smilodon,
Paleontologists most laughable mistake? // Was the 4 tusked Gomphothere the
2nd joke? Archimedes Plutonium
A herbivore crocodile? Apply the test of extra evidence Re: DNA test
Smilodon for final answers// Was the Saber-Toothed-Tiger, Smilodon,
Paleontologists most laughable mistake? // Was the 4 tusked Gomphothere the
2nd joke? Archimedes Plutonium.
Just when I thought I was finished with the Smilodon book, up pops another
candidate for erroneous science in paleontology. The Economist, June29,
2019 page 76 "Vegetarian crocodiles". I did have a look to see if any
reptiles other than turtles were herbivores. Apparently there are lizards
that are herbivores.
But the criterion I set out in my book is that "extraordinary claims must
have a higher standard of evidence" to be acceptable. For as far as
commonsense goes. A fossil find can have a mix of bones from various
different animals and a scatterbrained scientist me not recognize that the
herbivore teeth do not belong to a carnivore reptile.
I think most every Paleontologist works under the rule that whatever bones
are found in a chunk of rock belongs to one individual. And this is a huge
error in reasoning.
It may well be, that these creatures were herbivore reptiles, maybe a
forerunner of what will evolve into turtles.
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2019 22:22:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
To: Plutonium Atom Universe <plutonium-a...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: testing the modus operandi on the Vegetarian Crocodile Re: AP's
paleontology book revised on Smilodon, that now includes the Gomphothere
Testing the modus operandi on the Vegetarian Crocodile Re: AP's
paleontology book revised on Smilodon, that now includes the Gomphothere.
Alright, I am going to include the vegetarian crocodile in this book on
Smilodon and Gompothere. I have only the The Economist, 29June2019 pages
76-77 to go by. England spells paleontology as palaeontology. I like the
abbreviated spelling, for why keep words longer for no good reason.
The article is titled "Vegetarian crocodiles".
And I thought it would be interesting to test out my modus operandi of
paleontology. My modus operandi is that if a claim is made of the fossil
record that sounds in anyway silly, then the paleontology community has the
extra burden of getting extra evidence for that claim to be acceptable.
Reading this article, I see that the researchers of Mr. Melstrom and Dr.
Irmis, have indeed made a extraordinary claim in science-- to think that a
crocodile ever existed that was a herbivore is outlandish. But have they
also given extraordinary evidences to support their claim.
Reading the article says they checked 146 teeth of 16 individuals. So that
was not too bad. It would have been very bad science if they checked the
teeth of 1 individual and made their claim.
But what is behind this claim is a new technique called the OPCR. OPCR is
Orientation Patch Count Rotated analysis. It scans a tooth and measures the
"complexity of the tooth's surface".
Now here I have to bulk at the claim, because OPCR is a new to science
technique. When an extraordinary claim is made, it should not be made in
the first place if what the evidence is -- a brand new technique. So in
this case, well, we need evidence that the OPCR is measuring complexity,
and the concept of complexity is itself a controversial topic.
So I would say that their claim is a not-worthy claim.
If the researchers had found fossilized plant matter in the bones, then
they have a worthy claim.
A new technique is not Extraordinary Evidence, and maybe it is bogus
evidence altogether.
And there is also the case where the carnivorous crocodile ate a herbivore
and the teeth of the herbivore got fossilized with the jaw and skull of the
crocodile and fooling future paleontologists that happen to uncover this
animal fossil.
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 00:08:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
To: Plutonium Atom Universe <plutonium-a...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: testing the modus operandi on the Vegetarian Crocodile Re: AP's
paleontology book revised on Smilodon, that now includes the Gomphothere
Testing the modus operandi on the Vegetarian Crocodile Re: AP's
paleontology book revised on Smilodon, that now includes the Gomphothere.
This topic of vegetarian crocodile is interesting question on its own
right. The question of how easy or difficult it is to alter what a species
eats.
Sounds reasonable that if omnivore you can swing either full herbivore or
full predator. But once herbivore hard to go directly to predator and vice
versa.
Recently on PBS was a show that involved Panda bears and how they went
herbivore. They were already omnivores and so they transitioned into full
herbivore.
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 09:39:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
To: Plutonium Atom Universe <plutonium-a...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: the Herbivore Crocodile fails the test of science
The Herbivore Crocodile fails the test of science.
So, the Panda bear was omnivore before it went totally herbivore.
Are there any teeth of present day crocodiles that are omnivores?
New Scientist--Daily News shows pictures of Chimaerasuchus as extinct
herbivore
Pakasuchus as extinct herbivore
Notosuchus as extinct carnivore
Armadillosuchus as extinct omnivore
So, I really have to ask when Dr. Irmis and Mr. Melstrom did their study of
146 teeth from 16 extinct crocodilians using OPCR a new technique of
paleontology, where all the teeth separate from the jaw? I mean, was
everything studied all separate bone fossils.
Because, what I am saying for the science of Paleontology, has to be better
than its illogical rubbish claims. If you want to make extraordinary claims
in science, such as paleontology, you better come up with extraordinary
supporting evidence.
And just the evidence of a new technique, OPCR, is not going to justify the
claim of a herbivore crocodile.
For a species to evolve from omnivore to herbivore is less involved than
evolving from carnivore to herbivore. But still, the evolving of "what is
eaten" requires many changes, not just in the teeth but the internal organs
of stomach. It is not unreasonable evolution. For in a similar line, we see
many land mammals evolve to the point where they are marine creatures. And
we can see that evolution requires many changes also in body.
But I think the biggest clue to this question of a herbivore crocodile is
the body anatomy other than the teeth. If you are going to be a herbivore
crocodile, then the face of that crocodile, its snout should alter in form
and not be the snout of a carnivore crocodile. In those 4 pictures above,
the snouts look all the same. And as a herbivore, you need not open the
mouth so wide or tall, as in herbivores, such as horses, do not open wide.
Herbivores tend to have a compact head, not long and slender. And to be a
herbivore would mean you tended to have to go further away from the water,
and more on land, so that would tend to drive changes in skin anatomy to
cope with sun and drying out.
To a claim in any science that seems farfetched, requires not just a new
technique, but requires much much more supporting evidence for the claim to
get any traction.
The Herbivore Crocodile fails the test of science.
AP
*10) Testing the DNA of skull of Smilodon with testing the saber teeth.*
Update: 28November 2019, thinking on this subject tonight and I seem to
have not emphasized the idea of actual Genome testing of the skull of the
tiger Smilodon and then genome testing the saber teeth. If there is a
match, well, of course the Paleontologists got it correct and I got it
wrong. If there is no match, then, well Paleontologist just had their
biggest laughable joke science. Maybe that genome testing already took
place, maybe not. And I see no prohibition in testing Smilodon fossils.
Many of the fossils come from the tar pits of California, and I suspect the
tar did not ruin DNA testing. And I think the age of these fossils does not
ruin DNA testing, or, maybe their lost all their DNA to rock matrix.
But there is also another testing to go on Smilodon. The walrus is a
predatory animal. Could the evolution of the walrus, for small animals in
the tropics to the large walrus that live in cold country. Could all the
paleontologists up to now have completely mis-identified the Smilodon as
not being a cat at all but a walrus. This of course depends on finding legs
and other parts of Smilodon showing without a doubt it was a cat, not a
walrus.
Update: 30November 2019, saying there is ancient DNA for both Smilodon
fossils and Gomphothere fossils that there is workable DNA in both fossils,
then that would be proof one way or another, whether the saber teeth
belonged to a large cat or not, and whether a elephant like animal the
Gomphothere actually had 4 tusks or not.
Update: 1 December 2019, for I probably was not clear in my above updates.
What I am on about recently, is the idea that perhaps the skull of the so
called "Smilodon" the few found intact, were only skulls without any limbs.
And the walrus evolved from the subtropics moving up north. It could be the
case that a walrus is a predatory animal and so is the Smilodon cat
predatory. So that a skull of the evolving walrus when found without the
limbs or rest of the body, would be mistakenly identified as a cat, when in
reality is the walrus. Thus, explaining the large canine teeth. So if there
is no DNA to inspect in any Smilodon fossils. And if there is only saber
teeth attached to a few fossil skulls but never the "rest of the body".
Then, well, we can ask the paleontologists to review the possibility that
the skull was not a cat, but a evolving walrus.
As for the Gomphothere, here again, if no DNA is forthcoming from fossils,
then the likelihood of 4 tusks for one animal fossil, the likelihood is
that 2 of those tusks were from another individual. If DNA is possible, I
am confident the research will reveal the DNA of 2 of the 4 tusks do not
match, and thus proving there were two animals fossilized with only the
tusks of one of the gomphothere.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 10:52:48 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Smilodon DNA, can it come from tar?? Since recent ancient DNA comes
from tree-gum
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 18:52:49 +0000
Smilodon DNA, can it come from tar?? Since recent ancient DNA comes from
tree-gum.
Quoting the BBC:
This is the face of a woman who lived 6,000 years ago in Scandinavia.
Thanks to the tooth marks she left in ancient "chewing gum", scientists
were able to obtain DNA, which they used to decipher her genetic code.
This is the first time an entire ancient human genome has been extracted
from anything other than human bone, said the researchers.
She likely had dark skin, dark brown hair and blue eyes.
Dr Hannes Schroeder from the University of Copenhagen said the "chewing
gum" - actually tar from a tree - is a very valuable source of ancient DNA,
especially for time periods where we have no human remains.
"It is amazing to have gotten a complete ancient human genome from anything
other than bone,'' he said.
--- end quote ---
My predicament is unravelling the Smilodon, saber tooth tiger, saying it
was not the tiger's canine at all, but belonged to a walrus type species
that the tiger preyed upon.
A clinching proof of my hypothesis would be to check the DNA of a saber
tooth to the DNA of the tiger skeleton itself. If they match, well, I was
wrong. If they are of different species, well I stand true to science.
Now is there some hindrance of tar as a preservative of DNA? Many of the
Smilodon fossils come directly out of tar pits in California especially. Or
is tar too acidic and destroying the DNA?
Of course, the BBC article above says Bones are the usual source for
ancient DNA. Do we have enough fossils that we can extract ancient DNA from
Smilodon, or, has the rock matrix fossilization ruined the DNA??
Geneticists were able to extract the DNA of Neanderthals, seems as though,
they should be able to extract DNA of Smilodon.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 13:55:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: So, now, why are Paleontologists still clinging to the horrible
ugly
mistake of the Saber Tooth Tiger? If it takes them a few weeks to correct a
stupid silly bird claim, it should take just a few weeks to verify that the
Sabre toothed tiger
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 20:55:55 +0000
So, now, why are Paleontologists still clinging to the horrible ugly
mistake of the Saber Tooth Tiger? If it takes them a few weeks to correct a
stupid silly bird claim, it should take just a few weeks to verify that the
Sabre toothed tiger.
Recently another well preserved fossil in amber was discovered, and at
first paleontologists made a hasty and probably fake call-- by calling it a
bird that lived 99 million years ago. And the inflation of science to be
that of the most "money making excitement" rather than the truth of
science.
Imagine, if you can, what response would the amber fossil of a bird smaller
than a hummingbird be, and the truth-- it was not a bird but a lizard.
Same thing goes for the Smilodon, that ridiculous notion that a cat would
have the teeth of a walrus, when the teeth are in fact from the walrus that
the cat happened to prey upon.
Imagine, that California can have a fake fossil and make a lot of money
selling tickets to watch a cat fitted with walrus teeth. Instead of the
truth of science, that simply wants the truth and not some money making
circus show.
So, it was a few weeks ago that Paleontologists make the bozo claim of a
bird, and now in NEW SCIENTIST, 11APR2020, we seem to have a complete
retraction where lead scientists having a second closer look at the fossil
demonstrate that the animal was more likely a small lizard.
So, now, why are Paleontologists still clinging to the horrible ugly
mistake of the Saber Tooth Tiger? If it takes them a few weeks to correct a
stupid silly bird claim, it should take just a few weeks to verify that the
Sabre toothed tiger was a science sham all built around the idea of making
money, and not telling the truth of science.
AP
In science, -- crazy claims need extra added supporting evidence. That is
the theme throughout this text. Make a crazy claim in science-- then be
prepared to have to provide super extra evidence.
Theme of this book: In science when we make any claims, in any science,
that seems a bit farfetched or stretched of our intuition, or
counterintuitive claims, any claims in science that seems to not fit
smoothly, then those claims have the added and extra burden of Extra Proof,
Extra Evidence. So an Extraordinary Claim in any science requires
Extraordinary Evidence. And Smilodon is a perfect example of this. The 4
tusked pre-elephant is another example of this.
*11) News of the Dire-Wolf and its extinction reminds me of Smilodon
history, only Smilodon is _probably_ a modern day cat like the jaguar.*
News of the "dire wolf" in Scientific American, I would bet there
extinction was due to humans I do not recall if I ever heard about the
"dire wolf". Maybe I did but my memory is no longer very sharp. But reading
the article, the idea that cross my
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Mar 21, 2021, 3:03:23 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
News of the "dire wolf" in Scientific American, I would bet their
extinction was due to humans.
Anyway the purpose of the article was to report that the dire-wolf was not
related to the gray-wolf, but only 5 million years in the past was related.
I do not recall if I ever heard about the "dire wolf". Maybe I did but my
memory is no longer very sharp.
But reading the article, the idea that crossed my mind was their extinction
was due to humanity in the Americas.
Maybe the gray-wolf had enough sense to retreat and run away whenever
humans came around.
Probably even the Smilodon, the tiger that had no saber teeth for those
were the teeth of the walruses they preyed upon, that the humans extincted
the Smilodon along with dire-wolf.
And maybe the dire-wolf was more aggressive and not retreating. So that
whenever humans came upon a pack of dire-wolves, the humans would
stonethrow to death or then spear them to death.
The humans would certainly hunt the animals that the dire-wolf needed to
live on. So I bet the cause of extinction was exclusively human made.
I suspect the fossils found in the tar pits would not show signs of being
injured or harmed by humans. And, by the way, have there ever been found
human remains in the California tar pits? Or could humans figure out by
that time that tar pits were death traps. Perhaps even use them in their
hunting.
But I bet that if dire-wolf bones were found other than in tar pits, that
many of them would show signs of human killing or injury.
The extinction of so so many large animals in the Americas is directly to
be blamed on the increasing numbers of humans in the Americas.
Paleontologists are just too slow to recognize the force of extinction that
Homo sapiens brings along with themselves. Humans were, and are a fearsome
killing machine driving many species to extinction, and paleontologists
should be more open about it. Instead of trying to blame some climate
change. Blame something else to soften the reality that humanity is a
killing machine.
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Mar 22, 2021, 1:46:01 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Sunday, March 21, 2021 at 2:55:58 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> News of the "dire wolf" in Scientific American, I would bet there
extinction was due to humans
>
> I do not recall if I ever heard about the "dire wolf". Maybe I did but my
memory is no longer very sharp.
>
> But reading the article, the idea that cross my mind was their extinction
was due to humanity in the Americas.
>
> Maybe the gray wolf had enough sense to retreat and run away whenever
humans came around.
>
> And maybe the dire-wolf was more aggressive and not retreating. So that
whenever humans came upon a pack of dire-wolves, the humans would
stonethrowing to death or then spear them to death.
>
> The humans would certainly hunt the animals that the dire-wolf needed to
live on. So I bet the cause of extinction was exclusively human made.
>
> I suspect the fossils found in the tar pits would not show signs of being
injured or harmed by humans. And, by the way, have there been found human
remains in the California tar pits?
>
> But I bet that if dire-wolf bones were found other than in tar pits, that
many of them would show signs of human killing or injury.
>
> The extinction of so so many large animals in the Americas is directly to
be blamed on the increasing numbers of humans in the Americas.
>
> Paleontologists are just too slow to recognize the force of extinction
that Homo sapiens brings along with themselves. Humans were, and are a
fearsome killing machine driving many species to extinction, and
paleontologists should be more open about it. Instead of trying to blame
some climate change.
>
And what Paleontologists need to research into is this idea of Mass
Killings of animals. Of course our ancestors where horrible ugly killing
machines, and animals could not have figured this out. That a entire herd
was routed to fall off a cliff. But the ugly intelligence of Early Humans
would have figured it out. That the easiest way to hunt is steer a herd of
animals to fall off a cliff.
So that if the extinction of many many large animals all occurred in a very
short time, would mark the advent of Early humans having spears to dominate
and coupled with a herd steered over a cliff.
Before that time, the hunters will kill what they needed. Here, in
Over-the-Cliff carnage, is a extinction mode of hunting.
And probably the tar pits of California were used as another mass slaughter
of animals. The humans knowing the animals would be trapped so they drove
in large numbers, animals to the tar pits.
Perhaps the dire-wolf itself would be driven over a cliff or steered into
tar pits. Or if anything, once humans had slaughtered so much of the
animals that the dire-wolf needed to live on. They faced extinction along
with their prey.
This mass slaughter by driving over a cliff would be geographically easy in
the Americas, but not so easy in Africa. So we see a huge extinction of
large animals in the Americas, especially North America for it had plenty
of cliffs to drive animals off the cliff.
And such a extinction makes sense if Africa and Asia had no large
extinctions for that time period, only the Americas.
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Mar 22, 2021, 7:42:01 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So it is not written into modern day Paleontology textbooks or Darwin
textbooks that Mass Killings can quickly lead to extinction of that species.
I have seen on TV various different programs of where a pile, huge pile of
bones are found in digs. There is the cliff in Canada. There is the tar
pits of California. There is a site in Colorado of a cliff overhang and a
pile of bones underneath. There are several in Utah and North Dakota.
What I am tired, sick and tired of hearing from "soft in head scientists"
is they find a pile of bones in the geological record and the first thing
that snaps into their weak minds for an explanation is "climate change".
All because of current global warming of CO2 greenhouse gas. So these weak
in science and logic intelligence, seeking an explanation, that "climate
change" is on the tip of their tongues. I am sick and tired of that.
As for the huge extinctions in the Americas of large animals. That is
probably due to the arrival of the killing machine of early humans with
their rock and stone pointed spears and their throwing of rocks and stones.
No animal can survive a band of stone throwing and spear thrusting band of
humans.
But, now, couple that with the malevolent intelligence, not a good
intelligence but a evil one, of scaring a herd towards a cliff to see
hundreds of animals plunge to their death.
So, Darwin evolution books and Paleontology books need to add a chapter on
the mechanics of mass killings. Africa did not have the geography to drive
herds off of cliff escarpments that the Americas had. And so we do not see
the extinctions number of species in Africa that we see in the Americas,
and for the dolts of science with their "climate change explanation" do
those dolts think that the climate of North America was not affecting
Africa?
So we have to factor in the Early Humans as nasty, brutish and evil cliff
mass killings (or tar pit mass killings).
The only similar mass killings in modern times is the attempt to wipe out
the rabbits by introducing a lethal virus. Luckily the rabbit populations
recovered with some immunity. But if we extend that mass killing attempt to
cliff throwing over board to rabbits. If humans every couple of years
introduced a new lethal virus upon rabbits, there is no doubt in my mind
that we can extinct the rabbit species. Because the difference between
hurdling large animals over a cliff escarpment is the Persistence in having
a daily meal. If we persisted in viral infection on rabbits. We too can
extinct the rabbit just as Early Humans extincted the wooly mammoth and all
the other large animals.
We have to make it clear in science history, that humanity, early humans
were a evil killing machine and the cause of so many animal extinctions.
*12) Hippopotamus evolution into whale.*
Recently in March 2021, AP watched a NATURE program on hippos: Hippos:
Africa's River Giants: Africa's river giants are explored, as hippos
protect their families, face their enemies and more. It was narrated by
Attenborough. And he said a sentence or two about the fact that the closest
living relatives of the whale are hippos. Before this show, I was unaware
that hippos could _not swim_. But the fact most important to me was that
they are related to the whales. Because, before this show I was thinking
some "deer like creature" was the evolving into the whale, but one can
easily see that a hippo like creature is just "ready made to evolve into a
whale".
*AP's 10-times Rule for biology-ecology food web, using the 2nd Law of
Thermodynamics// ecology-biology*
by Archimedes Plutonium
This is AP's 269th 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: While researching the sea-wolf behavior on eating Pacific salmon,
I ran across an article of science called the 10% Rule used to answer a
question of why no predator on sea-wolves. I felt suspicious of this Rule
and with deeper thought I come to repudiate the 10% rule and replace it
with my own, a better rule, the 10-times rule. And in making this
correction, I happily discovered what the true physics law of 2nd law of
thermodynamics is.
For me, biology has a tendency to focus on a physics problem and solve it
like no other attention-grabber can solve. This happened to me also in
solving the Devonian gigantic dragonfly mystery.
Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of a Google search for "ecology 10%
rule pyramid" in search of dry weight for how this rule was established in
Old Biology-Old Ecology.
-----------------------------
Table of Contents
-----------------------------
1) My history on this book.
2) So what is the biology-ecology Food Pyramid and should it be a Food Web,
not a pyramid?
3) The 10% Rule is wrong and inverted, for it should be the 10 Times Rule.
4) Looking for the origin and derivation of the 10% Rule.
5) How biologists-ecologists came up with their mistaken 10% Rule, dry
weight over a region.
6) Using the Correct 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to understand 10 Times Rule.
7) Superconductivity appears in the 2nd law of thermodynamics and so 10%
Rule cannot be correct.
8) Summary.
--------------
Text
--------------
*1) My history on this book.*
AP's 269th book of science-- Ecology's food pyramid and 10% Rule is phony
science, but not AP's 10-times rule// ecology.
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 23, 2023
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Whilst writing my 268th book of science on a TV show of Nature showing sea
wolf behavior of laying out salmon on land, and researching this wolf
behavior, I found myself on this 10% Rule of biology-ecology. And I quickly
understood that such an idea was "rife" for total misunderstanding of what
the rule is about and what the rule is trying to say. So I wisely realized
I should write a book on this Rule and to alleviate its mistake traps, for
the rule is covered in misconception and application and enormous error. It
takes a logical scientific mind to lay straight, clear and plain what this
rule is. Just up my alley for it is logic that is what I consider my forte.
My 268th book of science--Rewriting NATURE: "Canada: Surviving the Wild
North", was what led me to this 10% rule of ecology.
While researching wolf eating salmon, I ran across another science trap
that causes huge misunderstanding.
--- quoting a Google search on 10 percent energy rule of biology-ecology ---
About 60,000,000 results (0.47 seconds)
Search Results
Featured snippet from the web
10% Rule of Energy Transfer | Definition & Pyramid Percentages Video
The ten percent rule states that each trophic level can only give 10% of
its energy to the next level. The other 90% is used to live, grow,
reproduce and is lost to the environment as heat. All energy pyramids start
with energy from the Sun which is transferred to the first trophic level of
producers.
10% Rule of Energy Transfer | Definition & Pyramid Percentages
Study.com
https://study.com › the-10-energy-rule-in-a-food-chain
What is the 10 rule in a food chain example?
The 10% Rule
For example, a plant will use 90% of the energy it gets from the sun for
its own growth and reproduction. When it is eaten by a consumer, only 10%
of its energy will go to the animal that eats it. That consumer will use
90% of that energy and only 10% will go on to the animal that eats it.
Food Chain with 10% Energy Rule
NetLogo Modeling Commons
https://modelingcommons.org › browse › one_model
wolf tier predator tier energy 10 percent from modelingcommons.org
In food chains, the predator only gains about ten percent of the prey's
energy. This pyramid effect leads to lower populations of
upper-trophic-level predators.
People also ask
What is the 10% rule in ecology?
What is 10 percent law of energy flow?
On average only 10 percent of energy available at one trophic level is
passed on to the next. This is known as the 10 percent rule, and it limits
the number of trophic levels an ecosystem can support.
Energy Flow and the 10 Percent Rule - National Geographic Education
nationalgeographic.org
https://education.nationalgeographic.org › resource › ene...
Search for: What is 10 percent law of energy flow?
Why is only 10 percent of energy transferred to the next trophic level?
How much energy do predators get?
Why only 10 of energy is passed from prey to predator?
Why is the 10% rule important?
Life on the Food Chain
Northern Arizona University
https://www2.nau.edu › lrm22 › lessons › food_chain
Recent studies suggest that only ~10% of energy is converted to biomass
from one trophic level to the next! The Food Chain: The answer has to do
with trophic ...
energy flow and trophic levels
Britannica Kids
https://kids.britannica.com › students › assembly › view
wolf tier predator tier energy 10 percent from kids.britannica.com
As little as 10 percent of the energy at any trophic level is transferred
to the next level; the rest is lost largely through metabolic processes as
heat. If a ...
Wolf Food Chain | Overview, Diet & Predators
Study.com
https://study.com › academy › lesson › wolf-food-chain
wolf tier predator tier energy 10 percent from study.com
Energy is transferred from producers to consumers, but only about 10% of
the available energy is passed from one level to the next. The other 90% of
...
Apex predator
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Apex_predator
wolf tier predator tier energy 10 percent from en.wikipedia.org
The wolf is both an apex predator and a keystone species, affecting its
prey's behaviour and the wider ecosystem. Because apex predators have
powerful effects ...
Wolverines: Behind the Myth
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (.gov)
https://www.adfg.alaska.gov › ...
wolf tier predator tier energy 10 percent from www.adfg.alaska.gov
They're not as fast as wolves, and they don't work in packs, but they can
be more predator than scavenger if the situation allows for it.” Wolverines
hunt ...
Food Chain
National Geographic Society
https://www.nationalgeographic.org › encyclopedia
Oct 19, 2023 — At each step up the food chain, only 10 percent of the
energy is passed on to the next level, while approximately 90 percent of
the energy is ...
People also ask
What is the 10 percent rule of energy flow quizlet?
What is the 10% rule in second law of thermodynamics?
What law of thermodynamics is the 10% rule?
What is the 10% rule of energy transfer quizlet?
What happens to the energy that is not transferred to the next level in an
energy pyramid?
How much energy is transferred from one trophic level to the next
tertiary consumer
Quora
Motilal Singh
Biology Professor (1992–present)4y
As we know that the sun is ultimate source of energy, this solar energy is
trapped by green plants by means of photosynthesis.
All living organisms directly or indirectly depend on the photosynthetic
products produced and stored in the forms of root, stem, leaves, fruits,
flowers etc. and are consumed as food.
Obviously it is correct that
According to the 10% food chain law, the solar energy trapped by autotrophs
can not be transferred as 100 % from one trophic level to the other trophic
level because 90% energy is emitted / thrown out into the environment at
each and every trophic level as excretory products and by means of
radiations etc. But perhaps you are confused here that the flow of
nutrients in trophic levels are cyclic and not in unidirectional as the
energy flows there.
It is also important to keep in mind that there are different types of
nutrients required for body to perform different functions like :-
1) Carbohydrates - energy supplying nutrients.
2)Fats and lipids - high energy supplying nutrients.
3) Proteins - Body builder and secondary energy supplying nutrients.
4) Vitamins and minerals - immune promoters.
Considerably it is also important that the top carnivores take their full
diet with having enriched proteins and fats, which built and strengthen
their body and muscles.
The 10% law of the food chain doesn't describe that top carnivores fail to
get their full diet but it describes a comparative flow of energy in the
ecosystem.
I hope that you find this answer helpful.
Thank you.
Quora
Maddy White
Studied wolf behavioral books/reports for past 3 years5y
Not many creatures eat wolves. You see there is a scientific reason as to
why food chains collapse after you reach only 3 levels.
When energy is transferred from one organism to another, (through
consumption) only 10 percent of the original energy is transferred. Plants
hold the most and make up the base of the food chain, and so herbivores get
10 percent of the energy when eating plants.
Then wolves, or any carnivore for that matter, consume the herbivores and
get 10 percent of that 10 percent of energy, making it 1 percent gained by
the wolf.
If an another animal were to consume a wolf at this point, they would only
be getting 0.1 percent of that original energy, making the wolf an unideal
source of energy.
Besides just that simple fact, hunting wolves isn't exactly easy either.
They are fast, intelligent, and run in packs, making it impossible to pick
one off without first isolating it.
Overall animals have just learned not to mess with wolves.
Wolves however may be hunted/preyed on by animals such as:
-Other wolves
-Bears
-Mountain lions
-Humans
However, they usually do not kill wolves for the purpose of eating, as for
the reasons explained above. Wolves are preyed on by humans and other
animals for the purposes of: obtaining fur, eliminating them as a pest, for
territorial reasons, or to protect resources like food from being stolen.
There is also the purpose of defense, such as a bear killing a wolf to
insure the safety of their own cub from being picked off by the wolf.
1.6K viewsView upvotes
--- end quoting Google search of 10% Rules food pyramid ---
AP writes::
Biology's 10% rule turns out to be a Error Trap for most every scientist of
biology.
According to the 10% law of the food chain, top carnivores receive the
least amount of energy compared to all other trophic levels, then how are
these organisms the strongest among all?
Perhaps this 10% Rule of biology-ecology is turned around backwards, upside
down and reversed? Perhaps the truth lies not in a 10% Rule but rather in a
10 Times Rule.
*2) So what is the biology-ecology Food Pyramid and should it be a Food
Web, not a pyramid?*
The 10% Rule
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 23, 2023, 10:33:33 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
--- quoting Wikipedia ---
Ecological pyramid
A pyramid of energy represents how much energy, initially from the sun, is
retained or stored in the form of new biomass at each trophic level in an
ecosystem. Typically, about 10% of the energy is transferred from one
trophic level to the next, thus preventing a large number of trophic
levels. Energy pyramids are necessarily upright in healthy ecosystems, that
is, there must always be more energy available at a given level of the
pyramid to support the energy and biomass requirement of the next trophic
level.
An ecological pyramid (also trophic pyramid, Eltonian pyramid, energy
pyramid, or sometimes food pyramid) is a graphical representation designed
to show the biomass or bioproductivity at each trophic level in an
ecosystem.
--- end quoting ---
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 23, 2023, 10:53:11 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I do not recall this in High School biology back in mid 1960s. I do recall
that when an animal eats grass, they have to eat so much more in grass
weight, than a predator animal that eats meat. So say you have a meat
burger weighing 10 grams then you need 10 x 10 = 100 grams of grass to make
up for the meat burger. I remember that in High School. So is the 10% rule
just a more vague statement of mine above 10 gram meat is equal to 100
grams of grass, only inverted. If that be the case, well I certainly would
have clarified the 10% rule by a thousand times more clarity.
--- Quoting Britannica on trophic pyramid ---
trophic pyramid, the basic structure of interaction in all biological
communities characterized by the manner in which food energy is passed from
one trophic level to the next along the food chain. The base of the pyramid
is composed of species called autotrophs, the primary producers of the
ecosystem. All other organisms in the ecosystem are consumers called
heterotrophs, which either directly or indirectly depend on the primary
producers for food energy.
trophic pyramid
trophic pyramid
Energy flow, heat loss, and the relative amount of biomass occurring at
various trophic levels within a generalized land ecosystem.
Within all biological communities, energy at each trophic level is lost in
the form of heat (as much as 80 to 90 percent), as organisms expend energy
for metabolic processes such as staying warm and digesting food (see
biosphere: The organism and the environment: Resources of the biosphere:
The flow of energy). The higher the organism is on the trophic pyramid, the
lower the amount of available energy. For example, plants and other
autotrophs (primary producers) convert only a fraction of the enormous
amount of solar energy they have access to into food energy. Herbivores and
detritivores (primary consumers) take in less available energy because they
are limited by the biomass of the plants they devour. It follows that the
carnivores (secondary consumers) that feed on herbivores and detritivores
and those that eat other carnivores (tertiary consumers) have the lowest
amount of energy available to them.
--- end quoting Britannica trophic pyramid ---
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 23, 2023, 11:42:21 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Actually this is going to be a very tough logic book to write. Where I have
to align the Statement of the 10% Rule with the laws of Physics
Electromagnetic Theory, and that is a tough tough task. So, no wonder few
biologists have a handle on the Rule, for few Physicists have a handle on
the rule.
As I read more and more about what this Rule is, I may end up finding it is
very simple and easy to solve. That the problem maybe an Inversion of what
cannot be inverted.
What I mean by this is that the 10% Rule could be actually where you have
plants and that 10 grams of plant food is matched by simply 1 gram of meat
food.
I remember in the kitchen in High School and my father preparing a
hamburger for both of us. I had eaten a salad, and declined on the
hamburger. And we talked about the idea that it would take ten salads to
equal the food content of 1 hamburger.
So I am thinking that perhaps the 10% biology Rule is really quite simple
and easy but that silly foolish biologists state it in the inverse way,
which is a mistake and is very deceptive in trying to understand.
An example in mathematics. We know the Pythagorean theorem where 3^2 +4^2 =
5^2. And if we multiply by 2 we still retain equality in that 6^2 + 8^2 =
10^2.
But watch what happens when we invert. We have (1/3)^2 + (1/4)^2 =/=
(1/5)^2.
So I am thinking at this very moment, that perhaps what biologists have
done is similar to math where you cannot invert.
That perhaps what the 10% rule in biology was really meant to be is that
trophic levels are a multiplication. That it takes 10 X more grass weight
to contain the energy of 1 meat weight.
And then we would have to ask:: can biologists be that dumb, stupid and
silly as to have a inverted rule that is sheer wrong? And here we have to
remind ourselves that the entire 1900s and up to today is a time period of
massive air pollution of lead, mercury and other poisons that can make a
scientist a flake at thinking straight and clear.
Couple that to the fact that scientist teachers love the scene where they
go into a classroom and teach a 10% Rule that is inverted and where no
student in the class can really understand it for it is outright wrong and
ill-logical. But the teacher loves having students not understand for the
teacher thinks he/she is smart and others admire his/her smartness as the
only one who can understand the idiotic inverted 10% rule of biology.
Teachers feel job security if they are the only one in the entire school
who can teach 10% rule (but it is a false rule).
So, well, if it is true, that the 10% is inverted when it cannot be
inverted, makes it a thousand times easier for me to write this book.
Then all I need to do is fill in where Electromagnetism Laws explains this
factor of 10.
*3) The 10% Rule is wrong and inverted, for it should be the 10 Times Rule.*
Archimedes Plutonium
12:59 AM, 24Dec2023
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, AP believes the 10% Rule of Ecology is a wrong and muddleheaded
mess.
--- quoting ---
Search Results
10% Rule of Energy Transfer | Definition & Pyramid Percentages Video
The ten percent rule states that each trophic level can only give 10% of
its energy to the next level. The other 90% is used to live, grow,
reproduce and is lost to the environment as heat. All energy pyramids start
with energy from the Sun which is transferred to the first trophic level of
producers.
10% Rule of Energy Transfer | Definition & Pyramid Percentages
Study.com
https://study.co
--- end quote ---
And here is what AP believes this Rule should state.
The 10 Times Rule of Energy Transfer.
The amount of food energy in Meat food is 10 times greater by volume than
the food energy in plants.
That the food pyramid has only three levels, plants as base and two animal
tiers above, and that there are only three trophic levels.
However, I may have problems with nuts as sometimes per weight they contain
more food energy than meat.
I am basing my statement on the idea that of Inverse where a inverse is not
allowed. The 10% rule is a inverse of AP's 10 times rule.
The error is that of Inverse when no inverse is allowed.
Call it the error of Mistaken Inverse.
Math gives an exquisite example of Mistaken Inverse. We know the
Pythagorean Theorem and the smallest integer P-triple is 3-4-5 since 3^2 +
4^2 = 5^2. Now we can multiply by any number and retain the equality, for
example 6-8-10 is multiply by 2 and still we keep equality 6^2 + 8^2 =
10^2. Multiply by a fraction and we retain equality 1-4/3-5/3 where we
multiplied by 1/3. For 1^2 + (4/3)^2 = (5/3)^2 which is 9/9 + 16/9 = 25/9.
But, what you cannot do is invert and keep equality. You cannot have
(1/3)^2 + (1/4)^2 = (1/5)^2 for that is not equal. This is just a plain
fact of math algebra that the inverse does not retain equality.
But let us see how far off that is. 1/9 + 1/16 =/= 1/25. Let us put 1/16
on the other side as if we added it to 1/25. And so we have 1/9 and on the
other side have 1/25 + 1/16. The expression 1/25 + 1/16 is 41/400. And
immediately we see that if we have a false Pythagorean Theorem by inverse
of P-triples that we get close to the 10% expression that Biology Ecology
gets in its Energy-Food-Pyramid.
So, this tells me that the 10% Rule is a fakery of science and the fakery
is a sham inverse.
What we do have in Biology-Ecology is not a pyramid for Food but a three
tier Rectangle, where we have plants compose most of the rectangle. Then we
have plant eaters herbivores and then we have meat eaters. And instead of
10% going from plants to herbivores and another 10% going from herbivores
to meat eaters, we have 10X, that is 10 times going from plants to
herbivores and 10 times going from herbivores to meat eaters.
Let us analyze that statement in terms of weight-mass. A 1 gram of meat
packs 10 times the energy that 1 gram of plants packs. So you need 10 times
more mass of plants to be equivalent to meat in energy. The typical example
is a person who eats a steak has ten times more energy than the person who
eats a vegetable salad of the same weight.
And the cow who eats a gram of plant food, has 10 times more energy from
that food than the single plant soaking in the Sunshine for Photosynthesis.
Which leads to the difference between plants as CO2 intake and O2 output,
while animals are O2 intake and CO2 output and Dissociation Energy.
The food pyramid is mockery science, false science. It is not a tier
structure but rather instead a dualistic mechanism of food energy. Plants
need CO2 from animals while animals need O2 from plants, this is why fungi
are closely connected to plants, for fungi are animals. And it is silly to
think that spiders are in a tier by themselves as predator insects, or that
omnivores like humans fit into a trophic level. So many animals would be
messy to classify into this pyramid scheme.
Photosynthesis is sun energy that splits water, splits the hydrogen from
the oxygen and releasing energy. This energy thus is used to split the
carbon from oxygen in animal-CO2.
Dissociation energy of splitting hydrogen from water is 498 kJ/mole.
Meat eating is respiration where carbon is split from carbon by the oxygen
and releasing energy. Dissociation energy of splitting carbon from carbon
is 607 kJ/mole.
Dissociation energy of splitting O2 is 498kJ/mole, which is 5.15 eV the
same as splitting oxygen from hydrogen. And of N2 is 945kJ/mole which is
9.79 eV.
So we have in photosynthesis 5.15 eV to split water, and we have in
respiration of meat eating 5.15 eV in splitting oxygen from oxygen.
We have nothing of a 10% Rule in dissociation energy, but we do have a
dualism mechanism of photosynthesis at 5.15 eV and of animal respiration in
eating of 5.15 eV.
*4) Looking for the origin and derivation of the 10% Rule.*
10% rule of ecology, horribly bad science. Was looking for the derivation,
and origin of how they get 10%, there is none. Other than someone
estimating world grain production and how many cattle that supports and
then how many humans that supports. Such does not make for science at all,
even if a rule.
Science is based on laws, and laws are without exceptions. A rule is not a
science law for a rule has exceptions.
But a rule must be derivable by experimentation. And here we have no
experiments as far as I have searched. I probably need to search harder.
But AP's Rule of 10 Times does have experimentation.
There is the historical experiment, although Scott versus Amundsen never
knew they performed a science experiment that would shatter the 10% rule of
ecology but uphold AP's 10 Times rule.
Scott took horses to Antarctica to reach the south pole while Amundsen took
dogs. Of course, both ended up eating their animals. Scott ate his horses
halfway before reaching the pole. Amundsen came out-- there and back and
sparing half his dogs. The biological reason that dogs can do the trek--
there and back is because meat eating is 10 times the concentration of
energy per weight.
Another example experiment is in my prior published book, my 268th book of
science, this book is my 269th. In 268th book of NATURE: "Canada: Surviving
the Wild North" is a segment on harp seal pups.
--- quoting from transcript of NATURE: "Canada: Surviving the Wild North"
---
[ Calling ] [ Squeaking ] [ Honking ] [ Squeaking ] Luckily, baby harp
seals are fast growers.
By constantly suckling his mother's fat-rich milk, this pup can put on
grams?? a day.
His mother is dedicated.
She won't leave him to feed herself until he's fully weaned.
But she can only keep this up for two weeks.
Fortunately, she's on track.
It's day 10 and he's already tripled in size.
--- end quoting NATURE on harp seals ---
So AP asks, is there any plant of photosynthesis that can triple in size in
10 days?? I suspect not. And that would show the Ecology Rule of 10% is
phony science while the AP 10 Times Rule is correct science.
The problem with the 10% Rule is that it is Inverted, and as explained by
mathematics 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2, but when inverted there is no equality (1/3)^2
+ (1/4)^2 =/= (1/5)^2. Those in biology simply made the mistake of
inverting something that cannot be inverted.
The entire food pyramid is not a science of losing 90% as you go higher,
but rather that of concentrating more energy in less weight as you go
higher. Eating meat is 10 times greater energy per weight than eating a
plant salad per weight.
Looking through the literature I have yet to spot where biologists even
come up with their 10% figure.
In physics, I have no problems what so ever in coming up with 10 times. For
all explanations in all sciences end up being a Electromagnetism
explanation. The laws of EM theory for the Primal Axiom over all science is
-- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism.
Three major subatomic particles are muon at 105MeV as electron inside a 840
MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law, by the Muon thrusting through the
proton torus at nearly the speed of light producing new electricity. The
neutron is stationary and is usually 945MeV when fully grown. So we have
the active particle of Muon at 105 and the stationary particle of neutron
at 945, gives a ratio of 105/945 = 11%. Or about 10 times is the neutron
versus muon in terms of energy content.
And in AP's 10 times rule we dispense with the propaganda nonsense of a
food pyramid, and we have rather a Rectangle or Ellipse or a Circle of
photosynthesis versus plant eaters versus meat eaters.
Actually the best geometry figure of the food dualism is the Religion
yin-yang symbol where you take plants as larger in say yin, and animals
smaller in yang and both are together inside a circle.
And we have to bring in Fungi as animals and plant eaters for fungi breathe
in oxygen and expel CO2.
We have to throw out the Food Pyramid and its 10% Rule as phony science.
*5) How biologists-ecologists came up with their mistaken 10% Rule, dry
weight over a region.*
Alright, I am finally coming to grips with how ecology came up with their
10% rule. Apparently they have field researchers who take a prescribed
region and measure the dry weight (kg/meter^2) of that region of its
trophic levels primary producer, primary consumer, secondary consumer, top
consumer. See my cover picture of measures of dry weight kg/m^2. Using my
photo of journals of ecology with their data showing primary producer of
809kg/m^2, then primary consumer of 37kg/m^2, then secondary consumer of
11kg/m^2, and top consumer of 1.5kg/m^2. Only the second then top tiers
follows the 10% rule with any accuracy. But what is important is how the
Rule is derived in Old Biology Ecology. Apparently it is an Inventory of a
region. And weight is measured of plants and animals found in trophic
levels.
I suppose a vast quantity of these inventories pointed to a 10% rule from
one level to the next level.
So this rule is really a Inventory of mass to area.
But is it real science? Here I would say no, for the splitting-up of tiers
as trophic levels is vague and science abhors vagueness. Where do insects
fit in? Where does a spider fit in? What about omnivores like humans that
eat both plants and animals. One site puts humans as trophic level 2.2
while placing foxes and wolves in level 3. This is a mess and not science.
And a rule of science itself-- it predicts. Does trophic levels of energy
predict something or in worst case-- predict something that turns out not
to be the case? Well as I wrote earlier the experiment of Scott versus
Amundsen to explore the South Pole, where Scott takes horses and Amundsen
takes dogs. One could well imagine that if Scott and Amundsen consulted
scientists for advice, then the 10% rule biologists would say take horses,
but the AP rule of 10 times would say the best choice is dogs.
So, in my esteem, evidence is beginning science, is data collection, but
not science per se. And it is fine to determine a number such as 10%
provided these trophic levels are clear and well defined, which they are
not. And so this whole idea of food energy pyramid of 10% Rule is
anti-science. A waste of time and destructive on young students. Fine if
the class makes an inventory, but then, how to well define each trophic
level? Apparently the idea of trophic level is the most anti-science in
this topic.
Compare that with AP's 10 times rule, here we drop to dissociation energy
and put every animal either as a plant eater or a meat eater. And we can
have in-betweens of omnivores. We ask how many leafy vegetables must be
eaten to equal the energy in food of a 300 gram meat steak. Do we have to
eat 3000 grams of leafy vegetables to equal the energy of that one steak?
The same ideas going through the minds of Scott as he prepares his horses
for Antarctic and how many bales of hay or feed sacks of grain for his
horses while Amundsen calculates how many meat steaks for his sled dogs.
Fat stores 10 times the amount of energy that equal volume of plant stores.
AP believes that the food pyramid and 10% rule is idle fake science,
invented for amusement but is no more than a sad waste of time in
classrooms.
And, speaking in terms of the AP 10 times rule which is further supported
by the facts of Nature, a predator sized up its prey, for a cat is not
going to chase after a rabbit for kilometers. For it would lose more energy
in pursuit than the reward in food. So a cat knows it has to get within a
certain distance as shown in the NATURE show "Canada: Surviving the Wild
North". The lynx had to get within so many meters of the snowshoe-hare to
stand a chance of capturing it. So that AP's 10 times the energy of meat
food gives the cat the energy to race and capture the hare, as opposed to
the idea of 10% of the energy for hare trophic level and then the higher
trophic level of lynx.
You see, the 10% rule is the reverse, the inverse of what needs to be
focused upon-- energy density of meat versus eating plants. For Amundsen's
dog took little time in eating meat to get them to the South Pole and back,
whereas Scott's horses took a long time to eat their grain or hay and which
is not a concentrated food and required 10 times more in volume.
*6) Using the Correct 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to understand 10 Times
Rule.*
Title of this book has once again changed. Actually no physicist of Old
Physics ever understood the 2nd law of thermodynamics. So if no physicist
understood the 2nd law, stands to reason no-one in biology or ecology using
the 2nd law as an explanation is going to have a science statement, but
rather science fiction or anti-science. The 10% Rule of Old Biology and Old
Ecology is rubbish.
---Quoting Wikipedia on many of the resistance of materials ---
Resistivity, conductivity, and temperature coefficient for several materials
Material Resistivity, ρ,
at 20 °C (Ω·m) Conductivity, σ,
at 20 °C (S/m) Temperature
coefficient (K−1)
Silver 1.59×10^−8 6.30×10^7 3.80×10^−3
Copper 1.68×10^−8 5.96×10^7 4.04×10^−3
Annealed copper 1.72×10^−8 5.80×10^7 3.93×10^−3
Gold 2.44×10−8 4.11×10^7 3.40×10^−3
Aluminium 2.65×10^−8 3.77×10^7 3.90×10^−3
Brass (5% Zn) 3.00×10^−8 3.34×10^7
Calcium 3.36×10^−8 2.98×10^7 4.10×10^−3
Rhodium 4.33×10^−8 2.31×10^7
Tungsten 5.60×10^−8 1.79×10^7 4.50×10^−3
Zinc 5.90×10^−8 1.69×10^7 3.70×10^−3
Brass (30% Zn) 5.99×10^−8 1.67×10^7
Cobalt 6.24×10^−8 1.60×10^7 7.00×10^−3
Nickel 6.99×10^−8 1.43×10^7 6.00×10^−3
Ruthenium 7.10×10^−8 1.41×10^7
Lithium 9.28×10^−8 1.08×10^7 6.00×10^−3
Iron 9.70×10^−8 1.03×10^7 5.00×10^−3
Platinum 10.6×10^−8 9.43×10^6 3.92×10^−3
Tin 10.9×10^−8 9.17×10^6 4.50×10^−3
Phosphor Bronze (0.2% P / 5% Sn) 11.2×10^−8 8.94×10^6
Gallium 14.0×10^−8 7.10×10^6 4.00×10^−3
Niobium 14.0×10^−8 7.00×10^6
Carbon steel (1010) 14.3×10^−8 6.99×10^6
Lead 22.0×10^−8 4.55×10^6 3.90×10^−3
Galinstan 28.9×10^−8 3.46×10^6
Titanium 42.0×10^−8 2.38×106 3.80×10−3
Grain oriented electrical steel 46.0×10−8 2.17×10^6
Manganin 48.2×10^−8 2.07×10^6 0.002×10^−3
Constantan 49.0×10^−8 2.04×10^6 0.008×10^−3
Stainless steel 69.0×10^−8 1.45×10^6 0.94×10^−3
Mercury 98.0×10^−8 1.02×10^6 0.90×10^−3
Bismuth 129×10^−8 7.75×10^5
Manganese 144×10^−8 6.94×10^5
Plutonium (0 °C) 146×10^−8 6.85×10^5
Nichrome 110×10^−8 6.70×10^5
Carbon (graphite)
parallel to basal plane 250×10^−8 to 500×10^−8 2×10^5 to 3×10^5
Carbon (amorphous) 0.5×10^−3 to 0.8×10^−3 1.25×10^3 to 2.00×10^3 −0.50×10^−3
Carbon (graphite)
perpendicular to basal plane 3.0×10^−3 3.3×10^2
GaAs 10^−3 to 10^8
Germanium 4.6×10^−1 2.17 −48.0×10^−3
Sea water 2.1×10^−1 4.8
Swimming pool water 3.3×10^−1 to 4.0×10^−1 0.25 to 0.30
Drinking water 2×10^1 to 2×10^3 5×10^−4 to 5×10^−2
Silicon 2.3×10^3 4.35×10^−4 −75.0×10^−3
Wood (damp) 10^3 to 10^4 10^−4 to 10^−3
Deionized water 1.8×10^5 4.2×10^−5
Ultrapure water 1.82×10^9 5.49×10^−10
Glass 10^11 to 10^15 10^−15 to 10^−11
Carbon (diamond) 10^12 ~10^−13
Hard rubber 10^13 10^−14
Air 10^9 to 10^15 ~10^−15 to 10^−9
Wood (oven dry) 10^14 to 10^16 10^−16 to 10^−14
Sulfur 10^15 10^−16
Fused quartz 7.5×10^17 1.3×10^−18
PET 10^21 10^−21
PTFE (teflon) 10^23 to 10^25 10^−25 to 10^−23
--- end quoting Wikipedia ---
So now, notice that copper is 10 times greater a conductor than is iron, or
said in reverse (inverse) that iron is only 10% the conductor that copper
is.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is bundled up in the physics equation of
Voltage = current (magnetic field x electric field). This is also the same
equation as Voltage = current x Resistance, only we made more clear what
resistance is-- for it is (magnetic field x electric field) where the
multiplication is a vector cross product.
In thermodynamics we can have the case of no resistance as seen in
superconductivity. This happens when B X E equals 1 and that happens when
sine of 90degrees occurs which is 1. That puts a whole different picture on
the 2nd law, that we can have where no resistance occurs. Where no loss of
energy occurs from one tier to the next tier. Where a pyramid of the food
energy is in error and that rather instead of a pyramid we have duality and
a Food Web.
I have plenty of experience in explaining something from biology into its
physics components, helping me and others understand physics better by the
biology involved. For example, in explaining how huge Dragonflies evolved
in Devonian geological time period helped explain the physics of
radioactive decay and growth of a physics of the Growing Earth theory. In
this case-- explaining the 10% Rule of Ecology, will ultimately help
explain what the 2nd law of Thermodynamics is all about, and for once, Old
Physics can understand what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says and what it
means.
A huge problem of biology-ecology science is their love of making up ideas
and then giving silly names to those ideas and they love to attach numbers
as to make it look "being scientific". In this case we have "trophic
levels" and we have 10% from one level to the next level.
In science, not just biology-ecology but physics astronomy mathematics you
are judged by how many articles you publish in journals, and that leads to
a higher pay scale in your career, plus to honors in that science. But here
is the rub. The pressure to publish in journals requires "new and true
ideas" and those are hard to come by. So to skip and outflank this
requirement, we have people in biology-ecology making up terms and
terminology such as the silly trophic levels, or the reverse altruism, or
the "survival of the fittest" or the "keystone species". This is not
science but word games, for the purpose of promotion in that science to get
more pay and honors. But this leaves a mess in that science for someone to
have to clean it up and install the true science.
There is no 10% Rule in Ecology food pyramid as there is no concept of a
trophic level.
In science one must learn that there are Laws and there are Rules.
Laws are science and a collection of laws goes to compose a Theory of
Science.
Rules are not laws, but some rules capture much of what is going on in true
science.
Ohm's law when it first was discovered was thought to be a law of physics
but it was soon found that at high current or high voltage it failed to be
Voltage = current x Resistance.
Darwin's theory of evolution is not a theory of science nor even a law of
science, for when Quantum Mechanics using the Bell Inequality found that
Superdeterminism governs the world, a world where free will cannot exist,
meant that Darwin Evolution is demoted to being a Rule of biology. A rule
that captures some true things going on, but not all true things.
A Law of science has no exceptions.
A Rule of science has many exceptions and thus is not a law.
So, let us go back to when biologists-ecologists wanted to explain energy
flow of food eating and the trophic levels and what they call a food
pyramid.
They see at the base of this pyramid as plants and next level they see
herbivores such as cattle and higher up level they see humans who eat the
cattle meat, or milk. And they claim the energy of the plant level is
reduced at the cattle level by a loss of 90% with only 10% remaining. And
they see another 90% loss with only 10% remaining as the human eats the
cattle. And the biologist-ecologist blames this 90% loss on 2nd law of
thermodynamics. Are they correct???
The answer is that they are wrong. And easily shown by anyone eating a
steak versus the plant salad. The energy concentration in a meat steak
compared to a salad is 10 times more energy in the meat. So if anything the
10% Rule of food pyramid is reversed around and wrong.
*7) Superconductivity appears in the 2nd law of thermodynamics and so 10%
Rule cannot be correct.*
Ecology food pyramid reversed the math of 2nd law of thermodynamics which
should be a 10 Times law, meat is 10 times more energetic than plant food.
And the trouble with this reversal of the truth, is that no-one in physics
or biology-ecology ever understood the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Thermodynamics is the Resistance term (BXE) in New Ohm's law of Voltage =
current * (BXE). And many times we can have no resistance at all such as in
superconductivity, and such as short circuiting a battery. So we cannot
have a 10% Rule where all the energy from one level flows into the next
higher level without loss of energy. But we can have a 10 Times Rule, where
meat fat packs 10 times more energy than the same volume of plant food.
A food web, not a pyramid, exists with only three levels, plants at bottom
and the largest group, herbivores next and finally meat eaters. Sometimes
there is no loss of energy in going from one level to the next such as
fungi eating plants, and then humans eating the mushroom fungi (much like
superconductivity).
And it is a web of 10 times, not a pyramid of 10%, because meat is
concentrated food energy worth ten times more in energy per volume than
plant food.
So the mistake is to think you have numerous trophic levels when you have
just 3-- plants, herbivores and meat eaters.
What should have been done for the food pyramid is start where all farmers
and ranchers know to start. How many cattle can I raise on a 1 hectare of
land? And can 1 human live on that cattle raised on that 1 hectare? This is
not a 10% rule, but a 10 times rule in recognition that meat is 10 times
more concentrated food energy than is a salad bowl.
Strange to me how I end up solving 2nd law of Thermodynamics from doing
biology-ecology. I suppose it is that biology can focus the mind like few
examples can focus the mind. It was the large sized Dragonfly in Devonian
geological period that focused my mind on solving the mathematics-physics
of a Growing Earth theory of Dirac's new radioactivity.
So, why not let Biology solve the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Looking through my 269 published books of science, I seem to have missing a
book on Superconductivity.
I am ready to write that book now on Superconductivity and 2nd Law of
Thermodynamics solved. Let it be my 270th book of science.
Apparently the below post was my last writings on Superconductivity.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics comes directly out of New-Ohm's law of
Voltage = current *(magnetic field * electric field) represented as V =
C*B*E where * is a generalized multiplication that can be dot product or
vector product or scalar product.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics when we say it is "Heat flows from hot to
cold and never the reverse" is equivalent to the EM statement "Electric
current obeys the Right Hand Law". Now in physics they call it the
"right-hand rule" but it is in fact a law of physics. Difference between a
rule and law is that a rule has exceptions and is never a law of science. A
law of science has no exceptions.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics when we say that "we lose some energy in the
Carnot cycle" is equivalent in the EM theory of physics to the fact that V
= C*B*E where we combine B*E to be Resistance and thus Voltage = C*R. So
that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has now become Resistance in
electromagnetic theory.
But Superconductivity is also embedded in the term Resistance. When we have
B*E, the magnetic field multiply in general with electric field we can get
B*E = 1 where we have superconductivity. All the electric current C that
flows in flows out with no loss.
So the term B*E whether vector cross product or dot product is 1 in
Resistance for superconductivity. If some of the energy of electric current
is lost by flowing in and then flowing out, the term B*E is a number
between 0 and 1 excluding 1. So silver, copper and gold has Resistance of
about 0.75 (I am guessing) and iron has resistance of 0.5 (another guess)
and a nonconductor has resistance near that of 0.
The title of my 270th book of science should be somewhat like this. "2nd
Law of Thermodynamics is connected to Superconductivity Explained as New
Ohm's Law".
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 12:43:27 -0800 (PST)
Subject: page48, 6-4 advances in the theory of superconductivity;
AP/Maxwell theory/ textbook, 8th ed.
From: Archimedes Plutonium
page48, 6-4 advances in the theory of superconductivity; AP/Maxwell theory/
textbook, 8th ed.
Bismuth superconducts at 5/10000 K supporting evidence that
Superconductivity is Capacitor conductivity
Last December I wrote the below, not knowing that only a few days away in
the 24December2016 issue of SCIENCE NEWS would be a report on bismuth
superconducting, when Bismuth is not supposed to superconduct under the old
clownish Bardeen Cooper Schrieffer theory of superconductivity-- electrons
pairing up.
But under the Capacitor with Standing Electric Current theory, all elements
superconduct, by simply recognizing that superconductivity is a material
made into a capacitor. Call it electricity by Capacitor flow.
And, under the revelation that the real-electron is the muon, and that the
0.5MeV particle is the magnepole, the monopole of magnetism, the idea of a
capacitor current is all the more made clear.
Advances in the theory of superconductivity; AP/Maxwell theory
I cannot tell you how many times in the past, from 1995 onwards, that I had
a theory of how superconductivity actually works. Some memorable
speculations was that it was neutrinos as carriers of electricity instead
of photons, because neutrinos go through matter with ease and no
interference, thus, no resistance. Then I thought the Malus law was
superconductivity.
But recently, I realized capacitors were superconductors. I realized there
are two types of electricity current. The running current as in our homes
and then the Standing Current such as a capacitor stores a standing
current, not a running current. And that the reason superconductors other
than ordinary capacitors needed cold temperatures, is because coldness
creates a dielectric sandwiched between sheets of conductors. So the world
already has room-temperature-and-above, superconductors--they are
capacitors.
I hope this is the final theory on how superconductivity works.
Now we are beginning to see experimental proof of the above assertions.
Bismuth is never supposed to be superconducting due to the Bardeen silly
theory and the authors of SCIENCE NEWS, 24DEC2016, page 14 "At low temps,
bismuth superconducts, despite few free electrons, element loses electrical
resistance".
"Consequently, the prevailing theory of superconductivity doesn't apply.
New ideas-- either a different theory or a tweak to the standard one-- are
needed to explain bismuth's superconductivity, says , , Marvin Cohen, UC
Berkeley. It might lead us to a better theory of superconductivity with
more details."
Well, I am happy to inform the new theory is already here-- Capacitors are
superconductors in that they hold a Standing Electric Current with no
resistance. It explains why bismuth can superconduct.
Obviously capacitors exist at room temperatures and higher, so there is no
need to look for high temperature superconductors-- they already exist.
DC current only Re: experiments to tell if capacitor electricity vice wire
electricity
Truly wondrous that no physicist dared to assimilate capacitor with DC to
come up with current. Probably because current physics has so much fakery--
Higgs, gravity waves, black holes, Doppler light shift, Bardeen
superconductivity--so much phony physics-- so much distraction no-one has
time for real physics.
On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 12:05:30 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
>why Old Physics was so feeble Re: DC current only Re: experiments to tell
if capacitor electricity >vice wire electricity
>
>So, in Old Physics they had Conductors like copper wire and they had
capacitors that released a >electric current. So did not a single one of
them ever have the idea that a wire and capacitor can >be the same
conductor?
>
>Of course, it means that you have to have two types of current-- Running
current in wire and >Standing current in capacitor.
>
But under the Capacitor with Standing Electric Current theory, all elements
superconduct, by simply recognizing that superconductivity is a material
made into a capacitor.
Today I was reading the same report from SCIENCE, 6 January, 2017, page 52
titled Evidence for bulk superconductivity in pure bismuth single crystals
at ambient pressure.
The authors say that the Bardeen Cooper Schrieffer model fails because
bismuth is not supposed to superconduct in that model.
So, what my theory is, is that superconductivity is Capacitor creation of a
material, and that superconductivity is the ordering of the molecular
structure into a parallel plate capacitor, with a dielectric sandwiched in
between the plates. This would suggest all materials would be
superconductivity provided they formed into a capacitor.
Suggests that superconductivity is DC only, never AC
Suggests doping helps because it keeps the plates apart as a dielectric
substance.
Suggests that silver, gold extremely good regular conductors have the
hardest time of being a superconductor, since it is extremely difficult to
turn gold and silver into parallel plates with dielectric.
>On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 1:16:03 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
>Sr2RuO4 Re: Superconductivity is Capacitor conductivity + Standing
Electric Current
>
>The news keeps coming in and coming in, that the Bardeen Cooper Schrieffer
model is phony >baloney, their pairing of electrons fails to explain
bismuth superconductivity and now Sr2RuO4.
>
>In SCIENCE, 13 January 2017 page 148 describes Superconductivity in
Sr2RuO4 under a >uniaxial pressure by A. Steppke et al.
>
>By applying pressure, the superconduction is enhanced by a factor of 2.3
higher.
>
>So, the AP theory of superconductivity is that superconduction is merely
Capacitor Conduction, where a material is transformed into being a
capacitor. Apparently Sr2RuO4 is easily turned into a capacitor, and when
we apply pressure upon a capacitor-- two sheets of aluminum with dielectric
in between and applying pressure via a phone book pressing on the sheets
delivers greater capacitance, from 3 microfarads to 6 microfarads in one
experiment of mine.
>
>Pressure in the Bardeen model is nonsensical.
>
>On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 6:51:10 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
>
>Sr2RuO4 Re: Superconductivity is Capacitor conductivity + Standing
Electric Current
>
>So here we link the simple observation of pressure on a capacitor
increases capacitance with >pressure on superconductor increases
conductivity.
>On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 4:51:23 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
>Re: Sr2RuO4 Re: Superconductivity is Capacitor conductivity + Standing
Electric Current
Nice to see truth and reality alarms written in science news journals where
they keep saying Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer superconductivity model is
utterly phony and cannot explain these results.
Nice to see scientists admit the truth.
But it would also be nice to see them say-- The Capacitor model explains
superconductivity far better than anything by Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer.
>On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 3:03:55 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
>
>Why superconductivity is never AC, because it is Capacitor flow, the
coldness turns the material >into a capacitor.
>On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 3:04:42 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
>Has anyone ever experimented with taking a Capacitor, cooling it, and see
if the electricity is improved?
Alright, some exciting more news to the story of superconductivity. That I
discovered the Real Electron is the muon at 105 MeV and the particle we had
always thought was the electron of 0.5 MeV was not an electron but was a
photon with a charge energy of 0.5MeV, called a magnepole, or monopole.
Each magnet has two poles, and each pole is a charged monopole of 0.5MeV.
This changes our ideas of capacitors, and superconductivity to a large
degree. And so, a review is in order, for the Standing Current I spoke of,
would be this 0.5 MeV Monopoles being a standing current.
Commentary--
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 17:37:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: why most atoms are metals
PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE/8th ed.
From: Archimedes Plutonium
>
>
Now let me make some more remarks about the table of periodic elements when
the real electron = muon.
>
The electrons of atoms tell you what element it is just as the number of
protons. Because, electrons = muons has electrons staying pretty much
inside that atom as its protons. In other words, stability stability
stability. And really that is how the world should be. Whereas a world
where the 0.5 MeV was the electron spells constant large changes inside all
atoms. But, as we see this 0.5 MeV as a interloper particle like food eaten
by an animal, and not changing the body but augmenting, squares away with
the reality we see.
>
And as we view the Table overall one fact sticks out prominently. The fact
that nearly all chemical elements are metals. And this fact alone should
tell us the underlying theory of not only atoms but subatomic particles.
The fact that most atoms are metal means the underlying laws of physics are
EM laws-- Maxwell-AP equations in that metals produce magnetism, produce
electricity. And so the protons and neutrons have to be the thrusting bar
magnet while the electrons=muons have to be the closed loop of wire as
composing a Faraday law. But, the proton in turn is composed of 8 muons
arranged in such a way as to be another Faraday law inside the proton on a
level further down from the atom level.
>
So in essence the subatomic particles and laws of EM theory are one and the
same. And the reason most atoms are metals is because electricity and
magnetism is metal behavior.
>
*8) Summary.*
So, looking at that list above of electrical resistance, let me pick off
the three materials that have 10 times more resistance from previous.
Carbon graphite has 10 Times more resistance to electric current than does
lead. And lead has 10 Times more resistance to electric current than does
copper.
If my memory is correct, than if we crafted a circuit in which 1/3 was made
of copper, 1/3 made of lead and the last 1/3 made of carbon. That the
output would be the carbon resistance applied to the entire circuit.
In the 10% Rule is going from plants to herbivore, that the resistance is
90% and only 10% gets through. In going from herbivore to predator is
another 90% in resistance and only 10% gets through.
In the AP 10 Times rule, eating meat by the predator of herbivore is 10
times more energy per volume than eating plant food of equivalent volume.
The 10% Rule was created in early 1900s in which no-one knew the 2nd law of
thermodynamics correctly, not even physicists for they overlooked the fact
that superconductivity is 2nd law of thermodynamics and it has 0
resistance. And in the early 1900s, there was little knowledge of the
importance of fungi to plants. For plants breathe in animal-CO2 and expel
O2 while fungi are the reverse, breathe in O2 and expel animal-CO2. So in
the Food Pyramid there are no trophic levels but rather simply a dualism
circle or cycle -- plant to herbivore to predator. And a food pyramid needs
to only study how meat is concentrated food of 10 times more than plant
food of equal volume. Hence, we have a Food Web, not a food pyramid.
The trophic levels are all so vague. Where are omnivores? Where are insect
predators? Where is fungi?
The 10% Rule is fun to teach and play around with division by 10, but is
vapid of science.
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 27, 2023, 3:04:35 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
--- source the web ---
1 cup of shredded iceberg lettuce is 10 calories energy
1 cup of steak is 1200 calories energy
--- end source ---
Let us say we removed all the fat from the steak and had lean meat and now
it is 1000 calories.
So from plant to cow is 10 x 10 = 100 and from cow to human is 10 x 100 =
1000 calories energy.
Can the reader see that the 10% Rule is all backwards and turned around.
If Scott and Amundsen had a science Internet before they embarked and asked
if feasible to take horses or dogs to Antarctica. Then the 10% Rule of
Ecology would tell Scott to go ahead with horses. While AP's 10 Times Rule
would tell Scott his is folly but Amundsen stands a chance of making a
success.
AP
*Cat Deworming, best way I know of // ecology*
by Archimedes Plutonium
This is AP's 232nd 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: Tired tired tired of needing to deworm cats and the modern
medicines available for deworming cats. So started searching "natural
cures". I quickly found diatomaceous earth DE, a natural substance and
wanted to try it, and get away from all this pharmaceutical expensive and
doubtful-it-works medicines, that only temporarily solves the problem for
the worms evolve to become immune to the medicine. I wanted an all-time
solution, natural, not dangerous, and takes care of all types of worms, not
just one type of worm, but all worms. There is only one downside to DE that
I can tell-- do not breathe it, and never let it get into the lungs.
Another big caution on DE, besides never breathing it. There are two types
of DE-- a food grade DE but also a industrial grade not food grade (as
often used in swimming pool filters). The DE that is not food grade is
deadly and lethal. So parents and grown-ups and children need to be careful
on DE use. Especially with children who have pet cats or dogs, and feeding
them the dangerous lethal DE. My recommendation here is to never buy the
lethal DE, never have it around the house to where someone makes a mistake.
Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of a Google search of cat dewormer.
And this picture displays the tapeworm, hookworm, whipworm and roundworm.
The pile of worms I saw is probably roundworms or whipworms judging from
the length, but in this book, I refer to the worms as tapeworms, not
knowing exactly what they are.
----------------------------
Table of Contents
----------------------------
1) My history behind this topic.
2) Wanting a Natural Substance for cat deworming-- Diatomaceous Earth DE.
3) Reminds me of my own invention of a mechanical cure for Covid-19, all
natural.
4) A positive and easy measuring tool-- look at the coat if shiny or dull.
5) AP is unsure if a pregnant cat eats Diatomaceous Earth, if it harms the
kittens???
6) The big caution-- never breathe diatomaceous-earth, it probably can
cause cancer.
7) Get away from chemicals-- fenbendazole, ivermectin, pyrantel pamoate,
pyrantel, piperazine, praziquantel.
8) Dewormed cats but calci virus accelerated? Do worms fight off calci
virus?
9) Very much interested in whether grasses have silica as the reason
Outdoors has a full lustrous black coat.
----------
Text
----------
*1) My history behind this topic.*
Well the history starts about year 1999 when I moved to South Dakota and
had stray cats live under the house. My house is on pillars and off the
ground by about a meter. This is good in case of flood that the inside is
dry. But good also for wild animals as they look for shelter. Ever since
moving back to South Dakota, since I lived here in 1986-87, and returned in
1999, every one of those years has been living with stray cats. I do not
blame the cats for if all humanity departed South Dakota, the cats would
quickly die for they are far out of their climate-- the winters would kill
them if not sickness and disease, the coyotes would kill them. South Dakota
winters are harsh harsh harsh. As I write this in March 2023, tonight is
set to go to -14 celsius.
So, I fed the cats all the time I have been here in South Dakota. I do not
permit them inside the house. All are outdoors, most are wild that I never
could pet them, they run away. A few become friendly, and those that do, I
occasionally use a brush and brush their coats. I try not to pet them and
try not to handle them but on occasion I have had to do that to move them
to another building.
The feeding of them is a daily chore, but I do not mind. I do mind it if
they get worms. And that is the most unpleasant aspect of having cats.
Since they never go inside the house, I have never had flea problems, but
worm problems is another matter. And this winter, in January February 2023,
I saw a pile of worms on the back porch one day. So I said to myself, I
hate the medicines that stores offer and I want something that is natural
and permanent, and safe.
So I looked on the Internet to see if some natural treatment is available,
and lo and behold -- diatomaceous earth.
*2) Wanting a Natural Substance for cat deworming-- Diatomaceous Earth DE.*
Archimedes Plutonium
Feb 4, 2023, 8:25:56 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
AP's 232nd book of science// AP researching Veterinary Medicine for cats
and dogs-- the best Wormer// Medical Science by Archimedes Plutonium
I do not recall if ever any of the "All Creatures Great And Small" PBS tv
series of James Herriot in England ever had a episode devoted to deworming
a cat and dog. Of course it was written in the time period of World War 2.
And what was deworming of cats and dogs in the English countryside in that
time period.
The recent episode is about tuberculosis in cattle.
But I can never recall any episode addressing the very most common ailment
of cats and dogs-- fleas and worms.
So I devote this research book to solving that problem. Not dogs but they
come into the picture, for I do not own a dog. I mend to about 10 to 20
wild cats, only a few allow me to pet them.
And every year around winter time I see a mass of what looks like
tapeworms. As I saw a few days ago.
In the past I treated this with chemical medicines added to the food.
But I have now decided to make a huge improvement. I have decided to solve
the problem once and for always and have a method that is pleasant and
effective and logical and scientific and easy. That means, no more
chemicals.
What the gist of my application is going to be diatomaceous earth DE. But
also other herbal remedies such as ginger and pumpkin seed.
So I bought mortar and pestle and these traditional remedies.
The thing about DE is that it is a natural mechanical solution. As the cat
or dog eats or drinks the food I give them, the diatomaceous earth is like
tiny tiny glass shards. It does not hurt the cat or dog, to my knowledge
when swallowed but the diatoms are eaten by the worms which then cuts the
worm to pieces and is dead and pooped out. Perhaps even offering the cat or
dog more nutrition. A odd reverse of being a parasite.
Now I would not do this research if not for a Measuring Gauge. Scientists
love measuring and often when no measure is available, they simple avoid
the research.
But now I have real live measuring tools, other than the awful sight of a
mass of tapeworms. (By the way, I disposed of the tapeworms by scooping
them up in a trowel and then disposing them into the pond water for the
fish to eat.)
My measuring tool will be the texture of the cat's coat. At present all of
my cats except one has a dull coat. Only one cat has a glossy shining coat.
So as I administer diatomaceous earth in their food and drink and other
herbal remedies, I shall monitor their coats for Glossy Shiny Coats.
So here is my measuring tool-- as the months go by with almost daily
treatment, once I see the coats of my cats return to a luster glossy shine,
I will begin to cut back on treatment. And the beauty is, I can restart the
treatment any time that coat starts to become dull.
If I achieve that end goal, I will consider it a complete success.
The trouble with Chemical Medicine is that cats and dogs cannot tell us the
bad side effects. And Chemicals work only for a short short time before the
cat worms are all immune to the chemical. We see the same in farming as we
spray herbicide until the very weeds are all immune to the herbicide.
Which raises a super super good question. For if AP's DE treatment for dogs
and cats is effective, begs the question-- is there a treatment for weeds
that is purely Mechanical also?? For remember, the way DE deworms is the
worm is killed by the glass shards of the diatoms. So I am thinking--
maybe, just maybe there is a mechanical treatment -- other than hoeing and
pulling the weeds, a mechanical treatment of weeds.
Caution: now there is a huge caution in this as always in any treatment.
Make sure the cat, dog, human does not breathe in any diatomaceous earth,
for it will cut lung cells just as it cuts worms. Do not put DE for flea
treatment or on clothes or on bedding or on cats and dogs for fear they
will breathe it in. Only put DE __inside of food and drink__ in solution.
Make sure the DE is not able to be inhaled into the lungs. So many of the
Internet and Web videos show DE applied to skin, clothes, bedding, cat and
dog coats. This is all too dangerous.
For fleas, AP applies a solution of vinegar.
Besides, if fleas cause tapeworms or other types of worms, the DE in food
and drink will kill them.
*3) Reminds me of my own invention of a mechanical cure for Covid-19, all
natural.*
Archimedes Plutonium
Feb 4, 2023, 10:29:11 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
And who knows where a Mechanical Solution for Medicine will lead and end in
using Diatomaceous Earth DE???
AP already proposed a Mechanical Solution for covid-19, as a MRI killing a
pocket of the virus, and let the white blood cells pick up on that pocket
and destroy the rest of the viri in the body once the white blood cells
imprint on the dead pocket of viri.
So can there be a Mechanical Solution of Cancer using DE??? Could it be
that cancer cells are killed by DE, but not normal cells??
If true, it would be almost a panacea cure of cancer. For big tumors be
injected by a solution of DE and it dies. And for small cell tumors like
small cell lung cancer needs a modified DE solution.
Perhaps cancer cells in their morphology of division are vulnerable to
shards of glass of diatoms. Only the DE used for a specific cancer entails
a specific DE shards of glass.
Here we can begin research in laboratories that have growing cancer cells
and see if DE can kill the cells, and then check to see if that same DE is
harmless on normal cells.
Another approach is see from people who routinely drink a solution of DE,
for much of their life, see if they are statistically better off in health
than the rest of the mass of population who do not take DE.
But here is another caution on DE. There are two types of DE-- a food grade
DE but a industrial grade not food grade (as often used in swimming pool
filters). The DE that is not food grade is deadly and lethal. So parents
and grown-ups need to be careful on DE use. Especially with children who
have pet cats or dogs, and feeding them the dangerous lethal DE. My
recommendation here is to never buy the lethal DE, never have it around to
where someone makes a mistake.
Now I have not started the experiments yet, for I have to get the
mortar-pestle, the herbs and have to get the food grade DE. I am expecting
months to pass before I see all my 15 or so cats with shiny glossy coats of
fur. Just like my one black cat I call "Outdoors" is the only cat at
present with a shiny luster black coat of hair. She probably has that coat
because everytime she goes outside, she is eating so much grass and other
plant material and even in winter she is eating the leaves of the indoor
plants.
So my mission on these wild cats-- is to deworm them via DE and other
ground up herbs, perhaps looking for the grasses that keep "Outdoors" so
shiny of a coat.
And all because I can monitor and measure my progress-- dull coats becoming
beautiful shiny coats. I would not be doing this unless I could measure it.
And, quite frankly the Chemical Medicine is pathetic and costly and
idiotic. For cats and dogs cannot speak, cannot say, oh no, the last time
you did that-- my stomach ache was horrible. Or, the last time you put
chemicals in me-- killed my kittens.
So, well, I am eager on this research, and expect it is the best and finest
way of tackling worms. So good that I suspect it is the best way of
treating cattle and horses and pigs of worms. Perhaps the best way of
deworming any and all animals.
The trouble with Chemical treatment of animals-- we never can hear what the
side-effects really are. Nor can we ever have a lasting program of
chemicals on worms, for only a few treatments and the worms remaining are
Totally Resistant to the chemical. So you spent a lot of time and money to
make a problem much worse.
So, well, as soon as I get the materials, I will be launching periodic
posts of updates on progress.
*4) A positive and easy measuring tool-- look at the coat if shiny or dull.*
So yes, all owners of animals, whether pets or farm animals. Look at their
coat of hair, (not sure about birds in this deworming). Look at their hair
and see if it is shiny, lustrous, glossy hair. If not, they probably have
worms, and worms that are making their life not as good as what it should
be.
Perhaps age also has some factor in hair luster, but that is another story.
So look at your animals, and see that diatomaceous earth is relatively
cheap. Easy to mix in a solution of food or drink, and easy to treat the
animal.
There are no Resistance forming in the worms by mechanical death.
And what a joy, tremendous joy it will be for me, to see all of my 15 or
more wild cats all have that shiny lustrous coat of hair.
Archimedes Plutonium
Feb 6, 2023, 8:14:07 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright the experiment to deworm my cats with diatomaceous earth began
today. One teaspoon, the tiny spoon, tsp per cat mixed in water then added
milk. I must be sure the cats never breathe the stuff for it causes lung
cancer. Only in solution in food do I administer it.
So today counts down the days in which I began to see a lustrous, shiny
bright glossy coat on my 15 or more cats.
I am expecting quick fast results, even though I started today, Monday,
6Feb2023.
Especially my big tomcat whose coat is so so dull, no luster at all. And I
think the worms contribute to him being "fat and bloated". So I suspect
that by tomorrow, I should see a improvement in my tomcat. His name is
"Smarty".
My big tomcat Smarty
His coat of fur so so dull
No luster at all
Get him some DE
And my big boy can eat hearty
Yes, quick results and an excellent sunny day to check my wild cats. They
congregate on the wood porch and noticed all had a slight improvement in
coat luster. If you run down the back from neck to tail, the coat was a bit
more luster especially near the tail.
Still I have my one black cat whose entire coat is lustrous to gauge the
others.
My solid gray cats were especially hard hit by worms, maybe tapeworms and
they show a luster in the tail region. And my two white cats are showing
improvement, even on the tips of their hair is beginning to show a glossy
shine.
My bad affected orange tomcat is improving greatly, most of his back is
showing a shine.
And one of my tabby cats had so much energy that she ran to a nearby tree
and climbed it half way up the tree, which I am guessing is relief from
being full of worms.
So I continue with this daily treatment, never too much diatomaceous-earth,
only 1 tsp per cat or less. I continue to put it into their milk until all
my cats look glossy shiny coat. And will only stop the treatment when their
coats are shiny. And only resume if I see "dull coats". DE is cheap cost
wise, for a bag that will last 4 years is $8 at Walmart. That is a mere $2
per year to deworm 15 cats. This sure beats Chemical medicine in price and
in safety, and in time. For all I need to do is watch their coats.
Some of these chemicals want you to inspect their poop. And all the
chemicals are only a matter of time that the worm infection becomes
resistant to that chemical.
In the DE treatment, there is never a resistance for it is a mechanical
process. No worm is immune to being cut up by the diatom glass shards.
And seeing my one cat climb up a tree so energetically, tells me the DE
treatment is safe.
Does any scientist or a veterinary doctor know what the worms are eating
that makes the cat coat dull??? Does any scientist know what nutrients
cause a coat hair to be shiny and lustrous???
I do not recall if ever any of the All Creatures Great And Small ever had a
episode devoted to deworming a cat and dog. Of course it was written in the
time period of World War 2. And what was deworming of cats and dogs in the
English countryside in that time period.
The recent episodes in early 2023 is about tuberculosis in cattle.
But I can never recall any episode addressing the very most common ailment
of cats and dogs-- fleas and worms.
So I devote this research book to solving that problem. Not dogs but they
come into the picture, for I do not own a dog. I mend to about 10 to 20
wild cats, only a few allow me to pet them.
And every year around winter time I see a mass of what looks like
tapeworms. As I saw a few days ago.
In the past I treated this with chemical medicines added to the food.
But I have now decided to make a huge improvement. I have decided to solve
the problem once and for always and have a method that is pleasant and
effective and logical and scientific and easy. That means, no more
chemicals.
What the gist of my application is going to be diatomaceous earth DE. But
also other herbal remedies such as ginger and pumpkin seed.
So I bought mortar and pestle and these traditional remedies.
The thing about DE is that it is a natural mechanical solution. As the cat
or dog eats or drinks the food I give them, the diatomaceous earth is like
tiny tiny glass shards. It does not hurt the cat or dog, to my knowledge
when swallowed but the diatoms are eaten by the worms which then cuts the
worm to pieces and is dead and pooped out. Perhaps even offering the cat or
dog more nutrition. A odd reverse of being a parasite.
Now I would not do this research if not for a Measuring Gauge. Scientists
love measuring and often when no measure is available, they simple avoid
the research.
But now I have real live measuring tools, other than the awful sight of a
mass of tapeworms. (By the way, I disposed of the tapeworms by scooping
them up in a trowel and then disposing them into the pond water for the
fish to eat.)
My measuring tool will be the texture of the cat's coat. At present all of
my cats except one has a dull coat. Only one cat has a glossy shining coat.
So as I administer diatomaceous earth in their food and drink and other
herbal remedies, I shall monitor their coats for Glossy Shiny Coats.
So here is my measuring tool-- as the months go by with almost daily
treatment, once I see the coats of my cats return to a luster glossy shine,
I will begin to cut back on treatment. And the beauty is, I can restart the
treatment any time that coat starts to become dull.
If I achieve that end goal, I will consider it a complete success.
The trouble with Chemical Medicine is that cats and dogs cannot tell us the
bad side effects. Cats and dogs cannot tell the owners-- oh no that hurts
my stomach or hurts this and that. And Chemicals work only for a short
short time before the cat worms are all resistant to the chemical. We see
the same in farming as we spray herbicide until the very weeds are all
resistant to the herbicide.
Which raises a super super good question. For if AP's DE treatment for dogs
and cats is effective, begs the question-- is there a treatment for weeds
that is purely Mechanical also?? For remember, the way DE deworms is the
worm is killed by the glass shards of the diatoms. So I am thinking--
maybe, just maybe there is a mechanical treatment -- other than hoeing and
pulling the weeds, a mechanical treatment of weeds.
Caution: now there is a huge caution in this as always in any treatment.
Make sure the cat, dog, human does not breathe in any diatomaceous earth,
for it will cut lung cells just as it cuts worms. Do not put DE for flea
treatment or on clothes or on bedding or on cats and dogs for fear they
will breathe it in. Only put DE __inside of food and drink__ in solution.
Make sure the DE is not able to be inhaled into the lungs. So many of the
Internet and Web videos show DE applied to skin, clothes, bedding, cat and
dog coats. This is all too dangerous.
For fleas, AP applies a solution of vinegar.
Besides, if fleas cause tapeworms or other types of worms, the DE in food
and drink will kill them.
And who knows where a Mechanical Solution for Medicine will lead and end in
using Diatomaceous Earth DE??
AP already proposed a Mechanical Solution for covid-19, as a MRI killing a
pocket of the virus, and let the white blood cells pick up on that pocket
and destroy the rest of the viri in the body once the white blood cells
imprint on the dead pocket of viri.
So can there be a Mechanical Solution of Cancer using DE??? Could it be
that cancer cells are killed by DE, but not normal cells??
If true, it would be almost a panacea cure of cancer. For big tumors be
injected by a solution of DE and it dies. And for small cell tumors like
small cell lung cancer needs a modified DE solution.
Perhaps cancer cells in their morphology of division are vulnerable to
shards of glass of diatoms. Only the DE used for a specific cancer entails
a specific DE shards of glass.
Here we can begin research in laboratories that have growing cancer cells
and see if DE can kill the cells, and then check to see if that same DE is
harmless on normal cells.
Another approach is see from people who routinely drink a solution of DE,
for much of their life, see if they are statistically better off in health
than the rest of the mass of population who do not take DE.
But here is another caution on DE. There are two types of DE-- a food grade
DE but a industrial grade not food grade (as often used in swimming pool
filters). The DE that is not food grade is deadly and lethal. So parents
and grown-ups need to be careful on DE use. Especially with children who
have pet cats or dogs, and feeding them the dangerous lethal DE. My
recommendation here is to never buy the lethal DE, never have it around to
where someone makes a mistake.
Now I have just started the experiments, for I have just started to get the
materials, the mortar-pestle, the herbs and the food grade DE. I am
expecting months to pass before I see all my 15 or so cats with full shiny
glossy coats of fur. Just like my one black cat I call "Outdoors" is the
only cat at present with a shiny full luster black coat of hair. She
probably has that coat because everytime she goes outside, she is eating so
much grass and other plant material and even in winter she is eating the
leaves of the indoor plants.
So my mission on these wild cats-- is to deworm them via DE and other
ground-up herbs, perhaps looking for the grasses that keep "Outdoors" so
shiny of a coat.
And all because I can monitor and measure my progress-- dull coats becoming
beautiful shiny coats. I would not be doing this unless I could measure it.
How shiny is the coat?
And, quite frankly the Chemical Medicine is pathetic and costly and silly.
For cats and dogs cannot speak, cannot say, oh no, the last time you did
that-- my stomach ache was horrible. Or, the last time you put chemicals in
me-- killed my kittens. And I do not know if DE kills kittens??
So, well, I am eager on this research, and expect it is the best and finest
way of tackling worms. So good that I suspect it is the best way of
treating cattle and horses and pigs of worms. Perhaps the best way of
deworming any and all animals, who knows??
The trouble with Chemical treatment of animals-- we never can hear what the
side-effects really are. Nor can we ever have a lasting program of
chemicals on worms, for only a few treatments and the worms remaining
become ever more Resistant to the chemical. So you spent a lot of time and
money to make a problem much worse.
So yes, all owners of animals, whether pets or farm animals. Look at their
coat of hair, (not sure about birds in this deworming). Look at their hair
and see if it is shiny, lustrous, glossy hair. If not, they probably have
worms, and worms that are making their life not as good as what it should
be. Making their life miserable.
Perhaps age also has some factor in hair luster, but that is another story.
So look at your animals, and see that diatomaceous earth is relatively
cheap. Easy to mix in a solution of food or drink, and easy to treat the
animal.
There are no Resistance forming in the worms by mechanical death.
And what a joy, tremendous joy it will be for me, to see all of my 15 or
more wild cats all have that shiny lustrous coat of hair.
Now sometimes a cat with many worms will have a distended belly. And if the
cat is female, can easily be mistaken for being pregnant. No, she is not
pregnant but bloated from worm parasites. And one of the reasons I was so
leery of chemical worm medicine is that they tell you not to administer if
pregnant. I am unsure as to whether DE is harmful to a pregnant cat?? I do
not know but would guess the DE passes through the mother cat but not to
her kittens.
My tomcat Smarty was starting to distend and yesterday he was starting to
have a normal belly again. I will monitor when Smarty is normal in belly
along with a lustrous glossy coat.
So really, I have several ways of knowing the cat has worms.
1) dull coat
2) worms in poop or discharge
3) distended belly
I am going to rely upon the coat symptom.
And constantly add DE in small amounts until I see a full glossy coat of
hair.
It works fast, for after one day, the cats show the back ridge starting to
shine, especially near the tail. And the cats are more active than before.
In the summer, I plan to add other natural cures such as ginger and ground
up pumpkin seeds.
Now it seems that all cats have this natural behavior of when they see a
plot of dirt ground with gravel that they take a dust-bathe. Roll around in
the dirt. I think it is because of wanting to scratch their backs
especially if they have fleas. And it could well be that the cat evolved
with scratching themselves in dirt and dust as the dirt and dust may kill
fleas just as diatomaceous earth kills worms in the stomach. The dirt and
dust scratches the fleas and kills them.
But I am certainly not going to apply DE to cats fur for fleas, for there
is too much risk the cat will inhale the diatoms and cause lung cancer. For
me, DE is only a internal worm medicine. And I certainly am not going to
use DE as a garden pesticide for fear, once again of breathing in that DE.
The packaging on the DE shows all kinds of farm animals, and dogs and cats.
So, I believe I finally found the solution of deworming. And worming had
always bothered me about pets. Of course my cats are wild cats. That I
ended up taking care of them, but could not take proper care until I also
dewormed them.
And now, maybe, with my knowledge of worming, may make me disliked by
others if I tell them-- their pet probably has worms for the coat is dull.
*5) AP is unsure if a pregnant cat eats Diatomaceous Earth, if it harms the
kittens???*
As of this writing in March 2023, I have found no science evidence that DE
harms pregnant cats and her unborn litter. Until I find science evidence, I
am going to assume that a female pregnant cat on DE cure for worms, that
the DE passes through the mothers stomach and intestines and none to the
unborn kittens.
If I find out from science research that DE harms unborn kittens I will use
DE only on cats not pregnant.
So I need to research this. I think some veterinarians have done this
research already.
*6) The big caution-- never breathe diatomaceous-earth, it probably can
cause cancer.*
So, look at your own pet-- is the coat a luxurious, glistening glossy
coat?? Or does it look like some dull color, no shine at all?? Then, you
cannot beat the price of DE and the ease of administering-- dissolve in a
glass of water and add it to milk. Just do not breathe it, inhale it, for
it is rather dry and dusty. I wear a respirator when mixing it in a glass
jar. When good weather comes I will go outdoors, making sure no wind, and
mix the DE solution.
And I am amazed at how fast I see their coats start to shine again.
And in a few days you begin to see actual results-- the color on the back
becomes shiny hair again.
Just 3 days into this research, both my white cats are sparkling tip of
coat hair, luster. And my tomcat orange tabby is starting to gloss and his
bloated belly is disappearing.
So much success in just 3 days and decided to cut the dosage in 1/2, with
only 1/2 teaspoon of diatomaceous earth per cat, until full glossy coat.
Yes, one of my best stories of pet life-- conquering worms. All 15 of my
wild cats are showing huge signs of progress, for all 15 now have the tips
of their hair as shiny glossy. And just 4 days on in the treatment. In
fact, after the first day I saw improvement, especially my 2 white cats.
A few of my wild cats will not let me get within 4 meters of them, so I
have to pay close attention for signs of improvement. Maybe this Spring
Summer wear binoculars to see if their coat is improved.
And then again I have skunks, possums, raccoons raiding the cat's tray when
I am not present, and I do not mind deworming them also, -- go for it, wild
animals.
Why, did you know? Probably not, that possums eat ticks, for ticks are a
delicacy for possums. I have not seen any ticks near my house nor woods.
But many in Vermillion have seen ticks; they even situate themselves on
tree leaves and fall upon you when you are passing by.
And all animals are valuable to plants as a gas exchange of animal-CO2 for
the plants O2. The CO2 molecule comes in 3 isomers and only the animal-CO2
is of use to plants. This is the argument that all wild animals benefit
plants.
The only real concern for me or the cats-- is __not breathing in__ any of
the diatomaceous earth DE. For it kills worms by the glass shards that
mechanically kills the worms. And if inhaled into the lungs, would also cut
cells of the lungs. So I wear a respirator and spoon it in a space where no
dust can be a problem. I prefer to spoon it outdoors but this is still
winter. I have to be super careful I never breathe in any of this DE.
And I think it ridiculous on the Internet showing video of spreading DE
into bedding or clothing or on pets themselves for there is every
likelihood they will breathe in the DE. No, for me, I only dissolve it in a
water solution to be taken internally by cats and rid them of their worms.
Of course it, the DE, kills only grown up worms, not the young ones, and so
over a period of time-- a month-- I expect the DE to kill almost all the
internal worms.
And the monitor system is their cat hair coat. Is it a healthy radiant
glossy shiny coat. My one black cat has that entire coat glossy shiny black
and she loves to eat vegetable matter, -- grasses she eats. Maybe the
grasses have worm killing agents in the grass??
I do recall grasses contain silica. Yes, grasses contain silica, and maybe
the reason Outdoors coat is shiny black. So I need to investigate that
also. Perhaps grasses work as effective as DE???
If it is the case that grasses work better than DE, then I will switch to
grasses, grind them up in a mortar pestle and sprinkle some into their food.
Yes, I have never seen my favorite cat (favorite at the moment) for I call
her "Romance" her name, as all glossy coat. She is the first to greet me
whenever I open the door. Her entire life seems to be devoted to being
around me. So I named her Romance. She is tabby but streaks of orange blobs
as if a mix between calico and tabby. And now, for the first time, with DE
diatomaceous earth medical treatment, her coat is glistening shiny.
So, well, with all this great news of deworming, I am calling for all
Veterinarians to come together and call a international conference on
making DE be proportioned out into wet dog and cat food. So that every dog
and cat who eats the wet food has a tiny bit of diatomaceous earth that
they ingest. Rather than have people going the extra effort of treating.
Have the food already contain DE, in small amounts. And in wet food only
because of the risk of breathing DE into the lungs by humans or animals.
So as we feed our pets wet food, they get a bonus of deworming along with
food.
Of course some pet owners take such good care of their pets that their
coats are glistening shiny glossy that they may want to buy the wet food
without the added DE as ingredient.
My lovely Romance cat is a joy to see her dewormed and soon she will be
fully glossy coated, just like my black cat "Outdoors".
*7) Get away from chemicals-- fenbendazole, ivermectin, pyrantel pamoate,
pyrantel, piperazine, praziquantel.*
The veterinarians of the world are doing a disservice to cats and dogs with
their continued support of chemicals-biologicals that only end up being
Worm resistant or Worm immune to these medicines of active ingredients --
fenbendazole, ivermectin, pyrantel pamoate, pyrantel, piperazine,
praziquantel. Just a matter of time for the worm infestation to become
resistant or immune. Just like in farming with herbicides that the targeted
weeds become resistant to the chemical.
But no worm can be resistant to being cut up by DE shards of glass from
diatoms.
So now, what happens to the cut up worm inside the cat?? Does the cat
digest the worm for further nourishment? Or is the worm pooped out as is --
a dead worm?
So we need extensive research on worms killed from Diatomaceous Earth DE.
And as I was proposing earlier. Why not have all animal feed contain DE to
keep worm parasites under control.
Going even further. I heard that in India and other places, people have
worms and when in surgery, some Indian doctors witness a entire stomach
full of worms.
So here, DE is relatively cheap and inexpensive. And perhaps a few drinks
over a time period of weeks or months, that person can be cleared out of
all worms.
The packages of DE, I bought recommend it for humans, in addition to animal
pets.
So, well, I as scientist is using hair gloss shine as a measuring tool.
What can we use for humans who have a stomach full of worms? Is their hair
or skin very dull in appearance? Do they have trouble with their eyes from
worms? Obviously they would not be as energetic as if cleared out of worms.
So, what started out as deworming my cats with a medicine treatment that
makes logical common sense, is now moving into human treatment also. How
many humans have intestinal worm parasites? Is it say 50% of all humanity
has worms?
Alright, well today, the observations are excellent as far as hair coat on
my cats-- all showing a luster and shine. However there is a major
drawback, a odd twist of circumstances that needs further research. Of 4 of
my cats, they have the calci virus or perhaps worse. So although they have
been treated for worms, they are showing bad signs of a calci virus
infection in their eyes and sniffling and lack of desire to eat.
So I am wondering if having worms somehow kept the viruses in check???
So months back I read some report that worms keep some bacteria or possibly
viruses in check or at bay. For the obvious evolutionary force that the
worm does not want the host to die and so the worm produces something that
kills the invading bacteria or virus.
So, perhaps, maybe, I solved the worm problem, but left the door open on
virus and bacteria invasion. I need further research on this point.
Does anyone know if worms in humans kept them better off from viruses or
bacteria??
It would be interesting if a worm produced a viricide for our Covid-19 or
flu.
Alright, I feel good for this day, for I just transported two of my tabbies
to a different building where they can snuggle up close to an electric
heater. The weather forecast predicts -18 Celcius for a week.
The trouble was that I dewormed my cats, and all of a sudden their Calci
virus skyrocketed. So I believe that worms somehow help their hosts with
viral parasites. The worms wanting their host to live and produce some
antibiotic on viruses. I read a recent article of this effect-- not in cats
and their worms but some other species.
So this needs researching-- worms are surely parasites, but they confer
some protection against viruses.
I was so happy in departing their new home for the two tabbies snuggled up
to one another next to the electric heater. Just what I wanted them to do.
For they were cat-crying as they departed their home that they had known
all their life.
Now there is a 3rd tabby, a male, and am monitoring his Calci. If it gets
too much, I will move him to his two sisters.
*8) Dewormed cats but calci virus accelerated? Do worms fight off calci
virus?*
Alright, yesterday, 16Feb2023, I delivered 2 more of my cats to another
building where they can sleep near a electric heater. I am surprised at how
rapidly their health of calci virus deteriorated. They had worms and I
treated them with diatomaceous earth DE and their coats came back in gloss
shine, killing their worms, but their viruses of calci went what can be
called in social media as "viral".
I looked at the forecast of weather and not until March will the nights be
well above freezing. And next week is -20 degrees Celcius.
So I took the pains of getting a pet carrier, and these cats are wild, but
if I feed them they are not paying attention and grab them by the neck and
put them in the carrier and haul them over to the other building. They cry
and howl all the way. But now I have 4 of them there, 3 tabbies and 1 gray.
They are all 4 very happy and just sleep and rest near the heater.
I had done the same thing before about 2 years ago to a almost all white
cat and she is in beautiful shape now, living over there and named her
"indoors" for she never wants to go outside.
So there was a twist to this story. I fixed the problem of intestinal
worms, but to my dismay, I have a accelerated Calci virus. I have no direct
evidence that worms can affect viruses and keep calci at bay. And if I kill
the worms, the calci explodes.
I had read a article recently about worms killing viruses so the worms keep
their host alive.
This maybe true in general in biology, that when we have worms, they give
some benefit to the host, by killing viruses.
So this leads to much further research-- do all intestinal worms help
protect their host from viruses? Do worms produce viricides that are useful
in medicine for cures? Could an intestinal worm in humans produce a
viricide that kills the covid-19 virus? Or the rabies virus?
So as always in science-- you find solutions, but open the door to more
problems and more research.
Archimedes Plutonium
Feb 20, 2023, 10:02:25 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright excellent news on my 4 moved sick with Calci virus cats. 3 of them
were playful today after they ate, and the worst one infected ate with
appetite. If a Calci cat refuses to eat means she is close to death. So as
March approaches and the weather gets warmer at night, I shall release them
back into the wild outdoors.
And I look up where I read that worms are beneficial in killing or stopping
viruses.
It comes in a NIH report about "Helminths induced a Th2-prone response in
the host". This report is closely watched on Covid-19 severity in Africa.
Other news reports that worms have some benefit and not all parasitic and
harmful. For it seems as though my 4 cats took a nosedive in health after I
treated them with diatomaceous-earth to rid them of intestinal worms. Then
up comes this stark and sharp Calci Virus overwhelming these 4 cats.
The Fight Against Severe COVID-19: Can Parasitic Worms Contribute? Pengfei
Cai, Yi Mu, and Donald P. McManus
From Science News "Intestinal worms 'talk' to gut bacteria to boost immune
system", 2015, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne
From The Economist, Nov 27, 2021 "Ivermectin may help covid-19 patients--
but only those with worms"
*9) Very much interested in whether grasses have silica as the reason
Outdoors has a full lustrous black coat.*
Maybe my black cat Outdoors is the prize cat of this deworming experiment.
What if grasses have all the killing property of worms, that is needed?
Well, I can easily with pestle and mortar grind up grasses, the ones
Outdoors eats, and grind up those grasses and add to their food.
That way, I can probably avoid the worry of pregnant cats, but even better,
avoid ever breathing DE.
This is a ongoing research book and will add more news from time to time.
AP
zzzzzzzzzz
plutonium dot archimedes at gmail dot com. Looking for a College or
University press to hardcover publish all 318+ AP books of science, likely
to become 500-600 maybe even 700 books by the time I die. E-books are too
prone to unbalanced-unhinged censor-editors, who can easily make your books
vanish by pulling a switch. Science should never have gatekeepers, who
thwart access to true science.
| /
| /
|/______ hardcover or paperback
PAU newsgroup is this.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
♪♪ ATTENBOROUGH: London's Natural History Museum is full of wonders.
It's a place where we can get a vivid idea of the great variety of life... that inhabits our planet.
But there are some creatures here that I can never hope to encounter because they are extinct.
[ Dinosaurs roaring ] [ Recording powers down ] GUARD: Ladies and gentlemen, the museum is going to be closing in 5 minutes, so please make your way towards the exits.
Thank you.
ATTENBOROUGH: Tonight, however... ♪♪ ...something magical is happening.
♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ATTENBOROUGH: It's a big place.
There are 70 million or so specimens here I'm told.
♪♪ And the first I want to look at right now is way up on the very top floor.
The Maori people of New Zealand have legends about huge flightless birds that in the past had roamed their islands.
Stories that many Europeans dismissed as myths.
Until this skeleton was sent here.
It was a giant.
♪♪ The Maori in their legend had called it a moa.
But was it the largest bird that had ever lived?
♪♪ ♪♪ [ Moa squawks ] ♪♪ ♪♪ [ Moa squawks ] There were several different species of moa, but this was certainly the biggest.
It stands three meters tall.
But is this really what it looked like when it was alive?
You can tell how an animal held its head from the junction between the skull and the neck.
If that is underneath the skull, then its neck would have been upright.
But this moa's neck joint is at the back of the skull, so it must have held its neck more horizontally, like this.
♪♪ ♪♪ [ Moa squawks ] ♪♪ So, was the giant moa the biggest bird that has ever existed?
Well, if it craned up its neck, it was almost certainly the tallest.
♪♪ [ Chuckles ] ♪♪ [ Moa squawks ] [ Laughs ] [ Heavy footsteps approach ] But the moas had an enemy and one that was also huge.
It too can be found here in the museum.
This colossal bird was nearly twice as heavy as the most powerful eagle alive today.
♪♪ Not only that, but it had formidable weapons... ♪♪ ...a beak the size of a butcher's cleaver... ♪♪ ...and razor-sharp talons as big as the claws of a tiger.
This flying killer is Harpagornis.
♪♪ [ Eagle screeches ] ♪♪ We know that Harpagornis preyed on moas because moa skeletons have been found with holes stamped through their pelvic bones that exactly match the grasp of Harpagornis's claws.
It was probably even strong enough to cling to a moa's back with one foot while it slashed at its victim's neck with the other.
[ Moa squawks ] But it looks as if this moa is going to escape, for now.
♪♪ Science has revealed the truth behind many a myth, but there is one tall story that is still remarkably persistent.
♪♪ Back in 1951, a famous Himalayan explorer and mountaineer, Eric Shipton, came across some huge footprints in a high snowfield that looked as if they'd been made by some kind of giant ape.
Shipton's Sherpa companions had no doubt about what had made them.
A Yeti.
An abominable snowman.
Well, there is one small specimen acquired by the museum and kept in its vaults that might just explain those prints.
♪♪ It was found in a shop in Hong Kong that sold Chinese traditional medicines.
♪♪ It was a molar tooth of some kind of ape-like creature, except that it was huge.
The museum only got a fragment.
This is it, but here's a cast of a complete one, and it's six times the size of one of ours.
It was given the name Gigantopithecus, giant ape.
After that discovery, one or two more teeth were discovered, but nothing much until eventually a piece of the lower jaw was found.
The original is now in America.
This is a cast.
But here is the lower jaw.
If this animal had a skull with the same proportions as those of a gorilla, its complete skull would have been this big.
This was a true monster.
[ Tapping, footsteps approach ] ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ [ Low growl ] ♪♪ So, we know a huge ape did exist, Gigantopithecus.
It could well have stood three meters tall, in which case it would have been eight times as heavy as I am.
And if you're as heavy as that, you don't spend much time climbing trees because they won't support you.
So, the likelihood is that his arms are quite short, and he walked upright.
He was bipedal.
I'll get out of the way.
♪♪ [ Low growl ] ♪♪ An upright animal has its head on the top of its spine as I do.
And if that head is to be well balanced, it's better not to have a long muzzle but a rather flat face.
So, if I were to observe Gigantopithecus and it stared back at me, I suspect I'll find its look rather unnervingly familiar.
[ Low growl ] ♪♪ ♪♪ Gigantopithecus is commonly thought to have died out several hundred thousand years ago.
But sightings of the yeti continue to be reported.
So, is it possible that some kind of giant ape, maybe even Gigantopithecus itself, still survives somewhere out in those remote Himalayan mountains?
[ Ape roaring ] ♪♪ Of course, if you want to imagine what an extinct animal looked like, you really need a complete skeleton... and bits of skin and feathers, if you can get them.
And even then, you may well make mistakes.
♪♪ ♪♪ This poor old bird is a dodo.
It once lived on the island of Mauritius in the Indian ocean.
And it's almost certainly the first animal species that human beings actually exterminated in historic times.
And so now we talk about being "as dead as a dodo."
But in spite of its fame, this one is a fake.
Its feathers come from a goose, its feet were modeled on a turkey, and its beak, I suspect, is plaster.
The museum can be forgiven because no skin or feathers of the dodo survive.
Its image was influenced by pictures like this one, painted by a 17th-century Dutch artist, Roelandt Savery.
But he had never seen a living dodo and based his image on accounts by seafarers.
I've often wondered whether dodos actually looked like that.
But unfortunately, they had all disappeared before anyone could get a good look at them.
Until now.
♪♪ [ Laughs ] This funny, dumpy creature is how the bird is usually represented these days.
But I've seen quite a lot of flightless birds over the years, and this one doesn't quite ring true.
An examination of the way its thighs join its pelvis has shown that in life it actually stood much more upright.
♪♪ We now know that its feathers were probably a lot fluffier than in that painting.
We also now know that it was related to the pigeon, and some experts suggest that it made a pigeon-like call -- doo-doo, doo-doo -- which gave the bird its name.
[ Dodo calling ] The dodo probably fed on fruit.
There was a lot of it on the island.
I'll try him with a bit.
Come on!
♪♪ What do you make of that?
[ Laughs ] Ow!
That's a very powerful beak!
In fact, it may well have been adapted for crushing shells and crustaceans for the sake of the calcium.
And there's a female.
Maybe she is another reason why they had such large beaks -- to show off with during courtship.
♪♪ [ Dodo calling ] ♪♪ And here comes a rival male.
[ Dodos calling, hissing ] He could be another reason for having a huge beak -- to fight with in disputes over nest sites.
♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ Until now, no one has ever seen a dodo egg, so no one knows how big it was.
♪♪ But after tonight, who knows?
♪♪ [ Dodo clicking ] ♪♪ There are specimens of animals in the museum from every corner of the planet.
The mummified remains of this strange creature were found in a cave in Patagonia, South America.
It was a giant ground sloth.
There are several kinds of ground sloth, and this one had immense claws.
What could they have been used for?
♪♪ [ Ding! ]
[ Low growl ] [ Door squeaks, footsteps slowly approach ] ♪♪ ♪♪ [ Low growl ] These ground sloths probably spent most of their time on all fours.
But nonetheless they were perfectly capable of rearing up on their hind legs.
And when they did that, they probably stood about three meters tall, which is as tall as a grizzly bear, if not taller.
♪♪ But I don't think this one is going to use its claws on me.
♪♪ That dung made it clear that these creatures are vegetarians, so they doubtless used those claws for ripping up plants.
But it's been discovered recently that they used them for something else as well.
♪♪ Something that seems rather surprising for animals of their great bulk.
♪♪ [ Dirt falling ] ♪♪ They dug burrows.
♪♪ ♪♪ Hmm!
♪♪ Huge excavations like this have been found all over Patagonia.
And we know they were made by giant sloths because scratches on the walls of the burrows exactly matched their claws.
Such immense burrows must have been excellent places to take refuge.
And the giant sloths may well have had need of them.
Because there was a truly ferocious predator living alongside them.
[ Big cat snarls ] ♪♪ A great cat with immense, saber-shaped teeth... ...Smilodon.
For me there is no more alarming animal in the whole museum than this.
And its skeleton is perfectly preserved because about 10,000 years ago it wandered into a pool of naturally occurring tar oozing from the ground in California.
In general shape, it was somewhat like a lion, but more muscular, and much heavier.
And those saber teeth were really sharp.
No wonder the giant sloths needed burrows in which to take refuge.
[ Low growling ] [ Sharp note plays ] ♪♪ [ Low growling ] You might think that Smilodon would have caught its prey as a lion often does, by chasing it, leaping on it at speed, and then throttling it, suffocating it with a bite to the neck.
♪♪ But Smilodon stalked its prey, creeping quietly across the plains, until it got really close.
♪♪ And then it pounced!
♪♪ ♪♪ Smilodon couldn't throttle its prey with those huge teeth, and they were too brittle to slash.
They would shatter if they struck bone.
♪♪ Instead, the animal would have first used its great weight to pin down its victim.
Then it would have used its sabers like blades to slice open the soft flesh of its victim's throat.
But these terrifying hunters had a rather touching side to their characters.
Tigers today are solitary hunters, and when one gets too old to hunt successfully, it dies.
But skeletons of really elderly sabertooths have been discovered.
Which suggests that not only did Smilodon hunt in packs, but when members of the family were too old to hunt for themselves, they were allowed to take a share of the kill.
♪♪ ♪♪ The museum is full of creatures that appear terrifying, but which no doubt, if you knew them better, would prove to have quite a charming side to their characters.
But there is one here that would, I think, chill everyone's blood.
♪♪ ♪♪ This is a vertebra from the backbone of a modern snake.
It was a python.
And we know exactly how long it was because it was measured when it was alive.
It was 21 feet long, seven meters.
This, however, is a similar bone from the spine of a fossil snake.
And if this was 20 feet long, how big was this?
Certainly 30 feet, 10 meters, 11 meters.
It was a monster.
But what did it live on in those far distant times?
[ Clank ] [ Sharp note plays ] Maybe, if I follow it, I'll find out what it ate.
♪♪ ♪♪ Science calls this snake Gigantophis.
And it was truly immense.
It was certainly big enough to swallow me.
But would it have eaten human beings?
It's an alarming thought.
♪♪ Well, it might well have done if we had both been around at the same time, but we weren't.
We'd not yet appeared on Earth.
But there was a prehistoric elephant like this one that was unlucky enough to be wandering around the planet alongside Gigantophis about 40 million years ago.
♪♪ Could this monster snake have tackled one of these?
We know from its massive size that it must have been a constrictor... ...and constrictors don't use venom.
♪♪ Instead, having seized an animal with their jaws, they wrap their coils around their prey and squeeze so hard that they stop their victim's heart, and it dies within minutes.
♪♪ I wonder if he realizes that his dinner tonight is a fiberglass model?
I'll leave him to it.
Around 150 years ago when this great museum was being built, pioneer geologists were collecting some huge fossilized skeletons from cliffs on the coasts of Southern England.
They had paddle-like limbs... ferocious teeth... and huge eyes.
They were reptiles, and they were given the name ichthyosaur -- fish lizard.
♪♪ ♪♪ Now it's got skin and flesh on it, you can see how remarkably similar it is to today's dolphin.
It's got the same streamlined silhouette, the same pointed jaws, it's air-breathing, even gives birth to live young.
But surely an ancient ichthyosaur couldn't be as advanced as a modern-day dolphin?
♪♪ [ Dolphin squeaking ] Or could it?
♪♪ ♪♪ Dolphins are mammals.
Ichthyosaurs, reptiles.
Very, very different groups.
They're not at all closely related.
And yet, they both have very similar body shapes.
They're a remarkable example of what's called convergent evolution -- two groups of unrelated animals that have evolved similar bodies to suit the same environment.
But there are some differences.
Dolphins beat their tales up and down, like their cousins, the whales.
Ichthyosaurs, as is clear from their fossils, had tails like fish that beat from side to side.
And dolphins only have two flippers, whereas ichthyosaurs had four.
So, is it possible that ichthyosaurs were as fast in the water and as agile as dolphins, if not more so?
I wonder who would win in a competition?
♪♪ ♪♪ [ Dolphin squeaking ] One kind of dolphin, spinners, can leap from the surface of the water and spin in the air.
♪♪ Maybe the ichthyosaurs could do the same?
♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ We know that ichthyosaurs lived and evolved on this planet for many millions of years more than dolphins have done so far.
So maybe ichthyosaurs would have won the competition after all.
Who knows?
[ Dolphin squeaking ] ♪♪ ♪♪ Living around the same time as the ichthyosaurs was another creature that became the subject of great argument when it was first discovered.
This, some might say, is the most scientifically important and valuable specimen in the whole of the museum.
It's a fossil called Archaeopteryx.
But what kind of creature was Archaeopteryx when it was alive?
♪♪ It had two long leg bones, so it must have stood upright.
A bony tail and a long neck.
Its head had bony jaws packed with teeth, like a reptile's.
And its arms had three elongated fingers, each ending with a claw.
So you might think it was some kind of strange, spindly-armed, upright-standing lizard.
Except for one fact.
♪♪ There is evidence of more than just bones on its slab.
Feathers!
♪♪ Archaeopteryx lived some 150 million years ago, long before the appearance of true birds.
Those feathers on its arms certainly enabled it to glide.
But that's not all.
♪♪ It had powered flight.
Marks on the bones show that there were enough muscles attached to them to enable it to flap.
Not only that, a recent scan of its skull showed that its brain would have given it the senses and reactions that are needed for accurate control in the air.
This creature was half reptile, half bird.
It was the first proof that in prehistory there were intermediate forms that linked the big, very different groups of animals that we know today.
♪♪ ♪♪ But while Archaeopteryx could certainly fly, it could also clamber up tree trunks and along the branches, like a tree-living reptile, thanks to those clawed fingers.
♪♪ There were insects flying around at that time.
And Archaeopteryx's teeth show that it was a hunter.
♪♪ ♪♪ And this is Professor Richard Owen, the man who acquired that fossil and built this museum.
Although he disagreed with Darwin's views on evolution, he was one of the great scientists of his time, and he had a particular flair for interpreting fossils.
♪♪ Another group of reptiles dominated the land.
♪♪ They lived long before big mammals, let alone human beings.
There were hundreds, probably thousands of different kinds, and they came in all shapes and sizes.
They are, perhaps, the most famous and dramatic of all prehistoric creatures.
And they were first identified and named here in Britain.
[ Low grunting ] They were the dinosaurs.
[ Grunting continues ] Thousands of people come here every day to look at their amazing skeletons, and to imagine what they must have looked like, and sounded like, when they were alive.
♪♪ [ Roaring ] [ Roaring stops ] ♪♪ It's hard to imagine a time when the world didn't know about dinosaurs.
But until relatively recently nobody knew they had ever existed, let alone that they once ruled the world.
The story of their discovery starts in the 1820s when a doctor named Gideon Mantell, living on the south coast of England in Sussex, picked up something odd in a sandstone quarry.
And this is what he found.
It's clearly a tooth of some kind.
This is its outer surface.
And in shape it's very like the tooth of a living lizard such as an iguana.
Which is why the animal it belonged to came to be called Iguanodon -- iguana tooth.
And with it were a number of other bones.
They were the hips and back legs of some kind of giant reptile.
More of them were discovered, and soon there were enough to get some idea of what the whole animal had looked like.
One odd little bone seemed to have nowhere to go, so the reconstructors put it on the end of its nose, making the animal look like some kind of reptilian rhinoceros.
It was like nothing anyone had ever seen before.
So, a great fossil hunt started in the quarries of Sussex.
And eventually the bones of several different kinds of big animals were discovered.
They were brought here to the museum, Professor Owen examined them, and he decided that they should belong to a completely new kind of animal, an animal he called a dino-saur -- "terrible lizard."
In due course more complete skeletons of Iguanodons were discovered and it became possible to reconstruct them with greater certainty.
Iguanodon could stand upright.
It had small arms and was over 25 feet, seven meters, tall.
And that horn on its nose was actually a spike on its thumb.
♪♪ Before long, new and even bigger species were being unearthed all over the world, from the instantly recognizable three-horned Triceratops to the sensational Tyrannosaurus Rex.
These astounding beasts have inspired and captivated not only scientists, but writers, artists and filmmakers for almost two centuries.
But it was Professor Owen, here in the Natural History Museum, who first identified them.
And his work has been continued here ever since.
♪♪ This is the laboratory, where the museum prepares its fossils for study and for display.
♪♪ It's here that they painstakingly remove the excess rock to reveal the fossils in all their extraordinary detail.
♪♪ This is the fossilized egg of a dinosaur, one of the first to be discovered.
And it was found close to some bones of a sauropod dinosaur.
Sauropods -- this is the model of one -- were gigantic vegetarian dinosaurs that wandered around on four legs.
There are lots of different species of them.
They're found all over the world, and they're the biggest land animals that have ever existed.
Of course, you can't prove that it was a sauropod that laid this egg.
But I would like to think that it was.
The weight of the sand that eventually covered it squashed it.
But if we could see it when it was first laid... ♪♪ ...we would see that it's much rounder than a chicken's egg, more like that of a turtle or a crocodile.
And of course, very much bigger.
[ Rustling ] Hmm!
Sounds like something's in there.
But how will that something make its way out?
Most dinosaur eggs are shell filled with rock.
But not so long ago someone in South America found a sauropod egg and inside there was a baby sauropod.
And on its nose, it had a little egg tooth.
Birds and crocodiles have the same sort of thing.
They need it, as the sauropod did, in order to be able to break out of the shell.
[ Rustling continues ] [ Thud ] Oh!
♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ [ Sauropod screeches ] [ Laughs ] [ Sauropod screeches ] We know that baby sauropods were very small and left their nests very early, perhaps to avoid being trampled upon by their huge mothers.
[ Sauropod screeches ] They probably hid in the forest until they grew large enough to join the herd of adults.
[ Sauropod screeching ] ♪♪ Hello!
[ Chuckles ] Well, this is just one leg bone of a fully grown sauropod.
So you can see this little fellow has got quite a lot of growing to do over the next few years.
♪♪ [ Sauropod screeches ] ♪♪ [ Sauropod screeches ] The museum, of course, has the skeleton of a fully-grown sauropod -- of a kind.
And its story is one of kings and millionaires.
Back in 1902, King Edward VII, then-Prince of Wales, saw a picture of a huge sauropod replica, one of the biggest yet discovered, whilst visiting the Scotsman turned American millionaire, Andrew Carnegie, at his castle in Scotland.
The prince immediately said, "Well, I would like one of those," and in those days what princes asked for, they got.
♪♪ And so, in due course, another replica turned up right here in the Natural History Museum.
♪♪ ♪♪ And here it is.
There are two ways of pronouncing its scientific name.
It's either diplo-do-cus or dip-lod-icus.
Either way it's a bit of a mouthful.
So I'm going to use the nickname that is commonly used around here.
This is Dippy.
And what's more, although there's no way of being sure whether it was male or female, I'm going to assume that Dippy was female.
♪♪ But what did Dippy look like when she was alive?
This strangely shaped fragment of a dinosaur called Edmontosaurus was mummified before it was fossilized, so not only the bones but the skin was almost perfectly preserved, and it was covered in small scales.
They didn't overlap like those of a lizard but formed a close-fitting mosaic.
Maybe Dippy was like that too.
But what about her color?
My suspicion is that Dippy, like many large mammals today, such as elephants or rhinoceros, was a general, all-over neutral plain color.
So, if we add a little bit of skin and flesh, we can get some idea of what she actually looked like.
♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ [ Low grunting ] ♪♪ ♪♪ So now, after 150 million years, we've got a pretty good idea of what Dippy looked like.
But how did she behave?
♪♪ ♪♪ Well, animals her size and weight must have moved in a rather ponderous way.
And in any case, since she was a vegetarian, as we know from her teeth, she had no need to be speedy to get her food.
But it's the tiny bones in Dippy's inner ear that can give us a clue as to what she sounded like.
These little bones are basically the same shape as that of the dinosaur's closest relatives, birds.
The range of sounds a bird hears is related to its size.
A small bird makes and hears high-pitched sounds, whereas large birds communicate with low-pitched sounds.
So huge Dippy, with her inner-ear bones shaped like those of a bird, could probably hear very low-pitched frequencies of sound.
And she could probably make them too.
[ Low roaring ] [ Chuckles ] ♪♪ [ Low roaring ] We know that elephants today can communicate using infrasound, sound with frequencies so low they're below human hearing.
And those sounds travel through the ground sometimes for many miles and are detected by elephants through their large, flat, sensitive feet.
[ Thump ] Dippy too had large, flat feet.
So maybe the giant dinosaurs communicated with one another in much the same way, as well as by bellowing.
Her long tail would have helped to balance her long, heavy neck, but why was her neck so long?
♪♪ The most likely explanation seems to be that it helped her to reach leaves in all sorts of difficult places.
But in order to reach the highest, most succulent leaves in the forest, it seems likely that Dippy would have reared up on her hind legs.
Come on Dippy!
[ Smooches ] Breakfast, come on!
♪♪ [ Chuckles ] ♪♪ Oh, hello!
♪♪ [ Low roaring ] ♪♪ [ Low roaring ] ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ [ Door closes ] ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ London's Natural History Museum is full of wonders.
It's a place where we can get a vivid idea of the great variety of life that inhabits our planet, both today and in the past, especially after a night like that!
♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ To learn more about what you've seen on this "Nature" program, visit pbs.org.
♪♪
Archimedes Plutonium
Correcting David Attenborough's poor discussion on dinosaurs in his Museum Alive show.--- quoting NATURE transcript NATURE: Museum Alive With David Attenborough ---
Because there was a truly ferocious predator living alongside them.
[ Big cat snarls ] ♪♪ A great cat with immense, saber-shaped teeth... ...Smilodon.
For me there is no more alarming animal in the whole museum than this.
And its skeleton is perfectly preserved because about 10,000 years ago it wandered into a pool of naturally occurring tar oozing from the ground in California.
In general shape, it was somewhat like a lion, but more muscular, and much heavier.
And those saber teeth were really sharp.
No wonder the giant sloths needed burrows in which to take refuge.
[ Low growling ] [ Sharp note plays ] ♪♪ [ Low growling ] You might think that Smilodon would have caught its prey as a lion often does, by chasing it, leaping on it at speed, and then throttling it, suffocating it with a bite to the neck.
♪♪ But Smilodon stalked its prey, creeping quietly across the plains, until it got really close.
♪♪ And then it pounced!
♪♪ ♪♪ Smilodon couldn't throttle its prey with those huge teeth, and they were too brittle to slash.
They would shatter if they struck bone.
♪♪ Instead, the animal would have first used its great weight to pin down its victim.
Then it would have used its sabers like blades to slice open the soft flesh of its victim's throat.
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
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
Steve Huffman on math lunatics Terence Tao,
Steve Huffman University of Virginia,
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 ...
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
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
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
--- 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---
.jpg)
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
>
Look math failure John Baez and Terence Tao, if you make the polynomial the only valid function in all of math, you reduce calculus to a mere add or subtract 1 from exponent-- the power rule. And you stop the calculus classroom from being a nerve racking torture chamber. As University of Glasgow keeps saying "raving nutter".
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.
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.
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
.jpg)
Born
1970 (age 54–55)[2]
Alma mater
University of Maryland[3]
Occupation(s)
Video game programmer and developer, businessman
Notable work
ZZT
Unreal Engine
Title
Founder and CEO of Epic Games
Awards
AIAS Hall of Fame Award (2012)[4]
GDC Lifetime Achievement Award (2017)[5]
Adam D'Angelo Caltech, Charlie Cheever-Harvard on E.J.Corey water electrolysis as Mark Barton Univ Glasgow says "raving nutter". Dr. Walter Gilbert (chem), Dr.Dudley Herschbach (chem), Dr.Martin Karplus (chem). What, another that looks only on volume??--- quoting Wikipedia---E.J. CoreyCorey in 2007
BornElias James Corey
July 12, 1928 (age 96)Methuen, Massachusetts, U.S.
Alma mater
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (BS, PhD)
Known for
- Retrosynthetic analysis
- Synthon
- Corey–Bakshi–Shibata catalyst
- Corey–Chaykovsky reaction
- Corey–Fuchs reaction
- Corey–Gilman–Ganem oxidation
- Corey–House synthesis
- Corey–Itsuno reduction
- Corey–Kim oxidation
- Corey–Link reaction
- Corey–Nicolaou macrolactonization
- Corey–Peterson olefination
- Corey–Seebach reaction
- Corey–Suggs reagent
- Corey–Winter olefin synthesis
- LHASA
Awards
- ACS Award in Pure Chemistry(1960)
- Ernest Guenther Award (1968)
- Centenary Medal (1971)
- Linus Pauling Award (1973)
- George Ledlie Prize (1973)
- Arthur C. Cope Award (1976)
- William H. Nichols Medal (1977)
- Franklin Medal (1978)
- Chemical Pioneer Award (1981)
- Lewis S. Rosenstiel Award (1981)
- Paul Karrer Gold Medal (1982)
- Tetrahedron Prize (1983)
- Willard Gibbs Award (1984)
- Wolf Prize in Chemistry (1986)
- National Medal of Science (1988)
- Japan Prize (1989)[1]
- Nobel Prize in Chemistry (1990)
- ForMemRS (1998)[2]
- Priestley Medal (2004)
Scientific career
Fields
Organic chemistry
Institutions
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
Harvard University
Thesis
The synthesis of N,N-diacylamino acids and analogs of penicillin (1951)
Doctoral advisor
John C. Sheehan
Notable students
- Phil Baran
- Rajender Leleti
- Eric Block
- Dale L. Boger
- Weston T. Borden
- David E. Cane
- Rick L. Danheiser
- William L. Jorgensen
- John Katzenellenbogen
- Alan P. Kozikowski
- Bruce H. Lipshutz
- David Liu
- Gojko Lalic
- Albert Meyers
- K. C. Nicolaou
- Ryōji Noyori
- Gary H. Posner
- Bengt I. Samuelsson
- Dieter Seebach
- Vinod K. Singh
- Brian Stoltz
- Hisashi Yamamoto
- Ramakanth Sarabu
- Jin-Quan Yu
--- end quoting Wikipedia---
https://groups.google.com › plutonium-atom-universe
Google Groups
https://groups.google.com › plutonium-atom-universe
My first great science was 1990 of the Atom Totality theory-- the entire Universe is just one big atom of plutonium. My second great discovery was the real electron is the muon and 0.5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole.
https://groups.google.com › plutonium-atom-universe
Google Groups
https://groups.google.com › plutonium-atom-universe
My first great science was 1990 of the Atom Totality theory-- the entire Universe is just one big atom of plutonium.My second great discovery was the real electron is the muon and 0.5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole.
--- quoting Wikipedia---Adam D'AngeloD'Angelo in 2022
Born
August 14, 1984 (age 39)Redding, Connecticut, U.S.
Education
California Institute of Technology(BS)
Occupation
CEO of Quora
Known for
Former CTO of Facebook, co-founder of Quora
Board member of--- end quoting Wikipedia---AP: Why is not Adam wearing his glued on walrus tusks for his picture taking?
Adam D'Angelo Caltech, Charlie Cheever-Harvard on Univ Glasgow Mark Barton
Quora (symbol logo) Quora Quora https://www.quora.com › What-effect-did-Archimedes-... Aug 26, 2013 — Plutonium is significant because its isotope, plutonium-239, is a slow nuclear fuel. A slow nuclear fuel will likely undergo nuclear fission if ... 4 answers · Top answer: Everyone was trying to figure out this new medium, the internet, what it was for.
> > 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.
David Attenborough:
[ Big cat snarls ] ♪♪ A great cat with immense, saber-shaped teeth... ...Smilodon.
....
[ Low growling ] [ Sharp note plays ] ♪♪ [ Low growling ] You might think that Smilodon would have caught its prey as a lion often does, by chasing it, leaping on it at speed, and then throttling it, suffocating it with a bite to the neck.
♪♪ But Smilodon stalked its prey, creeping quietly across the plains, until it got really close.
♪♪ And then it pounced!
♪♪ ♪♪ Smilodon couldn't throttle its prey with those huge teeth, and they were too brittle to slash.
They would shatter if they struck bone.
♪♪ Instead, the animal would have first used its great weight to pin down its victim.
Then it would have used its sabers like blades to slice open the soft flesh of its victim's throat.
Mark Barton University Glasgow and Univ. Queensland: Not at all, he was a raving nutter.
Tim Sweeney University Maryland : Whatever happened to..
AP: Whatever happened to commonsense, you mean, Tim, that how a cat can go through life trying to dodge its senseless evolution of teeth that get in the way of everything the cat wants to do? Well a nice answer is that the saber teeth belong to a walrus and are walrus tusks that the cat preyed upon. For no fossil find of Smilodon has the actual teeth and jaw combined. No, these are glued and screwed on walrus tusks to cat jaws.
X (symbol) X X-TimSweeneyEpic 4likes, 4 years ago Whatever happened to Archimedes Plutonium? Whatever happened to Archimedes Plutonium? 9:56 PM- Oct 22, 2019
Univ. Maryland physics dept Derek Boyd, Dieter Brill, Alessandra Buonanno, Chia-Cheh Chang, Chung-Yun Chang, Thomas Cohen, Douglas Currie, Sankar Das Sarma, Alan DeSilva, Jay Dorfman, William Dorland, Alex Dragt, James Drake, Howard Drew, Theodore L Einstein, Sarah Eno, Victor Galitski, George Gloeckler, Jordan Goodman, Oscar Greenberg, Richard Greene, Nicholas Hadley, Douglas Hamilton, Kara Hoffman, Theodore Kirkpatrick, Glenn Mason, John Mather, Edward Ott, Johnpierre Paglione, Jogesh Pati, William Philips, Edward Redish, Steven Rolston, Philip Roos, Peter Shawhan, Philip Sprangle, Edo Waks, Stephen Wallace, John Weeks, Frederick Wellstood, Ellen Williams, James Yorke
Maybe they should spend all their time on gluing Walrus tusks to cat jaws and make anti-science museum exhibits.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)
https://groups.google.com › plutonium-atom-universe
Google Groups
https://groups.google.com › plutonium-atom-universe
My first great science was 1990 of the Atom Totality theory-- the entire Universe is just one big atom of plutonium. My second great discovery was the real electron is the muon and 0.5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole.
https://groups.google.com › plutonium-atom-universe
Google Groups
https://groups.google.com › plutonium-atom-universe
My first great science was 1990 of the Atom Totality theory-- the entire Universe is just one big atom of plutonium. My second great discovery was the real electron is the muon and 0.5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole.
https://groups.google.com › plutonium-atom-universe
Google Groups
https://groups.google.com › plutonium-atom-universe
My first great science was 1990 of the Atom Totality theory-- the entire Universe is just one big atom of plutonium. My second great discovery was the real electron is the muon and 0.5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole.
https://groups.google.com › plutonium-atom-universe
Google Groups
https://groups.google.com › plutonium-atom-universe
My first great science was 1990 of the Atom Totality theory-- the entire Universe is just one big atom of plutonium. My second great discovery was the real electron is the muon and 0.5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole.
Tim Sweeney on Univ Maryland and Mark Barton on University of Glasgow 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) So stupid in science and logic, that they will not even do Water Electrolysis and actually weigh the mass of oxygen compare to hydrogen. No, these logically impaired so-called scientists stop the experiment by eyeballing the volume, and then run to the lounge for cake coffee and donuts. Please be sure-- dan christensen, kibo parry and jan burse to concoct a hate sheet that appears 2nd or 3rd in a Google search of AP.
Trinity College Dublin Davide Cavion asks if John Baez is the only chair of a math dept yet he cannot tell apart a ellipse from oval. And he rambles on meaningless math rambles. Worse yet are his calculus classroom as vomiting, torture chamber and nervous breakdowns as John has them memorize thousands of different functions when the only valid function is polynomial.
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.
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.
Jan Burse bans Joel Mesot from ETH Zurich and from Switzerland for farting too much, instead of rolling up his sleeves and properly weighing the mass of hydrogen compared to oxygen in Water electrolysis.
Re: Dr.Giovanni Felder, Zurich ETH, Jan Burse says that farting is taught before geometry, after counting in Switzerland/is that true??
By Jan Dec 3, 2017, 12:04:10 AM
Jan Burse near ETH Switzerland-- 30 year attack ads---
Google Groups (logo) Google Groups --- ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM BANNED--- Google Groups https://groups.google.com › comp.lang.prolog One of the greatest faults, misery, and anti-science teaching of Old Physics is their denial that subatomic particles have to be something more than tiny balls ...
Re: Dr.Tom Ilmanen Zurich ETH, Jan Burse asks if you read Page10 of Atom Totality Re: PAGE10, 1-10, Evidence....
By Jan Dec 4, 2017, 11:19:20 PM
Re: Jan Burse says ETH is a wheelchair Walter Thurnherr, Werner Wegscheider, Audrey Zheludev, Oded Zilberberg //no picture diagram of Calculus proof// still believing proton is 938MeV electron .5MeV when they are 840MeV, 105MeV
By Jan Jul 27, 2018, 5:15:55 PM
Re: Zelos Malum calls dipshit --Max Tegmark, Erik Palmgren, Tom Britton, Carl XVI Gustaf stalker-- Zelos Malum fails Calculus, thinks electron is .5MeV when it is Dirac's monopole , Real Proton = 840MeV Real Electron= 105MeV
by Zelos Malum
7/7/18
Drs.Martin Schweizer,Mete Soner,Michael Struwe-- Zurich ETH, are you as dumb in Calculus, no Picture of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, as is math failure Jan Burse??
by
Zelos Malum
12/30/17
Re: 1, Is AMS, American Mathematical Society more corrupt than Trump charity Foundation? No-one at AMS is guardian of true math- witness- ellipse is not a conic,no geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
by Me-(Franz) Dec 21, 2018