info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: 4-Kibo Parry Moroney (std World) NSF-France Anne Cordova, Barry Shein,Jim Frost, Joe "Spike" Ilacqua, The 27 year long nonstop STALKING machine-- analbuttfuckmanure shithead stalking on sci.math, sci.physics
134 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Tom Hodges
Feb 1, 2020, 3:49:41 PM2/1/20
to
Shut up imbecile.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Michael Moroney
Feb 5, 2020, 3:11:55 AM2/5/20
to
Housefly of Math and Dung Beetle of Physics Archimedes "I ate my brain" Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
>why does Jason Herrmann, Kibo Parry Moroney, Dan Christensen want to kill
>WHALES, if any?? //rating of Kindle b
Don't kill whales, Archie, they may become extinct! Let's learn some geometry
instead!
Below you will find a simple *proof* that shows that certain conic
sections are ellipses.
Some preliminaries:
Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used
in the proof:
^ x
|
-+- <= x=h
.' | `.
. | .
| | |
' | '
`. | .'
y <----------+ <= x=0
Cone (side view):
.
/|\
/ | \
/b | \
/---+---' <= x = h
/ |' \
/ ' | \
/ ' | \
x = 0 => '-------+-------\
/ a | \
Proof:
r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence
y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.
Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1 ...equation of an ellipse
qed
>why does Jason Herrmann, Kibo Parry Moroney, Dan Christensen want to kill
>WHALES, if any?? //rating of Kindle b
Don't kill whales, Archie, they may become extinct! Let's learn some geometry
instead!
Below you will find a simple *proof* that shows that certain conic
sections are ellipses.
Some preliminaries:
Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used
in the proof:
^ x
|
-+- <= x=h
.' | `.
. | .
| | |
' | '
`. | .'
y <----------+ <= x=0
Cone (side view):
.
/|\
/ | \
/b | \
/---+---' <= x = h
/ |' \
/ ' | \
/ ' | \
x = 0 => '-------+-------\
/ a | \
Proof:
r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence
y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.
Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1 ...equation of an ellipse
qed
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Michael Moroney
Feb 17, 2020, 2:27:15 AM2/17/20
to
Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> tarded:
>Airfoil Lift solved, true theory of how flight is possible///Physics series
>for High School Book 10 Kindle Edition
WARNING TO PARENTS: Archimedes Plutonium is offering to teach your children his
broken physics and math. BEWARE! He will corrupt the minds of your children! He
teaches bizarre false physics and math, such as the ellipse isn't a conic
section, that there are no negative numbers, no complex numbers, that a sine
wave isn't sinusoidal, plus many, many other instances of bad math and physics.
He has previously tried to corrupt our youth by posting his books on Usenet.
Fortunately, this has failed so far, perhaps in part due to the fact Usenet
is an old, dying medium few students even know of, much less use. However, Mr.
Plutonium has somehow duped Amazon into providing his dangerous books for free
on Kindle. This has greatly increased the danger to our students!
One of his dangerous tricks is to teach false Boolean logic such as 3 AND 2 = 5.
His method at doing this is particularly insidious. He'll post a false
statement that nobody believes, such as 3 OR 2 = 5, say that it is false (which
it is), but then he'll try to replace it with another similar false statement
such as 3 AND 2 = 5, in order to really confuse future computer scientists. It
is important for future computer scientists to remember that in the bitwise
Boolean logic used by computers, 3 OR 2 = 3 and 3 AND 2 = 2. Don't let
Plutonium's bad logic confuse you!
Nobody knows why he wishes to corrupt the minds of our youth like this. Perhaps
he is envious of their potential success, which he never had because he is a
failure at math and science. So perhaps he wants everyone to be a failure at
math and physics, just like he is. Perhaps he is an agent of China, in order
for them to dominate the trade economy. Maybe he is a minion of Kim Jong Un of
North Korea. Most likely he is an agent of Putin and Russia, because he has
attempted to summon Russian robots in 2017 "to create a new, true mathematics".
But the point is, stay away, if he offers to give or sell you his dangerous
books. Especially now since they are available for free from otherwise
legitimate Amazon.
In addition, Plutonium wants to usurp good Christians by trying to convince
students to worship his evil pagan Plutonium atom god of failure. You can
recognize the symbol of this evil pagan cult, which is an ascii-art cosmic
butthole.
>Airfoil Lift solved, true theory of how flight is possible///Physics series
>for High School Book 10 Kindle Edition
WARNING TO PARENTS: Archimedes Plutonium is offering to teach your children his
broken physics and math. BEWARE! He will corrupt the minds of your children! He
teaches bizarre false physics and math, such as the ellipse isn't a conic
section, that there are no negative numbers, no complex numbers, that a sine
wave isn't sinusoidal, plus many, many other instances of bad math and physics.
He has previously tried to corrupt our youth by posting his books on Usenet.
Fortunately, this has failed so far, perhaps in part due to the fact Usenet
is an old, dying medium few students even know of, much less use. However, Mr.
Plutonium has somehow duped Amazon into providing his dangerous books for free
on Kindle. This has greatly increased the danger to our students!
One of his dangerous tricks is to teach false Boolean logic such as 3 AND 2 = 5.
His method at doing this is particularly insidious. He'll post a false
statement that nobody believes, such as 3 OR 2 = 5, say that it is false (which
it is), but then he'll try to replace it with another similar false statement
such as 3 AND 2 = 5, in order to really confuse future computer scientists. It
is important for future computer scientists to remember that in the bitwise
Boolean logic used by computers, 3 OR 2 = 3 and 3 AND 2 = 2. Don't let
Plutonium's bad logic confuse you!
Nobody knows why he wishes to corrupt the minds of our youth like this. Perhaps
he is envious of their potential success, which he never had because he is a
failure at math and science. So perhaps he wants everyone to be a failure at
math and physics, just like he is. Perhaps he is an agent of China, in order
for them to dominate the trade economy. Maybe he is a minion of Kim Jong Un of
North Korea. Most likely he is an agent of Putin and Russia, because he has
attempted to summon Russian robots in 2017 "to create a new, true mathematics".
But the point is, stay away, if he offers to give or sell you his dangerous
books. Especially now since they are available for free from otherwise
legitimate Amazon.
In addition, Plutonium wants to usurp good Christians by trying to convince
students to worship his evil pagan Plutonium atom god of failure. You can
recognize the symbol of this evil pagan cult, which is an ascii-art cosmic
butthole.
Michael Moroney
Feb 17, 2020, 8:43:06 AM2/17/20
to
Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails:
>Should AP write a book on how Kibo Parry Moroney suckers the NSF into a grant
>of millions of $, to stalk AP in sci.math & sci.physics where professors
>at Harvard MIT are paid in the thousands of $ to actually teach math & physics
Should AP enjoy having all his Kindle "books" shut down and removed after
Amazon receives a cease and desist letter to quit selling any and all Kindle
"books" which spread falsehoods about myself?
Should AP enjoy such a cease snd desist letter himself for attempting to
bully me for some 27 years now?
Remember, there are Usenet servers out there with retention dates nearly
forever...
>Should AP write a book on how Kibo Parry Moroney suckers the NSF into a grant
>of millions of $, to stalk AP in sci.math & sci.physics where professors
>at Harvard MIT are paid in the thousands of $ to actually teach math & physics
Should AP enjoy having all his Kindle "books" shut down and removed after
Amazon receives a cease and desist letter to quit selling any and all Kindle
"books" which spread falsehoods about myself?
Should AP enjoy such a cease snd desist letter himself for attempting to
bully me for some 27 years now?
Remember, there are Usenet servers out there with retention dates nearly
forever...
Sergio
Feb 17, 2020, 11:27:50 AM2/17/20
to
Did you know they have a HUGE center in San Antonio, texas ? that sucks
down the internet. (cant hardly find any info on it now)
the cost of electricity from a nuk power plant is cheaper there for them
(russia does that too)
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Archimedes Plutonium
Aug 20, 2020, 4:40:46 AM8/20/20
to
Math should be the easiest of the six hard sciences, physics, chemistry, math, biology, geology, astronomy. Only reason it is not the easiest, is because it has so much fake math and here is a list of 50 of fake math to steer clear of. List of Errors.
There is no reason in this entire world, none at all, that of the 6 hard core sciences, physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, geology, astronomy, that math -- should be-- yes-- should be the easiest of those 6. No reason at all against, math being the easiest. But today in year 2020, math is the worst nightmare of the 6, and the reason it is so, is not because math is hard or difficult. No, the reason is that after Descartes some 5 centuries ago, in the 1600s, there became a awful ugly motivation of wanting "fame and fortune" from mathematics, not wanting truth of mathematics as a science. We can say the rise of colleges and Universities, starting with Cambridge in England in 1209, caused the science of mathematics to go astray of its true natural science, that it is and should be, and became what can be called "kook math" today. We see it today in the fake charade of alleged proofs of 4 Color Mapping, Fermat's Last Theorem, Kepler Packing, and many others.
The reason that mathematics has become a ugly incomprehensible torture chamber, rather than a simple truth of science, the easiest of the six hard core sciences, and a subject that is easy to learn. The reason math is now more difficult than physics, chemistry, biology, geology is because kooks motivated by fame and fortune have made math a cesspool of incomprehension.
Biology should always be more difficult a science than is mathematics.
Geology and Astronomy should be far more difficult sciences than is mathematics.
Chemistry should always be more difficult a science than is mathematics.
Physics should always be more difficult a science than is mathematics. In fact, mathematics, the whole sum lot of what is mathematics is but a tiny, tiny subset of physics. All of math comes directly out of physics. Yet today in 2020, we have the strange and ugly fact that schools around the world teach a mathematics that is more difficult than even physics. See the "kook mechanism" that is driving the science of mathematics to be this ugly abnormal science, that is not about the truth of the world, but rather about some kook individuals rising to fame and fortune.
But here in 2020, math is the hardest and most difficult of all sciences. Why? Because it has after 1209, and especially in the 1600s become a kook-gathering-subject where con-artist scientist sought for fame and fortune at the expense of the Truth-of-Mathematics. This is why we have a enormous long list below of fakery.
Listing the Errors of Old Math, list of 1 to 50.
Alright, well, mathematics is a closed subject. What I mean by that is due to the textbook series of Archimedes Plutonium TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, that once you learn the polynomial transform and learn the two Power Rules of Calculus, you reached the peak the pinnacle of all of mathematics, and anything further in math is just details of what you learn in that textbook series. Math is a completed science, unlike the other 5 hard sciences of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy. Those other five will continue to find new ideas, new things, while math remains static and complete. Mathematics is finished complete as far as a science goes.
Now I do need to discuss the Errors of Math in General and the errors of math in geometry in particular. I have the feeling that Geometry is the more important of the two-- algebra - geometry. This list appears in most of AP's Teaching True Mathematics textbook series by Archimedes Plutonium, meant to be a guide and orientation, and a organizing of what must be covered before graduating from College, and what math to steer clear of.
Errors mostly, but not always, for some are included because too much time spent on them.
1) No curves exist in Geometry, only finer and smaller straight line segments attached to one another.
2) Space has gaps in between one point and the next point. These gaps are empty space from one point to the next point, for example in 10 Grid there is no number between .1 and .2, and in 100 Grid there exists no number between .01 and .02.
3) Infinity has a borderline and there is a microinfinity compared to a macroinfinity. For example in 10 Grid, the microinfinity is .1 if we exclude 0 and so there is no number smaller than .1 and no number larger than 10 in 10 Grid, where 10 is macroinfinity.
4) The 1st Quadrant Only in Coordinate System Geometry. Sad that the first coordinate system of Descartes was correct but soon became corrupted with 4 quadrants. See Mathematical Thought, Volume 1, Kline, 1972, page 303. Where Fermat then Descartes starts the Cartesian Coordinate System as 1 axis only and from 0 rightwards, meaning in our modern day math, 1st Quadrant Only. Why did math screw up on coordinate systems? I suppose some clowns thought negative numbers were true and they wanted ease of drawing a circle with center at 0. When they could have just as easily drawn the circle in 1st Quadrant Only.
5) Calculus needed a Geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, but Old Math never provided such, instead they provided some stupid Limit argument. The reason for the creation of the Limit disaster was that the French mathematician Cauchy got sick and tired of hearing his smartest students complain that the width of rectangles in the integral are 0 width, and those smart students could not, for the life of them understand how a rectangle with 0 width has any interior area. So instead of the math community denouncing the limit, instead they elevated the fakery.
6) Further in Calculus, they knew you could do a transform of coordinate points to turn any function into a polynomial function, a method of Lagrange. However, they in Old Math were too stupid to take this transform to its highest form-- all functions are polynomial functions and only polynomial functions. When you learn that-- the derivative and integral of any and every function of math is a snap breeze simple and easy.
7) With the error filled 4 quadrants, when it should be 1st Quadrant Only, we have Trigonometry's sine and cosine with the fakery of sinusoid wave when it never was that. The sine and cosine are semicircle waves, and no sinusoid wave exists.
8) There is only one Geometry-- Euclidean, and there is not three distinct geometries of elliptical Riemannian or hyperbolic Lobachevsky. Those two are just duals that make up Euclidean.
9) Torus, volume and surface area formulas in Old Math are all screwed up and in error because they imagined bending a cylinder to form a torus. This brings back memories, for I had to do a percentage formula, since I could not follow the fake way of bending a cylinder. Where 78.5% of Disc Torus (pi)R^2h - (pi)r^2h is the volume of Circle Torus, and 78.5% of Disc Torus 2(pi)Rh + 2(pi)rh + 2 ((pi)R^2 - (pi)r^2) is the surface area of Circle Torus.
10) Ellipse is never a conic slant cut, always a cylinder slant cut.
11) Parallelepiped volume is simply a*b*c once you straighten a,b,c and no need of trigonometry. The Parallelepiped actually has the physics concept of angular momentum for a given rectangular box produces one and only one parallelepiped.
12) All of Old Logic such as the textbooks by Copi and Boole and Jevons with their messed up operators such as 10 OR 4 = 14, are thrown out onto the rubbish pile of shame. Set theory is thrown out completely, although we can use the word "set" to mean collection, group. All of Cantor set theory is phony baloney, not worth reading.
13) Rationals and Negative Numbers thrown out completely because the only true numbers are Decimal Grid Numbers. Some would complain, why AP throws out Rationals? And the answer is simple, that numbers must be free of operations, for Rationals are unresolved divisions. Numbers are free and clear of any operator. Numbers have to be formed purely from mathematical-induction and having no unfinished operator. The Smallest set of Grid numbers is the 10 Grid System with its infinitesimal being .1, and the entire collection of 10 Grid is 0, .1, .2, .3, . . , 9.9, 10.0 where .1 is microinfinity and 10 is macroinfinity. In 100 Grid the infinitesimal is .01, in 1000 Grid the infinitesimal is .001, etc etc. In such a true system of numbers, all the numbers are built by mathematical-induction. Not just one group of numbers-- counting, but all numbers from mathematical-induction.
14) Irrationals thrown out completely (ditto to Rationals and Negative numbers).
15) Reals thrown out completely (ditto).
16) Imaginary numbers and Complex numbers are b.s. and thrown out completely.
17) Trigonometry pared down so much-- 90% thrown out, and no trigonometry ever enters Calculus. Only real use of trigonometry is when you have an angle and side, you can figure out the rest of the right triangle. But no, when you give true math to a gaggle of kooks, it is not long before they stretch true math way way out of its "zone of truth". And even fill up by 50% of calculus, when trig should never be in calculus.
18) Continuum and continuity thrown out as horrible fakery (in fact the Quantum Mechanic Physics of early 1900s had a better handle on the truth and reality of math with discrete space).
19) Topology is junk and a waste of time for many reasons such as continuum does not exist, and the fact that the idea of "bending" is not really ever a mathematical concept.
20) Prime numbers are fakery for the Naturals never had division in the first place. The real true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers and they do not have a concept of "prime". The key evidence that primes were silly stupid error, was the fact that there never existed a "pattern for primes". And all of mathematics is a science of "pattern". If any part of mathematics has no pattern, is indication that such was a phony fake concept to start with. Below begins a write-up of Math topics all have pattern, if not, then not math. Now some may worry about the idea that no primes ever existed for they worry about the Unique Prime Factorization Theorem of Old Math. But here again, there is no worry. For "Factors exist" just not prime factors.
21) Limit in Old Math was a horrible fakery, built by lowly idiots of math who wanted to get away from the smart students asking them-- stupid professor, come back here,-- how does a zero width rectangle even have interior area.
22) Lobachevsky, Riemann geometries and all NonEuclidean geometries are fakery and a waste of time. Many math professors want to spice up their boring math, so they ventured way way off into the twilight-zone of math with NonEuclidean geometry, like eating the hottest peppers in the world for breakfast.
23) Boole logic a horrid gaggle of monumental mistakes; one colossal error was their insane 10 OR 4 = 14. Boole was a monumental idiot of logic that he went to college to teach in a rainstorm without umbrella and when he got there, shivering, and no commonsense to switch into dry clothes, taught in rain soaked clothes with his students laughing at the fool he was for catching pneumonia. Boole was so logically insane that he ordered his wife to give him cold bathes and wet his bed in order to fight pneumonia, and western culture, now, elevates this insane logical fool, and puts such a logical misfit as the Father- of- logic. And modern day schools of 2020 are as insanely crazy as was Boole for they continue to teach that 4 OR 1 = 5, when even a village idiot society knows better with 4 AND 1 = 5.
24) Galois Algebra of Group, Ring, Field a fakery and waste of time.
25) Dimension stops at 3rd, and 3rd is the last and highest dimension possible, for there is no 4th or higher dimensions.
26) High School in Old Math spends too much time on quadratic equations with their negative numbers and imaginary-complex numbers when such never existed in the first place and where they violate a principle of algebra-- that an equation of algebra-- the right-side of the equation must always have a greater than zero number. So we throw out all quadratic equations of Old Math as fake math.
27) High School in Old Math spends too much time on teaching in geometry the congruence of SSS, ASA etc etc and we should pare that back somewhat, as excess teaching of a tiny minor concept.
28) Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations are now seen as superfluous when all functions are polynomials and need only the Power Rule. In Old Math we throw out all the insane ridiculous myriad of fake rules-- the Chain Rule, Simpson's Rule, Trapezoidal Rule, all because math has only one type of function-- polynomials and that makes for only one rule-- Power Rule.
29) Parametric Equations thrown out-- for what need is there of a sack of dung when all functions are polynomials. Interchanging equation with function.
30) Graph theory-- 90% worthless for it is based on the fakery of continuum.
31) Probability and Statistics theory now becomes a part of Sigma Error in New Math, the Old Math Probability and Statistics theory were wastrel and thrown out for it is based on a continuum and they had no proper definition of "probability" that fits with statistics. We keep Probability and Statistics in new math but revise and overhaul it completely.
32) We definitely throw out all Old Math Calculus textbooks as mostly propaganda, based on the silly Limit and the Continuum.
33) We throw out the Euclidean Axioms of Geometry and start anew, with axioms based on Physics as geometry truth.
34) Fractal theory totally junk and a waste-- uses ill-defined infinity.
35) Vector Calculus (not the vector concept itself), Chaos theory, Complex Analysis, utter junk and waste of time since polynomial theory covers all functions.
36) Differential geometry, Measure theory fakery since they never had the correct numbers of math, and they had the fakery continuum.
37) We throw out all the Apollonius conic sections because he misidentified the ellipse. The ellipse is a cylinder section, never a conic section and the oval is the slant cut of the cone, never the ellipse. We replace the entire conic sections by the AP theory of axes of symmetry using Decimal Grid Numbers for algebra and strip-wavelength-geometry axioms.
38) Most of Algebra, starting with Linear Algebra is esoteric minutiae, or, just cute tools for specialized math, just as the Binomial Theorem and the Pascal triangle, all cute esoteric minutiae. Certainly none of which is appropriate in school math education. These topics are for those interested in sideline math, but does not belong in mainstream math. Algebra reaches its pinnacle of importance with the Polynomial Function transform. Anything else in Algebra is sideline esoteric minutiae. These are not wrong or false math, just not important enough math to be mainstream worthy of math education.
39) Gaussian Curvature is esoteric exotica, perhaps even fakery. It is a fallacy of "idealism". There has never been any physics application for now 200 years. But most damaging is the fact that Euclidean is the only geometry, and that elliptic and hyperbolic are just dualities for which if you compound them together is Euclidean geometry.
40) Manifolds in Old Math were fakery, since topology is fake with its "bending" and math cannot define "bending" which belongs to physics and chemistry. Bending is a physics phenomenon, not something that ever belonged in mathematics. Topology with its continuum and ill-defined infinity is fakery, then also is its manifold. In New Math, all 2-Dimensional figures are handled by polynomial transforms, so also all 3-Dimensional figures. How so much easier is it, that doing a Polynomial Transform, rather than the silly fakery and obfuscation of manifolds.
41) Fourier, Laplace and other transforms, all of them thrown out the window because the only valid transforms are polynomial transforms. Polynomials are the only valid functions, hence, polynomials are the only valid transforms. And here in mathematics we begin to see that Polynomial transform is the mirror image of physics wanting a unification of the 4 forces of Old Physics, where the EM unification of physics, is like the Polynomial transform of mathematics that unifies all so-called-functions.
42) Principle of Logic, that Physics is king of sciences, and that means math is but a tiny subset. But in 20th and 21st century, we still have goons and kooks of math that think math is bigger than physics. These goons and kooks think that the Universe is a mathematical equation. They belong in an asylum, not the sciences.
43) There are many Principles of Logic which were unknown or ignored in Old Math. One of those principles caused the horrendous failure of sine and cosine trigonometry. The failure that a graph of a function in 2D or 3D, where the axes, all have to be the same numbers. You cannot have the x-axis as angles and the other axis as numbers. You abandon mathematics when you enact such a policy. You may as well have bar graphs and pie-charts and call them foundation mathematics, when you do sine and cosine with different representations of axes.
44) Principle of Logic-- follow your definitions exactly. When you do not follow your definitions you end up with the craziness of thinking sine is a sinusoidal wave when in truth it is a semicircle wave. You defined sine as opposite/hypotenuse of right triangles in a circle. That means, it is impossible from the definition for sine and cosine to be anything other than a semicircle wave.
45) Principle of Reality in a Equation-- You formed equations in mathematics where one side is the same as the other side. This is the algebra axiom of where the rightside can only be a positive nonzero decimal Grid Number. Equations must have "reality" on the rightside of the equation, in order for the equation to even exist. We cannot put negative numbers, or zero, or imaginary numbers on the right side of an equation and expect there to even be an "equation of mathematics". Math like physics deals with "reality". And that means a equation of mathematics must have a true substantive reality on the rightside of the equation all by itself. You can clutter up the leftside of the equation and solve for unknowns, but the rightside of the equation has all by itself a positive, nonzero Decimal Grid Number. Anything else is not mathematics.
46) The Reductio Ad Absurdum, RAA, or some call it proof by contradiction is not a valid proof argument in mathematics. RAA at best is a strong hypothetical, but not a guarantee of truth or proof. The trouble with RAA is the trouble with the IF-->Then connector of Logic which has a truth table of True, False, Unknown, Unknown. Old Logic had this connector of If-->Then as TFTT. It is the unknowns in F--> T and F--> F that neither has a true conclusion but an unknown conclusion that renders RAA as non workable in math.
47) The primal axiom of Physics-- All is Atom and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism reigns not only over physics but mathematics as well. Most of the Teaching True Mathematics textbook series books have physics experiments involving electricity and magnetism.
48) Mathematics has a peak, a pinnacle, a climax of understanding with Calculus, the motion of physics and the energy of physics. This is expressed in the 2D and 3D calculus. It closes the subject of mathematics. And once we learn how to transform polynomials, and apply the power rule in High School, all the rest of mathematics we learn in life is just mere details of our teachings that took place in High School. Math is a closed subject beyond Calculus. Another example of a science that is closed is the science of Geography, a subset of Geology. Geography is a closed science since we have all of Earth surface known. Geology is not closed science because there is always the geology of other planets.
49) Mathematics is a closed subject, meaning it has a summit, a peak and that peak mirrors the Physics of motion. It is called calculus. Once you learn calculus, and it is very easy for it is just the Power Rule upon Polynomials. Once you learn this in High School, all the rest of mathematics is just details concerning motion. Mathematics is a tiny tiny subset of Physics. Everything of mathematics comes from physics. The reason the world has numbers is because physics has atoms and atoms are numerous. The reason the world has geometry is because atoms come in various shapes and sizes.
50) Math is a closed subject, a tiny subset of physics, and ever since 2019, the writing of this Calculus Guide, all the important topics of mathematics can be taught in junior and senior year High School. Any mathematics beyond High School is mere details of that junior and senior year teaching-- namely polynomial transform and Power Rules for derivative and integral of calculus.
True mathematics is a subject that is always easy, clear, and comprehensible. Old Math never had a program of "let us make the subject easy and clear and accessible to all". Old Math was about fame and fortune for a grubby few arrogant and ignorant fame seekers to those seeking fame and fortune by adding fake math, incomprehensible, hard, worthless, at the expense of torturing young students who all they wanted was a foundation understanding of true mathematics.
AP
Old Math cared more about having a few kooks run out and about, getting fame and fortune by piling up incomprehensible trash onto mathematics, than it ever cared about going into a classroom and teaching math that everyone can understand. Of the four hard sciences, physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, there is no reason in the entire world, that math is the easiest of those 4 sciences. The only reason today, that math is not the easiest of those four sciences, is because after Descartes for 5 centuries now, mathematics was given over to kooks of math who sought for fame and fortune at the expense of keeping math simple and easy. Kooks of math filling up math so that math is now in 2020 a gaggle of kook ridden incomprehensible garbage. Ask your local kook math professor why he/she holds onto Boole logic with his 10 OR 4 = 14 when you know well that 10 AND 4 = 14. Ask your local kook math professor why he keeps teaching ellipse is a conic when you can show him on the spot with a paper cone and a lid that the slant cut is a oval, never a ellipse. And ask your local kook math professor why he/she never is able to give you a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. And the answer is always-- they are kooks of math, not mathematicians.
This list is ongoing, and is a bulletin-board of errors of Old Math and useful for Teaching True Mathematics. I insert this list as a guide. To show students what math to avoid, to steer away from, as a total fake and waste of time.
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.
There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers.
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
There is no reason in this entire world, none at all, that of the 6 hard core sciences, physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, geology, astronomy, that math -- should be-- yes-- should be the easiest of those 6. No reason at all against, math being the easiest. But today in year 2020, math is the worst nightmare of the 6, and the reason it is so, is not because math is hard or difficult. No, the reason is that after Descartes some 5 centuries ago, in the 1600s, there became a awful ugly motivation of wanting "fame and fortune" from mathematics, not wanting truth of mathematics as a science. We can say the rise of colleges and Universities, starting with Cambridge in England in 1209, caused the science of mathematics to go astray of its true natural science, that it is and should be, and became what can be called "kook math" today. We see it today in the fake charade of alleged proofs of 4 Color Mapping, Fermat's Last Theorem, Kepler Packing, and many others.
The reason that mathematics has become a ugly incomprehensible torture chamber, rather than a simple truth of science, the easiest of the six hard core sciences, and a subject that is easy to learn. The reason math is now more difficult than physics, chemistry, biology, geology is because kooks motivated by fame and fortune have made math a cesspool of incomprehension.
Biology should always be more difficult a science than is mathematics.
Geology and Astronomy should be far more difficult sciences than is mathematics.
Chemistry should always be more difficult a science than is mathematics.
Physics should always be more difficult a science than is mathematics. In fact, mathematics, the whole sum lot of what is mathematics is but a tiny, tiny subset of physics. All of math comes directly out of physics. Yet today in 2020, we have the strange and ugly fact that schools around the world teach a mathematics that is more difficult than even physics. See the "kook mechanism" that is driving the science of mathematics to be this ugly abnormal science, that is not about the truth of the world, but rather about some kook individuals rising to fame and fortune.
But here in 2020, math is the hardest and most difficult of all sciences. Why? Because it has after 1209, and especially in the 1600s become a kook-gathering-subject where con-artist scientist sought for fame and fortune at the expense of the Truth-of-Mathematics. This is why we have a enormous long list below of fakery.
Listing the Errors of Old Math, list of 1 to 50.
Alright, well, mathematics is a closed subject. What I mean by that is due to the textbook series of Archimedes Plutonium TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, that once you learn the polynomial transform and learn the two Power Rules of Calculus, you reached the peak the pinnacle of all of mathematics, and anything further in math is just details of what you learn in that textbook series. Math is a completed science, unlike the other 5 hard sciences of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy. Those other five will continue to find new ideas, new things, while math remains static and complete. Mathematics is finished complete as far as a science goes.
Now I do need to discuss the Errors of Math in General and the errors of math in geometry in particular. I have the feeling that Geometry is the more important of the two-- algebra - geometry. This list appears in most of AP's Teaching True Mathematics textbook series by Archimedes Plutonium, meant to be a guide and orientation, and a organizing of what must be covered before graduating from College, and what math to steer clear of.
Errors mostly, but not always, for some are included because too much time spent on them.
1) No curves exist in Geometry, only finer and smaller straight line segments attached to one another.
2) Space has gaps in between one point and the next point. These gaps are empty space from one point to the next point, for example in 10 Grid there is no number between .1 and .2, and in 100 Grid there exists no number between .01 and .02.
3) Infinity has a borderline and there is a microinfinity compared to a macroinfinity. For example in 10 Grid, the microinfinity is .1 if we exclude 0 and so there is no number smaller than .1 and no number larger than 10 in 10 Grid, where 10 is macroinfinity.
4) The 1st Quadrant Only in Coordinate System Geometry. Sad that the first coordinate system of Descartes was correct but soon became corrupted with 4 quadrants. See Mathematical Thought, Volume 1, Kline, 1972, page 303. Where Fermat then Descartes starts the Cartesian Coordinate System as 1 axis only and from 0 rightwards, meaning in our modern day math, 1st Quadrant Only. Why did math screw up on coordinate systems? I suppose some clowns thought negative numbers were true and they wanted ease of drawing a circle with center at 0. When they could have just as easily drawn the circle in 1st Quadrant Only.
5) Calculus needed a Geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, but Old Math never provided such, instead they provided some stupid Limit argument. The reason for the creation of the Limit disaster was that the French mathematician Cauchy got sick and tired of hearing his smartest students complain that the width of rectangles in the integral are 0 width, and those smart students could not, for the life of them understand how a rectangle with 0 width has any interior area. So instead of the math community denouncing the limit, instead they elevated the fakery.
6) Further in Calculus, they knew you could do a transform of coordinate points to turn any function into a polynomial function, a method of Lagrange. However, they in Old Math were too stupid to take this transform to its highest form-- all functions are polynomial functions and only polynomial functions. When you learn that-- the derivative and integral of any and every function of math is a snap breeze simple and easy.
7) With the error filled 4 quadrants, when it should be 1st Quadrant Only, we have Trigonometry's sine and cosine with the fakery of sinusoid wave when it never was that. The sine and cosine are semicircle waves, and no sinusoid wave exists.
8) There is only one Geometry-- Euclidean, and there is not three distinct geometries of elliptical Riemannian or hyperbolic Lobachevsky. Those two are just duals that make up Euclidean.
9) Torus, volume and surface area formulas in Old Math are all screwed up and in error because they imagined bending a cylinder to form a torus. This brings back memories, for I had to do a percentage formula, since I could not follow the fake way of bending a cylinder. Where 78.5% of Disc Torus (pi)R^2h - (pi)r^2h is the volume of Circle Torus, and 78.5% of Disc Torus 2(pi)Rh + 2(pi)rh + 2 ((pi)R^2 - (pi)r^2) is the surface area of Circle Torus.
10) Ellipse is never a conic slant cut, always a cylinder slant cut.
11) Parallelepiped volume is simply a*b*c once you straighten a,b,c and no need of trigonometry. The Parallelepiped actually has the physics concept of angular momentum for a given rectangular box produces one and only one parallelepiped.
12) All of Old Logic such as the textbooks by Copi and Boole and Jevons with their messed up operators such as 10 OR 4 = 14, are thrown out onto the rubbish pile of shame. Set theory is thrown out completely, although we can use the word "set" to mean collection, group. All of Cantor set theory is phony baloney, not worth reading.
13) Rationals and Negative Numbers thrown out completely because the only true numbers are Decimal Grid Numbers. Some would complain, why AP throws out Rationals? And the answer is simple, that numbers must be free of operations, for Rationals are unresolved divisions. Numbers are free and clear of any operator. Numbers have to be formed purely from mathematical-induction and having no unfinished operator. The Smallest set of Grid numbers is the 10 Grid System with its infinitesimal being .1, and the entire collection of 10 Grid is 0, .1, .2, .3, . . , 9.9, 10.0 where .1 is microinfinity and 10 is macroinfinity. In 100 Grid the infinitesimal is .01, in 1000 Grid the infinitesimal is .001, etc etc. In such a true system of numbers, all the numbers are built by mathematical-induction. Not just one group of numbers-- counting, but all numbers from mathematical-induction.
14) Irrationals thrown out completely (ditto to Rationals and Negative numbers).
15) Reals thrown out completely (ditto).
16) Imaginary numbers and Complex numbers are b.s. and thrown out completely.
17) Trigonometry pared down so much-- 90% thrown out, and no trigonometry ever enters Calculus. Only real use of trigonometry is when you have an angle and side, you can figure out the rest of the right triangle. But no, when you give true math to a gaggle of kooks, it is not long before they stretch true math way way out of its "zone of truth". And even fill up by 50% of calculus, when trig should never be in calculus.
18) Continuum and continuity thrown out as horrible fakery (in fact the Quantum Mechanic Physics of early 1900s had a better handle on the truth and reality of math with discrete space).
19) Topology is junk and a waste of time for many reasons such as continuum does not exist, and the fact that the idea of "bending" is not really ever a mathematical concept.
20) Prime numbers are fakery for the Naturals never had division in the first place. The real true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers and they do not have a concept of "prime". The key evidence that primes were silly stupid error, was the fact that there never existed a "pattern for primes". And all of mathematics is a science of "pattern". If any part of mathematics has no pattern, is indication that such was a phony fake concept to start with. Below begins a write-up of Math topics all have pattern, if not, then not math. Now some may worry about the idea that no primes ever existed for they worry about the Unique Prime Factorization Theorem of Old Math. But here again, there is no worry. For "Factors exist" just not prime factors.
21) Limit in Old Math was a horrible fakery, built by lowly idiots of math who wanted to get away from the smart students asking them-- stupid professor, come back here,-- how does a zero width rectangle even have interior area.
22) Lobachevsky, Riemann geometries and all NonEuclidean geometries are fakery and a waste of time. Many math professors want to spice up their boring math, so they ventured way way off into the twilight-zone of math with NonEuclidean geometry, like eating the hottest peppers in the world for breakfast.
23) Boole logic a horrid gaggle of monumental mistakes; one colossal error was their insane 10 OR 4 = 14. Boole was a monumental idiot of logic that he went to college to teach in a rainstorm without umbrella and when he got there, shivering, and no commonsense to switch into dry clothes, taught in rain soaked clothes with his students laughing at the fool he was for catching pneumonia. Boole was so logically insane that he ordered his wife to give him cold bathes and wet his bed in order to fight pneumonia, and western culture, now, elevates this insane logical fool, and puts such a logical misfit as the Father- of- logic. And modern day schools of 2020 are as insanely crazy as was Boole for they continue to teach that 4 OR 1 = 5, when even a village idiot society knows better with 4 AND 1 = 5.
24) Galois Algebra of Group, Ring, Field a fakery and waste of time.
25) Dimension stops at 3rd, and 3rd is the last and highest dimension possible, for there is no 4th or higher dimensions.
26) High School in Old Math spends too much time on quadratic equations with their negative numbers and imaginary-complex numbers when such never existed in the first place and where they violate a principle of algebra-- that an equation of algebra-- the right-side of the equation must always have a greater than zero number. So we throw out all quadratic equations of Old Math as fake math.
27) High School in Old Math spends too much time on teaching in geometry the congruence of SSS, ASA etc etc and we should pare that back somewhat, as excess teaching of a tiny minor concept.
28) Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations are now seen as superfluous when all functions are polynomials and need only the Power Rule. In Old Math we throw out all the insane ridiculous myriad of fake rules-- the Chain Rule, Simpson's Rule, Trapezoidal Rule, all because math has only one type of function-- polynomials and that makes for only one rule-- Power Rule.
29) Parametric Equations thrown out-- for what need is there of a sack of dung when all functions are polynomials. Interchanging equation with function.
30) Graph theory-- 90% worthless for it is based on the fakery of continuum.
31) Probability and Statistics theory now becomes a part of Sigma Error in New Math, the Old Math Probability and Statistics theory were wastrel and thrown out for it is based on a continuum and they had no proper definition of "probability" that fits with statistics. We keep Probability and Statistics in new math but revise and overhaul it completely.
32) We definitely throw out all Old Math Calculus textbooks as mostly propaganda, based on the silly Limit and the Continuum.
33) We throw out the Euclidean Axioms of Geometry and start anew, with axioms based on Physics as geometry truth.
34) Fractal theory totally junk and a waste-- uses ill-defined infinity.
35) Vector Calculus (not the vector concept itself), Chaos theory, Complex Analysis, utter junk and waste of time since polynomial theory covers all functions.
36) Differential geometry, Measure theory fakery since they never had the correct numbers of math, and they had the fakery continuum.
37) We throw out all the Apollonius conic sections because he misidentified the ellipse. The ellipse is a cylinder section, never a conic section and the oval is the slant cut of the cone, never the ellipse. We replace the entire conic sections by the AP theory of axes of symmetry using Decimal Grid Numbers for algebra and strip-wavelength-geometry axioms.
38) Most of Algebra, starting with Linear Algebra is esoteric minutiae, or, just cute tools for specialized math, just as the Binomial Theorem and the Pascal triangle, all cute esoteric minutiae. Certainly none of which is appropriate in school math education. These topics are for those interested in sideline math, but does not belong in mainstream math. Algebra reaches its pinnacle of importance with the Polynomial Function transform. Anything else in Algebra is sideline esoteric minutiae. These are not wrong or false math, just not important enough math to be mainstream worthy of math education.
39) Gaussian Curvature is esoteric exotica, perhaps even fakery. It is a fallacy of "idealism". There has never been any physics application for now 200 years. But most damaging is the fact that Euclidean is the only geometry, and that elliptic and hyperbolic are just dualities for which if you compound them together is Euclidean geometry.
40) Manifolds in Old Math were fakery, since topology is fake with its "bending" and math cannot define "bending" which belongs to physics and chemistry. Bending is a physics phenomenon, not something that ever belonged in mathematics. Topology with its continuum and ill-defined infinity is fakery, then also is its manifold. In New Math, all 2-Dimensional figures are handled by polynomial transforms, so also all 3-Dimensional figures. How so much easier is it, that doing a Polynomial Transform, rather than the silly fakery and obfuscation of manifolds.
41) Fourier, Laplace and other transforms, all of them thrown out the window because the only valid transforms are polynomial transforms. Polynomials are the only valid functions, hence, polynomials are the only valid transforms. And here in mathematics we begin to see that Polynomial transform is the mirror image of physics wanting a unification of the 4 forces of Old Physics, where the EM unification of physics, is like the Polynomial transform of mathematics that unifies all so-called-functions.
42) Principle of Logic, that Physics is king of sciences, and that means math is but a tiny subset. But in 20th and 21st century, we still have goons and kooks of math that think math is bigger than physics. These goons and kooks think that the Universe is a mathematical equation. They belong in an asylum, not the sciences.
43) There are many Principles of Logic which were unknown or ignored in Old Math. One of those principles caused the horrendous failure of sine and cosine trigonometry. The failure that a graph of a function in 2D or 3D, where the axes, all have to be the same numbers. You cannot have the x-axis as angles and the other axis as numbers. You abandon mathematics when you enact such a policy. You may as well have bar graphs and pie-charts and call them foundation mathematics, when you do sine and cosine with different representations of axes.
44) Principle of Logic-- follow your definitions exactly. When you do not follow your definitions you end up with the craziness of thinking sine is a sinusoidal wave when in truth it is a semicircle wave. You defined sine as opposite/hypotenuse of right triangles in a circle. That means, it is impossible from the definition for sine and cosine to be anything other than a semicircle wave.
45) Principle of Reality in a Equation-- You formed equations in mathematics where one side is the same as the other side. This is the algebra axiom of where the rightside can only be a positive nonzero decimal Grid Number. Equations must have "reality" on the rightside of the equation, in order for the equation to even exist. We cannot put negative numbers, or zero, or imaginary numbers on the right side of an equation and expect there to even be an "equation of mathematics". Math like physics deals with "reality". And that means a equation of mathematics must have a true substantive reality on the rightside of the equation all by itself. You can clutter up the leftside of the equation and solve for unknowns, but the rightside of the equation has all by itself a positive, nonzero Decimal Grid Number. Anything else is not mathematics.
46) The Reductio Ad Absurdum, RAA, or some call it proof by contradiction is not a valid proof argument in mathematics. RAA at best is a strong hypothetical, but not a guarantee of truth or proof. The trouble with RAA is the trouble with the IF-->Then connector of Logic which has a truth table of True, False, Unknown, Unknown. Old Logic had this connector of If-->Then as TFTT. It is the unknowns in F--> T and F--> F that neither has a true conclusion but an unknown conclusion that renders RAA as non workable in math.
47) The primal axiom of Physics-- All is Atom and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism reigns not only over physics but mathematics as well. Most of the Teaching True Mathematics textbook series books have physics experiments involving electricity and magnetism.
48) Mathematics has a peak, a pinnacle, a climax of understanding with Calculus, the motion of physics and the energy of physics. This is expressed in the 2D and 3D calculus. It closes the subject of mathematics. And once we learn how to transform polynomials, and apply the power rule in High School, all the rest of mathematics we learn in life is just mere details of our teachings that took place in High School. Math is a closed subject beyond Calculus. Another example of a science that is closed is the science of Geography, a subset of Geology. Geography is a closed science since we have all of Earth surface known. Geology is not closed science because there is always the geology of other planets.
49) Mathematics is a closed subject, meaning it has a summit, a peak and that peak mirrors the Physics of motion. It is called calculus. Once you learn calculus, and it is very easy for it is just the Power Rule upon Polynomials. Once you learn this in High School, all the rest of mathematics is just details concerning motion. Mathematics is a tiny tiny subset of Physics. Everything of mathematics comes from physics. The reason the world has numbers is because physics has atoms and atoms are numerous. The reason the world has geometry is because atoms come in various shapes and sizes.
50) Math is a closed subject, a tiny subset of physics, and ever since 2019, the writing of this Calculus Guide, all the important topics of mathematics can be taught in junior and senior year High School. Any mathematics beyond High School is mere details of that junior and senior year teaching-- namely polynomial transform and Power Rules for derivative and integral of calculus.
True mathematics is a subject that is always easy, clear, and comprehensible. Old Math never had a program of "let us make the subject easy and clear and accessible to all". Old Math was about fame and fortune for a grubby few arrogant and ignorant fame seekers to those seeking fame and fortune by adding fake math, incomprehensible, hard, worthless, at the expense of torturing young students who all they wanted was a foundation understanding of true mathematics.
AP
Old Math cared more about having a few kooks run out and about, getting fame and fortune by piling up incomprehensible trash onto mathematics, than it ever cared about going into a classroom and teaching math that everyone can understand. Of the four hard sciences, physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, there is no reason in the entire world, that math is the easiest of those 4 sciences. The only reason today, that math is not the easiest of those four sciences, is because after Descartes for 5 centuries now, mathematics was given over to kooks of math who sought for fame and fortune at the expense of keeping math simple and easy. Kooks of math filling up math so that math is now in 2020 a gaggle of kook ridden incomprehensible garbage. Ask your local kook math professor why he/she holds onto Boole logic with his 10 OR 4 = 14 when you know well that 10 AND 4 = 14. Ask your local kook math professor why he keeps teaching ellipse is a conic when you can show him on the spot with a paper cone and a lid that the slant cut is a oval, never a ellipse. And ask your local kook math professor why he/she never is able to give you a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. And the answer is always-- they are kooks of math, not mathematicians.
This list is ongoing, and is a bulletin-board of errors of Old Math and useful for Teaching True Mathematics. I insert this list as a guide. To show students what math to avoid, to steer away from, as a total fake and waste of time.
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.
There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers.
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Message has been deleted
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 4, 2021, 4:27:52 AM1/4/21
to
Kibo Parry Moroney reflects on Harvard Dr. Hau physical handicap of unable to turn off a light switch, not letting her finish her experiment-- that when you switch off the light source, it goes off in all the light even the slow light at the very same instant of time.
DR HAU FAILURE
On Wednesday, December 23, 2020 at 2:47:38 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> WARNING TO STUDENTS, PARENTS and TEACHERS:
AP writes: do not be fooled by the several people posting under the name Michael Moroney as a "open hate spam line"
AP writes: sad the education system of USA where the govt pays a 1 million dollars for a stalker failure of science like Kibo Parry Moroney pays him $1 million to stalk in sci.math, sci.physics, yet probably, not sure pays Harvard physicists like Dr. Hau 1/5 the amount to actually teach and research physics. (Please check on exact amounts) And maybe if they paid Dr. Hau, the generous salary that Kibo racks in for stalking, maybe Dr. Hau can get medical treatment for her finger disabilities.
Kibo Parry Moroney shits in face Dr. Hau of Harvard and Nick Thompson, Wired magazine. Kibo Parry Moroney is paid (who knows, a million dollars a year paid to stalk AP) and is a failure of science but not a failure at sniffing out cheap jobs like stalking people. His failures are huge-- with his 10 OR 2 = 12, with AND as subtraction. His stupidity stretches so far as to think an ellipse is a slant cut into a cone when that is actually a oval, and the mindless creep can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. A taste of how dumb dirt ignorant of a science failure is kibo Parry Moroney just look at where he says 938 is 12% short of 945. No wonder Rensselaer kicked his sorry arse out of that otherwise fine institution, but Washington DC is where kibo can get the millions of dollars to sit on his arse and stalk harrass all day long on the Internet.
On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
Kibo Parry Moroney shit in face
Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,
Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish
David J. Thouless, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita
Arthur B. McDonald
Francois Englert
Saul Perlmutter
Brian P. Schmidt
Adam G. Riess
Makoto Kobayashi
Toshihide Maskawa
Yoichiro Nambu
John C. Mather
George F. Smoot
Roy J. Glauber
David J. Gross
Hugh David Politzer
Frank Wilczek
Raymond Davis Jr.
Masatoshi Koshiba
Riccardo Giacconi
Gerardus 't Hooft
Martinus J.G. Veltman
Jerome I. Friedman
Henry W. Kendall
Richard E. Taylor
Carlo Rubbia
Simon van der Meer
William Alfred Fowler
Kenneth G. Wilson
James Watson Cronin
Val Logsdon Fitch
Sheldon Lee Glashow
Steven Weinberg
.
.
little fishes
.
.
Layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = subtraction of either 3 or 2, while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV
Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass
Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu
more and more layers of error thinking physics
.
.
John Baez
Brian Greene
Lisa Randall
Alan H. Guth
Michael E. Brown
Konstantin Batygin
Ben Bullock
Larry Harson
Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
None at all - he was a raving nutter.
Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley
Edward Witten
On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
Quoting Wikipedia—
In the early 1990s, as public awareness grew of the Internet and Usenet, Parry received publicity, including a cover story in Wired magazine..
--- end quote ---
Wired (magazine) editor in chief, Nicholas Thompson
Yoo, Nick, Nick yoyo, is Wired going to have Kibo Parry the Man of the Century for Wired? How a antiscience arsehole gets paid a million for stalking on Internet??????
Harvard's Dr.Hau versus AP on SLOW LIGHT EXPERIMENT
Dr. Hau has what she calls SLOW LIGHT that was shot into a BEC medium that slows it down for her. She must have the viewpoint or theory, then, that light waves are a open straight line arrow ray understanding of light.
Compare that viewpoint with AP's view of light, as a closed loop circuit, much like electricity itself, and that although light looks to be straightline arrow ray from source, the source is always "in the closed loop circuit". Here, AP views light as a very thin narrow closed loop. Much like a electric extension cord appears to be a straightline arrow, when in fact it is a closed loop with its copper wire inside separated by a distance of the separation of the two prongs that you plug into the wall outlet.
So, who is correct about LIGHT? Is Harvard's Dr. Hau straightline arrow for light correct. Or, is AP's closed loop with source always connected in the Closed Loop?
TEST to see who is correct. The test is real simple, turn the Slow Light Experiment source light off, just switch it off. If AP is correct, all the BEC slow light vanishes along with all the other light in the experiment, all at the same instant of time, even though the so called "slow light" was at a crawl. If Dr. Hau is correct with her straightline arrow view of light, then the slow light would still be active and moving in her BEC medium once the switch was off. If AP is correct, then the Slow Light, no matter how slow it is, instantly vanishes along with the light from the source that is not inside the medium, instantly vanishes altogether.
So, what is Harvard's Dr. Hau excuse for not completing her experiment by doing this test? Is she too dumb? Is she too lazy? Or, is she hateful of a AP success of a physics understanding?
FURTHER TESTS: I solemnly believe I will win the above test. But I am unsure of the further result of a movable source. The above test is a static source, but what happens if we move the source, keep it on but move it? Here, like in Quantum Entanglement viewpoint, the Slow Light inside the BEC should make adjustments of its movement because the slow light source is moving, and if the source comes upon a blockage, say a black sheet of paper, it is as if a switch had turned it off. But I am not sure if the BEC slow light remains active, or has just become dimmed while the source was behind a black sheet of paper. So here we have a whole whole whole slew of testing of what we call Quantum Entanglement.
So, why is Harvard stubborn and idiotic about slow light? Is it all because, no-one at Harvard wants to ever admit AP is correct, and that they rather be in the weeds, stay in the weeds, rather than ever ever give AP credit? In other words-- the little minds that compose Harvard University, and not really a center of education.
zzzzzzzzzzzzz
STEALING DR THORP SCIENCE magazine
Kibo Parry Moroney shits in face Dr.Thorp, Dr.Chandler Davis as thieves of science from Internet and Newsgroups.
On Sunday, December 13, 2020 at 3:40:13 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>struggling for relevance
AP writes: do not be fooled by the several people posting under the name Michael Moroney as a "open hate spam line"
AP writes: is that why Dr.Thorp and Dr. Chandler Davis steal from AP?
Which steals better, MitchR, Dr.Thorp, or Dr. Chandler Davis. Some in the journal of science business have just not transitioned to our new world where you have to also include Internet and Newsgroups as reference.
88th published book
Theft & Stealing ideas of science in the era of the internet// Ways to prevent and combat stealing// Sociology series, book 10 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
3_H. Holden Thorp fails Chemistry, now tries to steal AP 2004 work on "Dog, first domesticated animal" Kindle book of AP's. Kibo Parry Moroney confirms theft-- see below.
Ask Dr. Thorp when in the world he has no brains to do proper chemistry. Ask him why he believes in Lewis 8 Structure, when it has been known for decades that CO then N2 have the highest bonded dissociation energy. Thus, if you had at least one logical marble of a brain, you would understand that the highest dissociation energy tells you what the Lewis Structure must be. It cannot be Lewis 8 Structure but has to be Lewis 6 Arm Structure. If it were Lewis 8, then O2 would have the highest dissociation energy, not CO.
Is this why Dr. Thorp was dismissed out of chemistry? He just does not have one logical marble? But it appears the no logical marble of Dr. Thorp is allowing SCIENCE magazine to steal, and steal away the AP theory of DOG, FIRST DOMESTICATED ANIMAL of year 2004, published in the book of that same title in Amazon's Kindle.
But it appears that SCIENCE is trying very hard to steal AP's theory.
And all I asked for was inclusion on a correction page of SCIENCE, but Dr. Thorp is headstrong in his stealing ways.
Is SCIENCE magazine trying to steal away AP's theory-- Dog-First Domesticated Animal, or, will they do the proper etiquette of a Corrections page in a future edition?
4 views
Subscribe
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Nov 17, 2020, 1:01:25 PM (4 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Is SCIENCE magazine trying to steal away AP's theory-- Dog-First Domesticated Animal, or, will they do the proper etiquette of a Corrections page in a future edition?
Nov 17, 2020, 12:53 PM
to sci.physics, sci.math, plutonium-atom-universe
In that 30OCT2020 issue of SCIENCE AAAS, on page 523 has a list of references and notes and the oldest date is this.
8. G.H.Perry et al..Nat. Genet. 39. 1256 (2007).
Well, AP's Dog-- First Domesticated Animal has a long long history of Usenet posts going back to 2004. So, no, AP is not going to have his theories, any one of them, stolen from him.
I have asked SCIENCE to include my name in a future corrections page of Dog-First Domesticated Animal.
Is SCIENCE magazine AAAS, trying to steal AP's theory-- Dog-- First Domesticated Animal// Looks like it in 30OCT2020 issue pages 522 & 557. I did not see the name Archimedes Plutonium in the references. There are four major offending words in ....
6 views
Subscribe
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Nov 14, 2020, 7:08:20 PM (3 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Is SCIENCE magazine AAAS, trying to steal AP's theory-- Dog-- First Domesticated Animal// Looks like it in 30OCT2020 issue pages 522 & 557.
I did not see the name Archimedes Plutonium in the references. There are four major offending words in these two articles on pages 522 and 557 and contents page-- " dog, first domesticated animal".
Unless SCIENCE can include the name Archimedes Plutonium in a future edition, saying-- forgot to cite AP in reference to dog domestication. Then AP is forced to include SCIENCE magazine in his book-- Theft and Stealing of Intellectual Property.
22nd published book
Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Amazing that just watching TV of science shows, one can formulate a true theory of science. Now my theory needs research, but it basically says the dog was the first farm animal, the first domesticated animal of the wolf, that became food for early homo sapiens. We tend to think of herbivores being the first domesticated animals, but I tend to think the dog comes as first domesticated animal. Many good lines of research are suggested below in the text.
Cover picture: are three dogs, the light brown one is Indy and her two daughters. Indy comes from the Waziristan mountains as a shephard dog.Indy is very smart.
Length: 50 pages
Product details
File Size: 3076 KB
Print Length: 50 pages
Publication Date: March 17, 2019
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQ5CPKG
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #429,006 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#93 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#469 in Evolution (Kindle Store)
#648 in Biology (Kindle Store)
Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog// Anthropology series, book 2
by Archimedes Plutonium
Preface: Amazing that just watching TV of science shows, one can formulate a true theory of science. Now my theory needs research, but it basically says the dog was the first farm animal, the first domesticated animal of the wolf, that became food for early homo sapiens. We tend to think of herbivores being the first domesticated animals, but I tend to think the dog comes as first domesticated animal. Many good lines of research are suggested below in the text.
Cover picture: are three dogs, the light brown one is Indy and her two daughters. Indy comes from the Waziristan mountains as a shepherd dog.Indy is very smart.
From: a_plu...@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.misc,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo
Subject: how dogs evolved from wolves; TV NOVA show; 1st domesticated farm animal theory
Date: 5 Feb 2004 15:07:00 -0800
Lines: 76
A few days ago I watched a NOVA program on the variety of dogs with
talk of their evolution from that of wolves. Quite an interesting
program. However there are very many gaps of logic in the discussion
of how dogs came from wolves.
There was proffered the usual old theory that wolf babies make nice
pets and hominids would have come upon wolf babies and raised them in
their living camps.
Then there was a scientist who proffered a different theory suggesting
that dumpsites of early humans was a place to pick up easy food for
those wolves tolerant of human nearby presence.
I am going to offer a third theory which sort of incorporates the
above two. Let me call the above by their main mechanism. The first is
that of "Baby Pet" theory
and the second would be called the "Dumpsite" theory.
My theory would be called the "First Domesticated Farm Animal" theory.
The logical gap in theories one and two is that they confer little to
no advantage to the hominids or early humans involved, unless you want
to say that having a pet confers advantage over disadvantage of the
time spent on the pet, or as in the dumpsite theory that of the
spectacle of semi-wolves near camp is some sort of advantage.
My theory of "First Domesticated Animal" as the mechanism of how dogs
evolved from wolves makes the most sense because it confers the most
advantage to hominids or early humans. Here is how it works. Hominids
or Early Humans found wolf babies and would take them back to their
camp. They are too little and young to eat now, but as they grow older
fed from the snacks around the campsite (the dump) then they would be
large enough for food to eat.
Here I would have to research as to how easy or hard it would be to
have sheep or cattle hang around close to the campsite so that when
they got large enough they would be dinner. You see, I have the
suspicion that wild wolf babies are the animal that has the greatest
tendency to hang around the campsite than any other wild animal baby.
And thus, wolves would have been the first domesticated animal which
is rather surprising because they are carnivores and most of us would
guess that the first domesticated animal would have been a herbivore.
But I doubt that any baby herbivore would have stayed around the human
campsite as steadfast as a pet baby wolf until it grows to enough size
to eat.
Remember we are talking of primitive and savage hominids and early
humans who when looking at pets see them more as future food.
Which brings up very many good questions. Was the Dog the first
domesticated animal? I think it was. I say this because the wild wolf
baby imprints on a human better than a wild-any-other-animal. And
because of this imprinting the baby wolf would have stayed nearby the
humans until it grew of a size wherein one of the hungry hominids or
early humans ate the pet for dinner.
The Dump theory is okay in that the baby wolf would have wandered no
further away than the dump. And when the wolf was of a eatable size
would have been enticed by some scrap food bones and then killed and
eaten. Sounds gory and awful but that is probably the true sequence of
events that lead from wolves to the evolution of dog. And as this
relationship continued, the semi-wild wolf or dog had ears that drooped
and had a disposition to not run away.
We can measure the drooping ears of cattle or other domesticated
animals compared to their wild counterparts. As early man ate more and
more dogs for their dinners they wanted dogs that would hang around
the dumps and had droopy ears and not prone to run away.
And after hominids or early humans domesticated the wolf by becoming
the dog, they then got the idea that other animals such as cattle or
sheep can be domesticated for future dinners as well as the dog.
AP
From: a_plu...@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,soc.history
Subject: dog farming formed the first Human or Hominid farm
Date: 8 Feb 2004 12:12:05 -0800
Lines: 27
Based on a NOVA TV show recently watched. And my theory that dogs
evolved from wolves because they are an easy steady and stable food
supply.
Query: if we pose a query or question as to what would the first, yes
the very first Farm in the entire history of the Human or perhaps
Hominid history, then I think most of us would conjure up the images
of say early humans planting corn seeds or something like that.
Perhaps some would not conjure up some plant seeds but would instead
think of confining buffalo or some sort of animal resembling sheep or
cattle.
But I believe that the first ever farm by the earliest humans was a
dog farm. Where they rounded up baby wolves and brought them into the
campsite and fed them until a large enough size to eat. And they would
not roam far from the campsite because they were imprinted forming a
natural fence as to their roaming away from the humans. It could have
been cats since cats are also easily imprinted.
I do believe the dog would be the first ever Human farm. And then
other animals brought into the campsite area and then later, much
later would be to plant crops where these dogs and cats and other
animals were confined.
AP
20 July 2019 Note: reading the above, got me to thinking that not only was the dog, dog food for early humans, and the dog being the first farm animal, but the advantage of a dog around the campsite, barking at say wild animals approaching such as big cats, or worse yet, rival early human clans, would have been a huge advantage that the early humans gained, in addition to food by eating the dog. Dog barking is a huge advantage to owners when you want a alarm system. And the barking dog certainly is the best animal I know of as a alarm system.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Nov 14, 2020, 7:35:25 PM (3 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I am forwarding a copy of the below post to Editor in Chief, H. Holden Thorp, sciencemag.org.
Of the thousands upon thousands of new ideas in science that AP has committed, I am not willing to give up a single one of them, to any ransacking marauding thiefs. Unless the name Archimedes Plutonium appears in a future correction page of references to this article on dogs-- first domesticated animal, then I shall enter the offending person/s in AP's book of Theft and Stealing.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Nov 17, 2020, 5:40:41 PM (4 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Comparing the stealing of Porat versus MitchR versus Chandler Davis of Math. Intelligencer magazine
Well it is easy to compare their stealing ways.
Porat would read a "good nice new idea", and really really like it. And so his reaction was to pop up in the author's thread and accuse that author of stealing the new idea from Porat. Such stealing behavior gets old very very fast for the original author.
MitchR stealing ways is less offensive, less in-your-face stealing than Porat, but none-the-less as aggravating. What MitchR does is scout around in sci.math and sci.physics for new ideas. Once he spots one, he rewords the new idea and posts his rewording in a new thread pretending he is the discoverer of a brand new idea of science. Actually, AP has met people like this in real life, where they listen to someone talk about a new idea and reword it so that they feel they have no need of footnoting or citing original source. For there are thousands of people who think that rewording a new idea gives them the right to call it "their new idea".
Chandler Davis when he was editor of Mathematical Intelligencer in Toronto Canada in the 1990s early 2000 printed a article on the mistakes in the Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof, not Chandler but two other authors. Trouble was, the article was almost a pure lifting, a stealing of AP's posts in sci.math over Euclid Infinitude of Primes. And I emailed Chandler asking for a correction page inclusion of my work in a future issue of the magazine. Turns out that Chandler was "stupid old school of thought" thinking that Usenet and Internet are just "for free to steal all you want". So, what AP ended up doing is publishing Chandler Davis's brash stealing of AP's work in AP's book. All that Chandler had to do was simply include a two line cite of Archimedes Plutonium in his magazine, but no, for I guess a thief is always a thief, and looking for a excuse.
So, what turned out in the case of Chandler Davis refusal to publish priority rights of intellectual property, that now, Chandler Davis is published in AP's book of stealing on the Internet. Fair sailing Chandler...
88th published book
Theft & Stealing ideas of science in the era of the internet// Ways to prevent and combat stealing// Sociology series, book 10 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
New True Ideas in Science are very difficult to come by.
And many communities and countries ignore or deny the practice of footnoting, citing reference source, or quoting, but are societies who live up to that of mass stealing.
At minimum, every school education should and must teach how we "do not steal" by teaching footnote, reference cite, quoting. I learned it in High School, but across the world, most never learned this.
I learned footnoting, citing sources reference, and quoting in High School English classrooms, thank you Wyoming High School, near Cincinnati Ohio, one of my most valuable lessons, because it teaches us not only honesty, but prepares us for becoming scientists and grappling with the truth of the world, without stealing it.
It was August of 1993 that I first arrived on the Internet in the sci.math, sci.physics and many other Newsgroups of Usenet. I had already copyrighted my Atom Totality theory and was protected in that manner of copyrights. But I wanted more protection so I published in the Dartmouth College newspaper many of my discovered ideas of 1990 through August 1993. So I had a double wall of protection of Library of Congress copyright but also, Dartmouth College newspaper. But then with the arrival onto Usenet newsgroups, sci.physics, sci.math, sci.chem, sci.bio.misc, sci.physics.electromag, sci.astro, and many more newsgroups. I saw that as a third layer of protection of my newly discovered ideas.
However, starting August 1993, it was plainly clear to me that this Internet posting of my ideas, that it is easy to steal those ideas.
Length: 147 pages
Product details
File Size: 783 KB
Print Length: 147 pages
Publication Date: February 13, 2020
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B084T87JGY
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #250,786 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#4742 in Counseling & Psychology
#2013 in Medical General Psychology
#7248 in Science & Math (Kindle Store)
AP is hoping that he does not have to include the recent steal by SCIENCE magazine 30OCT2020, page 523 with a missing reference and note citation.
15. Archimedes Plutonium, Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author), 2004, published 2019.
I am hoping this does not end up being another Chandler Davis of Mathematical Intelligencer type of steal, where the editors of SCIENCE AAAS look upon everything on Usenet and Internet and Amazon's Kindle as just fertile grounds and fertile fields of stealing.
I ask for the above (15) inclusion on a correction page of SCIENCE magazine. New true ideas in Science are terribly difficult to come by, and keeping that in mind, I am not willing to lose a single new idea I ever discovered.
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.
There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers.
1--Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
DR HAU FAILURE
On Wednesday, December 23, 2020 at 2:47:38 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> WARNING TO STUDENTS, PARENTS and TEACHERS:
AP writes: do not be fooled by the several people posting under the name Michael Moroney as a "open hate spam line"
AP writes: sad the education system of USA where the govt pays a 1 million dollars for a stalker failure of science like Kibo Parry Moroney pays him $1 million to stalk in sci.math, sci.physics, yet probably, not sure pays Harvard physicists like Dr. Hau 1/5 the amount to actually teach and research physics. (Please check on exact amounts) And maybe if they paid Dr. Hau, the generous salary that Kibo racks in for stalking, maybe Dr. Hau can get medical treatment for her finger disabilities.
Kibo Parry Moroney shits in face Dr. Hau of Harvard and Nick Thompson, Wired magazine. Kibo Parry Moroney is paid (who knows, a million dollars a year paid to stalk AP) and is a failure of science but not a failure at sniffing out cheap jobs like stalking people. His failures are huge-- with his 10 OR 2 = 12, with AND as subtraction. His stupidity stretches so far as to think an ellipse is a slant cut into a cone when that is actually a oval, and the mindless creep can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. A taste of how dumb dirt ignorant of a science failure is kibo Parry Moroney just look at where he says 938 is 12% short of 945. No wonder Rensselaer kicked his sorry arse out of that otherwise fine institution, but Washington DC is where kibo can get the millions of dollars to sit on his arse and stalk harrass all day long on the Internet.
On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
Kibo Parry Moroney shit in face
Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,
Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish
David J. Thouless, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita
Arthur B. McDonald
Francois Englert
Saul Perlmutter
Brian P. Schmidt
Adam G. Riess
Makoto Kobayashi
Toshihide Maskawa
Yoichiro Nambu
John C. Mather
George F. Smoot
Roy J. Glauber
David J. Gross
Hugh David Politzer
Frank Wilczek
Raymond Davis Jr.
Masatoshi Koshiba
Riccardo Giacconi
Gerardus 't Hooft
Martinus J.G. Veltman
Jerome I. Friedman
Henry W. Kendall
Richard E. Taylor
Carlo Rubbia
Simon van der Meer
William Alfred Fowler
Kenneth G. Wilson
James Watson Cronin
Val Logsdon Fitch
Sheldon Lee Glashow
Steven Weinberg
.
.
little fishes
.
.
Layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = subtraction of either 3 or 2, while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV
Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass
Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu
more and more layers of error thinking physics
.
.
John Baez
Brian Greene
Lisa Randall
Alan H. Guth
Michael E. Brown
Konstantin Batygin
Ben Bullock
Larry Harson
Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
None at all - he was a raving nutter.
Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley
Edward Witten
On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
Quoting Wikipedia—
In the early 1990s, as public awareness grew of the Internet and Usenet, Parry received publicity, including a cover story in Wired magazine..
--- end quote ---
Wired (magazine) editor in chief, Nicholas Thompson
Yoo, Nick, Nick yoyo, is Wired going to have Kibo Parry the Man of the Century for Wired? How a antiscience arsehole gets paid a million for stalking on Internet??????
Harvard's Dr.Hau versus AP on SLOW LIGHT EXPERIMENT
Dr. Hau has what she calls SLOW LIGHT that was shot into a BEC medium that slows it down for her. She must have the viewpoint or theory, then, that light waves are a open straight line arrow ray understanding of light.
Compare that viewpoint with AP's view of light, as a closed loop circuit, much like electricity itself, and that although light looks to be straightline arrow ray from source, the source is always "in the closed loop circuit". Here, AP views light as a very thin narrow closed loop. Much like a electric extension cord appears to be a straightline arrow, when in fact it is a closed loop with its copper wire inside separated by a distance of the separation of the two prongs that you plug into the wall outlet.
So, who is correct about LIGHT? Is Harvard's Dr. Hau straightline arrow for light correct. Or, is AP's closed loop with source always connected in the Closed Loop?
TEST to see who is correct. The test is real simple, turn the Slow Light Experiment source light off, just switch it off. If AP is correct, all the BEC slow light vanishes along with all the other light in the experiment, all at the same instant of time, even though the so called "slow light" was at a crawl. If Dr. Hau is correct with her straightline arrow view of light, then the slow light would still be active and moving in her BEC medium once the switch was off. If AP is correct, then the Slow Light, no matter how slow it is, instantly vanishes along with the light from the source that is not inside the medium, instantly vanishes altogether.
So, what is Harvard's Dr. Hau excuse for not completing her experiment by doing this test? Is she too dumb? Is she too lazy? Or, is she hateful of a AP success of a physics understanding?
FURTHER TESTS: I solemnly believe I will win the above test. But I am unsure of the further result of a movable source. The above test is a static source, but what happens if we move the source, keep it on but move it? Here, like in Quantum Entanglement viewpoint, the Slow Light inside the BEC should make adjustments of its movement because the slow light source is moving, and if the source comes upon a blockage, say a black sheet of paper, it is as if a switch had turned it off. But I am not sure if the BEC slow light remains active, or has just become dimmed while the source was behind a black sheet of paper. So here we have a whole whole whole slew of testing of what we call Quantum Entanglement.
So, why is Harvard stubborn and idiotic about slow light? Is it all because, no-one at Harvard wants to ever admit AP is correct, and that they rather be in the weeds, stay in the weeds, rather than ever ever give AP credit? In other words-- the little minds that compose Harvard University, and not really a center of education.
zzzzzzzzzzzzz
STEALING DR THORP SCIENCE magazine
Kibo Parry Moroney shits in face Dr.Thorp, Dr.Chandler Davis as thieves of science from Internet and Newsgroups.
On Sunday, December 13, 2020 at 3:40:13 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>struggling for relevance
AP writes: do not be fooled by the several people posting under the name Michael Moroney as a "open hate spam line"
AP writes: is that why Dr.Thorp and Dr. Chandler Davis steal from AP?
Which steals better, MitchR, Dr.Thorp, or Dr. Chandler Davis. Some in the journal of science business have just not transitioned to our new world where you have to also include Internet and Newsgroups as reference.
88th published book
Theft & Stealing ideas of science in the era of the internet// Ways to prevent and combat stealing// Sociology series, book 10 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
3_H. Holden Thorp fails Chemistry, now tries to steal AP 2004 work on "Dog, first domesticated animal" Kindle book of AP's. Kibo Parry Moroney confirms theft-- see below.
Ask Dr. Thorp when in the world he has no brains to do proper chemistry. Ask him why he believes in Lewis 8 Structure, when it has been known for decades that CO then N2 have the highest bonded dissociation energy. Thus, if you had at least one logical marble of a brain, you would understand that the highest dissociation energy tells you what the Lewis Structure must be. It cannot be Lewis 8 Structure but has to be Lewis 6 Arm Structure. If it were Lewis 8, then O2 would have the highest dissociation energy, not CO.
Is this why Dr. Thorp was dismissed out of chemistry? He just does not have one logical marble? But it appears the no logical marble of Dr. Thorp is allowing SCIENCE magazine to steal, and steal away the AP theory of DOG, FIRST DOMESTICATED ANIMAL of year 2004, published in the book of that same title in Amazon's Kindle.
But it appears that SCIENCE is trying very hard to steal AP's theory.
And all I asked for was inclusion on a correction page of SCIENCE, but Dr. Thorp is headstrong in his stealing ways.
Is SCIENCE magazine trying to steal away AP's theory-- Dog-First Domesticated Animal, or, will they do the proper etiquette of a Corrections page in a future edition?
4 views
Subscribe
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Nov 17, 2020, 1:01:25 PM (4 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Is SCIENCE magazine trying to steal away AP's theory-- Dog-First Domesticated Animal, or, will they do the proper etiquette of a Corrections page in a future edition?
Nov 17, 2020, 12:53 PM
to sci.physics, sci.math, plutonium-atom-universe
In that 30OCT2020 issue of SCIENCE AAAS, on page 523 has a list of references and notes and the oldest date is this.
8. G.H.Perry et al..Nat. Genet. 39. 1256 (2007).
Well, AP's Dog-- First Domesticated Animal has a long long history of Usenet posts going back to 2004. So, no, AP is not going to have his theories, any one of them, stolen from him.
I have asked SCIENCE to include my name in a future corrections page of Dog-First Domesticated Animal.
Is SCIENCE magazine AAAS, trying to steal AP's theory-- Dog-- First Domesticated Animal// Looks like it in 30OCT2020 issue pages 522 & 557. I did not see the name Archimedes Plutonium in the references. There are four major offending words in ....
6 views
Subscribe
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Nov 14, 2020, 7:08:20 PM (3 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Is SCIENCE magazine AAAS, trying to steal AP's theory-- Dog-- First Domesticated Animal// Looks like it in 30OCT2020 issue pages 522 & 557.
I did not see the name Archimedes Plutonium in the references. There are four major offending words in these two articles on pages 522 and 557 and contents page-- " dog, first domesticated animal".
Unless SCIENCE can include the name Archimedes Plutonium in a future edition, saying-- forgot to cite AP in reference to dog domestication. Then AP is forced to include SCIENCE magazine in his book-- Theft and Stealing of Intellectual Property.
22nd published book
Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Amazing that just watching TV of science shows, one can formulate a true theory of science. Now my theory needs research, but it basically says the dog was the first farm animal, the first domesticated animal of the wolf, that became food for early homo sapiens. We tend to think of herbivores being the first domesticated animals, but I tend to think the dog comes as first domesticated animal. Many good lines of research are suggested below in the text.
Cover picture: are three dogs, the light brown one is Indy and her two daughters. Indy comes from the Waziristan mountains as a shephard dog.Indy is very smart.
Length: 50 pages
Product details
File Size: 3076 KB
Print Length: 50 pages
Publication Date: March 17, 2019
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQ5CPKG
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #429,006 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#93 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#469 in Evolution (Kindle Store)
#648 in Biology (Kindle Store)
Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog// Anthropology series, book 2
by Archimedes Plutonium
Preface: Amazing that just watching TV of science shows, one can formulate a true theory of science. Now my theory needs research, but it basically says the dog was the first farm animal, the first domesticated animal of the wolf, that became food for early homo sapiens. We tend to think of herbivores being the first domesticated animals, but I tend to think the dog comes as first domesticated animal. Many good lines of research are suggested below in the text.
Cover picture: are three dogs, the light brown one is Indy and her two daughters. Indy comes from the Waziristan mountains as a shepherd dog.Indy is very smart.
From: a_plu...@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.misc,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo
Subject: how dogs evolved from wolves; TV NOVA show; 1st domesticated farm animal theory
Date: 5 Feb 2004 15:07:00 -0800
Lines: 76
A few days ago I watched a NOVA program on the variety of dogs with
talk of their evolution from that of wolves. Quite an interesting
program. However there are very many gaps of logic in the discussion
of how dogs came from wolves.
There was proffered the usual old theory that wolf babies make nice
pets and hominids would have come upon wolf babies and raised them in
their living camps.
Then there was a scientist who proffered a different theory suggesting
that dumpsites of early humans was a place to pick up easy food for
those wolves tolerant of human nearby presence.
I am going to offer a third theory which sort of incorporates the
above two. Let me call the above by their main mechanism. The first is
that of "Baby Pet" theory
and the second would be called the "Dumpsite" theory.
My theory would be called the "First Domesticated Farm Animal" theory.
The logical gap in theories one and two is that they confer little to
no advantage to the hominids or early humans involved, unless you want
to say that having a pet confers advantage over disadvantage of the
time spent on the pet, or as in the dumpsite theory that of the
spectacle of semi-wolves near camp is some sort of advantage.
My theory of "First Domesticated Animal" as the mechanism of how dogs
evolved from wolves makes the most sense because it confers the most
advantage to hominids or early humans. Here is how it works. Hominids
or Early Humans found wolf babies and would take them back to their
camp. They are too little and young to eat now, but as they grow older
fed from the snacks around the campsite (the dump) then they would be
large enough for food to eat.
Here I would have to research as to how easy or hard it would be to
have sheep or cattle hang around close to the campsite so that when
they got large enough they would be dinner. You see, I have the
suspicion that wild wolf babies are the animal that has the greatest
tendency to hang around the campsite than any other wild animal baby.
And thus, wolves would have been the first domesticated animal which
is rather surprising because they are carnivores and most of us would
guess that the first domesticated animal would have been a herbivore.
But I doubt that any baby herbivore would have stayed around the human
campsite as steadfast as a pet baby wolf until it grows to enough size
to eat.
Remember we are talking of primitive and savage hominids and early
humans who when looking at pets see them more as future food.
Which brings up very many good questions. Was the Dog the first
domesticated animal? I think it was. I say this because the wild wolf
baby imprints on a human better than a wild-any-other-animal. And
because of this imprinting the baby wolf would have stayed nearby the
humans until it grew of a size wherein one of the hungry hominids or
early humans ate the pet for dinner.
The Dump theory is okay in that the baby wolf would have wandered no
further away than the dump. And when the wolf was of a eatable size
would have been enticed by some scrap food bones and then killed and
eaten. Sounds gory and awful but that is probably the true sequence of
events that lead from wolves to the evolution of dog. And as this
relationship continued, the semi-wild wolf or dog had ears that drooped
and had a disposition to not run away.
We can measure the drooping ears of cattle or other domesticated
animals compared to their wild counterparts. As early man ate more and
more dogs for their dinners they wanted dogs that would hang around
the dumps and had droopy ears and not prone to run away.
And after hominids or early humans domesticated the wolf by becoming
the dog, they then got the idea that other animals such as cattle or
sheep can be domesticated for future dinners as well as the dog.
AP
From: a_plu...@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,soc.history
Subject: dog farming formed the first Human or Hominid farm
Date: 8 Feb 2004 12:12:05 -0800
Lines: 27
Based on a NOVA TV show recently watched. And my theory that dogs
evolved from wolves because they are an easy steady and stable food
supply.
Query: if we pose a query or question as to what would the first, yes
the very first Farm in the entire history of the Human or perhaps
Hominid history, then I think most of us would conjure up the images
of say early humans planting corn seeds or something like that.
Perhaps some would not conjure up some plant seeds but would instead
think of confining buffalo or some sort of animal resembling sheep or
cattle.
But I believe that the first ever farm by the earliest humans was a
dog farm. Where they rounded up baby wolves and brought them into the
campsite and fed them until a large enough size to eat. And they would
not roam far from the campsite because they were imprinted forming a
natural fence as to their roaming away from the humans. It could have
been cats since cats are also easily imprinted.
I do believe the dog would be the first ever Human farm. And then
other animals brought into the campsite area and then later, much
later would be to plant crops where these dogs and cats and other
animals were confined.
AP
20 July 2019 Note: reading the above, got me to thinking that not only was the dog, dog food for early humans, and the dog being the first farm animal, but the advantage of a dog around the campsite, barking at say wild animals approaching such as big cats, or worse yet, rival early human clans, would have been a huge advantage that the early humans gained, in addition to food by eating the dog. Dog barking is a huge advantage to owners when you want a alarm system. And the barking dog certainly is the best animal I know of as a alarm system.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Nov 14, 2020, 7:35:25 PM (3 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I am forwarding a copy of the below post to Editor in Chief, H. Holden Thorp, sciencemag.org.
Of the thousands upon thousands of new ideas in science that AP has committed, I am not willing to give up a single one of them, to any ransacking marauding thiefs. Unless the name Archimedes Plutonium appears in a future correction page of references to this article on dogs-- first domesticated animal, then I shall enter the offending person/s in AP's book of Theft and Stealing.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Nov 17, 2020, 5:40:41 PM (4 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Comparing the stealing of Porat versus MitchR versus Chandler Davis of Math. Intelligencer magazine
Well it is easy to compare their stealing ways.
Porat would read a "good nice new idea", and really really like it. And so his reaction was to pop up in the author's thread and accuse that author of stealing the new idea from Porat. Such stealing behavior gets old very very fast for the original author.
MitchR stealing ways is less offensive, less in-your-face stealing than Porat, but none-the-less as aggravating. What MitchR does is scout around in sci.math and sci.physics for new ideas. Once he spots one, he rewords the new idea and posts his rewording in a new thread pretending he is the discoverer of a brand new idea of science. Actually, AP has met people like this in real life, where they listen to someone talk about a new idea and reword it so that they feel they have no need of footnoting or citing original source. For there are thousands of people who think that rewording a new idea gives them the right to call it "their new idea".
Chandler Davis when he was editor of Mathematical Intelligencer in Toronto Canada in the 1990s early 2000 printed a article on the mistakes in the Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof, not Chandler but two other authors. Trouble was, the article was almost a pure lifting, a stealing of AP's posts in sci.math over Euclid Infinitude of Primes. And I emailed Chandler asking for a correction page inclusion of my work in a future issue of the magazine. Turns out that Chandler was "stupid old school of thought" thinking that Usenet and Internet are just "for free to steal all you want". So, what AP ended up doing is publishing Chandler Davis's brash stealing of AP's work in AP's book. All that Chandler had to do was simply include a two line cite of Archimedes Plutonium in his magazine, but no, for I guess a thief is always a thief, and looking for a excuse.
So, what turned out in the case of Chandler Davis refusal to publish priority rights of intellectual property, that now, Chandler Davis is published in AP's book of stealing on the Internet. Fair sailing Chandler...
88th published book
Theft & Stealing ideas of science in the era of the internet// Ways to prevent and combat stealing// Sociology series, book 10 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
New True Ideas in Science are very difficult to come by.
And many communities and countries ignore or deny the practice of footnoting, citing reference source, or quoting, but are societies who live up to that of mass stealing.
At minimum, every school education should and must teach how we "do not steal" by teaching footnote, reference cite, quoting. I learned it in High School, but across the world, most never learned this.
I learned footnoting, citing sources reference, and quoting in High School English classrooms, thank you Wyoming High School, near Cincinnati Ohio, one of my most valuable lessons, because it teaches us not only honesty, but prepares us for becoming scientists and grappling with the truth of the world, without stealing it.
It was August of 1993 that I first arrived on the Internet in the sci.math, sci.physics and many other Newsgroups of Usenet. I had already copyrighted my Atom Totality theory and was protected in that manner of copyrights. But I wanted more protection so I published in the Dartmouth College newspaper many of my discovered ideas of 1990 through August 1993. So I had a double wall of protection of Library of Congress copyright but also, Dartmouth College newspaper. But then with the arrival onto Usenet newsgroups, sci.physics, sci.math, sci.chem, sci.bio.misc, sci.physics.electromag, sci.astro, and many more newsgroups. I saw that as a third layer of protection of my newly discovered ideas.
However, starting August 1993, it was plainly clear to me that this Internet posting of my ideas, that it is easy to steal those ideas.
Length: 147 pages
Product details
File Size: 783 KB
Print Length: 147 pages
Publication Date: February 13, 2020
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B084T87JGY
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #250,786 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#4742 in Counseling & Psychology
#2013 in Medical General Psychology
#7248 in Science & Math (Kindle Store)
AP is hoping that he does not have to include the recent steal by SCIENCE magazine 30OCT2020, page 523 with a missing reference and note citation.
15. Archimedes Plutonium, Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author), 2004, published 2019.
I am hoping this does not end up being another Chandler Davis of Mathematical Intelligencer type of steal, where the editors of SCIENCE AAAS look upon everything on Usenet and Internet and Amazon's Kindle as just fertile grounds and fertile fields of stealing.
I ask for the above (15) inclusion on a correction page of SCIENCE magazine. New true ideas in Science are terribly difficult to come by, and keeping that in mind, I am not willing to lose a single new idea I ever discovered.
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.
There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 4, 2021, 7:26:51 PM1/4/21
to
Harvard's Dr. Hau suppressed by the Kibo Parry Moroney Betsy DeVos Dr. Panchanathan suppression machinery.
Kibo Parry Moroney is of the same stripe as Trump calling up Georgia State officials and bribing them to find 12,000 votes, in fact, well, Trump admin pays Kibo 1 million dollars to harass pester and stalk AP, while college and univ professors who actually teach math and physics are payed on average $200,000 , a 1/5 of what kibo sitting on his arse hate spew stalking, along with his shithead friend up north Dan Christensen.
For years now I thought the kibo Parry harrassement and stalking was kibo being paid a million dollars just to pester AP for 30 years now. But recently came to realize the harrassement extends into colleges and universities of their researchers like Dr. Hau with her Harvard Slow Light experiments. For years now I wanted her to report what happens when she turns off the light if all the light-- even the slowed-light vanishes simultaneously and instantly. For that would very much support a theory of AP. And was wondering why Dr. Hau was not obliging for such a simple request. Well, now I see why, because of the anti-science Trump admin of Betsy DeVos, Dr. Panchanathan's NSF paying kibo to suppress AP and suppress any scientist like Dr. Hau from doing science. Now I realize why Dr. Kelvin Droegemeier declined from heading the NSF, being turned into a Trump pseudoscience crap hole. Good on you Kelvin for sticking to truth and science. And let the low integrity people like Betsy and Panchanathan and Kibo Parry operate in the swamp cesspool of Trump antiscience.
So all along I was thinking Dr. Hau did not want to report of her own volition but now I see the bigger picture that probably Kibo and Betsy and Panchanathan dragged poor Lene and stuffed her into a closet to be sure she never finishes her experiment and prove AP is correct, yet, once again. January 20 really cannot come soon enough when the entire world is free of that antiscience monster called Donald Trump.
DR HAU FAILURE because she is suppressed by the kibo Parry Moroney, Betsy DeVos, NSF Dr. Panchanathan suppression machinery
On Wednesday, December 23, 2020 at 2:47:38 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> WARNING TO STUDENTS, PARENTS and TEACHERS:
AP writes: do not be fooled by the several people posting under the name Michael Moroney as a "open hate spam line"
AP writes: sad the education system of USA where the govt pays a 1 million dollars for a stalker failure of science like Kibo Parry Moroney pays him $1 million to stalk in sci.math, sci.physics, yet probably, not sure pays Harvard physicists like Dr. Hau 1/5 the amount to actually teach and research physics. (Please check on exact amounts)
Kibo Parry Moroney has forbidden Dr. Hau of Harvard to report her Slow Light, lights turned off result because it further supports the theory of AP-- all the light vanishes instantly. And kibo, Betsy DeVos, NSF Dr. Panchanathan want a suppressed science community, not seeking the truth but filling the pockets of Trump administration con artists of science.
And Nick Thompson, Wired magazine. Kibo Parry Moroney is paid (who knows, a million dollars a year paid to stalk AP) and is a failure of science but not a failure at sniffing out cheap jobs like stalking people. His failures are huge-- with his 10 OR 2 = 12, with AND as subtraction. His stupidity stretches so far as to think an ellipse is a slant cut into a cone when that is actually a oval, and the mindless creep can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. A taste of how dumb dirt ignorant of a science failure is kibo Parry Moroney just look at where he says 938 is 12% short of 945. No wonder Rensselaer kicked his sorry arse out of that otherwise fine institution, but Washington DC is where kibo can get the millions of dollars to sit on his arse and stalk harrass all day long on the Internet.
On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 12:30:30 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 3:00:09 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> I suppose at Dartmouth, a math professor who cannot fix the most pressing math problem of the day-- a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, instead of that nauseating limit analysis of 0 width rectangles summed up, like Dr. Hanlon, and continue to brainwash students with that limit analysis fakery, that Dartmouth promotes you to President. One would have thought the Dartmouth board of overseers would have told Dr. Hanlon to shape up or ship out.
>
>
> Colossal Physics error of the century: their mindless electron of 0.5MeV flying near speed of light, around proton 938MeV which no hydrogen atom could exist in that condition due to angular momentum, when in truth muon is the real electron trapped inside a 840MeV proton of 8 ring torus doing the Faraday law and producing the 0.5MeV and eV Dirac magnetic monopoles. Murray Gell-Mann is far too stupid, as well as Steven Weinberg and Sheldon Glashow to understand any of this, for they never understood something as basic as angular momentum
>
> Colossal Chemistry error of the century: their mindless Lewis 8 Structure when they easily can see CO and N2 have highest dissociation energy, calls for a Lewis 6 Structure not 8.
>
>
> Colossal Math error of the century: their mindless calculus without a Geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, puttering on the insane 0 width rectangles of "limit analysis" when calculus is geometry yet the idiotic fools never delivering a geometry proof. And how could they for they are so insane with even Logic where they have 10 OR 2=12 with AND as subtraction and they cannot even correct their ellipse mistake-- it is a cylinder section, never a conic.
>
>
> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
>
> Length: 21 pages
>
> File Size: 1620 KB
> Print Length: 21 pages
> Publication Date: March 11, 2019
> Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> Language: English
> ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
>
> World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math where they had a ill-defined infinity; they had the fakery of Limit concept; and they had the fakery of a continuum.
>
> 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.
>
> Length: 29 pages
>
> Product details
> File Size: 1225 KB
> Print Length: 29 pages
> Publication Date: March 14, 2019
> Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> Language: English
> ASIN: B07PQTNHMY
> #2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> #134 in Calculus (Books)
> #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
> AP's List of 54 fakes and mistakes of Old Math.
> These can be found in AP's TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS series.
>
>
> TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for ages 18-19 Freshperson College, math textbook series, book 3
>
> Teaching True Mathematics, by Archimedes Plutonium 2019
>
> 12) All of Old Logic such as the textbooks by Copi and Boole and Jevons with their messed up operators such as 10 OR 4 = 14 with AND as subtraction, are thrown out onto the rubbish pile of shame. Set theory is thrown out completely, although we can use the word "set" to mean collection, group. All of Cantor set theory is phony baloney, not worth reading.
> 48) Geometry is discrete with not only discrete numbers but empty space in between numbers as coordinate points of a graph and with a discrete angle. No continuum exists in either algebra or geometry.
>
> 49) True geometry cannot have all volumes by stacking 2D figures, for example the torus, where the circles near the donut hole would be spaced too close together versus the circles near the rim of the circumference have wide empty space gaps. Stacking to achieve volume is not a universal method.
>
> 50) Mathematics has a peak, a pinnacle, a climax of understanding with Calculus, the motion of physics and the energy of physics. This is expressed in the 2D and 3D calculus. It closes the subject of mathematics. And once we learn how to transform polynomials, and apply the power rule in High School, all the rest of mathematics we learn in life is just mere details of our teachings that took place in High School. Math is a closed subject beyond Calculus.
>
> 51) Mathematics is a closed subject, meaning it has a summit, a peak and that peak mirrors the Physics of motion. It is called calculus. Once you learn calculus, and it is very easy for it is just the Power Rule upon Polynomials. Once you learn this in High School, all the rest of mathematics is just details concerning motion. Mathematics is a tiny tiny subset of Physics. Everything of mathematics comes from physics. The reason the world has numbers is because physics has atoms and atoms are numerous. The reason the world has geometry is because atoms come in various shapes and sizes.
>
>
> 52) Math is a closed subject, a tiny subset of physics, and ever since 2019, the writing of this Calculus Guide, all the important topics of mathematics can be taught in junior and senior year High School. Any mathematics beyond High School is mere details of that junior and senior year teaching-- namely polynomial transform and Power Rules for derivative and integral of calculus.
>
> 53) The AP-EM equations of physics and mathematics. They replace the error ridden Maxwell Equations.
>
> If you desire, you can replace E, electric field with L, angular momentum. Where V is voltage, i or A is current, B is magnetic field, E is electric field, kg is kilogram mass, m is meters, s is seconds, C=quantity of current A*s.
>
> a) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
> b) V = C*B*E New Ohm's law, law of electricity
> c) V' = (C*B*E)' Capacitor Law of Physics
> d) (V/C*E)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
> e) (V/(B*E))' = C' Faraday law
> f) (V/(C*B))' = E' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
>
>
> PHYSICS LAWS
> a) Facts of chemistry and physics
> b) Voltage V = kg*m^2/(A*s^3)
> c) Amount of current C = A*s = magnetic monopoles
> d) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /(A*s^2)
> e) Electric Field E = kg m^2/(A*s)
> f) V = C*B*E New Ohm's law, law of electricity
> g) V' = (C*B*E)' Capacitor Law of Physics
> h) (V/C*E)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
> i) (V/(B*E))' = C' Faraday law
> j) (V/(C*B))' = E' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
>
>
> 54) Research into what I call "pencil ellipses" that are ellipses of enormous semimajor axis and tiny tiny semiminor axis, whose importance to physics is ultra important.
> King of Science
>
> 1-Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> Archimedes Plutonium
Kibo Parry Moroney is of the same stripe as Trump calling up Georgia State officials and bribing them to find 12,000 votes, in fact, well, Trump admin pays Kibo 1 million dollars to harass pester and stalk AP, while college and univ professors who actually teach math and physics are payed on average $200,000 , a 1/5 of what kibo sitting on his arse hate spew stalking, along with his shithead friend up north Dan Christensen.
For years now I thought the kibo Parry harrassement and stalking was kibo being paid a million dollars just to pester AP for 30 years now. But recently came to realize the harrassement extends into colleges and universities of their researchers like Dr. Hau with her Harvard Slow Light experiments. For years now I wanted her to report what happens when she turns off the light if all the light-- even the slowed-light vanishes simultaneously and instantly. For that would very much support a theory of AP. And was wondering why Dr. Hau was not obliging for such a simple request. Well, now I see why, because of the anti-science Trump admin of Betsy DeVos, Dr. Panchanathan's NSF paying kibo to suppress AP and suppress any scientist like Dr. Hau from doing science. Now I realize why Dr. Kelvin Droegemeier declined from heading the NSF, being turned into a Trump pseudoscience crap hole. Good on you Kelvin for sticking to truth and science. And let the low integrity people like Betsy and Panchanathan and Kibo Parry operate in the swamp cesspool of Trump antiscience.
So all along I was thinking Dr. Hau did not want to report of her own volition but now I see the bigger picture that probably Kibo and Betsy and Panchanathan dragged poor Lene and stuffed her into a closet to be sure she never finishes her experiment and prove AP is correct, yet, once again. January 20 really cannot come soon enough when the entire world is free of that antiscience monster called Donald Trump.
DR HAU FAILURE because she is suppressed by the kibo Parry Moroney, Betsy DeVos, NSF Dr. Panchanathan suppression machinery
Harvard's Dr.Hau versus AP on SLOW LIGHT EXPERIMENT
Dr. Hau has what she calls SLOW LIGHT that was shot into a BEC medium that slows it down for her. She must have the viewpoint or theory, then, that light waves are a open straight line arrow ray understanding of light.
Compare that viewpoint with AP's view of light, as a closed loop circuit, much like electricity itself, and that although light looks to be straightline arrow ray from source, the source is always "in the closed loop circuit". Here, AP views light as a very thin narrow closed loop. Much like a electric extension cord appears to be a straightline arrow, when in fact it is a closed loop with its copper wire inside separated by a distance of the separation of the two prongs that you plug into the wall outlet.
So, who is correct about LIGHT? Is Harvard's Dr. Hau straightline arrow for light correct. Or, is AP's closed loop with source always connected in the Closed Loop?
TEST to see who is correct. The test is real simple, turn the Slow Light Experiment source light off, just switch it off. If AP is correct, all the BEC slow light vanishes along with all the other light in the experiment, all at the same instant of time, even though the so called "slow light" was at a crawl. If Dr. Hau is correct with her straightline arrow view of light, then the slow light would still be active and moving in her BEC medium once the switch was off. If AP is correct, then the Slow Light, no matter how slow it is, instantly vanishes along with the light from the source that is not inside the medium, instantly vanishes altogether.
So, what is Harvard's Dr. Hau excuse for not completing her experiment by doing this test? Is she too dumb? Is she too lazy? Or, is she hateful of a AP success of a physics understanding?
FURTHER TESTS: I solemnly believe I will win the above test. But I am unsure of the further result of a movable source. The above test is a static source, but what happens if we move the source, keep it on but move it? Here, like in Quantum Entanglement viewpoint, the Slow Light inside the BEC should make adjustments of its movement because the slow light source is moving, and if the source comes upon a blockage, say a black sheet of paper, it is as if a switch had turned it off. But I am not sure if the BEC slow light remains active, or has just become dimmed while the source was behind a black sheet of paper. So here we have a whole whole whole slew of testing of what we call Quantum Entanglement.
So, why is Harvard stubborn and idiotic about slow light? Is it all because, no-one at Harvard wants to ever admit AP is correct. Or have the mindless money chasing antiscience grubs of kibo Parry, Betsy DeVos, Dr. Panchanathan's NSF infested and infiltrated the research of Harvard's Hau.
Dr. Hau has what she calls SLOW LIGHT that was shot into a BEC medium that slows it down for her. She must have the viewpoint or theory, then, that light waves are a open straight line arrow ray understanding of light.
Compare that viewpoint with AP's view of light, as a closed loop circuit, much like electricity itself, and that although light looks to be straightline arrow ray from source, the source is always "in the closed loop circuit". Here, AP views light as a very thin narrow closed loop. Much like a electric extension cord appears to be a straightline arrow, when in fact it is a closed loop with its copper wire inside separated by a distance of the separation of the two prongs that you plug into the wall outlet.
So, who is correct about LIGHT? Is Harvard's Dr. Hau straightline arrow for light correct. Or, is AP's closed loop with source always connected in the Closed Loop?
TEST to see who is correct. The test is real simple, turn the Slow Light Experiment source light off, just switch it off. If AP is correct, all the BEC slow light vanishes along with all the other light in the experiment, all at the same instant of time, even though the so called "slow light" was at a crawl. If Dr. Hau is correct with her straightline arrow view of light, then the slow light would still be active and moving in her BEC medium once the switch was off. If AP is correct, then the Slow Light, no matter how slow it is, instantly vanishes along with the light from the source that is not inside the medium, instantly vanishes altogether.
So, what is Harvard's Dr. Hau excuse for not completing her experiment by doing this test? Is she too dumb? Is she too lazy? Or, is she hateful of a AP success of a physics understanding?
FURTHER TESTS: I solemnly believe I will win the above test. But I am unsure of the further result of a movable source. The above test is a static source, but what happens if we move the source, keep it on but move it? Here, like in Quantum Entanglement viewpoint, the Slow Light inside the BEC should make adjustments of its movement because the slow light source is moving, and if the source comes upon a blockage, say a black sheet of paper, it is as if a switch had turned it off. But I am not sure if the BEC slow light remains active, or has just become dimmed while the source was behind a black sheet of paper. So here we have a whole whole whole slew of testing of what we call Quantum Entanglement.
On Wednesday, December 23, 2020 at 2:47:38 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> WARNING TO STUDENTS, PARENTS and TEACHERS:
AP writes: do not be fooled by the several people posting under the name Michael Moroney as a "open hate spam line"
AP writes: sad the education system of USA where the govt pays a 1 million dollars for a stalker failure of science like Kibo Parry Moroney pays him $1 million to stalk in sci.math, sci.physics, yet probably, not sure pays Harvard physicists like Dr. Hau 1/5 the amount to actually teach and research physics. (Please check on exact amounts)
And Nick Thompson, Wired magazine. Kibo Parry Moroney is paid (who knows, a million dollars a year paid to stalk AP) and is a failure of science but not a failure at sniffing out cheap jobs like stalking people. His failures are huge-- with his 10 OR 2 = 12, with AND as subtraction. His stupidity stretches so far as to think an ellipse is a slant cut into a cone when that is actually a oval, and the mindless creep can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. A taste of how dumb dirt ignorant of a science failure is kibo Parry Moroney just look at where he says 938 is 12% short of 945. No wonder Rensselaer kicked his sorry arse out of that otherwise fine institution, but Washington DC is where kibo can get the millions of dollars to sit on his arse and stalk harrass all day long on the Internet.
On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
None at all - he was a raving nutter.
Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley
Edward Witten
On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
Quoting Wikipedia—
In the early 1990s, as public awareness grew of the Internet and Usenet, Parry received publicity, including a cover story in Wired magazine..
--- end quote ---
Wired (magazine) editor in chief, Nicholas Thompson
Yoo, Nick, Nick yoyo, is Wired going to have Kibo Parry the Man of the Century for Wired? How a antiscience arsehole gets paid a million for stalking on Internet??????
Harvard's Dr.Hau versus AP on SLOW LIGHT EXPERIMENT
Dr. Hau has what she calls SLOW LIGHT that was shot into a BEC medium that slows it down for her. She must have the viewpoint or theory, then, that light waves are a open straight line arrow ray understanding of light.
Compare that viewpoint with AP's view of light, as a closed loop circuit, much like electricity itself, and that although light looks to be straightline arrow ray from source, the source is always "in the closed loop circuit". Here, AP views light as a very thin narrow closed loop. Much like a electric extension cord appears to be a straightline arrow, when in fact it is a closed loop with its copper wire inside separated by a distance of the separation of the two prongs that you plug into the wall outlet.
So, who is correct about LIGHT? Is Harvard's Dr. Hau straightline arrow for light correct. Or, is AP's closed loop with source always connected in the Closed Loop?
TEST to see who is correct. The test is real simple, turn the Slow Light Experiment source light off, just switch it off. If AP is correct, all the BEC slow light vanishes along with all the other light in the experiment, all at the same instant of time, even though the so called "slow light" was at a crawl. If Dr. Hau is correct with her straightline arrow view of light, then the slow light would still be active and moving in her BEC medium once the switch was off. If AP is correct, then the Slow Light, no matter how slow it is, instantly vanishes along with the light from the source that is not inside the medium, instantly vanishes altogether.
So, what is Harvard's Dr. Hau excuse for not completing her experiment by doing this test? Is she too dumb? Is she too lazy? Or, is she hateful of a AP success of a physics understanding?
FURTHER TESTS: I solemnly believe I will win the above test. But I am unsure of the further result of a movable source. The above test is a static source, but what happens if we move the source, keep it on but move it? Here, like in Quantum Entanglement viewpoint, the Slow Light inside the BEC should make adjustments of its movement because the slow light source is moving, and if the source comes upon a blockage, say a black sheet of paper, it is as if a switch had turned it off. But I am not sure if the BEC slow light remains active, or has just become dimmed while the source was behind a black sheet of paper. So here we have a whole whole whole slew of testing of what we call Quantum Entanglement.
So, why is Harvard stubborn and idiotic about slow light? Is it all because, no-one at Harvard wants to ever admit AP is correct, and that they rather be in the weeds, stay in the weeds, rather than ever ever give AP credit? In other words-- the little minds that compose Harvard University, and not really a center of education.
Kibo Parry Moroney forbids Dr. Hau to report her slow light vanishes once she turns the light off. Why? Because the Kibo suppression machine of Betsy DeVos and NSF want no-one in science to give supporting evidence to "any truths found by AP" as a hired stalker of 30 years of NSF Betsy DeVos & Dr.Panchanathan who insist on teaching students crazy science such as _no_ geometry proof of calculus, 10 OR 2=12 with AND as subtraction and the ellipse a conic when it never was, all so that creeps of math like Tao, Wiles, Strang, Stillwell, Hales keep filling their pockets with fake math. And a pitiful shame of this story is that they pay kibo to stalk with 1 million dollars yet the professors in colleges only get paid on average $200,000 to teach math and physics. No wonder the creep kibo stalks even though he thinks 938 is 12% short of 945 and that geothermal is not radioactivity but rather recycled solar fossil. No wonder Betsy and NSF are so much despised in our society at large because they look after money, not truth of science.
None at all - he was a raving nutter.
Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley
Edward Witten
On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
Quoting Wikipedia—
In the early 1990s, as public awareness grew of the Internet and Usenet, Parry received publicity, including a cover story in Wired magazine..
--- end quote ---
Wired (magazine) editor in chief, Nicholas Thompson
Yoo, Nick, Nick yoyo, is Wired going to have Kibo Parry the Man of the Century for Wired? How a antiscience arsehole gets paid a million for stalking on Internet??????
Harvard's Dr.Hau versus AP on SLOW LIGHT EXPERIMENT
Dr. Hau has what she calls SLOW LIGHT that was shot into a BEC medium that slows it down for her. She must have the viewpoint or theory, then, that light waves are a open straight line arrow ray understanding of light.
Compare that viewpoint with AP's view of light, as a closed loop circuit, much like electricity itself, and that although light looks to be straightline arrow ray from source, the source is always "in the closed loop circuit". Here, AP views light as a very thin narrow closed loop. Much like a electric extension cord appears to be a straightline arrow, when in fact it is a closed loop with its copper wire inside separated by a distance of the separation of the two prongs that you plug into the wall outlet.
So, who is correct about LIGHT? Is Harvard's Dr. Hau straightline arrow for light correct. Or, is AP's closed loop with source always connected in the Closed Loop?
TEST to see who is correct. The test is real simple, turn the Slow Light Experiment source light off, just switch it off. If AP is correct, all the BEC slow light vanishes along with all the other light in the experiment, all at the same instant of time, even though the so called "slow light" was at a crawl. If Dr. Hau is correct with her straightline arrow view of light, then the slow light would still be active and moving in her BEC medium once the switch was off. If AP is correct, then the Slow Light, no matter how slow it is, instantly vanishes along with the light from the source that is not inside the medium, instantly vanishes altogether.
So, what is Harvard's Dr. Hau excuse for not completing her experiment by doing this test? Is she too dumb? Is she too lazy? Or, is she hateful of a AP success of a physics understanding?
FURTHER TESTS: I solemnly believe I will win the above test. But I am unsure of the further result of a movable source. The above test is a static source, but what happens if we move the source, keep it on but move it? Here, like in Quantum Entanglement viewpoint, the Slow Light inside the BEC should make adjustments of its movement because the slow light source is moving, and if the source comes upon a blockage, say a black sheet of paper, it is as if a switch had turned it off. But I am not sure if the BEC slow light remains active, or has just become dimmed while the source was behind a black sheet of paper. So here we have a whole whole whole slew of testing of what we call Quantum Entanglement.
So, why is Harvard stubborn and idiotic about slow light? Is it all because, no-one at Harvard wants to ever admit AP is correct, and that they rather be in the weeds, stay in the weeds, rather than ever ever give AP credit? In other words-- the little minds that compose Harvard University, and not really a center of education.
On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 12:30:30 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 3:00:09 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> I suppose at Dartmouth, a math professor who cannot fix the most pressing math problem of the day-- a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, instead of that nauseating limit analysis of 0 width rectangles summed up, like Dr. Hanlon, and continue to brainwash students with that limit analysis fakery, that Dartmouth promotes you to President. One would have thought the Dartmouth board of overseers would have told Dr. Hanlon to shape up or ship out.
>
>
> Colossal Physics error of the century: their mindless electron of 0.5MeV flying near speed of light, around proton 938MeV which no hydrogen atom could exist in that condition due to angular momentum, when in truth muon is the real electron trapped inside a 840MeV proton of 8 ring torus doing the Faraday law and producing the 0.5MeV and eV Dirac magnetic monopoles. Murray Gell-Mann is far too stupid, as well as Steven Weinberg and Sheldon Glashow to understand any of this, for they never understood something as basic as angular momentum
>
> Colossal Chemistry error of the century: their mindless Lewis 8 Structure when they easily can see CO and N2 have highest dissociation energy, calls for a Lewis 6 Structure not 8.
>
>
> Colossal Math error of the century: their mindless calculus without a Geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, puttering on the insane 0 width rectangles of "limit analysis" when calculus is geometry yet the idiotic fools never delivering a geometry proof. And how could they for they are so insane with even Logic where they have 10 OR 2=12 with AND as subtraction and they cannot even correct their ellipse mistake-- it is a cylinder section, never a conic.
>
>
> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
>
> Length: 21 pages
>
> File Size: 1620 KB
> Print Length: 21 pages
> Publication Date: March 11, 2019
> Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> Language: English
> ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
> Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> X-Ray: Not Enabled
> Word Wise: Not Enabled
> Lending: Enabled
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
> #8-2, 11th published book
> X-Ray: Not Enabled
> Word Wise: Not Enabled
> Lending: Enabled
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
>
> World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math where they had a ill-defined infinity; they had the fakery of Limit concept; and they had the fakery of a continuum.
>
> 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.
>
> Length: 29 pages
>
> Product details
> File Size: 1225 KB
> Print Length: 29 pages
> Publication Date: March 14, 2019
> Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> Language: English
> ASIN: B07PQTNHMY
> Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
> X-Ray: Not Enabled 
> Word Wise: Not Enabled
> Lending: Enabled
> X-Ray: Not Enabled 
> Word Wise: Not Enabled
> Lending: Enabled
> Screen Reader: Supported 
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
> Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
> #2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> #134 in Calculus (Books)
> #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
> AP's List of 54 fakes and mistakes of Old Math.
> These can be found in AP's TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS series.
>
>
> TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for ages 18-19 Freshperson College, math textbook series, book 3
>
> Teaching True Mathematics, by Archimedes Plutonium 2019
>
> Listing the Errors of Old Math, list of 1 to 50.
>
> Alright, well, mathematics is a closed subject. What I mean by that is due to the textbook series of Archimedes Plutonium TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, that once you learn the polynomial transform and learn the two Power Rules of Calculus, you reached the peak the pinnacle of all of mathematics, and anything further in math is just details of what you learn in that textbook series. Math is a completed science, unlike the other 5 hard sciences of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy. Those other five will continue to find new ideas, new things, while math remains static and complete. Mathematics is finished complete as far as a science goes.
>
> Now I do need to discuss the Errors of Math in General and the errors of math in geometry in particular. I have the feeling that Geometry is the more important of the two-- algebra - geometry. This list appears in most of AP's Teaching True Mathematics textbook series by Archimedes Plutonium, meant to be a guide and orientation, and a organizing of what must be covered before graduating from College, and what math to steer clear of.
>
> Errors mostly, but not always, for some are included because too much time spent on them.
>
> 1) No curves exist in Geometry, only finer and smaller straight line segments attached to one another.
>
> 2) Space has gaps in between one point and the next point. These gaps are empty space from one point to the next point, for example in 10 Grid there is no number between .1 and .2, and in 100 Grid there exists no number between .01 and .02.
>
> 3) Infinity has a borderline and there is a microinfinity compared to a macroinfinity. For example in 10 Grid, the microinfinity is .1 if we exclude 0 and so there is no number smaller than .1 and no number larger than 10 in 10 Grid, where 10 is macroinfinity.
>
> 4) The 1st Quadrant Only in Coordinate System Geometry. Sad that the first coordinate system of Descartes was correct but soon became corrupted with 4 quadrants. See Mathematical Thought, Volume 1, Kline, 1972, page 303. Where Fermat then Descartes starts the Cartesian Coordinate System as 1 axis only and from 0 rightwards, meaning in our modern day math, 1st Quadrant Only. Why did math screw up on coordinate systems? I suppose some clowns thought negative numbers were true and they wanted ease of drawing a circle with center at 0. When they could have just as easily drawn the circle in 1st Quadrant Only.
>
> 5) Calculus needed a Geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, but Old Math never provided such, instead they provided some stupid Limit argument. The reason for the creation of the Limit disaster was that the French mathematician Cauchy got sick and tired of hearing his smartest students complain that the width of rectangles in the integral are 0 width, and those smart students could not, for the life of them understand how a rectangle with 0 width has any interior area. So instead of the math community denouncing the limit, instead they elevated the fakery.
>
> 6) Further in Calculus, they knew you could do a transform of coordinate points to turn any function into a polynomial function, a method of Lagrange. However, they in Old Math were too stupid to take this transform to its highest form-- all functions are polynomial functions and only polynomial functions. When you learn that-- the derivative and integral of any and every function of math is a snap breeze simple and easy.
>
> 7) With the error filled 4 quadrants, when it should be 1st Quadrant Only, we have Trigonometry's sine and cosine with the fakery of sinusoid wave when it never was that. The sine and cosine are semicircle waves, and no sinusoid wave exists.
>
> 8) There is only one Geometry-- Euclidean, and there is not three distinct geometries of elliptical Riemannian or hyperbolic Lobachevsky. Those two are just duals that make up Euclidean.
>
> 9) Torus, volume and surface area formulas in Old Math are all screwed up and in error because they imagined bending a cylinder to form a torus. This brings back memories, for I had to do a percentage formula, since I could not follow the fake way of bending a cylinder. Where 78.5% of Disc Torus (pi)R^2h - (pi)r^2h is the volume of Circle Torus, and 78.5% of Disc Torus 2(pi)Rh + 2(pi)rh + 2 ((pi)R^2 - (pi)r^2) is the surface area of Circle Torus.
>
> 10) Ellipse is never a conic slant cut, always a cylinder slant cut.
>
> 11) All Parallelepipeds reduced to a Rectangular Box by making 2 cuts and pastes. Volume of the original Parallelepiped is simply a*b*c of the Rectangular Box length*width*depth formed. Old Math never understood that a precise definition of Parallelepiped has two kinds, the parallelepiped that has 90 degree angles and the parallelepiped that has no 90 degree angle.
> Listing the Errors of Old Math, list of 1 to 50.
>
> Alright, well, mathematics is a closed subject. What I mean by that is due to the textbook series of Archimedes Plutonium TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, that once you learn the polynomial transform and learn the two Power Rules of Calculus, you reached the peak the pinnacle of all of mathematics, and anything further in math is just details of what you learn in that textbook series. Math is a completed science, unlike the other 5 hard sciences of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy. Those other five will continue to find new ideas, new things, while math remains static and complete. Mathematics is finished complete as far as a science goes.
>
> Now I do need to discuss the Errors of Math in General and the errors of math in geometry in particular. I have the feeling that Geometry is the more important of the two-- algebra - geometry. This list appears in most of AP's Teaching True Mathematics textbook series by Archimedes Plutonium, meant to be a guide and orientation, and a organizing of what must be covered before graduating from College, and what math to steer clear of.
>
> Errors mostly, but not always, for some are included because too much time spent on them.
>
> 1) No curves exist in Geometry, only finer and smaller straight line segments attached to one another.
>
> 2) Space has gaps in between one point and the next point. These gaps are empty space from one point to the next point, for example in 10 Grid there is no number between .1 and .2, and in 100 Grid there exists no number between .01 and .02.
>
> 3) Infinity has a borderline and there is a microinfinity compared to a macroinfinity. For example in 10 Grid, the microinfinity is .1 if we exclude 0 and so there is no number smaller than .1 and no number larger than 10 in 10 Grid, where 10 is macroinfinity.
>
> 4) The 1st Quadrant Only in Coordinate System Geometry. Sad that the first coordinate system of Descartes was correct but soon became corrupted with 4 quadrants. See Mathematical Thought, Volume 1, Kline, 1972, page 303. Where Fermat then Descartes starts the Cartesian Coordinate System as 1 axis only and from 0 rightwards, meaning in our modern day math, 1st Quadrant Only. Why did math screw up on coordinate systems? I suppose some clowns thought negative numbers were true and they wanted ease of drawing a circle with center at 0. When they could have just as easily drawn the circle in 1st Quadrant Only.
>
> 5) Calculus needed a Geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, but Old Math never provided such, instead they provided some stupid Limit argument. The reason for the creation of the Limit disaster was that the French mathematician Cauchy got sick and tired of hearing his smartest students complain that the width of rectangles in the integral are 0 width, and those smart students could not, for the life of them understand how a rectangle with 0 width has any interior area. So instead of the math community denouncing the limit, instead they elevated the fakery.
>
> 6) Further in Calculus, they knew you could do a transform of coordinate points to turn any function into a polynomial function, a method of Lagrange. However, they in Old Math were too stupid to take this transform to its highest form-- all functions are polynomial functions and only polynomial functions. When you learn that-- the derivative and integral of any and every function of math is a snap breeze simple and easy.
>
> 7) With the error filled 4 quadrants, when it should be 1st Quadrant Only, we have Trigonometry's sine and cosine with the fakery of sinusoid wave when it never was that. The sine and cosine are semicircle waves, and no sinusoid wave exists.
>
> 8) There is only one Geometry-- Euclidean, and there is not three distinct geometries of elliptical Riemannian or hyperbolic Lobachevsky. Those two are just duals that make up Euclidean.
>
> 9) Torus, volume and surface area formulas in Old Math are all screwed up and in error because they imagined bending a cylinder to form a torus. This brings back memories, for I had to do a percentage formula, since I could not follow the fake way of bending a cylinder. Where 78.5% of Disc Torus (pi)R^2h - (pi)r^2h is the volume of Circle Torus, and 78.5% of Disc Torus 2(pi)Rh + 2(pi)rh + 2 ((pi)R^2 - (pi)r^2) is the surface area of Circle Torus.
>
> 10) Ellipse is never a conic slant cut, always a cylinder slant cut.
>
>
> 12) All of Old Logic such as the textbooks by Copi and Boole and Jevons with their messed up operators such as 10 OR 4 = 14 with AND as subtraction, are thrown out onto the rubbish pile of shame. Set theory is thrown out completely, although we can use the word "set" to mean collection, group. All of Cantor set theory is phony baloney, not worth reading.
>
> 49) True geometry cannot have all volumes by stacking 2D figures, for example the torus, where the circles near the donut hole would be spaced too close together versus the circles near the rim of the circumference have wide empty space gaps. Stacking to achieve volume is not a universal method.
>
> 50) Mathematics has a peak, a pinnacle, a climax of understanding with Calculus, the motion of physics and the energy of physics. This is expressed in the 2D and 3D calculus. It closes the subject of mathematics. And once we learn how to transform polynomials, and apply the power rule in High School, all the rest of mathematics we learn in life is just mere details of our teachings that took place in High School. Math is a closed subject beyond Calculus.
>
> 51) Mathematics is a closed subject, meaning it has a summit, a peak and that peak mirrors the Physics of motion. It is called calculus. Once you learn calculus, and it is very easy for it is just the Power Rule upon Polynomials. Once you learn this in High School, all the rest of mathematics is just details concerning motion. Mathematics is a tiny tiny subset of Physics. Everything of mathematics comes from physics. The reason the world has numbers is because physics has atoms and atoms are numerous. The reason the world has geometry is because atoms come in various shapes and sizes.
>
>
> 52) Math is a closed subject, a tiny subset of physics, and ever since 2019, the writing of this Calculus Guide, all the important topics of mathematics can be taught in junior and senior year High School. Any mathematics beyond High School is mere details of that junior and senior year teaching-- namely polynomial transform and Power Rules for derivative and integral of calculus.
>
> 53) The AP-EM equations of physics and mathematics. They replace the error ridden Maxwell Equations.
>
> If you desire, you can replace E, electric field with L, angular momentum. Where V is voltage, i or A is current, B is magnetic field, E is electric field, kg is kilogram mass, m is meters, s is seconds, C=quantity of current A*s.
>
> a) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
> b) V = C*B*E New Ohm's law, law of electricity
> c) V' = (C*B*E)' Capacitor Law of Physics
> d) (V/C*E)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
> e) (V/(B*E))' = C' Faraday law
> f) (V/(C*B))' = E' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
>
>
> PHYSICS LAWS
> a) Facts of chemistry and physics
> b) Voltage V = kg*m^2/(A*s^3)
> c) Amount of current C = A*s = magnetic monopoles
> d) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /(A*s^2)
> e) Electric Field E = kg m^2/(A*s)
> f) V = C*B*E New Ohm's law, law of electricity
> g) V' = (C*B*E)' Capacitor Law of Physics
> h) (V/C*E)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
> i) (V/(B*E))' = C' Faraday law
> j) (V/(C*B))' = E' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
>
>
> 54) Research into what I call "pencil ellipses" that are ellipses of enormous semimajor axis and tiny tiny semiminor axis, whose importance to physics is ultra important.
>
> True mathematics is a subject that is always easy, clear, and comprehensible. Old Math never had a program of "let us make the subject easy and clear and accessible to all". Old Math was about fame and fortune for a grubby few arrogant and ignorant fame seekers to those seeking fame and fortune by adding fake math, incomprehensible, hard, worthless, at the expense of torturing young students who all they wanted was a foundation understanding of true mathematics.
>
> Old Math cared more about having a few kooks run out and about, getting fame and fortune by piling incomprehensible trash onto mathematics, than it ever cared about going into a classroom and teaching math that everyone can understand. Of the four hard sciences, physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, there is no reason in the entire world, that math is the easiest of those 4 sciences. The only reason today, that math is not the easiest of those four sciences, is because after Descartes for 5 centuries now, mathematics was given over to kooks of math who sought for fame and fortune at the expense of keeping math simple and easy. Kooks of math filling up math so that math is now in 2020 a gaggle of kook ridden incomprehensible garbage. Ask your local kook math professor why he/she holds onto Boole logic with his 10 OR 4 = 14 when you know well that 10 AND 4 = 14. Ask your local kook math professor why he keeps teaching ellipse is a conic when you can show him on the spot with a paper cone and a lid that the slant cut is a oval, never a ellipse. And ask your local kook math professor why he/she never is able to give you a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. And the answer is always-- they are kooks of math, not mathematicians.
> True mathematics is a subject that is always easy, clear, and comprehensible. Old Math never had a program of "let us make the subject easy and clear and accessible to all". Old Math was about fame and fortune for a grubby few arrogant and ignorant fame seekers to those seeking fame and fortune by adding fake math, incomprehensible, hard, worthless, at the expense of torturing young students who all they wanted was a foundation understanding of true mathematics.
>
>
> This list is ongoing, and is a bulletin-board of errors of Old Math and useful for Teaching True Mathematics. I insert this list as a guide. To show students what math to avoid, to steer away from, as a total fake and waste of time.
>
>
>
>
> AP
> This list is ongoing, and is a bulletin-board of errors of Old Math and useful for Teaching True Mathematics. I insert this list as a guide. To show students what math to avoid, to steer away from, as a total fake and waste of time.
>
>
>
>
> King of Science
>
> 1-Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> Archimedes Plutonium
Message has been deleted
Archimedes Plutonium
Nov 7, 2021, 11:04:12 PM11/7/21
to
-Kibo why cannot Ethan Brown, Heidi Jo Newberg help Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Sylvia Else turn the light switch off in Slow Light rather than play ad hominem games.
Instead of doing Physics where AP proves that Light Waves are pencil ellipse closed loop circuits not straightline arrow rays, both Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Else want to play games of ad hominem. Whenever physics proves AP is correct, neither Harvard's Dr. Hau nor Berkeley's Sylvia Else want to complete or perform the experiment because they do not want to credit AP. They want physics such that it gives credit to those people they like. Just the opposite of what Feynman warned of-- physics does not care who the person is that discovers the truth. But in modern times, physics at Harvard, MIT, Berkeley is first concern is who gets credit and the actual physics involved-- be damned.
>
> So, Dr. Hau and Sylvia-- why not learn to do the physics rather than your utter hatred of AP.
>
> Time for Harvard's Dr. Hau to finish her experiment, or have UC Berkeley Sylvia Else finish the experiment.
>
> The Internet indicates a Sylvia Else is a physics graduate of Berkeley.
>
> So then, Berkeley has to stand up to the challenge that AP throws into their court yard. I throw into your court yard that if Harvard's Dr. Hau set up her slow light experiment. And sees a column of slow light in BEC medium with entrance light at normal speed and exit light at normal speed, only the BEC cold region with slow light. Now, now Dr. Hau, now Sylvia Else, turn the source light off. And to your fascination and the fascination of the entire world, watch and see that the slow light vanishes instantly along with the normal fast light. The entire column of light vanishes simultaneously.
>
> Why does it vanish all at once simultaneously Sylvia? Why does it vanish all at once Dr. Hau? Why does it vanish all at once Harvard Univ and Berkeley physics? Why does it vanish all at once simultaneously Berkeley UC?
>
> It vanishes all at once because light waves are closed loop circuits around a source and no matter how fast those closed loop circuits in a region of the circuit, the moment the source is gone -- the entire light is gone.
>
> Dumb and ignorant Harvard Dr. Hau and dumb and ignorant Berkeley Sylvia Else think Light Waves are arrow like single rays with a head and tail on a arrow ray. But that is only because they are ignorant in physics. They cannot turn off the light for it proves AP correct-- that the Light Wave is a closed loop circuit with the source of the light always in the closed loop circuit. So if and when those two incompetents Dr. Hau and Sylvia Else turn off the light source, all the light the fast light the Slow Light, the fast light exiting the BEC medium, all the Light vanishes simultaneously.
>
> The ignorant Hau and Else think that the SLOW LIGHT will still be visible, still be crawling slow in the BEC. But no, it vanishes instantly as all the other light from that source. But Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Sylvia Else do not want to report that truth, no, they want to never report any true science that is connected with Archimedes Plutonium, because Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Sylvia Else are not scientists at all-- but suppression jerks.
>
> What have we proven here Sylvia? What have we proven here Harvard's Dr. Hau. You have proven that light waves, like electricity are closed loop circuits, like a hoola hoop. And this is the reason you can have light as a constant maximum speed, yet slow light down in a region of the circuit of light.
>
> So, Harvard's Dr. Hau, get off your lazy butt and complete your experiment, throw the switch off-- and see for yourself that light all vanishes simultaneously. And report your experiment to the world-- that light is a closed loop circuit, not what you believed all along before-- light is a single ray with head and tail. No, light was never a single ray of head of tail, like a arrow. Light is like a closed loop circuit, a pencil ellipse.
>
> So get off your lazy butt and finish the experiment.
>
> Or have Sylia Else in Berkeley California set up the slow light experiment and have Sylvia finish and complete the experiment.
>
> Times a wasting, with your chit chat Sylvia, time you roll up your sleeves and burn the midnight oil.
>
> AP, King of Science, especially Physics
>
>
> Is Kibo Parry M. the largest taxpayer fraud waste and abuse in Usenet history, paid $100 per stalker post by NSF and dept Educ Dr. Panchanathan??????????
>
> On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 6:15:27 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 6:24:20 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> >blithered:
> On Sunday, June 13, 2021 at 12:55:53 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > "FireD your ass"
>
> snip the threats of violence kibo so many times posted
>
> AP writes: Kibo Parry M. is NSF Dr. Panchanathan and USA dept Educ going to pay you $100. for that post?? If so, then Barry Shein's World std must be a goldmine of USA taxpayer fraud waste and abuse. Just posting abusive stalker defaming spam for 28 years now. No wonder Kibo keeps defaming and stalking; many people would gladly defame and stalk at $100. a post.
>
> Re: The Gabriel Polynomial- an advanced stealing and stolen item from Archimedes Plutonium and his book//
> by Michael Moroney Sep 27, 2021, 1:16 AM
>
> Re: 1-Did Kibo-Parry-Maroney fail Rensselaer or was kicked out due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton is 840MeV not 938, the .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole
> by Roy Masters Sep 13, 2019, 3:24:07 PM
>
> Re: 1.2-Did Kibo-Parry-Maroney fail Rensselaer or was kicked out due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton is 840MeV not 938, the .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole
> by Patricio J. Whackmember Sep 13, 2019, 5:43:28 PM
>
> Re: 1.9-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Korniss,Toh-Ming Lu,Martin
> By Dingus Dirtbag McGee Sep 15, 2019, 9:57:15 AM
>
> Re: 2.0-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton is 840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Michael,Newberg,N'Gom
> By Dingus Dirtbag McGee Sep 15, 2019, 9:56:57 AM
>
> Re: 2.1-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton is 840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Persans,Schroeder,Shur
> By Dingus Dirtbag McGee Sep 15, 2019, 9:56:39 AM
>
> Re: 2.2-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to math percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Shawn-Yu Lin,Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang
> By Dingus Dirtbag McGee Sep 15, 2019, 9:56:28 AM
>
>
>
>
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Physics dept
> Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek, Julian S. Georg, Joel T. Giedt, Yong Sung Kim, Gyorgy Korniss, Toh-Ming Lu, Charles Martin, Joseph Darryl Michael, Heidi Jo Newberg, Moussa N'Gom, Peter Persans, John Schroeder, Michael Shur, Shawn-Yu Lin, Humberto Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang, Morris A Washington, Esther A. Wertz, Christian M. Wetzel, Ingrid Wilke, Shengbai Zhang
> Rensselaer math department
> Donald Schwendeman, Jeffrey Banks, Kristin Bennett, Mohamed Boudjelkha, Joseph Ecker, William Henshaw, Isom Herron, Mark H Holmes, David Isaacson, Elizabeth Kam, Ashwani Kapila, Maya Kiehl, Gregor Kovacic, Peter Kramer, Gina Kucinski, Rongjie Lai, Fengyan Li, Chjan Lim, Yuri V Lvov, Harry McLaughlin, John E. Mitchell, Bruce Piper, David A Schmidt, Daniel Stevenson, Yangyang Xu, Bulent Yener, Donald Drew, William Siegmann
>
> Re: A newsgroup like sci.math is a pile of shit when you have paid stalkers like Kibo Parry M. or Dan Christensen lording over sci.math as if he owns the place-- stalking and attacking posters 7-24-365. This is why I now post a roadmap to AP's newsgr
> by Alan Mackenzie Jun 29, 2021, 2:36:04 PM
>
> Re: 30) AP's 174th book// Mathopedia-- Listing of 70 fakes and mistakes of Old Math. Last revision was 28JUN2021. Preface: I suppose, going forward, mathematics should always have a mathopedia, where major parts of mathematics as a science are held
> by Michael Moroney Jul 3, 2021, 12:55:10 PM
>
> Re: 5) AP's 174th book// Mathopedia-- Listing of 67 fakes and mistakes of Old Math. Last revision was 8JUN2021. Under-Construction: AP recently is reinventing Multivariable Calculus, and will end up throwing out Old Math's Gradient theorem, Green's
> by
> Michael Moroney
> Jun 17, 2021, 11:57 AM
>
> Re: Kibo Parry Moroney stalks "AnalButtfuckManure Attacks" Dartmouth's Philip J. Hanlon, Stanford's Marc Tessier-Lavigne with his 10 OR 6 = 16; his ellipse a conic when it never was; his proton to electron at 938 to 0.5 MeV when in truth..
> 1481 views
> by Professor Wordsmith Aug 14, 2020, 11:07:05 AM
>
> Re: Kibo Parry Moroney threatening the life of AP with his incited hatred of 28 years stalking
> 148th published book Plutonium Atom Totality Universe, 9th edition 2021, Atom Totality Series, book 1
> Jun 16, 2021, 12:09 AM
> by
> Graham Cooper
>
>
> Re: 1- Kibo Parry Moroney threatening the life of AP, with his inciting hatred of 28 years stalking leading to Violence
> Mutt Buncher Re: 3- Kibo Parry Moroney says Dr. Tao, Hales, Stillwell, Wiles, educators
> Jun 16, 2021
> by
> Efftard K. Donglemeier
>
>
> Re: l) AP's 175th book//Physicsopedia-- Listing of 125 fakes and mistakes of Old Physics. New entrees under construction: AP is reinventing Multivariable Calculus so that AP throws on the trash pile the Green's theorem, Gradient theorem, Stokes
> by Michael Moroney Jun 13, 2021, 4:47:35 PM
>
> Re: 1-Kibo Parry Moroney on failed physicist Steven Weinberg who cannot entertain the question of which is the real electron of atoms-- is it the muon or the 0.5MeV particle?
> by Mina Arvuti lähedal May 30, 2021, 7:54 AM
>
> Re: Erik sickfuck Eastside says>oil & vinegar// UCLA Physics with their imbecile electron--Gene D. Block, Ernest Abers, Elihu Abrahams, too stupid to understand Real Proton = 840 MeV with electron= muon and 0.5MeV was Dirac magnetic monopole
> by Michael Moroney Mar 3, 2019, 6:38:18 PM
>
>
> Re: 77,233 Student victims of Lawrence Bacow's Harvard from stalker Kibo Parry Moroney with his 938 is 12% short 945, his 10 OR 4 = 14 with AND as subtraction, and his mindless belief real electron = 0.5MeV when true electron is muon
> 11:57 AM 10Apr2021
> by Wayne Decarlo
>
> Re: 135,566 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 o
> May 10, 2021
> by Michael Moroney
>
> Re: 6Der_FartMouth Births-comics for Eric FartFrancis, with snickering by George FartWitte published by ST FARTMARTINS
> By Michael Moroney 28 posts 292 views updated 12:31 PM
>
> Re: L. Reif, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker, Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins-- Moroney-- Boston's antiscience stalker fool//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole
> By Michael Moroney 19 posts 120 views updated 12:28 PM
>
> Re: If Marissa Mayer were still at Google-- probably take her 15 minutes to engineer a better newsgroup
> By Michael Moroney 20 posts 156 views updated 12:26 PM
>
> Re: 8Der_FartMouth Births-comics for Eric FartFrancis, with snickering by George FartWitte published by ST FARTMARTINS
> By Michael Moroney 29 posts 422 views updated 12:25 PM
>
> Re: Erik sickfuck Eastside says>oil & vinegar// UCLA Physics with their imbecile electron--Gene D. Block,Ernest Abers,Elihu Abrahams, too stupid to understand Real Proton = 840 MeV with electron= muon and .5MeV was Dirac magnetic monopole
> By Michael Moroney 34 posts 244 views updated 12:23 PM
>
> Re: Cambridge, Harvard, Stanford, MIT, CalTech never does correct Logic, why an unpaid Archimedes Plutonium is doing their work
> By Michael Moroney 20 posts 165 views updated 12:22 PM
>
> Re: Racist-math at Reed College-- ellipse is never a conic, David Perkinson, Lyudmila Korobenko, John Lind, Dylan McNamee, Kyle Ormsby, Angelica Osorno
> By Michael Moroney 50 posts 405 views updated 12:21 PM
>
> Re: Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly??-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole (1)
> By Michael Moroney 44 posts 461 views updated 12:17 PM
>
> Re: 1Moroney barks at math failures Baez, Bullock, Witten. But I see the three as having failed Angular Momentum with their 938 proton and .5MeV electron
> 12/30/18
> by j4n bur53
>
> Re: TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS series by Archimedes Plutonium, only math books to teach correct calculus with a geometry proof of Fundamental theorem of Calculus. Old Math cannot even fix its mistake of ellipse is a cylinder section, never a conic.
> by Michael Moroney
>
> Re: 5-AP's 150th book// TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Freshperson College// Physics textbook series, book 4 by Archimedes Plutonium// Using as template Halliday& Resnick & AP's Senior year High School to AP's 150th book// TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//
> by Michael Moroney
>
> Re: Zelos asks why Harvard's Dr. Hau wants to fail in physics, by not turning off the light to see if light wave is a closed loop pencil ellipse that AP predicts. Is Dr.Hau stubborn and too ignorant to finish her experiment??
> by Michael Moroney
>
> Re: Kibo Parry Moroney on Dr. Thorp stealing AP's dog theory connected to why he is a failure on Lewis 8 Structure because CO and N2 dissociation energy says it is Lewis 6 Structure. Yes, Kibo, what is your psychoanalysis of Dr. Thorp stealing? Is steal
> Ebenezer Splooge
>
> Re: Kibo Parry Moroney asks Trump to give South Korea to North Korea, for who wants to protect barbarians that torture Moon Bears in cages
> by Roger Davis
>
> Re: Kibo Parry Moroney says of Dr. Tao "ant of Math" and a pandemic shit mule// Perhaps because Dr. Tao is such a failure of math, he believed primes are real when Naturals have no division-- and failures of math overlook even the most obvious
> by Professor Wordsmith Jul 25, 2020, 8:23:21 PM
>
> Re: 8-Kibo Parry Moroney says boycott Samsung & Hyundai until South Korea stops torturing to death caged Moon Bears // SOUTH KOREA, MOON BEARS Moon Bears of South Korea need the world's helping hand from evil//SCIENCE COUNCIL RULE EARTH
> by Betsy Kibo Moroney Perry DeVos Anal Manure Buttfuck Jul 28, 2020, 5:35:52 PM
>
> Re: 1- Kibo Parry Moroney says of math failure Dan Christensen Univ. Western Ontario with his ellipse a conic when it never was//And his insane Boole logic of 10 OR 2 = 12// pandemic shit mule
> by Hank Hill Jul 26, 2020, 7:26:18 PM
>
> Re: 102-Kibo Parry Moroney (Barry Shein's world std) stalking analbuttfuckmanure shithead of 27 years nonstop-- needs a emergency straightjacket size XXsmall
> By Eduardo Remington 2 posts 3 views updated 12:15 AM
>
> Re: 1-Kibo Parry Moroney, how do you clean your dick after it has been up Barry Shein's arsehole, or does it improve your stalking
> 285 views
> by Richard Cranium May 10, 2020, 8:30:43 PM
> .- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
> , . `.' ' `.
> .' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
> . ; .' . `. ;
> ; . ' `. . '
> . ' ` `. |
> . '. '
> . 0 0 ' `.
> ' `
> ; `
> .' `
> ; U `
> ; '; `
> : | ;.. :` `
> : `;. ```. .-; | '
> '. ` ``.., .' :' '
> ; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' Hi, I am Kibo Parry Moroney, the grand failure of science with my 938 is 12% short of 945, and my ellipse is a conic when it never was, and my idiocy of thinking geothermal is not radioactivity but is recycled solar fossil. I stalk on Internet because NSF pays a million dollars and is 5 times the salary of those professors stuck with actually teaching science and all I do is attack dog style in sci.math, sci.physics.
> ` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
> ` ` ; ; ' '
> ` ` ; ; ' '
> ` `. ````'''''' ' '
> ` . ' '
> / ` `. ' ' .
> / ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
> / .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
> / .'' ; ` .' `
> ...'.' ; .' ` .' `
> "" .' .' | ` .; \ `
> ; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
> :' | ' ` , `. `
> | ' ` ' `. `
> ` ' ` ; `. |
> `.' ` ; `-'
> `...'
>
>
>
>
-Why can no-one at Rensselaer help Dr. Hau turn the light switch off and prove that the Light wave is a circuit pencil ellipse not a arrow ray of head and tail which everyone except AP believes.
Instead of doing Physics where AP proves that Light Waves are pencil ellipse closed loop circuits not straightline arrow rays, both Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Else want to play games of ad hominem. Whenever physics proves AP is correct, neither Harvard's Dr. Hau nor Berkeley's Sylvia Else want to complete or perform the experiment because they do not want to credit AP. They want physics such that it gives credit to those people they like. Just the opposite of what Feynman warned of-- physics does not care who the person is that discovers the truth. But in modern times, physics at Harvard, MIT, Berkeley is first concern is who gets credit and the actual physics involved-- be damned.
>
> So, Dr. Hau and Sylvia-- why not learn to do the physics rather than your utter hatred of AP.
>
> Time for Harvard's Dr. Hau to finish her experiment, or have UC Berkeley Sylvia Else finish the experiment.
>
> The Internet indicates a Sylvia Else is a physics graduate of Berkeley.
>
> So then, Berkeley has to stand up to the challenge that AP throws into their court yard. I throw into your court yard that if Harvard's Dr. Hau set up her slow light experiment. And sees a column of slow light in BEC medium with entrance light at normal speed and exit light at normal speed, only the BEC cold region with slow light. Now, now Dr. Hau, now Sylvia Else, turn the source light off. And to your fascination and the fascination of the entire world, watch and see that the slow light vanishes instantly along with the normal fast light. The entire column of light vanishes simultaneously.
>
> Why does it vanish all at once simultaneously Sylvia? Why does it vanish all at once Dr. Hau? Why does it vanish all at once Harvard Univ and Berkeley physics? Why does it vanish all at once simultaneously Berkeley UC?
>
> It vanishes all at once because light waves are closed loop circuits around a source and no matter how fast those closed loop circuits in a region of the circuit, the moment the source is gone -- the entire light is gone.
>
> Dumb and ignorant Harvard Dr. Hau and dumb and ignorant Berkeley Sylvia Else think Light Waves are arrow like single rays with a head and tail on a arrow ray. But that is only because they are ignorant in physics. They cannot turn off the light for it proves AP correct-- that the Light Wave is a closed loop circuit with the source of the light always in the closed loop circuit. So if and when those two incompetents Dr. Hau and Sylvia Else turn off the light source, all the light the fast light the Slow Light, the fast light exiting the BEC medium, all the Light vanishes simultaneously.
>
> The ignorant Hau and Else think that the SLOW LIGHT will still be visible, still be crawling slow in the BEC. But no, it vanishes instantly as all the other light from that source. But Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Sylvia Else do not want to report that truth, no, they want to never report any true science that is connected with Archimedes Plutonium, because Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Sylvia Else are not scientists at all-- but suppression jerks.
>
> What have we proven here Sylvia? What have we proven here Harvard's Dr. Hau. You have proven that light waves, like electricity are closed loop circuits, like a hoola hoop. And this is the reason you can have light as a constant maximum speed, yet slow light down in a region of the circuit of light.
>
> So, Harvard's Dr. Hau, get off your lazy butt and complete your experiment, throw the switch off-- and see for yourself that light all vanishes simultaneously. And report your experiment to the world-- that light is a closed loop circuit, not what you believed all along before-- light is a single ray with head and tail. No, light was never a single ray of head of tail, like a arrow. Light is like a closed loop circuit, a pencil ellipse.
>
> So get off your lazy butt and finish the experiment.
>
> Or have Sylia Else in Berkeley California set up the slow light experiment and have Sylvia finish and complete the experiment.
>
> Times a wasting, with your chit chat Sylvia, time you roll up your sleeves and burn the midnight oil.
>
> AP, King of Science, especially Physics
>
>
> Is Kibo Parry M. the largest taxpayer fraud waste and abuse in Usenet history, paid $100 per stalker post by NSF and dept Educ Dr. Panchanathan??????????
>
> On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 6:15:27 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 6:24:20 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> >blithered:
> On Sunday, June 13, 2021 at 12:55:53 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > "FireD your ass"
>
> snip the threats of violence kibo so many times posted
>
> AP writes: Kibo Parry M. is NSF Dr. Panchanathan and USA dept Educ going to pay you $100. for that post?? If so, then Barry Shein's World std must be a goldmine of USA taxpayer fraud waste and abuse. Just posting abusive stalker defaming spam for 28 years now. No wonder Kibo keeps defaming and stalking; many people would gladly defame and stalk at $100. a post.
>
> Re: The Gabriel Polynomial- an advanced stealing and stolen item from Archimedes Plutonium and his book//
> by Michael Moroney Sep 27, 2021, 1:16 AM
>
> Re: 1-Did Kibo-Parry-Maroney fail Rensselaer or was kicked out due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton is 840MeV not 938, the .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole
> by Roy Masters Sep 13, 2019, 3:24:07 PM
>
> Re: 1.2-Did Kibo-Parry-Maroney fail Rensselaer or was kicked out due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton is 840MeV not 938, the .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole
> by Patricio J. Whackmember Sep 13, 2019, 5:43:28 PM
>
> Re: 1.9-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Korniss,Toh-Ming Lu,Martin
> By Dingus Dirtbag McGee Sep 15, 2019, 9:57:15 AM
>
> Re: 2.0-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton is 840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Michael,Newberg,N'Gom
> By Dingus Dirtbag McGee Sep 15, 2019, 9:56:57 AM
>
> Re: 2.1-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton is 840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Persans,Schroeder,Shur
> By Dingus Dirtbag McGee Sep 15, 2019, 9:56:39 AM
>
> Re: 2.2-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to math percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Shawn-Yu Lin,Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang
> By Dingus Dirtbag McGee Sep 15, 2019, 9:56:28 AM
>
>
>
>
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Physics dept
> Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek, Julian S. Georg, Joel T. Giedt, Yong Sung Kim, Gyorgy Korniss, Toh-Ming Lu, Charles Martin, Joseph Darryl Michael, Heidi Jo Newberg, Moussa N'Gom, Peter Persans, John Schroeder, Michael Shur, Shawn-Yu Lin, Humberto Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang, Morris A Washington, Esther A. Wertz, Christian M. Wetzel, Ingrid Wilke, Shengbai Zhang
> Rensselaer math department
> Donald Schwendeman, Jeffrey Banks, Kristin Bennett, Mohamed Boudjelkha, Joseph Ecker, William Henshaw, Isom Herron, Mark H Holmes, David Isaacson, Elizabeth Kam, Ashwani Kapila, Maya Kiehl, Gregor Kovacic, Peter Kramer, Gina Kucinski, Rongjie Lai, Fengyan Li, Chjan Lim, Yuri V Lvov, Harry McLaughlin, John E. Mitchell, Bruce Piper, David A Schmidt, Daniel Stevenson, Yangyang Xu, Bulent Yener, Donald Drew, William Siegmann
>
> Re: A newsgroup like sci.math is a pile of shit when you have paid stalkers like Kibo Parry M. or Dan Christensen lording over sci.math as if he owns the place-- stalking and attacking posters 7-24-365. This is why I now post a roadmap to AP's newsgr
> by Alan Mackenzie Jun 29, 2021, 2:36:04 PM
>
> Re: 30) AP's 174th book// Mathopedia-- Listing of 70 fakes and mistakes of Old Math. Last revision was 28JUN2021. Preface: I suppose, going forward, mathematics should always have a mathopedia, where major parts of mathematics as a science are held
> by Michael Moroney Jul 3, 2021, 12:55:10 PM
>
> Re: 5) AP's 174th book// Mathopedia-- Listing of 67 fakes and mistakes of Old Math. Last revision was 8JUN2021. Under-Construction: AP recently is reinventing Multivariable Calculus, and will end up throwing out Old Math's Gradient theorem, Green's
> by
> Michael Moroney
> Jun 17, 2021, 11:57 AM
>
> Re: Kibo Parry Moroney stalks "AnalButtfuckManure Attacks" Dartmouth's Philip J. Hanlon, Stanford's Marc Tessier-Lavigne with his 10 OR 6 = 16; his ellipse a conic when it never was; his proton to electron at 938 to 0.5 MeV when in truth..
> 1481 views
> by Professor Wordsmith Aug 14, 2020, 11:07:05 AM
>
> Re: Kibo Parry Moroney threatening the life of AP with his incited hatred of 28 years stalking
> 148th published book Plutonium Atom Totality Universe, 9th edition 2021, Atom Totality Series, book 1
> Jun 16, 2021, 12:09 AM
> by
> Graham Cooper
>
>
> Re: 1- Kibo Parry Moroney threatening the life of AP, with his inciting hatred of 28 years stalking leading to Violence
> Mutt Buncher Re: 3- Kibo Parry Moroney says Dr. Tao, Hales, Stillwell, Wiles, educators
> Jun 16, 2021
> by
> Efftard K. Donglemeier
>
>
> Re: l) AP's 175th book//Physicsopedia-- Listing of 125 fakes and mistakes of Old Physics. New entrees under construction: AP is reinventing Multivariable Calculus so that AP throws on the trash pile the Green's theorem, Gradient theorem, Stokes
> by Michael Moroney Jun 13, 2021, 4:47:35 PM
>
> Re: 1-Kibo Parry Moroney on failed physicist Steven Weinberg who cannot entertain the question of which is the real electron of atoms-- is it the muon or the 0.5MeV particle?
> by Mina Arvuti lähedal May 30, 2021, 7:54 AM
>
> Re: Erik sickfuck Eastside says>oil & vinegar// UCLA Physics with their imbecile electron--Gene D. Block, Ernest Abers, Elihu Abrahams, too stupid to understand Real Proton = 840 MeV with electron= muon and 0.5MeV was Dirac magnetic monopole
> by Michael Moroney Mar 3, 2019, 6:38:18 PM
>
>
> Re: 77,233 Student victims of Lawrence Bacow's Harvard from stalker Kibo Parry Moroney with his 938 is 12% short 945, his 10 OR 4 = 14 with AND as subtraction, and his mindless belief real electron = 0.5MeV when true electron is muon
> 11:57 AM 10Apr2021
> by Wayne Decarlo
>
> Re: 135,566 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 o
> May 10, 2021
> by Michael Moroney
>
> Re: 6Der_FartMouth Births-comics for Eric FartFrancis, with snickering by George FartWitte published by ST FARTMARTINS
> By Michael Moroney 28 posts 292 views updated 12:31 PM
>
> Re: L. Reif, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker, Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins-- Moroney-- Boston's antiscience stalker fool//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole
> By Michael Moroney 19 posts 120 views updated 12:28 PM
>
> Re: If Marissa Mayer were still at Google-- probably take her 15 minutes to engineer a better newsgroup
> By Michael Moroney 20 posts 156 views updated 12:26 PM
>
> Re: 8Der_FartMouth Births-comics for Eric FartFrancis, with snickering by George FartWitte published by ST FARTMARTINS
> By Michael Moroney 29 posts 422 views updated 12:25 PM
>
> Re: Erik sickfuck Eastside says>oil & vinegar// UCLA Physics with their imbecile electron--Gene D. Block,Ernest Abers,Elihu Abrahams, too stupid to understand Real Proton = 840 MeV with electron= muon and .5MeV was Dirac magnetic monopole
> By Michael Moroney 34 posts 244 views updated 12:23 PM
>
> Re: Cambridge, Harvard, Stanford, MIT, CalTech never does correct Logic, why an unpaid Archimedes Plutonium is doing their work
> By Michael Moroney 20 posts 165 views updated 12:22 PM
>
> Re: Racist-math at Reed College-- ellipse is never a conic, David Perkinson, Lyudmila Korobenko, John Lind, Dylan McNamee, Kyle Ormsby, Angelica Osorno
> By Michael Moroney 50 posts 405 views updated 12:21 PM
>
> Re: Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly??-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole (1)
> By Michael Moroney 44 posts 461 views updated 12:17 PM
>
> Re: 1Moroney barks at math failures Baez, Bullock, Witten. But I see the three as having failed Angular Momentum with their 938 proton and .5MeV electron
> 12/30/18
> by j4n bur53
>
> Re: TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS series by Archimedes Plutonium, only math books to teach correct calculus with a geometry proof of Fundamental theorem of Calculus. Old Math cannot even fix its mistake of ellipse is a cylinder section, never a conic.
> by Michael Moroney
>
> Re: 5-AP's 150th book// TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Freshperson College// Physics textbook series, book 4 by Archimedes Plutonium// Using as template Halliday& Resnick & AP's Senior year High School to AP's 150th book// TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//
> by Michael Moroney
>
> Re: Zelos asks why Harvard's Dr. Hau wants to fail in physics, by not turning off the light to see if light wave is a closed loop pencil ellipse that AP predicts. Is Dr.Hau stubborn and too ignorant to finish her experiment??
> by Michael Moroney
>
> Re: Kibo Parry Moroney on Dr. Thorp stealing AP's dog theory connected to why he is a failure on Lewis 8 Structure because CO and N2 dissociation energy says it is Lewis 6 Structure. Yes, Kibo, what is your psychoanalysis of Dr. Thorp stealing? Is steal
> Ebenezer Splooge
>
> Re: Kibo Parry Moroney asks Trump to give South Korea to North Korea, for who wants to protect barbarians that torture Moon Bears in cages
> by Roger Davis
>
> Re: Kibo Parry Moroney says of Dr. Tao "ant of Math" and a pandemic shit mule// Perhaps because Dr. Tao is such a failure of math, he believed primes are real when Naturals have no division-- and failures of math overlook even the most obvious
> by Professor Wordsmith Jul 25, 2020, 8:23:21 PM
>
> Re: 8-Kibo Parry Moroney says boycott Samsung & Hyundai until South Korea stops torturing to death caged Moon Bears // SOUTH KOREA, MOON BEARS Moon Bears of South Korea need the world's helping hand from evil//SCIENCE COUNCIL RULE EARTH
> by Betsy Kibo Moroney Perry DeVos Anal Manure Buttfuck Jul 28, 2020, 5:35:52 PM
>
> Re: 1- Kibo Parry Moroney says of math failure Dan Christensen Univ. Western Ontario with his ellipse a conic when it never was//And his insane Boole logic of 10 OR 2 = 12// pandemic shit mule
> by Hank Hill Jul 26, 2020, 7:26:18 PM
>
> Re: 102-Kibo Parry Moroney (Barry Shein's world std) stalking analbuttfuckmanure shithead of 27 years nonstop-- needs a emergency straightjacket size XXsmall
> By Eduardo Remington 2 posts 3 views updated 12:15 AM
>
> Re: 1-Kibo Parry Moroney, how do you clean your dick after it has been up Barry Shein's arsehole, or does it improve your stalking
> 285 views
> by Richard Cranium May 10, 2020, 8:30:43 PM
>
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> > Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
> Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> > of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
>
>
>
> ..
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> > Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
> Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> > of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
>
>
>
> .- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
> , . `.' ' `.
> .' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
> . ; .' . `. ;
> ; . ' `. . '
> . ' ` `. |
> . '. '
> . 0 0 ' `.
> ' `
> ; `
> .' `
> ; U `
> ; '; `
> : | ;.. :` `
> : `;. ```. .-; | '
> '. ` ``.., .' :' '
> ; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' Hi, I am Kibo Parry Moroney, the grand failure of science with my 938 is 12% short of 945, and my ellipse is a conic when it never was, and my idiocy of thinking geothermal is not radioactivity but is recycled solar fossil. I stalk on Internet because NSF pays a million dollars and is 5 times the salary of those professors stuck with actually teaching science and all I do is attack dog style in sci.math, sci.physics.
> ` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
> ` ` ; ; ' '
> ` ` ; ; ' '
> ` `. ````'''''' ' '
> ` . ' '
> / ` `. ' ' .
> / ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
> / .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
> / .'' ; ` .' `
> ...'.' ; .' ` .' `
> "" .' .' | ` .; \ `
> ; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
> :' | ' ` , `. `
> | ' ` ' `. `
> ` ' ` ; `. |
> `.' ` ; `-'
> `...'
>
>
>
>
-Why can no-one at Rensselaer help Dr. Hau turn the light switch off and prove that the Light wave is a circuit pencil ellipse not a arrow ray of head and tail which everyone except AP believes.
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 9, 2022, 1:32:34 AM12/9/22
to
Yes, James Kibo Parry (Moron.) was the first crank crackpot AP met in 1993 fresh in Usenet. And later this sickfuck Kibo Parry would invent his famous new word "analbuttfuckmanure", not happy with being known as a sickfuck. Psychologists have a dumb term for this "Peter Principle" of stacking up more b.s. on an existing pile of b.s. and their favorite study such as Stanford's Earle Jones with his Dunning Kruger complex as feeding from the pork barrel troughs, as if to supplement Jones and Kibo's food stamps.
On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 2:49:41 PM UTC-6, Tom Hodges wrote:
> Shut up imbecile.
Tom, you will have a hard time of shutting up Dunning Kruger fools of Kibo and Jones.
Here is the Rensselaer electrical engineer Kibo Parry M on 938 is 12% short of 945. Could it be that Rensselaer graduated him as an idiot just to get him out of their hair, and let Usenet suffer his buffoonery.
On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 2:49:41 PM UTC-6, Tom Hodges wrote:
> Shut up imbecile.
Tom, you will have a hard time of shutting up Dunning Kruger fools of Kibo and Jones.
Here is the Rensselaer electrical engineer Kibo Parry M on 938 is 12% short of 945. Could it be that Rensselaer graduated him as an idiot just to get him out of their hair, and let Usenet suffer his buffoonery.
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 9, 2022, 1:52:41 AM12/9/22
to
Now I bring this thread up because I want to emphasize an aspect of the sickfuck Kibo Parry M, and his 30 year stalking and demonizing.
That the moment he posted this nuttery in 2017 is the moment I realized Kibo is a science failure for his mind falls apart on such simple math algebra as never understanding what percentage is, what it involves, and that Kibo was not going to pass science or engineering never realizing what is wrong with 938 as 12% short of 945--
On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
So, in schools, if you are in science or engineering, and fail to conceptualize what percentage means, how it is calculated, means you cannot be a scientist.
And that perhaps explains Kibo's 30 year stalking and hatred of everyone who became a scientist while Kibo failed.
That the moment he posted this nuttery in 2017 is the moment I realized Kibo is a science failure for his mind falls apart on such simple math algebra as never understanding what percentage is, what it involves, and that Kibo was not going to pass science or engineering never realizing what is wrong with 938 as 12% short of 945--
On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
And that perhaps explains Kibo's 30 year stalking and hatred of everyone who became a scientist while Kibo failed.
0 new messages