info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
175,852-Student victims of Marc Tessier-Lavigne,Stanford Univ by stalker Earle Jones teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and the mindless mistaken electron of 0.5MeV
25 views
Skip to first unread message
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 17, 2021, 3:46:06 PM4/17/21
to
175,852-Student victims of Marc Tessier-Lavigne,Stanford Univ by stalker Earle Jones teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and the mindless mistaken electron of 0.5MeV
On Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 7:24:53 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
On Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 3:12:54 PM UTC-5, earle wrote:
> It is truly sad that you missed out on so much in your mathematical training.
No student nor teacher should accept the ideas of the worthless failure Dan Christensen and his ally Earle Jones. For Dan is so stupid in logic he cannot tell distinct from nondistinct. But worse yet, both want students to be in the hinter cave of knowledge with their 2 OR 1 = 3 with 2 AND 1 = 1, their never a geometry proof of Calculus Fundamental Theorem and their mindless mix up of the real electron is the muon not Dirac's magnetic monopole of 0.5MeV. The world of education no longer should tolerate suppression fools of Christensen & Jones.
Here is an example of Dan Christensen fumbling with the most simple of logic reasoning, and yet Canada keeps allowing this misfit to dig deeper into logic.
The stupid Dan Christensen always chokes up when it comes to logic or even just plain commonsense with his 4 OR 3 = 7
On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:08:09 AM UTC-6, Peter Percival wrote:
> Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:47:32 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 8:27:19 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:16:52 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >>>> PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra, Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector
> >>>>
> >>>> The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any two points lies a third new point.
> >>>
> >>> The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points."
> >>>
> >>
> >> What a monsterous fool you are
> >>
> >
> > OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it.
>
> And yet Mr Plutonium is right. Two points are distinct (else they would
> be one) and it is not necessary to say so.
>
Stanford University, math dept.
Gregory Brumfiel, Daniel Bump, Emmanuel Candès, Gunnar Carlsson, Moses Charikar, Sourav Chatterjee, Tom Church, Ralph Cohen, Brian Conrad, Brian Conrey, Amir Dembo, Persi Diaconis, Yakov Eliashberg, Robert Finn, Jacob Fox, Laura Fredrickson, Søren Galatius, George Schaeffer, Or Hershkovits, David Hoffman, Eleny Ionel, Renata Kallosh, Yitzhak Katznelson, Vladimir Kazeev, Michael Kemeny, Steven Kerckhoff, Susie Kimport, Jun Li, Tai-Ping Liu, Mark Lucianovic, Jonathan Luk, Frederick Manners, Rafe Mazzeo, James R. Milgram, Maryam Mirzakhani, Stefan Mueller, Christopher Ohrt, Donald Ornstein, George Papanicolaou, Lenya Ryzhik, Richard Schoen, Leon Simon, Rick Sommer, Kannan Soundararajan, Tadashi Tokieda, Cheng-Chiang Tsai, Ravi Vakil, András Vasy, Akshay Venkatesh, Jan Vondrák, Brian White, Wojciech Wieczorek, Jennifer Wilson, Alex Wright, Lexing Ying, Xuwen Zhu
President: Marc Tessier-Lavigne (neuroscience)
Provost: Persis Drell (physics)
Stanford Univ physics dept.
Alexander Fetter, John Lipa, William Little, Douglas Osheroff, David Ritson, H. Alan Schwettman, John Turneaure, Robert Wagoner, Stanley Wojcicki, Mason Yearian
2nd published book
True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere.
Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule.
Length: 1150 pages
Product details
• File Size : 2167 KB
• ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ
• Publication Date : March 11, 2019
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 1150 pages
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#181 in General Chemistry & Reference
#1324 in General Chemistry
#1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)
Stanford Univ. fairyland physics, when true real electron = muon
5th published book
Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
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.
Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
Length: 72 pages
File Size: 773 KB
Print Length: 72 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
11th published book
World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 4Apr2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had (1) a ill-defined infinity; (2) they had the fakery of Limit concept; and (3) they had the fakery of a continuum; and (4) perhaps most important of all as long as Old Math had the wrong numbers that compose mathematics that no geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus was ever possible. Sad that starting 1900, Planck showed that Space is discrete in physics, not continuous, leading to the rise of Quantum Mechanics. But the fools of mathematics went the opposite direction in wanting ever more a continuum in mathematics. They spent the entire 20th century riding high on Cohen's depraved continuum. You could almost say that starting 1900, the people in mathematics compared to those in physics would become more and more ignorant and further estranged, and that a widening schism rift separated math from physics, from the realities of the actual world as the future decades and centuries rolled by. And who knows where this rift would leave math as a science decreasing in vim and vigor. Will it end in math becoming a third or fourth tier science, ranking it above say economics but far below even psychology, because much of math proof is kook psychology acceptance divorced of reality. In this view, physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, even geology ranked far higher in power and wisdom than math.
By the 19th and 20th and 21st centuries, the single number one important topic and subject in all of mathematics was Calculus, and the reason being, is that Physics is mostly calculus, the science of motion and change. And everyone in math knows that calculus is geometry. So, then, to not have a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is a failure and failing of being a mathematician.
The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus basically says the integral is inverse to the derivative and the derivative is inverse to the integral. By inverse is meant that you can go to one given the other and vice versa, such as add is the inverse of subtract, so if we had 10 + 4 = 14 then the inverse is subtract 4 and we have 14-4 = 10 back to 10 where we started from. And the geometry proof involves a rectangle and a right triangle hinged atop a trapezoid. You hinge it one direction you have dy*dx for area of a rectangle for integral area. You hinge it the other direction you have the dy/dx for slope or derivative from the trapezoid formed.
Sad that Old Math was so full of ill-defined concepts and fake concepts that never was a geometry proof of FTC ever possible in Old Math.
Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
---------------------------
Table of Contents
---------------------------
1) Preliminary mathematics needed to do the Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
2) How the dumb limit concept was borne, that is a con-artist job.
3) When you know the true numbers of mathematics, Decimal Grid Numbers, you need no limit concept.
4) Mathematics has two houses, one is numbers, one is geometry.
5) All numbers come from physics because the Universe is just one big atom of 231Pu.
6) History of my discovery of Decimal Grid Numbers.
7) The error of having a proper Coordinate System to do the Calculus as 1st Quadrant Only with all positive Decimal Grid Numbers.
8) Concept of Infinity versus Finite for Calculus.
9) Brief proofs of the Infinity borderline, especially Huygens tractrix.
10) World's first picture diagram proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus by 2015.
11) Calculus the very most important math to date.
12) Everyone in mathematics knows that Calculus is geometry.
Length: 39 pages
Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1236 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 39 pages
Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 17, 2021, 7:32:22 PM4/17/21
to
On Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 3:09:41 PM UTC-5, konyberg wrote:
> What do you think 10 OR 2 equals? If your answer does not satisfy the industry who make the computer you use answering this; you are an id...!
> And I know that the computer industri mostly use NOR or NAND, which makes it worse for you!
> KON
Neither of the math con-artists Andrew Wiles nor John Gabriel had the brains in math to even know that a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus was necessary, was required. And, neither had the logical brains to question the use of AND as 2 OR 1 = 3 with 2 AND 1 = 1. Neither was a mathematician for neither had a logical mind to start with.
When Boole & Jevons in late 1800s was trying to figure out the AND, OR, IF-Then Truth Tables, they were stumped and stymied with AND. So stumped they saved it for last. They did not know exactly what values it had. Eventually they made a wrong choice. A choice of "purity" thinking AND was true only in the case of T & T is true. They did not consider the mechanism of AND was "if one statement among many is true, then the entire collection is true, for we never want to throw out the baby with the bathwater in that true statement." So the true truth table of AND should be TTTF and not that of Boole's TFFF. Then, along comes computers a century later needing addition, and they need a addition and they need a truth table of TTTF. So they look for a table of TTTF, but none is available in the muddle headed Boole and Jevons. For Boole's AND is TFFF. So, what the Logic and Math and Computer Science hypocrites do, is enlist a Contradiction. They say,-- either or... or both. They make up this hypocrite nonsense that either or ... or both is going to fill in what Boole so badly mangled, and thus, modern day computers are based upon TTTF, but it comes from AND, yet the worthless hypocrites of Logicians, Mathematicians and Computer Scientists do not want to admit AND is TTTF but rather just accept the crazy Boole anti-logic and plug in a nonsense of Either or.. or Both, when if you really accept that contradiction is TTTT because F either or or both F would be also T. So modern day Logic such as the Copi textbooks are just all built upon one huge liaring lie, contradiction. No-one from Boole to 21st century had a correct logic (see my book Suspend College Logic).
y z
| /
| /
|/______ x
More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, postings only to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.
In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.
I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.
There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content).
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
AP
King of Science
> What do you think 10 OR 2 equals? If your answer does not satisfy the industry who make the computer you use answering this; you are an id...!
> And I know that the computer industri mostly use NOR or NAND, which makes it worse for you!
> KON
Neither of the math con-artists Andrew Wiles nor John Gabriel had the brains in math to even know that a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus was necessary, was required. And, neither had the logical brains to question the use of AND as 2 OR 1 = 3 with 2 AND 1 = 1. Neither was a mathematician for neither had a logical mind to start with.
When Boole & Jevons in late 1800s was trying to figure out the AND, OR, IF-Then Truth Tables, they were stumped and stymied with AND. So stumped they saved it for last. They did not know exactly what values it had. Eventually they made a wrong choice. A choice of "purity" thinking AND was true only in the case of T & T is true. They did not consider the mechanism of AND was "if one statement among many is true, then the entire collection is true, for we never want to throw out the baby with the bathwater in that true statement." So the true truth table of AND should be TTTF and not that of Boole's TFFF. Then, along comes computers a century later needing addition, and they need a addition and they need a truth table of TTTF. So they look for a table of TTTF, but none is available in the muddle headed Boole and Jevons. For Boole's AND is TFFF. So, what the Logic and Math and Computer Science hypocrites do, is enlist a Contradiction. They say,-- either or... or both. They make up this hypocrite nonsense that either or ... or both is going to fill in what Boole so badly mangled, and thus, modern day computers are based upon TTTF, but it comes from AND, yet the worthless hypocrites of Logicians, Mathematicians and Computer Scientists do not want to admit AND is TTTF but rather just accept the crazy Boole anti-logic and plug in a nonsense of Either or.. or Both, when if you really accept that contradiction is TTTT because F either or or both F would be also T. So modern day Logic such as the Copi textbooks are just all built upon one huge liaring lie, contradiction. No-one from Boole to 21st century had a correct logic (see my book Suspend College Logic).
| /
| /
|/______ x
More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, postings only to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.
In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.
I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.
There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content).
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
AP
King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 18, 2021, 12:53:08 AM4/18/21
to
28,283 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron of ...
74th published book
HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
In 2016-2017, AP discovered that the real proton has a mass of 840 MeV, not 938. The real electron was actually the muon and the muon stays inside the proton that forms a proton torus of 8 rings and with the muon as bar magnet is a Faraday Law producing magnetic monopoles. So this book is all about why researchers of physics and engineers keep getting the number 938MeV when they should be getting the number 840 MeV + 105 MeV = 945 MeV.
Cover Picture is a proton torus of 8 rings with a muon of 1 ring inside the proton torus, doing the Faraday Law and producing magnetic monopoles.
Length: 17 pages
Product details
• Publication Date : December 18, 2019
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 17 pages
• File Size : 698 KB
• ASIN : B082WYGVNG
74th published book
HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
In 2016-2017, AP discovered that the real proton has a mass of 840 MeV, not 938. The real electron was actually the muon and the muon stays inside the proton that forms a proton torus of 8 rings and with the muon as bar magnet is a Faraday Law producing magnetic monopoles. So this book is all about why researchers of physics and engineers keep getting the number 938MeV when they should be getting the number 840 MeV + 105 MeV = 945 MeV.
Cover Picture is a proton torus of 8 rings with a muon of 1 ring inside the proton torus, doing the Faraday Law and producing magnetic monopoles.
Length: 17 pages
Product details
• Publication Date : December 18, 2019
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 17 pages
• File Size : 698 KB
• ASIN : B082WYGVNG
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 18, 2021, 4:49:51 PM4/18/21
to
Kibo Parry Moroney on Steven Weinberg physics shit for brains with the Standard Model-- huge muon spin because it is the bar magnet in AP's Faraday law as the muon is inside the proton 840MeV torus. Standard Model was always-physics -shithead-theory.
On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 9:22:04 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Physics failure
On Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 12:18:07 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Slime Mold of Math and Phungus of Physics
9Apr2021, SCIENCE, page 113 Particle Physics, For a change, a hint of new physics does not fade away, Reprise of storied experiment confirms muon's extra magnetism.
AP in 2016-2017 discovered that the Thomson electron of 0.5MeV in 1897 was not the true electron of atoms but was what would be called the Dirac Magnetic Monopole. While the real true electron of atoms is the muon that acts as a bar magnet inside the proton of 840MeV torus and the two particle are engaged in Faraday Law producing electricity. Muon + 840MeV = 945MeV and why do experimenters keep getting 938MeV when in reality they should get 105 + 840 = 945.
74th published book
HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
In 2016-2017, AP discovered that the real proton has a mass of 840 MeV, not 938. The real electron was actually the muon and the muon stays inside the proton that forms a proton torus of 8 rings and with the muon as bar magnet is a Faraday Law producing magnetic monopoles. So this book is all about why researchers of physics and engineers keep getting the number 938MeV when they should be getting the number 840 MeV + 105 MeV = 945 MeV.
Cover Picture is a proton torus of 8 rings with a muon of 1 ring inside the proton torus, doing the Faraday Law and producing magnetic monopoles.
Length: 17 pages
Product details
• Publication Date : December 18, 2019
• Word Wise : Enabled
On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 9:22:04 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Physics failure
On Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 12:18:07 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Slime Mold of Math and Phungus of Physics
9Apr2021, SCIENCE, page 113 Particle Physics, For a change, a hint of new physics does not fade away, Reprise of storied experiment confirms muon's extra magnetism.
AP in 2016-2017 discovered that the Thomson electron of 0.5MeV in 1897 was not the true electron of atoms but was what would be called the Dirac Magnetic Monopole. While the real true electron of atoms is the muon that acts as a bar magnet inside the proton of 840MeV torus and the two particle are engaged in Faraday Law producing electricity. Muon + 840MeV = 945MeV and why do experimenters keep getting 938MeV when in reality they should get 105 + 840 = 945.
74th published book
HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
In 2016-2017, AP discovered that the real proton has a mass of 840 MeV, not 938. The real electron was actually the muon and the muon stays inside the proton that forms a proton torus of 8 rings and with the muon as bar magnet is a Faraday Law producing magnetic monopoles. So this book is all about why researchers of physics and engineers keep getting the number 938MeV when they should be getting the number 840 MeV + 105 MeV = 945 MeV.
Cover Picture is a proton torus of 8 rings with a muon of 1 ring inside the proton torus, doing the Faraday Law and producing magnetic monopoles.
Length: 17 pages
Product details
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 17 pages
• File Size : 698 KB
• ASIN : B082WYGVNG
• File Size : 698 KB
• ASIN : B082WYGVNG
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
2nd published book
True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere.
Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule.
Length: 1150 pages
Product details
• File Size : 2167 KB
• ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ
• Publication Date : March 11, 2019
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 1150 pages
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#181 in General Chemistry & Reference
#1324 in General Chemistry
#1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)
• Lending : Enabled
2nd published book
True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere.
Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule.
Length: 1150 pages
Product details
• File Size : 2167 KB
• ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ
• Publication Date : March 11, 2019
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 1150 pages
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#181 in General Chemistry & Reference
#1324 in General Chemistry
#1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 18, 2021, 9:10:05 PM4/18/21
to
Dan Christensen on Steven Weinberg shit for brains of the Standard Model-- huge muon magnetism because it is the bar magnet in AP's Faraday law as the muon is inside the proton 840MeV torus. Standard Model was always a theory for the mindless bozos of physics.
>
1> On Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 9:25:05 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
1> > WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
>
1> 9Apr2021, SCIENCE, page 113 Particle Physics, For a change, a hint of new physics does not fade away, Reprise of storied experiment confirms muon's extra magnetism.
>
1> AP in 2016-2017 discovered that the Thomson electron of 0.5MeV in 1897 was not the true electron of atoms but was what would be called the Dirac Magnetic Monopole. While the real true electron of atoms is the muon that acts as a bar magnet inside the proton of 840MeV torus and the two particle are engaged in Faraday Law producing electricity. Muon + 840MeV = 945MeV and why do experimenters keep getting 938MeV when in reality they should get 105 + 840 = 945.
>
1> 74th published book
>
1> HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
>
1> On Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 9:25:05 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
1> > WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
>
1> 9Apr2021, SCIENCE, page 113 Particle Physics, For a change, a hint of new physics does not fade away, Reprise of storied experiment confirms muon's extra magnetism.
>
1> AP in 2016-2017 discovered that the Thomson electron of 0.5MeV in 1897 was not the true electron of atoms but was what would be called the Dirac Magnetic Monopole. While the real true electron of atoms is the muon that acts as a bar magnet inside the proton of 840MeV torus and the two particle are engaged in Faraday Law producing electricity. Muon + 840MeV = 945MeV and why do experimenters keep getting 938MeV when in reality they should get 105 + 840 = 945.
>
1> 74th published book
>
1> HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 21, 2021, 2:18:44 PM4/21/21
to
Dan Christensen warning of fellow Canadian Dr. Chandler Davis steals, and steals hard from AP's corrrection of Infinitude of Primes Proof. Dr. Davis was never used to Internet and saw it as a "stealing field".
2> On Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 9:25:05 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
2> > WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
2> On Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 7:24:53 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
2> > WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
2> On Friday, April 16, 2021 at 2:29:44 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
2> > WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
>
2> On Friday, April 16, 2021 at 8:37:13 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
2> > WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
Thorp, Young, Davis steal science, while Kibo Parry Moroney mocks and stalks science
ahoy! Dr. Thorp, Dr. Young, Dr. Chandler Davis steal away! Fail at science, even go so far as to steal science from AP.
AP writes: Kibo, is it because of their struggling with relevance or is it that they never adapted to the new way of science publication that sci.math and sci.physics are valid sites of publication and that they fail to footnote the ideas they pick up on the Internet and end up stealing from original authors like Archimedes Plutonium.
On Monday, February 8, 2021 at 9:24:51 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"struggling for relevance"
On Tuesday, March 23, 2021 at 2:49:37 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> fails at math and science:
H. Holden Thorp fails Chemistry, now tries to steal AP 2004 work on "Dog, first domesticated animal" Kindle book of AP's. Ask Dr. Thorp why in the world he has no brains to do proper chemistry. Ask him why he believes in Lewis 8 Structure, when it..
H. Holden Thorp fails Chemistry, now tries to steal AP 2004 work on "Dog, first domesticated animal" Kindle book of AP's.
Ask Dr. Thorp why in the world he has no brains to do proper chemistry. Ask him why he believes in Lewis 8 Structure, when it has been known for decades that CO then N2 have the highest bonded dissociation energy. Thus, if you had at least one logical marble of a brain, you would understand that the highest dissociation energy tells you what the Lewis Structure must be. It cannot be Lewis 8 Structure but has to be Lewis 6 Arm Structure. If it were Lewis 8, then O2 would have the highest dissociation energy, not CO.
Is this why Dr. Thorp was dismissed out of chemistry? He just does not have one logical marble? But it appears the no logical marble of Dr. Thorp is allowing SCIENCE magazine to steal, and steal away the AP theory of DOG, FIRST DOMESTICATED ANIMAL of year 2004, published in the book of that same title in Amazon's Kindle.
But it appears that SCIENCE is trying very hard to steal AP's theory.
And all I asked for was inclusion on a correction page of SCIENCE, but Dr. Thorp is headstrong in his stealing ways.
Is SCIENCE magazine trying to steal away AP's theory-- Dog-First Domesticated Animal, or, will they do the proper etiquette of a Corrections page in a future edition?
Nov 17, 2020, 12:53 PM
to sci.physics, sci.math, plutonium-atom-universe
In that 30OCT2020 issue of SCIENCE AAAS, on page 523 has a list of references and notes and the oldest date is this.
8. G.H.Perry et al..Nat. Genet. 39. 1256 (2007).
Well, AP's Dog-- First Domesticated Animal has a long long history of Usenet posts going back to 2004. So, no, AP is not going to have his theories, any one of them, stolen from him.
I have asked SCIENCE to include my name in a future corrections page of Dog-First Domesticated Animal.
Is SCIENCE magazine AAAS, trying to steal AP's theory-- Dog-- First Domesticated Animal// Looks like it in 30OCT2020 issue pages 522 & 557. I did not see the name Archimedes Plutonium in the references. There are four major offending words in ....
6 views
Is SCIENCE magazine AAAS, trying to steal AP's theory-- Dog-- First Domesticated Animal// Looks like it in 30OCT2020 issue pages 522 & 557.
I did not see the name Archimedes Plutonium in the references. There are four major offending words in these two articles on pages 522 and 557 and contents page-- " dog, first domesticated animal".
Unless SCIENCE can include the name Archimedes Plutonium in a future edition, saying-- forgot to cite AP in reference to dog domestication. Then AP is forced to include SCIENCE magazine in his book-- Theft and Stealing of Intellectual Property.
22nd published book
Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Amazing that just watching TV of science shows, one can formulate a true theory of science. Now my theory needs research, but it basically says the dog was the first farm animal, the first domesticated animal of the wolf, that became food for early homo sapiens. We tend to think of herbivores being the first domesticated animals, but I tend to think the dog comes as first domesticated animal. Many good lines of research are suggested below in the text.
Cover picture: are three dogs, the light brown one is Indy and her two daughters. Indy comes from the Waziristan mountains as a shephard dog.Indy is very smart.
Length: 50 pages
Product details
File Size: 3076 KB
Print Length: 50 pages
Publication Date: March 17, 2019
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQ5CPKG
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #429,006 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#93 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#469 in Evolution (Kindle Store)
#648 in Biology (Kindle Store)
Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog// Anthropology series, book 2
by Archimedes Plutonium
Preface: Amazing that just watching TV of science shows, one can formulate a true theory of science. Now my theory needs research, but it basically says the dog was the first farm animal, the first domesticated animal of the wolf, that became food for early homo sapiens. We tend to think of herbivores being the first domesticated animals, but I tend to think the dog comes as first domesticated animal. Many good lines of research are suggested below in the text.
Cover picture: are three dogs, the light brown one is Indy and her two daughters. Indy comes from the Waziristan mountains as a shepherd dog.Indy is very smart.
From: a_plu...@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.misc,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo
Subject: how dogs evolved from wolves; TV NOVA show; 1st domesticated farm animal theory
Date: 5 Feb 2004 15:07:00 -0800
Lines: 76
A few days ago I watched a NOVA program on the variety of dogs with
talk of their evolution from that of wolves. Quite an interesting
program. However there are very many gaps of logic in the discussion
of how dogs came from wolves.
There was proffered the usual old theory that wolf babies make nice
pets and hominids would have come upon wolf babies and raised them in
their living camps.
Then there was a scientist who proffered a different theory suggesting
that dumpsites of early humans was a place to pick up easy food for
those wolves tolerant of human nearby presence.
I am going to offer a third theory which sort of incorporates the
above two. Let me call the above by their main mechanism. The first is
that of "Baby Pet" theory
and the second would be called the "Dumpsite" theory.
My theory would be called the "First Domesticated Farm Animal" theory.
The logical gap in theories one and two is that they confer little to
no advantage to the hominids or early humans involved, unless you want
to say that having a pet confers advantage over disadvantage of the
time spent on the pet, or as in the dumpsite theory that of the
spectacle of semi-wolves near camp is some sort of advantage.
My theory of "First Domesticated Animal" as the mechanism of how dogs
evolved from wolves makes the most sense because it confers the most
advantage to hominids or early humans. Here is how it works. Hominids
or Early Humans found wolf babies and would take them back to their
camp. They are too little and young to eat now, but as they grow older
fed from the snacks around the campsite (the dump) then they would be
large enough for food to eat.
Here I would have to research as to how easy or hard it would be to
have sheep or cattle hang around close to the campsite so that when
they got large enough they would be dinner. You see, I have the
suspicion that wild wolf babies are the animal that has the greatest
tendency to hang around the campsite than any other wild animal baby.
And thus, wolves would have been the first domesticated animal which
is rather surprising because they are carnivores and most of us would
guess that the first domesticated animal would have been a herbivore.
But I doubt that any baby herbivore would have stayed around the human
campsite as steadfast as a pet baby wolf until it grows to enough size
to eat.
Remember we are talking of primitive and savage hominids and early
humans who when looking at pets see them more as future food.
Which brings up very many good questions. Was the Dog the first
domesticated animal? I think it was. I say this because the wild wolf
baby imprints on a human better than a wild-any-other-animal. And
because of this imprinting the baby wolf would have stayed nearby the
humans until it grew of a size wherein one of the hungry hominids or
early humans ate the pet for dinner.
The Dump theory is okay in that the baby wolf would have wandered no
further away than the dump. And when the wolf was of a eatable size
would have been enticed by some scrap food bones and then killed and
eaten. Sounds gory and awful but that is probably the true sequence of
events that lead from wolves to the evolution of dog. And as this
relationship continued, the semi-wild wolf or dog had ears that drooped
and had a disposition to not run away.
We can measure the drooping ears of cattle or other domesticated
animals compared to their wild counterparts. As early man ate more and
more dogs for their dinners they wanted dogs that would hang around
the dumps and had droopy ears and not prone to run away.
And after hominids or early humans domesticated the wolf by becoming
the dog, they then got the idea that other animals such as cattle or
sheep can be domesticated for future dinners as well as the dog.
Kibo Parry Moroney on stealing thieves Dr. Thorp, Dr. Chandler Davis, Dr. Young and they steal from newsgroups because they struggle for relevance
On Monday, February 8, 2021 at 9:24:51 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"struggling for relevance"
Kibo Parry Moroney puts a finger on all the stealing going on why Old Science stealing--- they are struggling for relevance so they steal from AP--- with the new interface of Internet, where people in science such as Dr. Thorp, Dr. Young, Dr. Chandler Davis steal from others because they do not respect the Internet. They do not respect sci.physics, sci.math or the other newsgroups and look down upon Internet and feel they can just "freely steal, steal steal" all they want to steal and never have to cite their reference source-- the Internet.
So Dr. Young trys to steal AP's Stonethrowing theory, and Dr. Thorp via SCIENCE magazine tries to steal AP's Dog-- first domesticated animal theory, and Dr. Chandler Davis tries to steal via Mathematical Intelligencer, AP's Euclid proof of Infinitude of Primes Corrected.
Kibo's new book on the Three Thieves of the Internet, Dr. Thorp, Dr.Young, Dr. Chandler Davis.
AP writes: Question Kibo, does your new book have a photograph picture of Thorp, Young and Davis, a picture of them in the year they tried to steal AP theories of science and math? Kibo, will Nicholas Thompson the editor at Wired, can he get photographs of these three thieves of modern science?
STEALING DR THORP SCIENCE magazine
Kibo Parry Moroney wrotes the bio of Dr. Young, Dr.Thorp, Dr.Chandler Davis as thieves of science from Internet and Newsgroups.
On Sunday, December 13, 2020 at 3:40:13 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>struggling for relevance
AP writes: do not be fooled by the several people posting under the name Michael Moroney as a "open hate spam line"
AP writes: is that why Dr.Thorp and Dr. Chandler Davis steal from AP?
Which steals better, MitchR, Dr.Thorp, or Dr. Chandler Davis. Some in the journal of science business have just not transitioned to our new world where you have to also include Internet and Newsgroups as reference.
88th published book
Theft & Stealing ideas of science in the era of the internet// Ways to prevent and combat stealing// Sociology series, book 10 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
3_H. Holden Thorp fails Chemistry, now tries to steal AP 2004 work on "Dog, first domesticated animal" Kindle book of AP's. Kibo Parry Moroney confirms theft-- see below.
Ask Dr. Thorp when in the world he has no brains to do proper chemistry. Ask him why he believes in Lewis 8 Structure, when it has been known for decades that CO then N2 have the highest bonded dissociation energy. Thus, if you had at least one logical marble of a brain, you would understand that the highest dissociation energy tells you what the Lewis Structure must be. It cannot be Lewis 8 Structure but has to be Lewis 6 Arm Structure. If it were Lewis 8, then O2 would have the highest dissociation energy, not CO.
Is this why Dr. Thorp was dismissed out of chemistry? He just does not have one logical marble? But it appears the no logical marble of Dr. Thorp is allowing SCIENCE magazine to steal, and steal away the AP theory of DOG, FIRST DOMESTICATED ANIMAL of year 2004, published in the book of that same title in Amazon's Kindle.
But it appears that SCIENCE is trying very hard to steal AP's theory.
And all I asked for was inclusion on a correction page of SCIENCE, but Dr. Thorp is headstrong in his stealing ways.
Is SCIENCE magazine trying to steal away AP's theory-- Dog-First Domesticated Animal, or, will they do the proper etiquette of a Corrections page in a future edition?
4 views
Subscribe
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Nov 17, 2020, 1:01:25 PM (4 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Is SCIENCE magazine trying to steal away AP's theory-- Dog-First Domesticated Animal, or, will they do the proper etiquette of a Corrections page in a future edition?
Nov 17, 2020, 12:53 PM
to sci.physics, sci.math, plutonium-atom-universe
In that 30OCT2020 issue of SCIENCE AAAS, on page 523 has a list of references and notes and the oldest date is this.
8. G.H.Perry et al..Nat. Genet. 39. 1256 (2007).
Well, AP's Dog-- First Domesticated Animal has a long long history of Usenet posts going back to 2004. So, no, AP is not going to have his theories, any one of them, stolen from him.
I have asked SCIENCE to include my name in a future corrections page of Dog-First Domesticated Animal.
Is SCIENCE magazine AAAS, trying to steal AP's theory-- Dog-- First Domesticated Animal// Looks like it in 30OCT2020 issue pages 522 & 557. I did not see the name Archimedes Plutonium in the references. There are four major offending words in ....
6 views
Subscribe
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Nov 14, 2020, 7:08:20 PM (3 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Is SCIENCE magazine AAAS, trying to steal AP's theory-- Dog-- First Domesticated Animal// Looks like it in 30OCT2020 issue pages 522 & 557.
I did not see the name Archimedes Plutonium in the references. There are four major offending words in these two articles on pages 522 and 557 and contents page-- " dog, first domesticated animal".
Unless SCIENCE can include the name Archimedes Plutonium in a future edition, saying-- forgot to cite AP in reference to dog domestication. Then AP is forced to include SCIENCE magazine in his book-- Theft and Stealing of Intellectual Property.
22nd published book
Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Amazing that just watching TV of science shows, one can formulate a true theory of science. Now my theory needs research, but it basically says the dog was the first farm animal, the first domesticated animal of the wolf, that became food for early homo sapiens. We tend to think of herbivores being the first domesticated animals, but I tend to think the dog comes as first domesticated animal. Many good lines of research are suggested below in the text.
Cover picture: are three dogs, the light brown one is Indy and her two daughters. Indy comes from the Waziristan mountains as a shephard dog.Indy is very smart.
Length: 50 pages
Product details
File Size: 3076 KB
Print Length: 50 pages
Publication Date: March 17, 2019
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQ5CPKG
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #429,006 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#93 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#469 in Evolution (Kindle Store)
#648 in Biology (Kindle Store)
Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog// Anthropology series, book 2
by Archimedes Plutonium
Preface: Amazing that just watching TV of science shows, one can formulate a true theory of science. Now my theory needs research, but it basically says the dog was the first farm animal, the first domesticated animal of the wolf, that became food for early homo sapiens. We tend to think of herbivores being the first domesticated animals, but I tend to think the dog comes as first domesticated animal. Many good lines of research are suggested below in the text.
Cover picture: are three dogs, the light brown one is Indy and her two daughters. Indy comes from the Waziristan mountains as a shepherd dog.Indy is very smart.
From: a_plu...@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.misc,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo
Subject: how dogs evolved from wolves; TV NOVA show; 1st domesticated farm animal theory
Date: 5 Feb 2004 15:07:00 -0800
Lines: 76
A few days ago I watched a NOVA program on the variety of dogs with
talk of their evolution from that of wolves. Quite an interesting
program. However there are very many gaps of logic in the discussion
of how dogs came from wolves.
There was proffered the usual old theory that wolf babies make nice
pets and hominids would have come upon wolf babies and raised them in
their living camps.
Then there was a scientist who proffered a different theory suggesting
that dumpsites of early humans was a place to pick up easy food for
those wolves tolerant of human nearby presence.
I am going to offer a third theory which sort of incorporates the
above two. Let me call the above by their main mechanism. The first is
that of "Baby Pet" theory
and the second would be called the "Dumpsite" theory.
My theory would be called the "First Domesticated Farm Animal" theory.
The logical gap in theories one and two is that they confer little to
no advantage to the hominids or early humans involved, unless you want
to say that having a pet confers advantage over disadvantage of the
time spent on the pet, or as in the dumpsite theory that of the
spectacle of semi-wolves near camp is some sort of advantage.
My theory of "First Domesticated Animal" as the mechanism of how dogs
evolved from wolves makes the most sense because it confers the most
advantage to hominids or early humans. Here is how it works. Hominids
or Early Humans found wolf babies and would take them back to their
camp. They are too little and young to eat now, but as they grow older
fed from the snacks around the campsite (the dump) then they would be
large enough for food to eat.
Here I would have to research as to how easy or hard it would be to
have sheep or cattle hang around close to the campsite so that when
they got large enough they would be dinner. You see, I have the
suspicion that wild wolf babies are the animal that has the greatest
tendency to hang around the campsite than any other wild animal baby.
And thus, wolves would have been the first domesticated animal which
is rather surprising because they are carnivores and most of us would
guess that the first domesticated animal would have been a herbivore.
But I doubt that any baby herbivore would have stayed around the human
campsite as steadfast as a pet baby wolf until it grows to enough size
to eat.
Remember we are talking of primitive and savage hominids and early
humans who when looking at pets see them more as future food.
Which brings up very many good questions. Was the Dog the first
domesticated animal? I think it was. I say this because the wild wolf
baby imprints on a human better than a wild-any-other-animal. And
because of this imprinting the baby wolf would have stayed nearby the
humans until it grew of a size wherein one of the hungry hominids or
early humans ate the pet for dinner.
The Dump theory is okay in that the baby wolf would have wandered no
further away than the dump. And when the wolf was of a eatable size
would have been enticed by some scrap food bones and then killed and
eaten. Sounds gory and awful but that is probably the true sequence of
events that lead from wolves to the evolution of dog. And as this
relationship continued, the semi-wild wolf or dog had ears that drooped
and had a disposition to not run away.
We can measure the drooping ears of cattle or other domesticated
animals compared to their wild counterparts. As early man ate more and
more dogs for their dinners they wanted dogs that would hang around
the dumps and had droopy ears and not prone to run away.
And after hominids or early humans domesticated the wolf by becoming
the dog, they then got the idea that other animals such as cattle or
sheep can be domesticated for future dinners as well as the dog.
AP
From: a_plu...@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,soc.history
Subject: dog farming formed the first Human or Hominid farm
Date: 8 Feb 2004 12:12:05 -0800
Lines: 27
Based on a NOVA TV show recently watched. And my theory that dogs
evolved from wolves because they are an easy steady and stable food
supply.
Query: if we pose a query or question as to what would the first, yes
the very first Farm in the entire history of the Human or perhaps
Hominid history, then I think most of us would conjure up the images
of say early humans planting corn seeds or something like that.
Perhaps some would not conjure up some plant seeds but would instead
think of confining buffalo or some sort of animal resembling sheep or
cattle.
But I believe that the first ever farm by the earliest humans was a
dog farm. Where they rounded up baby wolves and brought them into the
campsite and fed them until a large enough size to eat. And they would
not roam far from the campsite because they were imprinted forming a
natural fence as to their roaming away from the humans. It could have
been cats since cats are also easily imprinted.
I do believe the dog would be the first ever Human farm. And then
other animals brought into the campsite area and then later, much
later would be to plant crops where these dogs and cats and other
animals were confined.
AP
20 July 2019 Note: reading the above, got me to thinking that not only was the dog, dog food for early humans, and the dog being the first farm animal, but the advantage of a dog around the campsite, barking at say wild animals approaching such as big cats, or worse yet, rival early human clans, would have been a huge advantage that the early humans gained, in addition to food by eating the dog. Dog barking is a huge advantage to owners when you want a alarm system. And the barking dog certainly is the best animal I know of as a alarm system.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Nov 14, 2020, 7:35:25 PM (3 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I am forwarding a copy of the below post to Editor in Chief, H. Holden Thorp, sciencemag.org.
Of the thousands upon thousands of new ideas in science that AP has committed, I am not willing to give up a single one of them, to any ransacking marauding thiefs. Unless the name Archimedes Plutonium appears in a future correction page of references to this article on dogs-- first domesticated animal, then I shall enter the offending person/s in AP's book of Theft and Stealing.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Nov 17, 2020, 5:40:41 PM (4 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Comparing the stealing of Porat versus MitchR versus Chandler Davis of Math. Intelligencer magazine
Well it is easy to compare their stealing ways.
Porat would read a "good nice new idea", and really really like it. And so his reaction was to pop up in the author's thread and accuse that author of stealing the new idea from Porat. Such stealing behavior gets old very very fast for the original author.
MitchR stealing ways is less offensive, less in-your-face stealing than Porat, but none-the-less as aggravating. What MitchR does is scout around in sci.math and sci.physics for new ideas. Once he spots one, he rewords the new idea and posts his rewording in a new thread pretending he is the discoverer of a brand new idea of science. Actually, AP has met people like this in real life, where they listen to someone talk about a new idea and reword it so that they feel they have no need of footnoting or citing original source. For there are thousands of people who think that rewording a new idea gives them the right to call it "their new idea".
Chandler Davis when he was editor of Mathematical Intelligencer in Toronto Canada in the 1990s early 2000 printed a article on the mistakes in the Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof, not Chandler but two other authors. Trouble was, the article was almost a pure lifting, a stealing of AP's posts in sci.math over Euclid Infinitude of Primes. And I emailed Chandler asking for a correction page inclusion of my work in a future issue of the magazine. Turns out that Chandler was "stupid old school of thought" thinking that Usenet and Internet are just "for free to steal all you want". So, what AP ended up doing is publishing Chandler Davis's brash stealing of AP's work in AP's book. All that Chandler had to do was simply include a two line cite of Archimedes Plutonium in his magazine, but no, for I guess a thief is always a thief, and looking for a excuse.
So, what turned out in the case of Chandler Davis refusal to publish priority rights of intellectual property, that now, Chandler Davis is published in AP's book of stealing on the Internet. Fair sailing Chandler...
88th published book
Theft & Stealing ideas of science in the era of the internet// Ways to prevent and combat stealing// Sociology series, book 10 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
New True Ideas in Science are very difficult to come by.
And many communities and countries ignore or deny the practice of footnoting, citing reference source, or quoting, but are societies who live up to that of mass stealing.
At minimum, every school education should and must teach how we "do not steal" by teaching footnote, reference cite, quoting. I learned it in High School, but across the world, most never learned this.
I learned footnoting, citing sources reference, and quoting in High School English classrooms, thank you Wyoming High School, near Cincinnati Ohio, one of my most valuable lessons, because it teaches us not only honesty, but prepares us for becoming scientists and grappling with the truth of the world, without stealing it.
It was August of 1993 that I first arrived on the Internet in the sci.math, sci.physics and many other Newsgroups of Usenet. I had already copyrighted my Atom Totality theory and was protected in that manner of copyrights. But I wanted more protection so I published in the Dartmouth College newspaper many of my discovered ideas of 1990 through August 1993. So I had a double wall of protection of Library of Congress copyright but also, Dartmouth College newspaper. But then with the arrival onto Usenet newsgroups, sci.physics, sci.math, sci.chem, sci.bio.misc, sci.physics.electromag, sci.astro, and many more newsgroups. I saw that as a third layer of protection of my newly discovered ideas.
However, starting August 1993, it was plainly clear to me that this Internet posting of my ideas, that it is easy to steal those ideas.
Length: 147 pages
Product details
File Size: 783 KB
Print Length: 147 pages
Publication Date: February 13, 2020
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B084T87JGY
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #250,786 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#4742 in Counseling & Psychology
#2013 in Medical General Psychology
#7248 in Science & Math (Kindle Store)
AP is hoping that he does not have to include the recent steal by SCIENCE magazine 30OCT2020, page 523 with a missing reference and note citation.
15. Archimedes Plutonium, Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author), 2004, published 2019.
I am hoping this does not end up being another Chandler Davis of Mathematical Intelligencer type of steal, where the editors of SCIENCE AAAS look upon everything on Usenet and Internet and Amazon's Kindle as just fertile grounds and fertile fields of stealing.
I ask for the above (15) inclusion on a correction page of SCIENCE magazine. New true ideas in Science are terribly difficult to come by, and keeping that in mind, I am not willing to lose a single new idea I ever discovered.
#1-3, 74th published book
HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
In 2016-2017, AP discovered that the real proton has a mass of 840 MeV, not 938. The real electron was actually the muon and the muon stays inside the proton that forms a proton torus of 8 rings and with the muon as bar magnet is a Faraday Law producing magnetic monopoles. So this book is all about why researchers of physics and engineers keep getting the number 938MeV when they should be getting the number 840 MeV + 105 MeV = 945 MeV.
Cover Picture is a proton torus of 8 rings with a muon of 1 ring inside the proton torus, doing the Faraday Law and producing magnetic monopoles.
Length: 17 pages
Product details
• Publication Date : December 18, 2019
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 17 pages
• File Size : 698 KB
• ASIN : B082WYGVNG
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Dr. Chandler Davis when editor of Mathematical Intelligencer, steals the work of AP's Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof, work I had done in early 1990s and there Davis publishes my work under names of different authors in 2009. Davis and Thorp just have not accepted the idea that Internet is "not free stealing grounds".
Quoting from my book-- Theft & Stealing ideas of science in the era of the internet// Ways to prevent and combat stealing// Sociology series, book 10
by Archimedes Plutonium
Newsgroups: sci.physics, soc.history, sci.math
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:22:23 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri, Sep 9 2011 1:22 pm
Subject: Scardigli and arXiv, and QM of Titius-Bode rule priority? new book: #9 Usenet sci.newsgroups theft-without-proper-attribute
On Sep 9, 1:17 am, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
(snipped in large part)
Now I need to shorten the title of this book and so far I have adopted
this as the title:
"Usenet sci.newsgroups theft-without-proper-attribute"
Maybe I can improve that even more, along the way
As mentioned often in this book, of the newness of the Internet and Usenet and that newness will create problems with the old media way of publishing science ideas. There were numerous problems in old media coverage of science, but when Usenet came around circa 1990, the proper attribute for new ideas had to be re-examined. And it left decades open of misappropriation of new ideas.
Now Mr Scardigli mentions above that he inserted a "errors corrected and more references cited" as a second edition to his first edition. I still do not see where he references Archimedes Plutonium Usenet posts to sci.physics on the Titius Bode Rule as quantum mechanics.
But what Mr. Scardigli has done by using a correction page to update, offers us a solution to the problem of "theft-without-proper-attribute." And this is what I tried to get Chandler Davis editor of Mathematical Intelligencer to do with his published article of "Prime Simplicity" of 2009 was to include in a future correction page of Mathematical Intelligencer the name of Archimedes Plutonium with the referencing of my thousand or so Usenet posts on the subject for which I had priority.
So whereas the Usenet science newsgroups offers superior date-time- group for new ideas. The Usenet can be corrected of theft-by-improper-attribute by the insertion of the reference in a "Correction Page".
So that if Mr. Scardigli were to include Archimedes Plutonium, posts to sci.physics in a future correction page, then this episode is over with and ended. And if Chandler Davis with Mathematical Intelligencer in a future correction page of that magazine cites Archimedes Plutonium: posts to sci.math on Euclid Infinitude of Primes corrected, then that issue is over with.
So we begin to see the problem and it is a huge problem, and we begin to see a clearcut solution by authors, that they can correct priority rights through a Correction page citing those earlier sources.
Now I want to talk briefly about the opposite and rather insidious phenomenon that is occurring on Usenet as a publishing medium, that was there also in old media publishing but not so obnoxious and not so widespread. It is what can be considered the inverse of not including a reference to that of over-including a reference to the detriment of the source. What I am talking about is what has been dubbed as "bombing, Google bombing or search engine bombing." So that when you are reading a article about coal, you have reference to old articles written by Archimedes Plutonium to the planet Mars and whether Mars has coal.
Science before the Internet was worried about citing original sources. With the Internet a new problem arises where search engines are hyper-sensitive and will list references to authors for which the only element in common was a few words.
So in science, we still have the problem of proper citation to scientists with original ideas, but we also have a new problem on our hands of drowning authors of science with the pollution of search engine bombing on those authors. In a sense, this happened in old media science where a tabloid press would talk about a famous scientist, for which that scientist would rather that the tabloid never discussed him or his work, at all.
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology, sci.anthropology.paleo, sci.math
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 22:18:41 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Wed, Sep 14 2011 12:18 am
Subject: Richard W. Young and stonethrowing theory priorities new book: #10 Usenet sci.newsgroups theft-without-proper-attribute
In the mid 2000s a search for the stonethrowing theory in Google
delivered not Archimedes Plutonium first but delivers Richard W Young
with his tiny blurb on the Stonethrowing theory in a Journal of
Anatomy of 2003.
This example of taking ideas from the Usenet science newsgroups without proper attribute is seen clearly by Dr. Young, and this case will show and exemplify the new era of publishing of science is more important about having a date time group stamp than where the article is published. This case of Dr. Young shows us the superiority of publishing first to Usenet and then going back and having the slow old way of publishing take its course.
What Dr. Young teaches us about science publishing, is to post the abstract to the Usenet first since its speed is superior and then have the article published in the slow process of peer review journal.
We have a historical case to recall in biology itself where Wallace had the ideas of evolution before or simultaneous to that of Darwin.
So let me go through my archive of posts to fetch out what happened on the issue of Dr. Young, stonethrowing theory and Archimedes Plutonium. And from this case study, I think everyone will be convinced that speed of recorded date time group is more important than where it is published, and the superiority of Usenet for the date time group stamp.
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology, sci.anthropology.paleo, sci.math
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 22:50:40 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Wed, Sep 14 2011 12:50 am
Subject: Re: Richard W. Young and stonethrowing theory priorities new book: #11 Usenet sci.newsgroups theft-without-proper-attribute
I am going to repost an older post of mine of 2007 where I lay out the
particular's of the Dr. Young
case and priority rights and where the new medium of Usenet publishing
is trampled on by the old medium.
--- quoting old post of mine ---
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology, sci.math, sci.physics From: a_plutonium <a_pluton...@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:08:57 -0700 Local: Tues, Jul 31 2007 2:08 am Subject: Is Dr. Young (California emeritus) trying to steal the Stonethrowing theory from Archimedes Plutonium; ethics about referencing the Internet vis a vis science journals Book: "STONETHROWING THEORY, THE DOMINANT THEORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY", Archimedes Plutonium Internet book published 2002-2007 (assimilated in March 2007 in sci.anthropology.paleo, sci.med, sci.physics) ############################## J Ant. 2003 January; 202(1): 165-174. Copyright © Anatomical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2003 Evolution of the human hand: the role of throwing and clubbing Richard W Young Editor-in-chief Gillian M. Morriss-Kay University of Oxford E-mail: gillian.morriss-...@anat.ox.ac.uk Managing Editor Edward Fenton E-mail: ja...@anat.ox.ac.uk Receiving Editors Julia Clarke North Carolina State University E-mail: Julia_Cla...@ncsu.edu --- quoting from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1571064 Journal of Anatomy 2003 January; 202(1): 165-174. Evolution of the human hand: the role of throwing and clubbing Richard W Young Correspondence Dr Richard W. Young, 2913 Hollyridge Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90068, USA. Accepted November 22, 2002. Abstract It has been proposed that the hominid lineage began when a group of chimpanzee-like apes began to throw rocks and swing clubs at adversaries, and that this behavior yielded reproductive advantages for millions of years, driving natural selection for improved throwing and clubbing prowess. ---- end quoting ---- ----------------- quoting old post -------------- Newsgroups: sci.anthropology, sci.logic From: Archimedes Plutonium <a_pluton...@dtgnet.com> Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 08:24:18 -0500 Local: Mon, Aug 12 2002 7:24 am Subject: Logic applied to Anthropology (most snipped to save space) This accurate stone-thrower would thus create a Hominid species in Asia from the Orangutan line and almost simultaneously create a different Hominid species in Africa from the Chimpanzee line. Perhaps another Hominid species created from the Gorilla line. ------------------ end quoting old post ---------------- Finally, in December of that same year 2002, spurred by the TV show talking about Orrorin found in Kenya by Pickford and others, gave me the impetus to develop the Stonethrowing theory in full force. ---------------- quoting old post ------------------------------------------- Newsgroups: sci.archaeology, sci.bio.paleontology, sci.anthropology From: Archimedes Plutonium <a_pluton...@dtgnet.com> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 03:02:43 -0600 Local: Wed, Dec 11 2002 3:02 am Subject: Ourran man of Kenya "Secrets of the Dead" found by Martin & Brigitte I hope I got the spellings correct. Wanted to post this while still fresh on the mind after watching 2 or 3 Tuesday programs on the TV with NOVA, Secrets of the Dead. Tuesday night seems to be turning out as the best night for science on the TV. Anyway, I post this because recently I came up with my own theory of Anthropology which basically says that the evolution of humans was primarily one major aspect-- stonethrowing. Stonethrowing, according to my theory, created the human and prehuman species. Stonethrowing created bipedalism for primates. So I was anxious to hear about Ourran man as discovered by Martin and Brigitte in Kenya. Ourran man was also called the Millenium Man since he was found in year 2000. Ourran man is dated to 6 million years old. I was rather struck by what theory in anthropology was held before. The theory that the Savannahs of Africa increased, forests lost and this increase in savannah gave rise to the theory that savannahs caused bipedalism. If you do not mind me saying so, but I think the Savannah mechanism is a stupid sort of theory to posit as the cause for bipedalism. According to my theory, bipedalism goes hand in hand (forgive the pun) with stonethrowing. Increasing stonethrowing puts demands on the body anatomy to be more bipedal. And then this program of Secrets of the Dead had Mr. Johanson and Martin and Brigitte announce a new theory for bipedalism. They looked at orangutans and think that specific height of trees places a demand for Ourran to sort of walk bipedally in parts of the tree canopy. Again, if you don't mind me saying but that is rather a stupid sort of theory. There should be a reverse Occam's Razor that says if given various competing theories, choice the theory which is the strongest theory. And quite clearly, the stonethrowing mechanism giving rise to bipedalism is the strongest theory. I was curious to see if Martin and Brigitte turned up any stones in their digs for Ourran Man. I suspect that neither Martin nor Brigitte are skilled enough in detecting stones used by Ourran Man. I feel confident that if a more skilled team were working in Kenya in the vicinity of Ourran Man that many stones used by Ourran Man would be discovered. Now, there was one piece of evidence in this program that casts dispersions upon my stonethrowing theory. The evidence that Ourran Man had rather curved fingers for use in tree climbing and swinging. I suppose apes and monkeys have curved fingers. Curved fingers would not mesh well with stonethrowing. How do I reconcile that evidence? I can reconcile it by saying that the curved fingers of Ourran were not Ourran's fingers but that of a ape or monkey and that Martin and Brigitte wrongly ascribed those fingers to Ourran when they were not. Or, I can say that the disappearance of curved fingers was a long gradual process just as brow anatomy changes took a long time. That curved fingers were not an impediment in stonethrowing but that as time went on, the stonethrowing demands eliminated the curved fingers altogether so that by the time of Lucy of 2 million years ago, curved fingers were absent altogether in stonethrowers. Is there any evidence that Ourran was a stonethrower from the anatomy? I would say quite definitively yes in the fact of the teeth structure was half and half vegetarian and meateating. Ourran's teeth resemble modern humans teeth to a large extent and that would indicate alot of meat in the diet. So I think that if Ourran Man is studied in more detail in the future it will be discovered that the site has many Ourran stones used for stonethrowing and that Ourran was mostly a stonethrowing predator. Archimedes Plutonium, a_pluton...@hotmail.com whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies ----------------- end quoting old posts----------------------------- ---- quoting Dr. Young on bipedalism in his January 2003 publication --- "Improved dynamic upright balance on more powerful legs and resilient feet in the service of throwing and clubbing would have made upright locomotion more efficient, leading to its increasing use and eventually culminating in habitual bipedalism. (Several other unique human anatomical and behavioural features can also be accounted for by this approach: Young, 2002)." --- end quoting Dr. Young --- ############################################# Since I am lately "on about" intellectual property rights of scientists, about priority of discovery and about that of proper referencing and giving credit to where credit is due. The realm of intellectual discovery is an arena in which new ideas come very infrequently and especially important new ideas. So this arena is fiercely competitive and sometimes even highly dishonest. University "professors" are graded by their community by the number of publications and especially publications with "new ideas". So it is easy to see and understand that intellectual discoveries and property rights is not something to dismiss or take lightly. In the case of Don Wortzman over the "Atom Universe" or "Atom Totality", there is suspicious behavior as to Don's dating where he has the year 19100. Does he mean the year "2000"? Or is the year 19100 a way of undermining or subterfuging the date of Archimedes Plutonium's date of discovery? And another facet of Don Wortzman's "Atom Universe" is that it is only posted to a website but websites are notorious for not having a verifiable date, since author of a website can claim any date they wish. Another upsetting feature of Don Wortzman's website and that of Dr. Young's website on Stonethrowing is that they appear before Archimedes Plutonium's website on the theories involved. I say upsetting in that Don Wortzman has about a couple of pages on Atom Universe whereas Archimedes Plutonium has about 3,000 Internet posts on Atom Universe, yet Google search engine delivers Don Wortzman's site before Archimedes Plutonium. The same thing goes for Dr. Young's article on Stonethrowing yet Archimedes Plutonium has written thousands of pages on Stonethrowing theory and yet Google search delivers Young's first. I emailed several of the editors of the journal in which Dr. Young published his comments on Stonethrowing theory. I emailed Gillian M. Morriss-Kay and he replied that he had to go on a trip and would answer me when he returned, but I never received a answer. Basically what upsets me about Dr. Young's journal article and Dr. Gillian M. Morriss-Kay is that their journal does not have in place the ability to see if the Internet has had information that needs to be referenced by the authors of upcoming articles to be published. If someone, like Dr. Young, had read sci.anthropology in year 2002, and read my posts about Stonethrowing theory would have been the basis for Dr. Young's (1) chimpanzee-like apes (2) how stonethrowing drove the evolution of ape-like becoming human (3) and what Dr. Young calls "habitual bipedalism" So all three of those concepts were covered by me on the Internet in year 2002, and then in 2003 comes out the Dr. Young publication in the journal. So I had Dr. Young's ideas covered one year earlier or before that of his journal article. What I am upset about is that the editors of the journal will not reference the Internet posts of 2002. I simply asked Gillian M. Morriss-Kay to reference that 2003 article by Dr. Young with a reference to my 2002 posts to the Internet. I have the priority of discovery of those ideas, beating Dr. Young by one year. I think the Internet was "too new" and still is rather new to the journal publication way of doing science. And that many editors feel the Internet has few if any worthy posts that need be referenced. And that the Internet, to these old time editors, is a medium which can be ransacked of ideas and not requiring any reference to the Internet once the ideas are plucked and later published in a hardcover journal. Whether Dr. Young was reading my posts in year 2002 about Stonethrowing theory and subsequently used my ideas and never referenced me, is besides the point. The point is that those ideas appeared first on the Internet in 2002, and then later in year 2003 the same ideas appeared in a journal. So what I was asking of Gillian M. Morriss-Kay was to print a reference to my 2002 posts on Stonethrowing theory in a upcoming edition of this journal, much like what most newspapers such as the New York Times has as a "correction section" where they correct past mistakes. I have written an entire book on the subject of Stonethrowing theory which if all my posts were assembled would be probably a thousand pages or more. So it is high time that science journals realize that the Internet science newsgroups have to be watched and referenced as per new ideas. And that some scientists read the newsgroups and are tempted to steal ideas from others and then reword the ideas and publish in a journal pretending as though they discovered those new ideas. The very nice thing about the Internet is that the ideas are all date time grouped. There is no question that I posted those ideas in 2002, whereas the journal in which Dr. Young published has few date-time group verifiability. Science journals and journal editors have to get used to the idea that the Internet is just as good as their journal itself as far as "doing science" and in many facets of doing science, the Internet is superior to the old hardcover journals such as the facet of "speed". No journal can compete with the Internet as to "speed" of getting the news out. I suspect Gillian M. Morriss-Kay thinks I have no case against Dr. Young and for that reason he never bothered to answer my email. But the case is important and the case is about science journals that have not grown up yet and matured yet to realize that the Internet is a valid medium of reporting science, especially new ideas in science and that the old journals must adapt to reference the Internet.
More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, postings only to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.
In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.
I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.
2> On Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 9:25:05 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
2> > WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
2> On Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 7:24:53 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
2> > WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
2> On Friday, April 16, 2021 at 2:29:44 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
2> > WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
>
2> On Friday, April 16, 2021 at 8:37:13 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
2> > WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
Thorp, Young, Davis steal science, while Kibo Parry Moroney mocks and stalks science
ahoy! Dr. Thorp, Dr. Young, Dr. Chandler Davis steal away! Fail at science, even go so far as to steal science from AP.
AP writes: Kibo, is it because of their struggling with relevance or is it that they never adapted to the new way of science publication that sci.math and sci.physics are valid sites of publication and that they fail to footnote the ideas they pick up on the Internet and end up stealing from original authors like Archimedes Plutonium.
On Monday, February 8, 2021 at 9:24:51 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"struggling for relevance"
On Tuesday, March 23, 2021 at 2:49:37 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> fails at math and science:
H. Holden Thorp fails Chemistry, now tries to steal AP 2004 work on "Dog, first domesticated animal" Kindle book of AP's. Ask Dr. Thorp why in the world he has no brains to do proper chemistry. Ask him why he believes in Lewis 8 Structure, when it..
H. Holden Thorp fails Chemistry, now tries to steal AP 2004 work on "Dog, first domesticated animal" Kindle book of AP's.
Ask Dr. Thorp why in the world he has no brains to do proper chemistry. Ask him why he believes in Lewis 8 Structure, when it has been known for decades that CO then N2 have the highest bonded dissociation energy. Thus, if you had at least one logical marble of a brain, you would understand that the highest dissociation energy tells you what the Lewis Structure must be. It cannot be Lewis 8 Structure but has to be Lewis 6 Arm Structure. If it were Lewis 8, then O2 would have the highest dissociation energy, not CO.
Is this why Dr. Thorp was dismissed out of chemistry? He just does not have one logical marble? But it appears the no logical marble of Dr. Thorp is allowing SCIENCE magazine to steal, and steal away the AP theory of DOG, FIRST DOMESTICATED ANIMAL of year 2004, published in the book of that same title in Amazon's Kindle.
But it appears that SCIENCE is trying very hard to steal AP's theory.
And all I asked for was inclusion on a correction page of SCIENCE, but Dr. Thorp is headstrong in his stealing ways.
Is SCIENCE magazine trying to steal away AP's theory-- Dog-First Domesticated Animal, or, will they do the proper etiquette of a Corrections page in a future edition?
Nov 17, 2020, 12:53 PM
to sci.physics, sci.math, plutonium-atom-universe
In that 30OCT2020 issue of SCIENCE AAAS, on page 523 has a list of references and notes and the oldest date is this.
8. G.H.Perry et al..Nat. Genet. 39. 1256 (2007).
Well, AP's Dog-- First Domesticated Animal has a long long history of Usenet posts going back to 2004. So, no, AP is not going to have his theories, any one of them, stolen from him.
I have asked SCIENCE to include my name in a future corrections page of Dog-First Domesticated Animal.
Is SCIENCE magazine AAAS, trying to steal AP's theory-- Dog-- First Domesticated Animal// Looks like it in 30OCT2020 issue pages 522 & 557. I did not see the name Archimedes Plutonium in the references. There are four major offending words in ....
6 views
Is SCIENCE magazine AAAS, trying to steal AP's theory-- Dog-- First Domesticated Animal// Looks like it in 30OCT2020 issue pages 522 & 557.
I did not see the name Archimedes Plutonium in the references. There are four major offending words in these two articles on pages 522 and 557 and contents page-- " dog, first domesticated animal".
Unless SCIENCE can include the name Archimedes Plutonium in a future edition, saying-- forgot to cite AP in reference to dog domestication. Then AP is forced to include SCIENCE magazine in his book-- Theft and Stealing of Intellectual Property.
22nd published book
Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Amazing that just watching TV of science shows, one can formulate a true theory of science. Now my theory needs research, but it basically says the dog was the first farm animal, the first domesticated animal of the wolf, that became food for early homo sapiens. We tend to think of herbivores being the first domesticated animals, but I tend to think the dog comes as first domesticated animal. Many good lines of research are suggested below in the text.
Cover picture: are three dogs, the light brown one is Indy and her two daughters. Indy comes from the Waziristan mountains as a shephard dog.Indy is very smart.
Length: 50 pages
Product details
File Size: 3076 KB
Print Length: 50 pages
Publication Date: March 17, 2019
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQ5CPKG
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #429,006 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#93 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#469 in Evolution (Kindle Store)
#648 in Biology (Kindle Store)
Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog// Anthropology series, book 2
by Archimedes Plutonium
Preface: Amazing that just watching TV of science shows, one can formulate a true theory of science. Now my theory needs research, but it basically says the dog was the first farm animal, the first domesticated animal of the wolf, that became food for early homo sapiens. We tend to think of herbivores being the first domesticated animals, but I tend to think the dog comes as first domesticated animal. Many good lines of research are suggested below in the text.
Cover picture: are three dogs, the light brown one is Indy and her two daughters. Indy comes from the Waziristan mountains as a shepherd dog.Indy is very smart.
From: a_plu...@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.misc,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo
Subject: how dogs evolved from wolves; TV NOVA show; 1st domesticated farm animal theory
Date: 5 Feb 2004 15:07:00 -0800
Lines: 76
A few days ago I watched a NOVA program on the variety of dogs with
talk of their evolution from that of wolves. Quite an interesting
program. However there are very many gaps of logic in the discussion
of how dogs came from wolves.
There was proffered the usual old theory that wolf babies make nice
pets and hominids would have come upon wolf babies and raised them in
their living camps.
Then there was a scientist who proffered a different theory suggesting
that dumpsites of early humans was a place to pick up easy food for
those wolves tolerant of human nearby presence.
I am going to offer a third theory which sort of incorporates the
above two. Let me call the above by their main mechanism. The first is
that of "Baby Pet" theory
and the second would be called the "Dumpsite" theory.
My theory would be called the "First Domesticated Farm Animal" theory.
The logical gap in theories one and two is that they confer little to
no advantage to the hominids or early humans involved, unless you want
to say that having a pet confers advantage over disadvantage of the
time spent on the pet, or as in the dumpsite theory that of the
spectacle of semi-wolves near camp is some sort of advantage.
My theory of "First Domesticated Animal" as the mechanism of how dogs
evolved from wolves makes the most sense because it confers the most
advantage to hominids or early humans. Here is how it works. Hominids
or Early Humans found wolf babies and would take them back to their
camp. They are too little and young to eat now, but as they grow older
fed from the snacks around the campsite (the dump) then they would be
large enough for food to eat.
Here I would have to research as to how easy or hard it would be to
have sheep or cattle hang around close to the campsite so that when
they got large enough they would be dinner. You see, I have the
suspicion that wild wolf babies are the animal that has the greatest
tendency to hang around the campsite than any other wild animal baby.
And thus, wolves would have been the first domesticated animal which
is rather surprising because they are carnivores and most of us would
guess that the first domesticated animal would have been a herbivore.
But I doubt that any baby herbivore would have stayed around the human
campsite as steadfast as a pet baby wolf until it grows to enough size
to eat.
Remember we are talking of primitive and savage hominids and early
humans who when looking at pets see them more as future food.
Which brings up very many good questions. Was the Dog the first
domesticated animal? I think it was. I say this because the wild wolf
baby imprints on a human better than a wild-any-other-animal. And
because of this imprinting the baby wolf would have stayed nearby the
humans until it grew of a size wherein one of the hungry hominids or
early humans ate the pet for dinner.
The Dump theory is okay in that the baby wolf would have wandered no
further away than the dump. And when the wolf was of a eatable size
would have been enticed by some scrap food bones and then killed and
eaten. Sounds gory and awful but that is probably the true sequence of
events that lead from wolves to the evolution of dog. And as this
relationship continued, the semi-wild wolf or dog had ears that drooped
and had a disposition to not run away.
We can measure the drooping ears of cattle or other domesticated
animals compared to their wild counterparts. As early man ate more and
more dogs for their dinners they wanted dogs that would hang around
the dumps and had droopy ears and not prone to run away.
And after hominids or early humans domesticated the wolf by becoming
the dog, they then got the idea that other animals such as cattle or
sheep can be domesticated for future dinners as well as the dog.
Kibo Parry Moroney on stealing thieves Dr. Thorp, Dr. Chandler Davis, Dr. Young and they steal from newsgroups because they struggle for relevance
On Monday, February 8, 2021 at 9:24:51 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"struggling for relevance"
Kibo Parry Moroney puts a finger on all the stealing going on why Old Science stealing--- they are struggling for relevance so they steal from AP--- with the new interface of Internet, where people in science such as Dr. Thorp, Dr. Young, Dr. Chandler Davis steal from others because they do not respect the Internet. They do not respect sci.physics, sci.math or the other newsgroups and look down upon Internet and feel they can just "freely steal, steal steal" all they want to steal and never have to cite their reference source-- the Internet.
So Dr. Young trys to steal AP's Stonethrowing theory, and Dr. Thorp via SCIENCE magazine tries to steal AP's Dog-- first domesticated animal theory, and Dr. Chandler Davis tries to steal via Mathematical Intelligencer, AP's Euclid proof of Infinitude of Primes Corrected.
Kibo's new book on the Three Thieves of the Internet, Dr. Thorp, Dr.Young, Dr. Chandler Davis.
AP writes: Question Kibo, does your new book have a photograph picture of Thorp, Young and Davis, a picture of them in the year they tried to steal AP theories of science and math? Kibo, will Nicholas Thompson the editor at Wired, can he get photographs of these three thieves of modern science?
STEALING DR THORP SCIENCE magazine
Kibo Parry Moroney wrotes the bio of Dr. Young, Dr.Thorp, Dr.Chandler Davis as thieves of science from Internet and Newsgroups.
On Sunday, December 13, 2020 at 3:40:13 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>struggling for relevance
AP writes: do not be fooled by the several people posting under the name Michael Moroney as a "open hate spam line"
AP writes: is that why Dr.Thorp and Dr. Chandler Davis steal from AP?
Which steals better, MitchR, Dr.Thorp, or Dr. Chandler Davis. Some in the journal of science business have just not transitioned to our new world where you have to also include Internet and Newsgroups as reference.
88th published book
Theft & Stealing ideas of science in the era of the internet// Ways to prevent and combat stealing// Sociology series, book 10 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
3_H. Holden Thorp fails Chemistry, now tries to steal AP 2004 work on "Dog, first domesticated animal" Kindle book of AP's. Kibo Parry Moroney confirms theft-- see below.
Ask Dr. Thorp when in the world he has no brains to do proper chemistry. Ask him why he believes in Lewis 8 Structure, when it has been known for decades that CO then N2 have the highest bonded dissociation energy. Thus, if you had at least one logical marble of a brain, you would understand that the highest dissociation energy tells you what the Lewis Structure must be. It cannot be Lewis 8 Structure but has to be Lewis 6 Arm Structure. If it were Lewis 8, then O2 would have the highest dissociation energy, not CO.
Is this why Dr. Thorp was dismissed out of chemistry? He just does not have one logical marble? But it appears the no logical marble of Dr. Thorp is allowing SCIENCE magazine to steal, and steal away the AP theory of DOG, FIRST DOMESTICATED ANIMAL of year 2004, published in the book of that same title in Amazon's Kindle.
But it appears that SCIENCE is trying very hard to steal AP's theory.
And all I asked for was inclusion on a correction page of SCIENCE, but Dr. Thorp is headstrong in his stealing ways.
Is SCIENCE magazine trying to steal away AP's theory-- Dog-First Domesticated Animal, or, will they do the proper etiquette of a Corrections page in a future edition?
4 views
Subscribe
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Nov 17, 2020, 1:01:25 PM (4 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Is SCIENCE magazine trying to steal away AP's theory-- Dog-First Domesticated Animal, or, will they do the proper etiquette of a Corrections page in a future edition?
Nov 17, 2020, 12:53 PM
to sci.physics, sci.math, plutonium-atom-universe
In that 30OCT2020 issue of SCIENCE AAAS, on page 523 has a list of references and notes and the oldest date is this.
8. G.H.Perry et al..Nat. Genet. 39. 1256 (2007).
Well, AP's Dog-- First Domesticated Animal has a long long history of Usenet posts going back to 2004. So, no, AP is not going to have his theories, any one of them, stolen from him.
I have asked SCIENCE to include my name in a future corrections page of Dog-First Domesticated Animal.
Is SCIENCE magazine AAAS, trying to steal AP's theory-- Dog-- First Domesticated Animal// Looks like it in 30OCT2020 issue pages 522 & 557. I did not see the name Archimedes Plutonium in the references. There are four major offending words in ....
6 views
Subscribe
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Nov 14, 2020, 7:08:20 PM (3 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Is SCIENCE magazine AAAS, trying to steal AP's theory-- Dog-- First Domesticated Animal// Looks like it in 30OCT2020 issue pages 522 & 557.
I did not see the name Archimedes Plutonium in the references. There are four major offending words in these two articles on pages 522 and 557 and contents page-- " dog, first domesticated animal".
Unless SCIENCE can include the name Archimedes Plutonium in a future edition, saying-- forgot to cite AP in reference to dog domestication. Then AP is forced to include SCIENCE magazine in his book-- Theft and Stealing of Intellectual Property.
22nd published book
Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Amazing that just watching TV of science shows, one can formulate a true theory of science. Now my theory needs research, but it basically says the dog was the first farm animal, the first domesticated animal of the wolf, that became food for early homo sapiens. We tend to think of herbivores being the first domesticated animals, but I tend to think the dog comes as first domesticated animal. Many good lines of research are suggested below in the text.
Cover picture: are three dogs, the light brown one is Indy and her two daughters. Indy comes from the Waziristan mountains as a shephard dog.Indy is very smart.
Length: 50 pages
Product details
File Size: 3076 KB
Print Length: 50 pages
Publication Date: March 17, 2019
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQ5CPKG
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #429,006 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#93 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#469 in Evolution (Kindle Store)
#648 in Biology (Kindle Store)
Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog// Anthropology series, book 2
by Archimedes Plutonium
Preface: Amazing that just watching TV of science shows, one can formulate a true theory of science. Now my theory needs research, but it basically says the dog was the first farm animal, the first domesticated animal of the wolf, that became food for early homo sapiens. We tend to think of herbivores being the first domesticated animals, but I tend to think the dog comes as first domesticated animal. Many good lines of research are suggested below in the text.
Cover picture: are three dogs, the light brown one is Indy and her two daughters. Indy comes from the Waziristan mountains as a shepherd dog.Indy is very smart.
From: a_plu...@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.misc,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo
Subject: how dogs evolved from wolves; TV NOVA show; 1st domesticated farm animal theory
Date: 5 Feb 2004 15:07:00 -0800
Lines: 76
A few days ago I watched a NOVA program on the variety of dogs with
talk of their evolution from that of wolves. Quite an interesting
program. However there are very many gaps of logic in the discussion
of how dogs came from wolves.
There was proffered the usual old theory that wolf babies make nice
pets and hominids would have come upon wolf babies and raised them in
their living camps.
Then there was a scientist who proffered a different theory suggesting
that dumpsites of early humans was a place to pick up easy food for
those wolves tolerant of human nearby presence.
I am going to offer a third theory which sort of incorporates the
above two. Let me call the above by their main mechanism. The first is
that of "Baby Pet" theory
and the second would be called the "Dumpsite" theory.
My theory would be called the "First Domesticated Farm Animal" theory.
The logical gap in theories one and two is that they confer little to
no advantage to the hominids or early humans involved, unless you want
to say that having a pet confers advantage over disadvantage of the
time spent on the pet, or as in the dumpsite theory that of the
spectacle of semi-wolves near camp is some sort of advantage.
My theory of "First Domesticated Animal" as the mechanism of how dogs
evolved from wolves makes the most sense because it confers the most
advantage to hominids or early humans. Here is how it works. Hominids
or Early Humans found wolf babies and would take them back to their
camp. They are too little and young to eat now, but as they grow older
fed from the snacks around the campsite (the dump) then they would be
large enough for food to eat.
Here I would have to research as to how easy or hard it would be to
have sheep or cattle hang around close to the campsite so that when
they got large enough they would be dinner. You see, I have the
suspicion that wild wolf babies are the animal that has the greatest
tendency to hang around the campsite than any other wild animal baby.
And thus, wolves would have been the first domesticated animal which
is rather surprising because they are carnivores and most of us would
guess that the first domesticated animal would have been a herbivore.
But I doubt that any baby herbivore would have stayed around the human
campsite as steadfast as a pet baby wolf until it grows to enough size
to eat.
Remember we are talking of primitive and savage hominids and early
humans who when looking at pets see them more as future food.
Which brings up very many good questions. Was the Dog the first
domesticated animal? I think it was. I say this because the wild wolf
baby imprints on a human better than a wild-any-other-animal. And
because of this imprinting the baby wolf would have stayed nearby the
humans until it grew of a size wherein one of the hungry hominids or
early humans ate the pet for dinner.
The Dump theory is okay in that the baby wolf would have wandered no
further away than the dump. And when the wolf was of a eatable size
would have been enticed by some scrap food bones and then killed and
eaten. Sounds gory and awful but that is probably the true sequence of
events that lead from wolves to the evolution of dog. And as this
relationship continued, the semi-wild wolf or dog had ears that drooped
and had a disposition to not run away.
We can measure the drooping ears of cattle or other domesticated
animals compared to their wild counterparts. As early man ate more and
more dogs for their dinners they wanted dogs that would hang around
the dumps and had droopy ears and not prone to run away.
And after hominids or early humans domesticated the wolf by becoming
the dog, they then got the idea that other animals such as cattle or
sheep can be domesticated for future dinners as well as the dog.
AP
From: a_plu...@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,soc.history
Subject: dog farming formed the first Human or Hominid farm
Date: 8 Feb 2004 12:12:05 -0800
Lines: 27
Based on a NOVA TV show recently watched. And my theory that dogs
evolved from wolves because they are an easy steady and stable food
supply.
Query: if we pose a query or question as to what would the first, yes
the very first Farm in the entire history of the Human or perhaps
Hominid history, then I think most of us would conjure up the images
of say early humans planting corn seeds or something like that.
Perhaps some would not conjure up some plant seeds but would instead
think of confining buffalo or some sort of animal resembling sheep or
cattle.
But I believe that the first ever farm by the earliest humans was a
dog farm. Where they rounded up baby wolves and brought them into the
campsite and fed them until a large enough size to eat. And they would
not roam far from the campsite because they were imprinted forming a
natural fence as to their roaming away from the humans. It could have
been cats since cats are also easily imprinted.
I do believe the dog would be the first ever Human farm. And then
other animals brought into the campsite area and then later, much
later would be to plant crops where these dogs and cats and other
animals were confined.
AP
20 July 2019 Note: reading the above, got me to thinking that not only was the dog, dog food for early humans, and the dog being the first farm animal, but the advantage of a dog around the campsite, barking at say wild animals approaching such as big cats, or worse yet, rival early human clans, would have been a huge advantage that the early humans gained, in addition to food by eating the dog. Dog barking is a huge advantage to owners when you want a alarm system. And the barking dog certainly is the best animal I know of as a alarm system.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Nov 14, 2020, 7:35:25 PM (3 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I am forwarding a copy of the below post to Editor in Chief, H. Holden Thorp, sciencemag.org.
Of the thousands upon thousands of new ideas in science that AP has committed, I am not willing to give up a single one of them, to any ransacking marauding thiefs. Unless the name Archimedes Plutonium appears in a future correction page of references to this article on dogs-- first domesticated animal, then I shall enter the offending person/s in AP's book of Theft and Stealing.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Nov 17, 2020, 5:40:41 PM (4 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Comparing the stealing of Porat versus MitchR versus Chandler Davis of Math. Intelligencer magazine
Well it is easy to compare their stealing ways.
Porat would read a "good nice new idea", and really really like it. And so his reaction was to pop up in the author's thread and accuse that author of stealing the new idea from Porat. Such stealing behavior gets old very very fast for the original author.
MitchR stealing ways is less offensive, less in-your-face stealing than Porat, but none-the-less as aggravating. What MitchR does is scout around in sci.math and sci.physics for new ideas. Once he spots one, he rewords the new idea and posts his rewording in a new thread pretending he is the discoverer of a brand new idea of science. Actually, AP has met people like this in real life, where they listen to someone talk about a new idea and reword it so that they feel they have no need of footnoting or citing original source. For there are thousands of people who think that rewording a new idea gives them the right to call it "their new idea".
Chandler Davis when he was editor of Mathematical Intelligencer in Toronto Canada in the 1990s early 2000 printed a article on the mistakes in the Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof, not Chandler but two other authors. Trouble was, the article was almost a pure lifting, a stealing of AP's posts in sci.math over Euclid Infinitude of Primes. And I emailed Chandler asking for a correction page inclusion of my work in a future issue of the magazine. Turns out that Chandler was "stupid old school of thought" thinking that Usenet and Internet are just "for free to steal all you want". So, what AP ended up doing is publishing Chandler Davis's brash stealing of AP's work in AP's book. All that Chandler had to do was simply include a two line cite of Archimedes Plutonium in his magazine, but no, for I guess a thief is always a thief, and looking for a excuse.
So, what turned out in the case of Chandler Davis refusal to publish priority rights of intellectual property, that now, Chandler Davis is published in AP's book of stealing on the Internet. Fair sailing Chandler...
88th published book
Theft & Stealing ideas of science in the era of the internet// Ways to prevent and combat stealing// Sociology series, book 10 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
New True Ideas in Science are very difficult to come by.
And many communities and countries ignore or deny the practice of footnoting, citing reference source, or quoting, but are societies who live up to that of mass stealing.
At minimum, every school education should and must teach how we "do not steal" by teaching footnote, reference cite, quoting. I learned it in High School, but across the world, most never learned this.
I learned footnoting, citing sources reference, and quoting in High School English classrooms, thank you Wyoming High School, near Cincinnati Ohio, one of my most valuable lessons, because it teaches us not only honesty, but prepares us for becoming scientists and grappling with the truth of the world, without stealing it.
It was August of 1993 that I first arrived on the Internet in the sci.math, sci.physics and many other Newsgroups of Usenet. I had already copyrighted my Atom Totality theory and was protected in that manner of copyrights. But I wanted more protection so I published in the Dartmouth College newspaper many of my discovered ideas of 1990 through August 1993. So I had a double wall of protection of Library of Congress copyright but also, Dartmouth College newspaper. But then with the arrival onto Usenet newsgroups, sci.physics, sci.math, sci.chem, sci.bio.misc, sci.physics.electromag, sci.astro, and many more newsgroups. I saw that as a third layer of protection of my newly discovered ideas.
However, starting August 1993, it was plainly clear to me that this Internet posting of my ideas, that it is easy to steal those ideas.
Length: 147 pages
Product details
File Size: 783 KB
Print Length: 147 pages
Publication Date: February 13, 2020
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B084T87JGY
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #250,786 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#4742 in Counseling & Psychology
#2013 in Medical General Psychology
#7248 in Science & Math (Kindle Store)
AP is hoping that he does not have to include the recent steal by SCIENCE magazine 30OCT2020, page 523 with a missing reference and note citation.
15. Archimedes Plutonium, Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author), 2004, published 2019.
I am hoping this does not end up being another Chandler Davis of Mathematical Intelligencer type of steal, where the editors of SCIENCE AAAS look upon everything on Usenet and Internet and Amazon's Kindle as just fertile grounds and fertile fields of stealing.
I ask for the above (15) inclusion on a correction page of SCIENCE magazine. New true ideas in Science are terribly difficult to come by, and keeping that in mind, I am not willing to lose a single new idea I ever discovered.
#1-3, 74th published book
HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
In 2016-2017, AP discovered that the real proton has a mass of 840 MeV, not 938. The real electron was actually the muon and the muon stays inside the proton that forms a proton torus of 8 rings and with the muon as bar magnet is a Faraday Law producing magnetic monopoles. So this book is all about why researchers of physics and engineers keep getting the number 938MeV when they should be getting the number 840 MeV + 105 MeV = 945 MeV.
Cover Picture is a proton torus of 8 rings with a muon of 1 ring inside the proton torus, doing the Faraday Law and producing magnetic monopoles.
Length: 17 pages
Product details
• Publication Date : December 18, 2019
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 17 pages
• File Size : 698 KB
• ASIN : B082WYGVNG
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Quoting from my book-- Theft & Stealing ideas of science in the era of the internet// Ways to prevent and combat stealing// Sociology series, book 10
by Archimedes Plutonium
Newsgroups: sci.physics, soc.history, sci.math
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:22:23 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri, Sep 9 2011 1:22 pm
Subject: Scardigli and arXiv, and QM of Titius-Bode rule priority? new book: #9 Usenet sci.newsgroups theft-without-proper-attribute
On Sep 9, 1:17 am, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
(snipped in large part)
Now I need to shorten the title of this book and so far I have adopted
this as the title:
"Usenet sci.newsgroups theft-without-proper-attribute"
Maybe I can improve that even more, along the way
As mentioned often in this book, of the newness of the Internet and Usenet and that newness will create problems with the old media way of publishing science ideas. There were numerous problems in old media coverage of science, but when Usenet came around circa 1990, the proper attribute for new ideas had to be re-examined. And it left decades open of misappropriation of new ideas.
Now Mr Scardigli mentions above that he inserted a "errors corrected and more references cited" as a second edition to his first edition. I still do not see where he references Archimedes Plutonium Usenet posts to sci.physics on the Titius Bode Rule as quantum mechanics.
But what Mr. Scardigli has done by using a correction page to update, offers us a solution to the problem of "theft-without-proper-attribute." And this is what I tried to get Chandler Davis editor of Mathematical Intelligencer to do with his published article of "Prime Simplicity" of 2009 was to include in a future correction page of Mathematical Intelligencer the name of Archimedes Plutonium with the referencing of my thousand or so Usenet posts on the subject for which I had priority.
So whereas the Usenet science newsgroups offers superior date-time- group for new ideas. The Usenet can be corrected of theft-by-improper-attribute by the insertion of the reference in a "Correction Page".
So that if Mr. Scardigli were to include Archimedes Plutonium, posts to sci.physics in a future correction page, then this episode is over with and ended. And if Chandler Davis with Mathematical Intelligencer in a future correction page of that magazine cites Archimedes Plutonium: posts to sci.math on Euclid Infinitude of Primes corrected, then that issue is over with.
So we begin to see the problem and it is a huge problem, and we begin to see a clearcut solution by authors, that they can correct priority rights through a Correction page citing those earlier sources.
Now I want to talk briefly about the opposite and rather insidious phenomenon that is occurring on Usenet as a publishing medium, that was there also in old media publishing but not so obnoxious and not so widespread. It is what can be considered the inverse of not including a reference to that of over-including a reference to the detriment of the source. What I am talking about is what has been dubbed as "bombing, Google bombing or search engine bombing." So that when you are reading a article about coal, you have reference to old articles written by Archimedes Plutonium to the planet Mars and whether Mars has coal.
Science before the Internet was worried about citing original sources. With the Internet a new problem arises where search engines are hyper-sensitive and will list references to authors for which the only element in common was a few words.
So in science, we still have the problem of proper citation to scientists with original ideas, but we also have a new problem on our hands of drowning authors of science with the pollution of search engine bombing on those authors. In a sense, this happened in old media science where a tabloid press would talk about a famous scientist, for which that scientist would rather that the tabloid never discussed him or his work, at all.
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology, sci.anthropology.paleo, sci.math
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 22:18:41 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Wed, Sep 14 2011 12:18 am
Subject: Richard W. Young and stonethrowing theory priorities new book: #10 Usenet sci.newsgroups theft-without-proper-attribute
In the mid 2000s a search for the stonethrowing theory in Google
delivered not Archimedes Plutonium first but delivers Richard W Young
with his tiny blurb on the Stonethrowing theory in a Journal of
Anatomy of 2003.
This example of taking ideas from the Usenet science newsgroups without proper attribute is seen clearly by Dr. Young, and this case will show and exemplify the new era of publishing of science is more important about having a date time group stamp than where the article is published. This case of Dr. Young shows us the superiority of publishing first to Usenet and then going back and having the slow old way of publishing take its course.
What Dr. Young teaches us about science publishing, is to post the abstract to the Usenet first since its speed is superior and then have the article published in the slow process of peer review journal.
We have a historical case to recall in biology itself where Wallace had the ideas of evolution before or simultaneous to that of Darwin.
So let me go through my archive of posts to fetch out what happened on the issue of Dr. Young, stonethrowing theory and Archimedes Plutonium. And from this case study, I think everyone will be convinced that speed of recorded date time group is more important than where it is published, and the superiority of Usenet for the date time group stamp.
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology, sci.anthropology.paleo, sci.math
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 22:50:40 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Wed, Sep 14 2011 12:50 am
Subject: Re: Richard W. Young and stonethrowing theory priorities new book: #11 Usenet sci.newsgroups theft-without-proper-attribute
I am going to repost an older post of mine of 2007 where I lay out the
particular's of the Dr. Young
case and priority rights and where the new medium of Usenet publishing
is trampled on by the old medium.
--- quoting old post of mine ---
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology, sci.math, sci.physics From: a_plutonium <a_pluton...@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:08:57 -0700 Local: Tues, Jul 31 2007 2:08 am Subject: Is Dr. Young (California emeritus) trying to steal the Stonethrowing theory from Archimedes Plutonium; ethics about referencing the Internet vis a vis science journals Book: "STONETHROWING THEORY, THE DOMINANT THEORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY", Archimedes Plutonium Internet book published 2002-2007 (assimilated in March 2007 in sci.anthropology.paleo, sci.med, sci.physics) ############################## J Ant. 2003 January; 202(1): 165-174. Copyright © Anatomical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2003 Evolution of the human hand: the role of throwing and clubbing Richard W Young Editor-in-chief Gillian M. Morriss-Kay University of Oxford E-mail: gillian.morriss-...@anat.ox.ac.uk Managing Editor Edward Fenton E-mail: ja...@anat.ox.ac.uk Receiving Editors Julia Clarke North Carolina State University E-mail: Julia_Cla...@ncsu.edu --- quoting from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1571064 Journal of Anatomy 2003 January; 202(1): 165-174. Evolution of the human hand: the role of throwing and clubbing Richard W Young Correspondence Dr Richard W. Young, 2913 Hollyridge Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90068, USA. Accepted November 22, 2002. Abstract It has been proposed that the hominid lineage began when a group of chimpanzee-like apes began to throw rocks and swing clubs at adversaries, and that this behavior yielded reproductive advantages for millions of years, driving natural selection for improved throwing and clubbing prowess. ---- end quoting ---- ----------------- quoting old post -------------- Newsgroups: sci.anthropology, sci.logic From: Archimedes Plutonium <a_pluton...@dtgnet.com> Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 08:24:18 -0500 Local: Mon, Aug 12 2002 7:24 am Subject: Logic applied to Anthropology (most snipped to save space) This accurate stone-thrower would thus create a Hominid species in Asia from the Orangutan line and almost simultaneously create a different Hominid species in Africa from the Chimpanzee line. Perhaps another Hominid species created from the Gorilla line. ------------------ end quoting old post ---------------- Finally, in December of that same year 2002, spurred by the TV show talking about Orrorin found in Kenya by Pickford and others, gave me the impetus to develop the Stonethrowing theory in full force. ---------------- quoting old post ------------------------------------------- Newsgroups: sci.archaeology, sci.bio.paleontology, sci.anthropology From: Archimedes Plutonium <a_pluton...@dtgnet.com> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 03:02:43 -0600 Local: Wed, Dec 11 2002 3:02 am Subject: Ourran man of Kenya "Secrets of the Dead" found by Martin & Brigitte I hope I got the spellings correct. Wanted to post this while still fresh on the mind after watching 2 or 3 Tuesday programs on the TV with NOVA, Secrets of the Dead. Tuesday night seems to be turning out as the best night for science on the TV. Anyway, I post this because recently I came up with my own theory of Anthropology which basically says that the evolution of humans was primarily one major aspect-- stonethrowing. Stonethrowing, according to my theory, created the human and prehuman species. Stonethrowing created bipedalism for primates. So I was anxious to hear about Ourran man as discovered by Martin and Brigitte in Kenya. Ourran man was also called the Millenium Man since he was found in year 2000. Ourran man is dated to 6 million years old. I was rather struck by what theory in anthropology was held before. The theory that the Savannahs of Africa increased, forests lost and this increase in savannah gave rise to the theory that savannahs caused bipedalism. If you do not mind me saying so, but I think the Savannah mechanism is a stupid sort of theory to posit as the cause for bipedalism. According to my theory, bipedalism goes hand in hand (forgive the pun) with stonethrowing. Increasing stonethrowing puts demands on the body anatomy to be more bipedal. And then this program of Secrets of the Dead had Mr. Johanson and Martin and Brigitte announce a new theory for bipedalism. They looked at orangutans and think that specific height of trees places a demand for Ourran to sort of walk bipedally in parts of the tree canopy. Again, if you don't mind me saying but that is rather a stupid sort of theory. There should be a reverse Occam's Razor that says if given various competing theories, choice the theory which is the strongest theory. And quite clearly, the stonethrowing mechanism giving rise to bipedalism is the strongest theory. I was curious to see if Martin and Brigitte turned up any stones in their digs for Ourran Man. I suspect that neither Martin nor Brigitte are skilled enough in detecting stones used by Ourran Man. I feel confident that if a more skilled team were working in Kenya in the vicinity of Ourran Man that many stones used by Ourran Man would be discovered. Now, there was one piece of evidence in this program that casts dispersions upon my stonethrowing theory. The evidence that Ourran Man had rather curved fingers for use in tree climbing and swinging. I suppose apes and monkeys have curved fingers. Curved fingers would not mesh well with stonethrowing. How do I reconcile that evidence? I can reconcile it by saying that the curved fingers of Ourran were not Ourran's fingers but that of a ape or monkey and that Martin and Brigitte wrongly ascribed those fingers to Ourran when they were not. Or, I can say that the disappearance of curved fingers was a long gradual process just as brow anatomy changes took a long time. That curved fingers were not an impediment in stonethrowing but that as time went on, the stonethrowing demands eliminated the curved fingers altogether so that by the time of Lucy of 2 million years ago, curved fingers were absent altogether in stonethrowers. Is there any evidence that Ourran was a stonethrower from the anatomy? I would say quite definitively yes in the fact of the teeth structure was half and half vegetarian and meateating. Ourran's teeth resemble modern humans teeth to a large extent and that would indicate alot of meat in the diet. So I think that if Ourran Man is studied in more detail in the future it will be discovered that the site has many Ourran stones used for stonethrowing and that Ourran was mostly a stonethrowing predator. Archimedes Plutonium, a_pluton...@hotmail.com whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies ----------------- end quoting old posts----------------------------- ---- quoting Dr. Young on bipedalism in his January 2003 publication --- "Improved dynamic upright balance on more powerful legs and resilient feet in the service of throwing and clubbing would have made upright locomotion more efficient, leading to its increasing use and eventually culminating in habitual bipedalism. (Several other unique human anatomical and behavioural features can also be accounted for by this approach: Young, 2002)." --- end quoting Dr. Young --- ############################################# Since I am lately "on about" intellectual property rights of scientists, about priority of discovery and about that of proper referencing and giving credit to where credit is due. The realm of intellectual discovery is an arena in which new ideas come very infrequently and especially important new ideas. So this arena is fiercely competitive and sometimes even highly dishonest. University "professors" are graded by their community by the number of publications and especially publications with "new ideas". So it is easy to see and understand that intellectual discoveries and property rights is not something to dismiss or take lightly. In the case of Don Wortzman over the "Atom Universe" or "Atom Totality", there is suspicious behavior as to Don's dating where he has the year 19100. Does he mean the year "2000"? Or is the year 19100 a way of undermining or subterfuging the date of Archimedes Plutonium's date of discovery? And another facet of Don Wortzman's "Atom Universe" is that it is only posted to a website but websites are notorious for not having a verifiable date, since author of a website can claim any date they wish. Another upsetting feature of Don Wortzman's website and that of Dr. Young's website on Stonethrowing is that they appear before Archimedes Plutonium's website on the theories involved. I say upsetting in that Don Wortzman has about a couple of pages on Atom Universe whereas Archimedes Plutonium has about 3,000 Internet posts on Atom Universe, yet Google search engine delivers Don Wortzman's site before Archimedes Plutonium. The same thing goes for Dr. Young's article on Stonethrowing yet Archimedes Plutonium has written thousands of pages on Stonethrowing theory and yet Google search delivers Young's first. I emailed several of the editors of the journal in which Dr. Young published his comments on Stonethrowing theory. I emailed Gillian M. Morriss-Kay and he replied that he had to go on a trip and would answer me when he returned, but I never received a answer. Basically what upsets me about Dr. Young's journal article and Dr. Gillian M. Morriss-Kay is that their journal does not have in place the ability to see if the Internet has had information that needs to be referenced by the authors of upcoming articles to be published. If someone, like Dr. Young, had read sci.anthropology in year 2002, and read my posts about Stonethrowing theory would have been the basis for Dr. Young's (1) chimpanzee-like apes (2) how stonethrowing drove the evolution of ape-like becoming human (3) and what Dr. Young calls "habitual bipedalism" So all three of those concepts were covered by me on the Internet in year 2002, and then in 2003 comes out the Dr. Young publication in the journal. So I had Dr. Young's ideas covered one year earlier or before that of his journal article. What I am upset about is that the editors of the journal will not reference the Internet posts of 2002. I simply asked Gillian M. Morriss-Kay to reference that 2003 article by Dr. Young with a reference to my 2002 posts to the Internet. I have the priority of discovery of those ideas, beating Dr. Young by one year. I think the Internet was "too new" and still is rather new to the journal publication way of doing science. And that many editors feel the Internet has few if any worthy posts that need be referenced. And that the Internet, to these old time editors, is a medium which can be ransacked of ideas and not requiring any reference to the Internet once the ideas are plucked and later published in a hardcover journal. Whether Dr. Young was reading my posts in year 2002 about Stonethrowing theory and subsequently used my ideas and never referenced me, is besides the point. The point is that those ideas appeared first on the Internet in 2002, and then later in year 2003 the same ideas appeared in a journal. So what I was asking of Gillian M. Morriss-Kay was to print a reference to my 2002 posts on Stonethrowing theory in a upcoming edition of this journal, much like what most newspapers such as the New York Times has as a "correction section" where they correct past mistakes. I have written an entire book on the subject of Stonethrowing theory which if all my posts were assembled would be probably a thousand pages or more. So it is high time that science journals realize that the Internet science newsgroups have to be watched and referenced as per new ideas. And that some scientists read the newsgroups and are tempted to steal ideas from others and then reword the ideas and publish in a journal pretending as though they discovered those new ideas. The very nice thing about the Internet is that the ideas are all date time grouped. There is no question that I posted those ideas in 2002, whereas the journal in which Dr. Young published has few date-time group verifiability. Science journals and journal editors have to get used to the idea that the Internet is just as good as their journal itself as far as "doing science" and in many facets of doing science, the Internet is superior to the old hardcover journals such as the facet of "speed". No journal can compete with the Internet as to "speed" of getting the news out. I suspect Gillian M. Morriss-Kay thinks I have no case against Dr. Young and for that reason he never bothered to answer my email. But the case is important and the case is about science journals that have not grown up yet and matured yet to realize that the Internet is a valid medium of reporting science, especially new ideas in science and that the old journals must adapt to reference the Internet.
More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, postings only to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.
I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.
0 new messages