info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Updated crackpot index?
152 views
Skip to first unread message
Volney
Dec 8, 2022, 2:46:13 PM12/8/22
to
Many people score crank posts according to John Baez's Crackpot Index
(https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html). But it's almost a
quarter century old. I've been thinking of updating it, since cranks
have come up with many novel techniques since 1998 that are not listed.
For example, using crackpot-only words and phrases, for example
"Einsteinian" and "relativist", usually intended to insult scientists.
Is this worth doing?
Should I take the existing crackpot index and simply add to it?
Should any of its original entries be changed, even if only the points?
Should I redo this in a completely different format? If so, suggestions?
Should point scores apply to individual posts or the poster overall?
In any case, full credit will be given to Baez for the original.
Do you have suggestions for added entries, plus point scores for each?
Example additions, exact phrasing and points not yet determined:
People who agree with an argument promoted by an expert are "worshiping"
him, are brainwashed, indoctrinated, or are parrots.
Silence is consent: "I notice that there are no comments on my
manifesto. That means that you all agree with it!"
"Physics is a religion/cult!"
References to things like "Old Biology" (textbook standard biology) and
"New Biology" (the crank's version of biology including bizarre changes,
the crank believes his version is or will be accepted)
Expand Baez's Item #21: "I won a Nobel Prize for my discovery" when they
didn't.
Less delusional: "I should have won a Nobel Prize for my discovery."
Sour grapes: "The Nobel Prize is worthless"/"the committee awarding it
is corrupt", etc. because they didn't win a Nobel.
"I was offered the Nobel Prize but I turned it down because it's worthless."
I want to keep this generic, otherwise it may become relativity/Einstein
specific or creationism specific. Also certain behavior unique to only
one crank probably shouldn't be included.
I set followups to sci.physics.
(https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html). But it's almost a
quarter century old. I've been thinking of updating it, since cranks
have come up with many novel techniques since 1998 that are not listed.
For example, using crackpot-only words and phrases, for example
"Einsteinian" and "relativist", usually intended to insult scientists.
Is this worth doing?
Should I take the existing crackpot index and simply add to it?
Should any of its original entries be changed, even if only the points?
Should I redo this in a completely different format? If so, suggestions?
Should point scores apply to individual posts or the poster overall?
In any case, full credit will be given to Baez for the original.
Do you have suggestions for added entries, plus point scores for each?
Example additions, exact phrasing and points not yet determined:
People who agree with an argument promoted by an expert are "worshiping"
him, are brainwashed, indoctrinated, or are parrots.
Silence is consent: "I notice that there are no comments on my
manifesto. That means that you all agree with it!"
"Physics is a religion/cult!"
References to things like "Old Biology" (textbook standard biology) and
"New Biology" (the crank's version of biology including bizarre changes,
the crank believes his version is or will be accepted)
Expand Baez's Item #21: "I won a Nobel Prize for my discovery" when they
didn't.
Less delusional: "I should have won a Nobel Prize for my discovery."
Sour grapes: "The Nobel Prize is worthless"/"the committee awarding it
is corrupt", etc. because they didn't win a Nobel.
"I was offered the Nobel Prize but I turned it down because it's worthless."
I want to keep this generic, otherwise it may become relativity/Einstein
specific or creationism specific. Also certain behavior unique to only
one crank probably shouldn't be included.
I set followups to sci.physics.
Earle Jones
Dec 8, 2022, 3:18:40 PM12/8/22
to
On Thu Dec 8 14:46:02 2022 Volney wrote:
> Many people score crank posts according to John Baez's Crackpot Index
> (https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html). But it's almost a
> quarter century old. I've been thinking of updating it, since cranks
> have come up with many novel techniques since 1998 that are not listed.
> For example, using crackpot-only words and phrases, for example
> "Einsteinian" and "relativist", usually intended to insult scientists.
>
> Is this worth doing?
*
> Many people score crank posts according to John Baez's Crackpot Index
> (https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html). But it's almost a
> quarter century old. I've been thinking of updating it, since cranks
> have come up with many novel techniques since 1998 that are not listed.
> For example, using crackpot-only words and phrases, for example
> "Einsteinian" and "relativist", usually intended to insult scientists.
>
> Is this worth doing?
Volney: Go for it! It needs doing. By the way, your link to the Baez original index is broken.
Cheers and good luck!
earle
*
Earle Jones
Dec 8, 2022, 3:21:47 PM12/8/22
to
Stephan Russo
Dec 8, 2022, 3:58:42 PM12/8/22
to
Volney wrote:
> Many people score crank posts according to John Baez's Crackpot Index
> (https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html). But it's almost a
> quarter century old. I've been thinking of updating it, since cranks
> have come up with many novel techniques since 1998 that are not listed.
> For example, using crackpot-only words and phrases, for example
> "Einsteinian" and "relativist", usually intended to insult scientists.
nonsense. You have been eating human meat for decades now, in capitalism,
> Many people score crank posts according to John Baez's Crackpot Index
> (https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html). But it's almost a
> quarter century old. I've been thinking of updating it, since cranks
> have come up with many novel techniques since 1998 that are not listed.
> For example, using crackpot-only words and phrases, for example
> "Einsteinian" and "relativist", usually intended to insult scientists.
thinking it was pig meat. Therefore the capitalism killed communism by
intent feeding you with deceased people's meat.
do you see any pig around here, no. Therefore you are eating human flesh.
Fucks know how many people you ate already. Proofs.
https://humanmeatproject.com/human-meat-as-food-source/
Human Meat Donation Mission and Vision
In order to save the planet from the impact of our modern civilization and
lifestyle, we have to make a change in our ideas about consumption and our
dietary choices.
We face climate change due to waste, pollution, deforestation and
overpopulation problems.
By donating your body for human consumption, you are taking direct action
to help others and lessen the damage of the industrial age.
By consuming human meat, we create a change in both our life and the
world. By improving the standard quality of life in every country and
nation, we can give everyone in the world a good life.
Human Meat Nutrition Facts
One body can feed up to 40 people*
*An average adult male 65kg, only meat
Human meat often understated for its nutritions, human meat protein and
fat density could have the same or better than other convenient meat
product like beef, chicken and pork.
As omnivore, *human_meat_taste* and texture is similar to *_pork_*, not to
mention the quality could be more substantial(depending on Quality of Life
ratings).
One body contains every essential amino, minerals and vitamins needed for
daily intake.
Not only one body could feed up to 40 people, it also the most attainable
resource for meat and fat consumption.
Human meat is cruelty and slaughter free
Quality Control
How we Select our Donors
We make sure our donors are healthy, and without any contagious diseases,
health issues, or medications or substances which might be absorbed by
people who consume their meat.
Health Risk
Donors who have medical conditions such as AIDS/HIV, Creutzfeldt-Jakob
disease (CJD), hepatitis (HAV/HBV/HCV/HDV/HEV), cancer, tuberculosis, or
rabies will be rejected in order to prevent risk to the consumer.
There are also other medical condition that might prevent donors from
being accepted, such as diabetes, hormone treatments or mental disorders.
Rejected Donation
In case of rejected donation:
If a donor has any medical condition that can be transferred human to
human, they cannot be a donor.
If a donor has an active cancer, they cannot donate up until the time the
cancer has gone into remission or been removed and will have to wait a
minimum of one year after the last treatment or procedure. If a donor has
a partial remission, they will have to wait a minimum of one year after
the procedure and will go through a medical check up to ensure no
medications remain in the body. If a donor has gone through full remission
after one year, they can be a human meat donor.
Quality of Life
Quality of Life is a rating system of human meat quality.
Every donor that has gone through our quality control procedure and
assessment will be rated based on the quality of their life (health and
wellness).
About Us
Welcome to the Human Meat Project, we are the human meat donation program.
By donating bodies for human consumption, we are taking action to solve
overpopulation, which leads to climate change and the greenhouse effect
caused by the mass farming of livestock animals in order to feed the
world.
At Human Meat Project, we value every body and every life.
We emphasize the source and origins of our human meat to deliver the
diversity of our world and reveal the worrying differences of quality of
life across the globe.
Our organization welcomes every nation to give back to the rest of the
world. Hand in hand, we can help each other improve living conditions and
the environment for everyone through this global movement.
We are calling you, humans, to wake up and take action now. We are not
living individually and alone. We need each others to survive. Together we
can create a world worth living for. Together we can build a world of
humanity and solidarity. Every life is cardinal.
HUMAN MEAT PROJECT
PEOPLE FOR PEOPLE
For a Better Tomorrow
Stephan Russo
Dec 8, 2022, 4:00:40 PM12/8/22
to
Volney wrote:
> Is this worth doing?
> Should I take the existing crackpot index and simply add to it?
> Should any of its original entries be changed, even if only the points?
> Should I redo this in a completely different format? If so, suggestions?
> Should point scores apply to individual posts or the poster overall?
https://humanmeatproject.com/end-date-and-harvest-time/harvest-time/
> Is this worth doing?
> Should I take the existing crackpot index and simply add to it?
> Should any of its original entries be changed, even if only the points?
> Should I redo this in a completely different format? If so, suggestions?
> Should point scores apply to individual posts or the poster overall?
Harvest Time
Our donors will be taken care of by our specialized team to make sure they
are treated with full respect and care. Donors will be prepared
emotionally and physically to enter the Harvest Room. Donors will be given
time to spend their last moment as a person before they become Human Meat.
The donor will then be assisted in a painless and peaceful method of
passing away, after which we will immediately begin the harvesting
procedure and harvest the donor body and/or organs.
We assist donors in a peaceful and respectful way to terminate their life
and harvest their bodies to become a consumable resource for those in
need. When a donor chooses partial donation with an End Date Service, the
body will be cleaned and prepared before being returned to their next of
kin based on any previous arrangements.
FromTheRafters
Dec 8, 2022, 4:43:34 PM12/8/22
to
Earle Jones pretended :
They both worked for me. Using MesNews.
whodat
Dec 8, 2022, 7:15:35 PM12/8/22
to
Baez and others quit these newsgroups as worthless. That's probably
the leadership I should acknowledge and be following. Can't make a silk
purse out of this. In mathematics once you hit zero there are negative
numbers. But in the reality of "values" I contend once you hit zero
there is nothing else, you've literally hit the end of value. I have to
wonder why I'm still here. Uncle Al quit when death was imminent. I
don't think I want to wait that long.
Hanoi Cuocco
Dec 9, 2022, 9:35:42 AM12/9/22
to
whodat wrote:
> Baez and others quit these newsgroups as worthless. That's probably
> the leadership I should acknowledge and be following. Can't make a silk
> purse out of this. In mathematics once you hit zero there are negative
> numbers. But in the reality of "values" I contend once you hit zero
> there is nothing else, you've literally hit the end of value. I have to
> wonder why I'm still here. Uncle Al quit when death was imminent. I
> don't think I want to wait that long.
sad to hear about. Are you gay?
> Baez and others quit these newsgroups as worthless. That's probably
> the leadership I should acknowledge and be following. Can't make a silk
> purse out of this. In mathematics once you hit zero there are negative
> numbers. But in the reality of "values" I contend once you hit zero
> there is nothing else, you've literally hit the end of value. I have to
> wonder why I'm still here. Uncle Al quit when death was imminent. I
> don't think I want to wait that long.
whodat
Dec 9, 2022, 11:59:25 AM12/9/22
to
Hanoi Cuocco
Dec 9, 2022, 4:02:22 PM12/9/22
to
Volney wrote:
> On 12/8/2022 5:11 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> NO, IMBECILE. IT'S MUCH EASIER:
>> 1) Corporation's science (you are not allowed to know or participate or
>> communicate in any way, if you are IN).
>> 2) The rest, in academy, publishing houses, MSM, Hollywood (THIS IS THE
>> ONLY THAT YOU KNOW, Dono. You ARE OUT OF 1).
>
> You may be honored to know that I will be rereading some of your posts
> for excellent additions to the new crank index.
you are so cool, nice guy. Here's a little about the tax_collectors and the money changers, making money, giving them to fools.
(english subtitles)
"You can't feed anyone with paper – you need food" - Putin on fake currencies
https://%62%72%69%67%68%74%65%6f%6e.com/35baa4ae-825b-440b-8231-33a718e9d162
> On 12/8/2022 5:11 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> NO, IMBECILE. IT'S MUCH EASIER:
>> 1) Corporation's science (you are not allowed to know or participate or
>> communicate in any way, if you are IN).
>> 2) The rest, in academy, publishing houses, MSM, Hollywood (THIS IS THE
>> ONLY THAT YOU KNOW, Dono. You ARE OUT OF 1).
>
> You may be honored to know that I will be rereading some of your posts
> for excellent additions to the new crank index.
you are so cool, nice guy. Here's a little about the tax_collectors and the money changers, making money, giving them to fools.
(english subtitles)
"You can't feed anyone with paper – you need food" - Putin on fake currencies
https://%62%72%69%67%68%74%65%6f%6e.com/35baa4ae-825b-440b-8231-33a718e9d162
Dan Christensen
Dec 10, 2022, 2:51:52 PM12/10/22
to
Dan
Lou Abatangelo
Dec 10, 2022, 3:29:00 PM12/10/22
to
Trolidan7 wrote:
> On 12/9/22 1:02 PM, Hanoi Cuocco wrote:
no, you can't. Exchange this to food $100.00. You can't. Then give this to
uKraine
$100,000,000,000.00 which is $100 billions.
that's why the nazi west europe want uKraine, cheap/gratis gas and oil
from Russia, and cheap/gratis grains and vegetables from fucking nazi
uKraine.
that's why the putina looks like a traitor. After a ship going down,
terror attack on Crimea, jets destroyed, bridge destroyed, pipeline
destroyed etc, he allows the nazi west europe to harvest grains from the
fucking nazi uKraine. No ship loaded with grains went to Africa. All to
west europe, as Holland, France, Germany, Spain, etc. Allowing this, the
putina looks undeniable like a traitor.
don't forget to give the above money to nazi uKraine. Tell them I sent you
to give them that.
> On 12/9/22 1:02 PM, Hanoi Cuocco wrote:
>> Volney wrote:
>>> You may be honored to know that I will be rereading some of your posts
>>> for excellent additions to the new crank index.
>>
>> you are so cool, nice guy. Here's a little about the tax_collectors and
>> the money changers, making money, giving them to fools.
>> (english subtitles)
>>
>> "You can't feed anyone with paper – you need food" - Putin on fake
>> currencies
>
> The piece of shit is a comedian. You can exchange paper money for food.
>>> You may be honored to know that I will be rereading some of your posts
>>> for excellent additions to the new crank index.
>>
>> you are so cool, nice guy. Here's a little about the tax_collectors and
>> the money changers, making money, giving them to fools.
>> (english subtitles)
>>
>> "You can't feed anyone with paper – you need food" - Putin on fake
>> currencies
>
no, you can't. Exchange this to food $100.00. You can't. Then give this to
uKraine
$100,000,000,000.00 which is $100 billions.
that's why the nazi west europe want uKraine, cheap/gratis gas and oil
from Russia, and cheap/gratis grains and vegetables from fucking nazi
uKraine.
that's why the putina looks like a traitor. After a ship going down,
terror attack on Crimea, jets destroyed, bridge destroyed, pipeline
destroyed etc, he allows the nazi west europe to harvest grains from the
fucking nazi uKraine. No ship loaded with grains went to Africa. All to
west europe, as Holland, France, Germany, Spain, etc. Allowing this, the
putina looks undeniable like a traitor.
don't forget to give the above money to nazi uKraine. Tell them I sent you
to give them that.
Dan Christensen
Dec 10, 2022, 4:07:04 PM12/10/22
to
On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 3:29:00 PM UTC-5, Lou Abatangelo wrote:
> Trolidan7 wrote:
>
> > On 12/9/22 1:02 PM, Hanoi Cuocco wrote:
> >> Volney wrote:
> >>> You may be honored to know that I will be rereading some of your posts
> >>> for excellent additions to the new crank index.
> >>
> >> you are so cool, nice guy. Here's a little about the tax_collectors and
> >> the money changers, making money, giving them to fools.
> >> (english subtitles)
> >>
> >> "You can't feed anyone with paper – you need food" - Putin on fake
> >> currencies
> >
> > The piece of shit ...
> Trolidan7 wrote:
>
> > On 12/9/22 1:02 PM, Hanoi Cuocco wrote:
> >> Volney wrote:
> >>> You may be honored to know that I will be rereading some of your posts
> >>> for excellent additions to the new crank index.
> >>
> >> you are so cool, nice guy. Here's a little about the tax_collectors and
> >> the money changers, making money, giving them to fools.
> >> (english subtitles)
> >>
> >> "You can't feed anyone with paper – you need food" - Putin on fake
> >> currencies
> >
Hey, Nazi Boy, how is your genocidal war of conquest and terror going? Not so good? Your Red Army sure ain't what it used to be. It's hard not to feel sorry for all those poor conscripts dying in a war that wasn't theirs, all for the sake of your Nazi boss's ego. For your own sake, I hope you have made arrangements to go into hiding at a moment's notice. Even your own countrymen will be hunting you for your war crimes.
Lou Abatangelo
Dec 10, 2022, 4:19:14 PM12/10/22
to
Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 3:29:00 PM UTC-5, Lou Abatangelo
> wrote:
>> Trolidan7 wrote:
>>
>> > On 12/9/22 1:02 PM, Hanoi Cuocco wrote:
>> >> Volney wrote:
>> >>> You may be honored to know that I will be rereading some of your
>> >>> posts for excellent additions to the new crank index.
>> >>
>> >> you are so cool, nice guy. Here's a little about the tax_collectors
>> >> and the money changers, making money, giving them to fools. (english
>> >> subtitles)
>> >>
>> >> "You can't feed anyone with paper – you need food" - Putin on fake
>> >> currencies
>> >
>> > The piece of shit ...
>
> Hey, Nazi Boy, how is your genocidal war of conquest and terror going?
> Not
you are replying to the wrong context and user, you fucking imbecile. You
> On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 3:29:00 PM UTC-5, Lou Abatangelo
> wrote:
>> Trolidan7 wrote:
>>
>> > On 12/9/22 1:02 PM, Hanoi Cuocco wrote:
>> >> Volney wrote:
>> >>> You may be honored to know that I will be rereading some of your
>> >>> posts for excellent additions to the new crank index.
>> >>
>> >> you are so cool, nice guy. Here's a little about the tax_collectors
>> >> and the money changers, making money, giving them to fools. (english
>> >> subtitles)
>> >>
>> >> "You can't feed anyone with paper – you need food" - Putin on fake
>> >> currencies
>> >
>> > The piece of shit ...
>
> Hey, Nazi Boy, how is your genocidal war of conquest and terror going?
> Not
don't even know you live in fascism and capitalism. I shit on your
country, capisce? It's a fascist shithole. They are killing you since you
are too expensive for the wanker trudeau castro justine.
Dan Christensen
Dec 10, 2022, 4:43:02 PM12/10/22
to
On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 4:19:14 PM UTC-5, Lou Abatangelo wrote:
> Dan Christensen wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 3:29:00 PM UTC-5, Lou Abatangelo
> > wrote:
> >> Trolidan7 wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 12/9/22 1:02 PM, Hanoi Cuocco wrote:
> >> >> Volney wrote:
> >> >>> You may be honored to know that I will be rereading some of your
> >> >>> posts for excellent additions to the new crank index.
> >> >>
> >> >> you are so cool, nice guy. Here's a little about the tax_collectors
> >> >> and the money changers, making money, giving them to fools. (english
> >> >> subtitles)
> >> >>
> >> >> "You can't feed anyone with paper – you need food" - Putin on fake
> >> >> currencies
> >> >
> >> > The piece of shit ...
> >
> > Hey, Nazi Boy, how is your genocidal war of conquest and terror going?
> > Not
> you are replying to the wrong context and user, you fucking imbecile. You
> don't even know you live in fascism and capitalism.
Another useful idiot. Your boss is the biggest fascist capitalist in the world, Nazi Boy! XAXAXA
> Dan Christensen wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 3:29:00 PM UTC-5, Lou Abatangelo
> > wrote:
> >> Trolidan7 wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 12/9/22 1:02 PM, Hanoi Cuocco wrote:
> >> >> Volney wrote:
> >> >>> You may be honored to know that I will be rereading some of your
> >> >>> posts for excellent additions to the new crank index.
> >> >>
> >> >> you are so cool, nice guy. Here's a little about the tax_collectors
> >> >> and the money changers, making money, giving them to fools. (english
> >> >> subtitles)
> >> >>
> >> >> "You can't feed anyone with paper – you need food" - Putin on fake
> >> >> currencies
> >> >
> >> > The piece of shit ...
> >
> > Hey, Nazi Boy, how is your genocidal war of conquest and terror going?
> > Not
> you are replying to the wrong context and user, you fucking imbecile. You
> don't even know you live in fascism and capitalism.
whodat
Dec 10, 2022, 5:16:32 PM12/10/22
to
whodat
Dec 10, 2022, 5:18:40 PM12/10/22
to
Chris M. Thomasson
Dec 10, 2022, 5:28:03 PM12/10/22
to
On 12/10/2022 11:51 AM, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 2:46:13 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>> Many people score crank posts according to John Baez's Crackpot Index
>> (https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html). But it's almost a
>> quarter century old. I've been thinking of updating it, since cranks
>> have come up with many novel techniques since 1998 that are not listed.
>> For example, using crackpot-only words and phrases, for example
>> "Einsteinian" and "relativist", usually intended to insult scientists.
>>
>> Is this worth doing?
>> Should I take the existing crackpot index and simply add to it?
>> Should any of its original entries be changed, even if only the points?
>> Should I redo this in a completely different format? If so, suggestions?
>> Should point scores apply to individual posts or the poster overall?
>>
>> In any case, full credit will be given to Baez for the original.
[...]
> On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 2:46:13 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>> Many people score crank posts according to John Baez's Crackpot Index
>> (https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html). But it's almost a
>> quarter century old. I've been thinking of updating it, since cranks
>> have come up with many novel techniques since 1998 that are not listed.
>> For example, using crackpot-only words and phrases, for example
>> "Einsteinian" and "relativist", usually intended to insult scientists.
>>
>> Is this worth doing?
>> Should I take the existing crackpot index and simply add to it?
>> Should any of its original entries be changed, even if only the points?
>> Should I redo this in a completely different format? If so, suggestions?
>> Should point scores apply to individual posts or the poster overall?
>>
>> In any case, full credit will be given to Baez for the original.
>
> Should some distinction be made between the well-meaning but simply wrong and those with malicious intent?
I think so.
> Should some distinction be made between the well-meaning but simply wrong and those with malicious intent?
Michael Moroney
Dec 10, 2022, 5:39:39 PM12/10/22
to
On 12/10/2022 4:06 PM, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 3:29:00 PM UTC-5, Lou Abatangelo wrote:
>> Trolidan7 wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/9/22 1:02 PM, Hanoi Cuocco wrote:
>>>> Volney wrote:
>>>>> You may be honored to know that I will be rereading some of your posts
>>>>> for excellent additions to the new crank index.
>>>>
>>>> you are so cool, nice guy. Here's a little about the tax_collectors and
>>>> the money changers, making money, giving them to fools.
>>>> (english subtitles)
>>>>
>>>> "You can't feed anyone with paper – you need food" - Putin on fake
>>>> currencies
>>>
>>> The piece of shit ...
>
> Hey, Nazi Boy, how is your genocidal war of conquest and terror going? Not so good? Your Red Army sure ain't what it used to be.
Maybe because the *real* Red Army had Ukraine as part of it...
> On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 3:29:00 PM UTC-5, Lou Abatangelo wrote:
>> Trolidan7 wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/9/22 1:02 PM, Hanoi Cuocco wrote:
>>>> Volney wrote:
>>>>> You may be honored to know that I will be rereading some of your posts
>>>>> for excellent additions to the new crank index.
>>>>
>>>> you are so cool, nice guy. Here's a little about the tax_collectors and
>>>> the money changers, making money, giving them to fools.
>>>> (english subtitles)
>>>>
>>>> "You can't feed anyone with paper – you need food" - Putin on fake
>>>> currencies
>>>
>>> The piece of shit ...
>
> Hey, Nazi Boy, how is your genocidal war of conquest and terror going? Not so good? Your Red Army sure ain't what it used to be.
> It's hard not to feel sorry for all those poor conscripts dying in a war that wasn't theirs, all for the sake of your Nazi boss's ego. For your own sake, I hope you have made arrangements to go into hiding at a moment's notice. Even your own countrymen will be hunting you for your war crimes.
there. 🚀💣💥
>
Trolidan7
Dec 10, 2022, 5:42:38 PM12/10/22
to
of 2017.
Since that time all nations that have them ceased to have the
right to exist. All of them are making war against reasonable
versions of a supreme being.
The so-called 'United Nations' is also making war against reasonable
versions of a supreme being if they continue to recognize their
existence.
It is you, me, and 8 billion human beings that these so-called
'heads of state' or 'heads of government' that these false nations
have shown intent to murder by maintaining arsenals of nuclear
weapons.
They also want to murder innocent children.
Michael Moroney
Dec 10, 2022, 5:45:58 PM12/10/22
to
our nymshifter is deliberately trolling, not a crackpot, so I won't be
adding its techniques. (on the other hand, it supports Putler's
genocidal war. THAT'S insane!)
Lou Abatangelo
Dec 10, 2022, 5:57:44 PM12/10/22
to
Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 4:19:14 PM UTC-5, Lou Abatangelo
> On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 4:19:14 PM UTC-5, Lou Abatangelo
>> >> > The piece of shit ...
>> > Hey, Nazi Boy, how is your genocidal war of conquest and terror
>> > going? Not
>> you are replying to the wrong context and user, you fucking imbecile.
>> You don't even know you live in fascism and capitalism.
>
> Another useful idiot. Your boss is the biggest fascist capitalist in the
> world, Nazi Boy! XAXAXA
this inbreed imbecile doesn't know trudeau castro justine is gay. The nazi
>> > Hey, Nazi Boy, how is your genocidal war of conquest and terror
>> > going? Not
>> you are replying to the wrong context and user, you fucking imbecile.
>> You don't even know you live in fascism and capitalism.
>
> Another useful idiot. Your boss is the biggest fascist capitalist in the
> world, Nazi Boy! XAXAXA
nato is occupying illegally uKraine, a historically Russian Territory.
you are going to pay the price for your deeds, in europe, you stinking
nazis. You nazis are all gays.
Another Batch Of Ukroids Captured
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/ZHyLUWCyBzWQ/
2022 12 09 Unconditional Surrender Is Now Russia's Goal
https://%79%6f%75%74%75.be/nmYUPIxlaxk
lol, nazi capitalist west, bombing energy pipelines, killing civilians
with poison serum "vaccines" and bullets.
Forced Conscription Goes Wrong In AFU？ Even Bullets Can't Put This ＂
Conscientious Objector＂ Down
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/liDsxUwLAzzj
Insane： How Does U.S. MaxxPro MRAP Handle I.E.D.s？ You Be The Judge
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/ceIMejcjB4Vy
Dan Christensen
Dec 10, 2022, 6:08:18 PM12/10/22
to
Dan
Lou Abatangelo
Dec 10, 2022, 6:22:15 PM12/10/22
to
Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 5:45:58 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney
> On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 5:45:58 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney
>> That's more of an issue of to whom the index is applied. For example,
>> our nymshifter is deliberately trolling, not a crackpot, so I won't be
>> adding its techniques. (on the other hand, it supports Putler's
>> genocidal war. THAT'S insane!)
>
> I wasn't thinking so much of these paid Russian Nazi trolls. They will
> go
read this paper, you stinking lying nazis. You are putrid. A deplorable
>> our nymshifter is deliberately trolling, not a crackpot, so I won't be
>> adding its techniques. (on the other hand, it supports Putler's
>> genocidal war. THAT'S insane!)
>
> I wasn't thinking so much of these paid Russian Nazi trolls. They will
> go
excuse for a subhuman excrement. Proofs, idiot. They are coming to clean
cacanada from the nazis. Expect them. They do not forget. They do not
forgive. You are killing children, you nazi putrid excrement.
Azov Battalion Chief Ideologist Claims They Don't Use Nazi Symbols
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/SOmdOOB41b03
remember, cacanada has to be cleaned from the nazis. You infected uKraina
with nazis and genocide since 2014. It stays in the history books, you
indolent impertinent nazi.
Lou Abatangelo
Dec 10, 2022, 6:33:28 PM12/10/22
to
Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Zelensky, like the Russian people in general,
>> does not want to be murdered by him. End of joke.
>>
> Russia seems to be a country full of sheeple. Iran explodes after one
> woman was killed over a dress code. China riots over excessive COVID
when iran was bombing bases in iraq, the cacamerians were running away
like *cockroaches*, which are a paraphyletic group of insects belonging to
Blattodea, containing all members of the group except termites.
>> Zelensky, like the Russian people in general,
>> does not want to be murdered by him. End of joke.
>>
> Russia seems to be a country full of sheeple. Iran explodes after one
> woman was killed over a dress code. China riots over excessive COVID
when iran was bombing bases in iraq, the cacamerians were running away
like *cockroaches*, which are a paraphyletic group of insects belonging to
Blattodea, containing all members of the group except termites.
whodat
Dec 10, 2022, 6:59:43 PM12/10/22
to
Ross A. Finlayson
Dec 11, 2022, 8:14:06 AM12/11/22
to
then claim they have the right to do wrongs, wrong-wrongers.
Ignorance isn't a defense, and neither is insanity.
And neither is star-chamber, kangaroo-court, hillbilly-pilling, holier-than-thouing,
second-classing, inequal-protectioning malfeasance, and their criminal coterie.
"Intent."
Take your crackers back to Portsmouth, redcoat filth.
P.S. "material, implication" is neither, and drinking alone is for alcoholics.
You drunk.
How about a nice candid polygraph, open book.
Share and share alike? Fair and fair alike.
I spit on your perfidy and hypocrisy.
And most of all your ignorance:
in your allusions,
that are delusions.
Ross A. Finlayson
Dec 11, 2022, 9:20:27 AM12/11/22
to
the line is drawn.
You can too, and if you knew, should.
Michael Moroney
Dec 11, 2022, 1:08:53 PM12/11/22
to
Smokey Abbiati
Dec 11, 2022, 1:21:40 PM12/11/22
to
Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Oh nymshifter, avoid Occupied Crimea. I hear things have been going
>> BANG there. 🚀💣💥
>
> Avoid spas in Occupied Melitopol and 卐Wagner卐 headquarters as well! 🚀
💣💥
au contraire, I see Russia taking over the entire capitalist europe,
>> Oh nymshifter, avoid Occupied Crimea. I hear things have been going
>> BANG there. 🚀💣💥
>
> Avoid spas in Occupied Melitopol and 卐Wagner卐 headquarters as well! 🚀
💣💥
fucking the gringos capitalist americans into their ass. No, they are not
gays and homos. They are doing it for fun.
Jim Pennino
Dec 11, 2022, 1:46:12 PM12/11/22
to
If they were not gays and homos, it would not be fun.
whodat
Dec 11, 2022, 2:44:28 PM12/11/22
to
Smokey Abbiati
Dec 11, 2022, 4:37:12 PM12/11/22
to
Zelensky was ready for neutrality – Pentagon ex-adviser
https://%72%74.com/%72%75%73%73%69%61/568057-zelensky-peace-talks-
neutrality/
Ukrainian gay actor, a khazar gypsy goy, "President" Vladimir Zelensky was
ready in March to meet some of Moscow’s conditions for peace, retired US
Army Colonel Douglas MacGregor has claimed in a recent interview. He
blamed former British Prime Minister _terrorist_ *_Boris_Johnson_* for
preventing a settlement.
whodat
Dec 11, 2022, 5:07:58 PM12/11/22
to
On 12/11/2022 3:37 PM, Smokey Abbiati wrote:
> whodat wrote:
>
>> On 12/11/2022 12:21 PM, Smokey Abbiati wrote:
>>> Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>> Oh nymshifter, avoid Occupied Crimea. I hear things have been going
>>>>> BANG there. 🚀💣💥
>>>>
>>>> Avoid spas in Occupied Melitopol and 卐Wagner卐 headquarters as well!
>>>> 🚀💣💥
>>>
>>> au contraire, I see Russia taking over the entire capitalist europe,
>>> fucking the gringos capitalist americans into their ass. No, they are
>>> not gays and homos. They are doing it for fun.
>>
>> But you are still obsessed with the topic, no matter what name you use.
>
> stop reading mathematics you don't undrestand, you devoted cretin.
How very childish of you.
> whodat wrote:
>
>> On 12/11/2022 12:21 PM, Smokey Abbiati wrote:
>>> Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>> Oh nymshifter, avoid Occupied Crimea. I hear things have been going
>>>>> BANG there. 🚀💣💥
>>>>
>>>> Avoid spas in Occupied Melitopol and 卐Wagner卐 headquarters as well!
>>>> 🚀💣💥
>>>
>>> au contraire, I see Russia taking over the entire capitalist europe,
>>> fucking the gringos capitalist americans into their ass. No, they are
>>> not gays and homos. They are doing it for fun.
>>
>> But you are still obsessed with the topic, no matter what name you use.
>
> stop reading mathematics you don't undrestand, you devoted cretin.
> Zelensky was ready for neutrality – Pentagon ex-adviser
> https://%72%74.com/%72%75%73%73%69%61/568057-zelensky-peace-talks-
> neutrality/
>
> Ukrainian gay actor, a khazar gypsy goy, "President" Vladimir Zelensky was
> ready in March to meet some of Moscow’s conditions for peace, retired US
> Army Colonel Douglas MacGregor has claimed in a recent interview. He
> blamed former British Prime Minister _terrorist_ *_Boris_Johnson_* for
> preventing a settlement.
Darron Riva
Dec 12, 2022, 11:28:36 AM12/12/22
to
Volney wrote:
>> au contraire, I see Russia taking over the entire capitalist europe,
>
> Let me guess, nymshifter. 'Shrooms? LSD?
>> au contraire, I see Russia taking over the entire capitalist europe,
>
>
>> fucking the gringos capitalist americans into their ass. No, they are
>> not gays and homos. They are doing it for fun.
>
> If they're doing it for fun, they're gay.
>> fucking the gringos capitalist americans into their ass. No, they are
>> not gays and homos. They are doing it for fun.
>
amazing you know how to do it, and what is all about. The number of gays
in this forum is increasing. Where are you gays coming from, america??
Darron Riva
Dec 12, 2022, 1:43:51 PM12/12/22
to
Volney wrote:
> On 12/10/2022 9:41 PM, patdolan wrote:
> "Silence is concent." I'm thinking 25 points for that.
>
> I'm not sure yet whether the "If you don't comment on my kookposts, you
> must agree with them" and "Waah! They don't comment on my kookposts!"
> posts counts once or twice.
what is america? they are *gays_in_a_helicopter*, that's what america is.
The corrupt capitalist govern- *ment* are fooling gays with helicopters in
movies, and the fools, sleeping on streets, are going into military,
thinking *hey,_they_are_giving_me_a_helicopter*. What they get, is a
*vaccine*, because are gays, and may not reproduce. You go to doctor in
america, when you want to reproduce.
> On 12/10/2022 9:41 PM, patdolan wrote:
> "Silence is concent." I'm thinking 25 points for that.
>
> I'm not sure yet whether the "If you don't comment on my kookposts, you
> must agree with them" and "Waah! They don't comment on my kookposts!"
> posts counts once or twice.
what is america? they are *gays_in_a_helicopter*, that's what america is.
The corrupt capitalist govern- *ment* are fooling gays with helicopters in
movies, and the fools, sleeping on streets, are going into military,
thinking *hey,_they_are_giving_me_a_helicopter*. What they get, is a
*vaccine*, because are gays, and may not reproduce. You go to doctor in
america, when you want to reproduce.
whodat
Dec 12, 2022, 2:41:50 PM12/12/22
to
Volney
Dec 18, 2022, 2:53:09 PM12/18/22
to
On 12/8/2022 2:46 PM, Volney wrote:
Several proposed additions to John Baez's Crackpot Index.
(I have not yet decided whether to add to his excellent list or rewrite
it. For now treat these as additions)
38. X points for stating people who agree with a theory promoted by an
expert are "worshiping" him.
Or stating "Physics is a religion/cult!"
39. X points for Silence is consent: "I notice that there are no
40. References to things like "Old Biology" (textbook standard biology) and
they didn't.
discovery."
Sour grapes because they didn't win a Nobel: "The Nobel Prize is
41. Claiming 'One day my work will be discovered by "cyber
archeologists" studying the dawning of the Information Age' by digging
through Usenet posts or Google archives.
Bonus points for references to extraterrestrial aliens.
Bonus points for creating a physical book which will eventually be
discovered and appreciated.
42. X points for each new "theory" depending on one of their previous
unproven "theories" treated as being factual.
43. X points for refusal to engage in a discussion of the theory. 2X for
launching ad hominem attacks against the engaging person instead.
44. X points for ignoring or refusing to work out a science textbook
style example problem where, for example, numbers are plugged into a
formula to get some value.
(for example, if a falling object falls at a speed of v=gt, what speed
is it falling after t=5 seconds)
45. X points for stating experts merely repeat what they were told,
brainwashed, indoctrinated, or are parrots. The mere fact that
experts agree on X (simply because X happens to be true) means that they
"parrot" one another.
46. Using crackpot-only words or phrases, usually intended as an insult.
Classic examples: "Einsteinian" and "relativist".
47. Rejection of data provided or experiments that require sophisticated
data analysis. Likely because they don't understand the problem in the
first place.
48. Megalomaniac/Narcissistic personality disorder claims such as "I was
chosen by God/the gods" or "I am a demigod" or "I am smarter than all
the experts in the field, past and present"
Textbook Dunning-Kruger Effect.
49. X points for each reference to an unproven or disproven conspiracy
theory. 2X points for stating the conspirators are out to get them or
are a victim of the conspiracy.
50. X points for claiming their theory is a fact or "proven" when in
science theories can only be disproven.
Several proposed additions to John Baez's Crackpot Index.
(I have not yet decided whether to add to his excellent list or rewrite
it. For now treat these as additions)
38. X points for stating people who agree with a theory promoted by an
expert are "worshiping" him.
Or stating "Physics is a religion/cult!"
39. X points for Silence is consent: "I notice that there are no
comments on my
manifesto. That means that you all agree with it!"
Or the opposite: Whining that nobody is taking their "manifesto" seriously.
manifesto. That means that you all agree with it!"
40. References to things like "Old Biology" (textbook standard biology) and
"New Biology" (the crank's version of biology including bizarre changes,
the crank believes his version is or will be accepted)
21. Expand Baez's Item #21: "I won a Nobel Prize for my discovery" when
the crank believes his version is or will be accepted)
they didn't.
"I was offered the Nobel Prize but I turned it down because it's worthless."
Less delusional, fewer points: "I should have won a Nobel Prize for my
discovery."
Sour grapes because they didn't win a Nobel: "The Nobel Prize is
worthless"/
"the committee awarding it is corrupt", etc.
Bonus points for claiming multiple Nobel Prizes.
"the committee awarding it is corrupt", etc.
41. Claiming 'One day my work will be discovered by "cyber
archeologists" studying the dawning of the Information Age' by digging
through Usenet posts or Google archives.
Bonus points for references to extraterrestrial aliens.
Bonus points for creating a physical book which will eventually be
discovered and appreciated.
42. X points for each new "theory" depending on one of their previous
unproven "theories" treated as being factual.
43. X points for refusal to engage in a discussion of the theory. 2X for
launching ad hominem attacks against the engaging person instead.
44. X points for ignoring or refusing to work out a science textbook
style example problem where, for example, numbers are plugged into a
formula to get some value.
(for example, if a falling object falls at a speed of v=gt, what speed
is it falling after t=5 seconds)
45. X points for stating experts merely repeat what they were told,
brainwashed, indoctrinated, or are parrots. The mere fact that
experts agree on X (simply because X happens to be true) means that they
"parrot" one another.
46. Using crackpot-only words or phrases, usually intended as an insult.
Classic examples: "Einsteinian" and "relativist".
47. Rejection of data provided or experiments that require sophisticated
data analysis. Likely because they don't understand the problem in the
first place.
48. Megalomaniac/Narcissistic personality disorder claims such as "I was
chosen by God/the gods" or "I am a demigod" or "I am smarter than all
the experts in the field, past and present"
Textbook Dunning-Kruger Effect.
49. X points for each reference to an unproven or disproven conspiracy
theory. 2X points for stating the conspirators are out to get them or
are a victim of the conspiracy.
50. X points for claiming their theory is a fact or "proven" when in
science theories can only be disproven.
Vitaliy Bazzoli
Dec 18, 2022, 3:41:55 PM12/18/22
to
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Sunday, 18 December 2022 at 20:53:04 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>> On 12/8/2022 2:46 PM, Volney wrote:
>>
>> Several proposed additions to J̶o̶h̶n̶ B̶a̶e̶z's̶ C̶r̶a̶c̶k̶p̶o̶t̶ I̶n̶d̶e̶x̶.
>> (I have not yet decided whether to add to h̶i̶s̶ e̶x̶c̶e̶l̶l̶e̶n̶t̶ l̶i̶s̶t̶ or rewrite
> ISO idiocy means putting it into some "Newton mode"?
barijnia pizdu Mockba
> On Sunday, 18 December 2022 at 20:53:04 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>> On 12/8/2022 2:46 PM, Volney wrote:
>>
>> (I have not yet decided whether to add to h̶i̶s̶ e̶x̶c̶e̶l̶l̶e̶n̶t̶ l̶i̶s̶t̶ or rewrite
>> it. For now treat these as additions)
>
> And how much would you give for insisting that adjusting a clock to your
>
> ISO idiocy means putting it into some "Newton mode"?
barijnia pizdu Mockba
Celso Ardizzone
Dec 21, 2022, 2:12:35 PM12/21/22
to
Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 21, 2022 at 10:10:49 AM UTC-8,
> prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> A lot of us who (like me) are too cheap to pay the (admittedly modest)
>> fee for full newsgroup access using a "real" newsgroup reader instead
>> use Google Groups, despite the inferior user interface.
>> Newsgroup snobs such as Thomas Lahn automatically dismiss people using
>> Google Groups as being hardly distinguishable from crackpots.
>
> I'm with you. After joining various Google Groups I learned that some
> others used these "real" newsreaders, but I don't know anything about
> them. What can they do for me that I can't do now? I mean, all I do is
> read posts and sometimes respond to them... what am I missing?
not much. Your cellphone number, a login, registering, location, etc etc
and etc. Idiot.
> On Wednesday, December 21, 2022 at 10:10:49 AM UTC-8,
> prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> A lot of us who (like me) are too cheap to pay the (admittedly modest)
>> fee for full newsgroup access using a "real" newsgroup reader instead
>> use Google Groups, despite the inferior user interface.
>> Newsgroup snobs such as Thomas Lahn automatically dismiss people using
>> Google Groups as being hardly distinguishable from crackpots.
>
> I'm with you. After joining various Google Groups I learned that some
> others used these "real" newsreaders, but I don't know anything about
> them. What can they do for me that I can't do now? I mean, all I do is
> read posts and sometimes respond to them... what am I missing?
not much. Your cellphone number, a login, registering, location, etc etc
and etc. Idiot.
Michelle Africano
Dec 21, 2022, 3:18:10 PM12/21/22
to
Volney wrote:
> On 12/21/2022 1:25 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
>> I'm with you. After joining various Google Groups I learned that some
>> others used these "real" newsreaders, but I don't know anything about
>> them. What can they do for me that I can't do now? I mean, all I do is
>> read posts and sometimes respond to them... what am I missing?
>
> The big one is killfiles. Giggle Groups doesn't have them.
> Enter a poster's name or a word in a subject and never hear from them
> again. More sophisticated newsreaders can flag posts or prioritize them.
> Many can killfile using other patterns as well. For example, the
> nymshifting troll nymshifts to evade killfiles using name, b̶u̶t̶ I̶ c̶a̶n̶
> f̶l̶a̶g̶ i̶t̶s̶ p̶o̶s̶t̶s̶ b̶y̶ p̶a̶t̶t̶e̶r̶n̶ i̶n̶ i̶t̶s̶ p̶o̶s̶t̶s̶.
you must be kidding. You can't do that. It's also forbidden in many
countries.
> On 12/21/2022 1:25 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
>> I'm with you. After joining various Google Groups I learned that some
>> others used these "real" newsreaders, but I don't know anything about
>> them. What can they do for me that I can't do now? I mean, all I do is
>> read posts and sometimes respond to them... what am I missing?
>
> Enter a poster's name or a word in a subject and never hear from them
> again. More sophisticated newsreaders can flag posts or prioritize them.
> Many can killfile using other patterns as well. For example, the
> nymshifting troll nymshifts to evade killfiles using name, b̶u̶t̶ I̶ c̶a̶n̶
> f̶l̶a̶g̶ i̶t̶s̶ p̶o̶s̶t̶s̶ b̶y̶ p̶a̶t̶t̶e̶r̶n̶ i̶n̶ i̶t̶s̶ p̶o̶s̶t̶s̶.
you must be kidding. You can't do that. It's also forbidden in many
countries.
Jim Pennino
Dec 21, 2022, 3:46:12 PM12/21/22
to
As yet another Google Groups halfwit, you have no idea what a real
newsreader is.
Michelle Africano
Dec 21, 2022, 4:16:16 PM12/21/22
to
you inbreed cretin. LOL.
Michelle Africano
Dec 21, 2022, 4:17:26 PM12/21/22
to
Volney wrote:
> But I already did, nymshifter.
you just proved */_you_can't_do_that_/*, lol.
Amazing with you *_electronic_engineers_*.
you just proved */_you_can't_do_that_/*, lol.
Amazing with you *_electronic_engineers_*.
Volney
Dec 21, 2022, 4:19:28 PM12/21/22
to
On 12/21/2022 3:18 PM, Michelle Africano wrote:
But I already did, nymshifter.
> It's also forbidden in many
> countries.
Too bad for you, I guess.
> countries.
whodat
Dec 21, 2022, 5:17:30 PM12/21/22
to
Thomas Heger
Dec 22, 2022, 3:29:09 AM12/22/22
to
Am 18.12.2022 um 20:53 schrieb Volney:
> On 12/8/2022 2:46 PM, Volney wrote:
>
> Several proposed additions to John Baez's Crackpot Index.
> (I have not yet decided whether to add to his excellent list or rewrite
> it. For now treat these as additions)
> 38. X points for stating people who agree with a theory promoted by an
> expert are "worshiping" him.
> Or stating "Physics is a religion/cult!"
Your method is wrong to begin with, because you should not plug in, what
> On 12/8/2022 2:46 PM, Volney wrote:
>
> Several proposed additions to John Baez's Crackpot Index.
> (I have not yet decided whether to add to his excellent list or rewrite
> it. For now treat these as additions)
> 38. X points for stating people who agree with a theory promoted by an
> expert are "worshiping" him.
> Or stating "Physics is a religion/cult!"
you try to find out.
Here your 'error' is, that you consider certain topics as 'crackpottery'.
But before you could possibly do that, a discussion of the validity of
your claim is required.
For instance: here you need to discuss the question first, whether
physicst build a sect or cult prior to claiming, that mentioning this is
'crackpottery'.
But it is very difficult to proove impossibility and the absense of
something hidden (like secret cults, for instance).
Such open questions are therefore not settled by your decision to place
them in such a list. And other solutions are also difficult, because
secret cults are actually hidden.
...
TH
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 22, 2022, 4:31:33 PM12/22/22
to
🤡Andrew Wiles🤡Roger Penrose, escorted out of mathematics as dunce failures that slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse. I always knew these two math failures would be kicked out of science as nothing more than fame and fortune grubs of science.
Andrew Wiles of Math and Oxford Univ Roger Penrose 🃏 John Baez of Physics "Court Jester of Math"
> > On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 12:40:30 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > fails at math and science:
Andrew Wiles, since you failed math with your slant cut of cone a ellipse and too stupid to admit your mistake, for a ellipse has 2 axes of symmetry, a cone and oval have but 1 axis of symmetry. Since Andrew is too proud and dumb to admit he screwed up on such simple geometry, that perhaps Earle Jones the physics failure of Ohm's law will give you a dishwasher job that he so eagerly offers. Earle Jones thread Re: Job Offer
Why Andrew Wiles, you are so bad in mathematics, in your entire career in math you never recognized Calculus was geometry, and therefore needed a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Why not pack it up, Andrew, before you brainwash any more of the students at Oxford and elsewhere with you b.s. math.
3rd published book
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.
Product details
• ASIN : B07PLSDQWC
• Publication date : March 11, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 1621 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 20 pages
• Lending : Enabled
•
•
Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
In the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence proof. Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse.
Product details
• ASIN : B081TWQ1G6
• Publication date : November 21, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 827 KB
• Simultaneous device usage : Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 51 pages
• Lending : Enabled
#12-2, 11th published book
World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.
To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1309 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 154 pages
Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
Andrew Wiles of Math and Oxford Univ Roger Penrose 🃏 John Baez of Physics "Court Jester of Math"
> > On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 12:40:30 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > fails at math and science:
Andrew Wiles, since you failed math with your slant cut of cone a ellipse and too stupid to admit your mistake, for a ellipse has 2 axes of symmetry, a cone and oval have but 1 axis of symmetry. Since Andrew is too proud and dumb to admit he screwed up on such simple geometry, that perhaps Earle Jones the physics failure of Ohm's law will give you a dishwasher job that he so eagerly offers. Earle Jones thread Re: Job Offer
Why Andrew Wiles, you are so bad in mathematics, in your entire career in math you never recognized Calculus was geometry, and therefore needed a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Why not pack it up, Andrew, before you brainwash any more of the students at Oxford and elsewhere with you b.s. math.
3rd published book
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.
Product details
• ASIN : B07PLSDQWC
• Publication date : March 11, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 1621 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 20 pages
• Lending : Enabled
•
•
Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
In the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence proof. Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse.
Product details
• ASIN : B081TWQ1G6
• Publication date : November 21, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 827 KB
• Simultaneous device usage : Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 51 pages
• Lending : Enabled
#12-2, 11th published book
World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.
To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1309 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 154 pages
Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
Volney
Dec 23, 2022, 2:00:31 AM12/23/22
to
On 12/22/2022 3:29 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 18.12.2022 um 20:53 schrieb Volney:
>> On 12/8/2022 2:46 PM, Volney wrote:
>>
>> Several proposed additions to John Baez's Crackpot Index.
>> (I have not yet decided whether to add to his excellent list or rewrite
>> it. For now treat these as additions)
>
>
>> 38. X points for stating people who agree with a theory promoted by an
>> expert are "worshiping" him.
>> Or stating "Physics is a religion/cult!"
>
>
> Your method is wrong to begin with, because you should not plug in, what
> you try to find out.
>
> Here your 'error' is, that you consider certain topics as 'crackpottery'.
No, it is the person being scored that considers a certain segment of
> Am 18.12.2022 um 20:53 schrieb Volney:
>> On 12/8/2022 2:46 PM, Volney wrote:
>>
>> Several proposed additions to John Baez's Crackpot Index.
>> (I have not yet decided whether to add to his excellent list or rewrite
>> it. For now treat these as additions)
>
>
>> 38. X points for stating people who agree with a theory promoted by an
>> expert are "worshiping" him.
>> Or stating "Physics is a religion/cult!"
>
>
> Your method is wrong to begin with, because you should not plug in, what
> you try to find out.
>
> Here your 'error' is, that you consider certain topics as 'crackpottery'.
science as being a religion or cult. This is obviously a conflict
because science is based on the scientific method while religions/cults
have some sort of faith, that is, something you simply must believe with
no observation or evidence of it. That's directly opposed to the
scientific method.
>
> But before you could possibly do that, a discussion of the validity of
> your claim is required.
The claim is that of the potential crackpot (the science of XXX is a
> But before you could possibly do that, a discussion of the validity of
> your claim is required.
cult) (followers of Newtonian physics worship Newton), not mine.
>
> For instance: here you need to discuss the question first, whether
> physicst build a sect or cult prior to claiming, that mentioning this is
> 'crackpottery'.
No physicist is claiming crackpottery. The purported crackpot is
> For instance: here you need to discuss the question first, whether
> physicst build a sect or cult prior to claiming, that mentioning this is
> 'crackpottery'.
claiming science is a cult to "earn" points for this.
The whole point of the crackpot index is to assign a score to a post or
series of posts based on statements and claims therein that crackpots
make but most others would not. "Microbiology is a cult!" for example,
when microbiology meets the definition of science/following the
scientific method.
ALL scores are based on statements in the purported crackpot's post.
Thomas Heger
Dec 24, 2022, 3:57:13 AM12/24/22
to
Am 23.12.2022 um 08:00 schrieb Volney:
> On 12/22/2022 3:29 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 18.12.2022 um 20:53 schrieb Volney:
>>> On 12/8/2022 2:46 PM, Volney wrote:
>>>
>>> Several proposed additions to John Baez's Crackpot Index.
>>> (I have not yet decided whether to add to his excellent list or rewrite
>>> it. For now treat these as additions)
>>
>>
>>> 38. X points for stating people who agree with a theory promoted by an
>>> expert are "worshiping" him.
>>> Or stating "Physics is a religion/cult!"
>>
>>
>> Your method is wrong to begin with, because you should not plug in,
>> what you try to find out.
>>
>> Here your 'error' is, that you consider certain topics as 'crackpottery'.
>
> No, it is the person being scored that considers a certain segment of
> science as being a religion or cult. This is obviously a conflict
> because science is based on the scientific method while religions/cults
> have some sort of faith, that is, something you simply must believe with
> no observation or evidence of it. That's directly opposed to the
> scientific method.
Well, the Catholic Church maintains actually universities and produced
> On 12/22/2022 3:29 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 18.12.2022 um 20:53 schrieb Volney:
>>> On 12/8/2022 2:46 PM, Volney wrote:
>>>
>>> Several proposed additions to John Baez's Crackpot Index.
>>> (I have not yet decided whether to add to his excellent list or rewrite
>>> it. For now treat these as additions)
>>
>>
>>> 38. X points for stating people who agree with a theory promoted by an
>>> expert are "worshiping" him.
>>> Or stating "Physics is a religion/cult!"
>>
>>
>> Your method is wrong to begin with, because you should not plug in,
>> what you try to find out.
>>
>> Here your 'error' is, that you consider certain topics as 'crackpottery'.
>
> No, it is the person being scored that considers a certain segment of
> science as being a religion or cult. This is obviously a conflict
> because science is based on the scientific method while religions/cults
> have some sort of faith, that is, something you simply must believe with
> no observation or evidence of it. That's directly opposed to the
> scientific method.
own scientific studies.
In former times the Pope wanted to decide, whether certain theories were
true or not and quite few lost their lives, who disagreed.
Sure, to kill 'heritics' is directly opposed to the scientific method,
but was once actual reality.
>> But before you could possibly do that, a discussion of the validity of
>> your claim is required.
>
> The claim is that of the potential crackpot (the science of XXX is a
> cult) (followers of Newtonian physics worship Newton), not mine.
The claim is more or less, that cults took over science and turned it
away from the scientific method.
Then, in the next step, the heritics were expelled and replaced by own
people.
This is assisted by a takeover of the media, which would not publish
heretics anymore.
Sure, this system is certainly not scientific. But that was not the
claim, but whether or not this would be real.
>> For instance: here you need to discuss the question first, whether
>> physicst build a sect or cult prior to claiming, that mentioning this
>> is 'crackpottery'.
>
> No physicist is claiming crackpottery. The purported crackpot is
> claiming science is a cult to "earn" points for this.
truth.
But obviously most scientists fail in their endeavour to find the lasts
truth in the universe.
So, most scientists are in an objective way wrong in what they believe.
This wrongness is not really 'crackpottery', but in most cases a
necessary step in a long lasting project in search of true knowledge.
> The whole point of the crackpot index is to assign a score to a post or
> series of posts based on statements and claims therein that crackpots
> make but most others would not. "Microbiology is a cult!" for example,
> when microbiology meets the definition of science/following the
> scientific method.
>
proove, that the statement is actually wrong.
For instance: 'flat Earth' is most likely wrong, hence a good candidate
for such a list. But first you need to proove 'flat Earth' wrong.
If you cannot prove a statement wrong, it could eventually be true.
In such a case, this claim must not be used in a 'crackpot list'.
Message has been deleted
Volney
Dec 24, 2022, 3:32:13 PM12/24/22
to
to quite accepting of science. (meanwhile, certain fundamentalists will
respond to an astronomy article stating "Galaxy XYZ is 1 billion light
years away meaning the light we see was emitted 1 billion years ago"
with "WRONG, Earth and the universe was created 6,000 years ago!!!") A
religion can accept and teach science while still having actual faith
beliefs in the religion itself)
>
>
>>> But before you could possibly do that, a discussion of the validity of
>>> your claim is required.
>>
>> The claim is that of the potential crackpot (the science of XXX is a
>> cult) (followers of Newtonian physics worship Newton), not mine.
>
> The 'crackpots' don't say, that science would be a cult.
They certainly do! Just read s.p.r. for all the crackpots calling
>
>>> But before you could possibly do that, a discussion of the validity of
>>> your claim is required.
>>
>> The claim is that of the potential crackpot (the science of XXX is a
>> cult) (followers of Newtonian physics worship Newton), not mine.
>
> The 'crackpots' don't say, that science would be a cult.
relativity and those who believe in it a cult, when relativity is a
valid theory under the scientific method, so is a part of science.
>
> The claim is more or less, that cults took over science and turned it
> away from the scientific method.
Then what is produced would not follow the scientific method, yet it
> The claim is more or less, that cults took over science and turned it
> away from the scientific method.
still does. Plus the "cult followers" bit is never supported with
evidence that such a "takeover" happened.
>
> Then, in the next step, the heritics were expelled and replaced by own
> people.
>
> This is assisted by a takeover of the media, which would not publish
> heretics anymore.
Well conspiracy theories are a crank sign, but different cranks have
> Then, in the next step, the heritics were expelled and replaced by own
> people.
>
> This is assisted by a takeover of the media, which would not publish
> heretics anymore.
different beliefs. Specific to relativity, according to some, the
relativity cult started with Einstein as the cult leader, so there was
no takeover.
>
> Sure, this system is certainly not scientific. But that was not the
> claim, but whether or not this would be real.
The entry remains as someone claiming valid science according to the
> Sure, this system is certainly not scientific. But that was not the
> claim, but whether or not this would be real.
scientific method is a religion or cult, implying faith is involved,
gets points for that, as faith is counter to the science being science.
>
>
>>> For instance: here you need to discuss the question first, whether
>>> physicst build a sect or cult prior to claiming, that mentioning this
>>> is 'crackpottery'.
>>
>> No physicist is claiming crackpottery. The purported crackpot is
>> claiming science is a cult to "earn" points for this.
>
>
>
> Most people are not destructive intentionally, hence actually seek real
> truth.
That they make unsupported claims instead of seeking truth is what earns
>
>>> For instance: here you need to discuss the question first, whether
>>> physicst build a sect or cult prior to claiming, that mentioning this
>>> is 'crackpottery'.
>>
>> No physicist is claiming crackpottery. The purported crackpot is
>> claiming science is a cult to "earn" points for this.
>
>
>
> Most people are not destructive intentionally, hence actually seek real
> truth.
them crackpot points.
>
> But obviously most scientists fail in their endeavour to find the lasts
> truth in the universe.
>
> So, most scientists are in an objective way wrong in what they believe.
Science is finding the best model to demonstrate and predict what nature
> But obviously most scientists fail in their endeavour to find the lasts
> truth in the universe.
>
> So, most scientists are in an objective way wrong in what they believe.
is doing. Scientists know there is no "final" "last" truth. There will
be better models one day.
>
> This wrongness is not really 'crackpottery', but in most cases a
> necessary step in a long lasting project in search of true knowledge.
or something?
>
>> The whole point of the crackpot index is to assign a score to a post or
>> series of posts based on statements and claims therein that crackpots
>> make but most others would not. "Microbiology is a cult!" for example,
>> when microbiology meets the definition of science/following the
>> scientific method.
>>
> Before you can use a statement in a 'crackpost list', you need to
> proove, that the statement is actually wrong.
I am not including proofs. It is up to the user of the list to decide if
>> The whole point of the crackpot index is to assign a score to a post or
>> series of posts based on statements and claims therein that crackpots
>> make but most others would not. "Microbiology is a cult!" for example,
>> when microbiology meets the definition of science/following the
>> scientific method.
>>
> Before you can use a statement in a 'crackpost list', you need to
> proove, that the statement is actually wrong.
a crank claim meets the definition of an entry. Did they call a valid
science a cult for example.
>
> For instance: 'flat Earth' is most likely wrong, hence a good candidate
> for such a list. But first you need to proove 'flat Earth' wrong.
I am not including specific crank beliefs, I want to avoid that. For
> For instance: 'flat Earth' is most likely wrong, hence a good candidate
> for such a list. But first you need to proove 'flat Earth' wrong.
example for my "crackpot language" I want to have examples but don't
want all the examples be relativity specific. I'll need other examples
of insults not specific to relativity. I've heard (once) of flat earth
believers call others "ball earthers" but how common is that?
>
> If you cannot prove a statement wrong, it could eventually be true.
Ignoring something was proven wrong yet still believing in it and
> If you cannot prove a statement wrong, it could eventually be true.
parading it is what earns crackpot points.
>
> In such a case, this claim must not be used in a 'crackpot list'.
Again, I am not including specific crackpot claims. It is up to the user
> In such a case, this claim must not be used in a 'crackpot list'.
to look at, for example, a flat earth post, to see how many crank points
the poster earns.
Go read the original crackpot index.
Message has been deleted
Dan Christensen
Dec 24, 2022, 5:22:30 PM12/24/22
to
STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science
On Saturday, December 24, 2022 at 4:02:53 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
[snip]
> ... Dan Christensen ...
[snip]
Time for another spanking, Archie Poo? When will you learn? Once again...
From his antics here at sci.math, it is obvious that AP has abandoned all hope of being recognized as a credible personality. He is a malicious internet troll who now wants only to mislead and confuse students. He may not be all there, but his fake math and science can only be meant to promote failure in schools. One can only guess at his motives. Is it revenge for his endless string of personal failures in life? Who knows.
In AP's OWN WORDS here that, over the years, he has NEVER renounced or withdrawn:
"Negative numbers are the witches and hobgoblins of insane kook mathematicians. "
--Dec. 7, 2022
“Primes do not exist, because the set they were borne from has no division.”
--June 29, 2020
“The last and largest finite number is 10^604.”
--June 3, 2015
“0 appears to be the last and largest finite number”
--June 9, 2015
“0/0 must be equal to 1.”
-- June 9, 2015
“0 is an infinite irrational number.”
--June 28, 2015
“No negative numbers exist.”
--December 22, 2018
“Rationals are not numbers.”
--May 18, 2019
According to AP's “chess board math,” an equilateral triangle is a right-triangle.
--December 11, 2019
Which could explain...
“The value of sin(45 degrees) = 1.” (Actually 0.707)
--May 31, 2019
AP deliberately and repeatedly presented the truth table for OR as the truth table for AND:
“New Logic
AND
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F”
--November 9, 2019
AP seeks aid of Russian agents to promote failure in schools:
"Please--Asking for help from Russia-- russian robots-- to create a new, true mathematics [sic]. What I like for the robots to do, is list every day, about 4 Colleges ( of the West) math dept, and ask why that math department is teaching false and fake math, and if unable to change to the correct true math, well, simply fire that math department until they can find professors who recognize truth in math from fakery...."
--November 9, 2017
And if that wasn't weird enough...
“The totality, everything that there is [the universe], is only 1 atom of plutonium [Pu]. There is nothing outside or beyond this one atom of plutonium.”
--April 4, 1994
“The Universe itself is one gigantic big atom.”
--November 14, 2019
AP's sinister Atom God Cult of Failure???
“Since God-Pu is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Atom Plutonium!
Its truth is marching on.
It has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
It is sifting out the hearts of people before its judgment seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer it; be jubilant, my feet!
Our God-Pu is marching on.”
--December 15, 2018 (Note: Pu is the atomic symbol for plutonium)
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
On Saturday, December 24, 2022 at 4:02:53 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
[snip]
> ... Dan Christensen ...
[snip]
Time for another spanking, Archie Poo? When will you learn? Once again...
From his antics here at sci.math, it is obvious that AP has abandoned all hope of being recognized as a credible personality. He is a malicious internet troll who now wants only to mislead and confuse students. He may not be all there, but his fake math and science can only be meant to promote failure in schools. One can only guess at his motives. Is it revenge for his endless string of personal failures in life? Who knows.
In AP's OWN WORDS here that, over the years, he has NEVER renounced or withdrawn:
"Negative numbers are the witches and hobgoblins of insane kook mathematicians. "
--Dec. 7, 2022
“Primes do not exist, because the set they were borne from has no division.”
--June 29, 2020
“The last and largest finite number is 10^604.”
--June 3, 2015
“0 appears to be the last and largest finite number”
--June 9, 2015
“0/0 must be equal to 1.”
-- June 9, 2015
“0 is an infinite irrational number.”
--June 28, 2015
“No negative numbers exist.”
--December 22, 2018
“Rationals are not numbers.”
--May 18, 2019
According to AP's “chess board math,” an equilateral triangle is a right-triangle.
--December 11, 2019
Which could explain...
“The value of sin(45 degrees) = 1.” (Actually 0.707)
--May 31, 2019
AP deliberately and repeatedly presented the truth table for OR as the truth table for AND:
“New Logic
AND
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F”
--November 9, 2019
AP seeks aid of Russian agents to promote failure in schools:
"Please--Asking for help from Russia-- russian robots-- to create a new, true mathematics [sic]. What I like for the robots to do, is list every day, about 4 Colleges ( of the West) math dept, and ask why that math department is teaching false and fake math, and if unable to change to the correct true math, well, simply fire that math department until they can find professors who recognize truth in math from fakery...."
--November 9, 2017
And if that wasn't weird enough...
“The totality, everything that there is [the universe], is only 1 atom of plutonium [Pu]. There is nothing outside or beyond this one atom of plutonium.”
--April 4, 1994
“The Universe itself is one gigantic big atom.”
--November 14, 2019
AP's sinister Atom God Cult of Failure???
“Since God-Pu is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Atom Plutonium!
Its truth is marching on.
It has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
It is sifting out the hearts of people before its judgment seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer it; be jubilant, my feet!
Our God-Pu is marching on.”
--December 15, 2018 (Note: Pu is the atomic symbol for plutonium)
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Message has been deleted
Thomas Heger
Dec 25, 2022, 5:17:21 AM12/25/22
to
For instance I have studies Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving
bodies' for a very long time in detail. But I found a very large number
of errors in it (well over 400).
These errors could not been overlooked by Planck, who was a world-class
physicist.
The only possibility is, that this particular article was knowingly
published with malicious intentions in a cooperation of at least two
people (Planck and Einstein).
The other physicist that I totally dislike was Oliver Heaviside (for his
obstruction of Quaternions).
Another questionable physicists was imho George LeMaitre (because I
dislike big-bang theory).
Now you only need to assume a hidden connection and a malicious plan and
get a perfect 'conspiracy theory'.
>> Then, in the next step, the heritics were expelled and replaced by own
>> people.
>>
>> This is assisted by a takeover of the media, which would not publish
>> heretics anymore.
>
> Well conspiracy theories are a crank sign, but different cranks have
> different beliefs. Specific to relativity, according to some, the
> relativity cult started with Einstein as the cult leader, so there was
> no takeover.
'Conspiracy theories' are usually not theories about conspiracies, but
assumptions about illegal activities of powerfull and secret groups.
These assumptions are certainly wrong in most cases, but certainly not
in all.
Therefore you cannot invalidate an assumption, just because you also may
call it 'Conspiracy theory'.
Like always: an assumption is valid until proven wrong. After proven
wrong the assumption is invalidated. What is not proven wrong, that is
still a theory. Therefore 'theory' is a title for the better part of the
assumptions.
'Conspiracy' is a crime in the Anglo-American legal system, but not so
otherwise. In many countries a somehow similar thing is 'support of a
crime'. But the very idea of a conspiracy is often not understood in
other countries.
Therefore it is a very bad idea to beginn with to call such assumptions
'conspiracy theories', hence this term should not be used in a 'crackpot
list'.
>> Sure, this system is certainly not scientific. But that was not the
>> claim, but whether or not this would be real.
>
> The entry remains as someone claiming valid science according to the
> scientific method is a religion or cult, implying faith is involved,
> gets points for that, as faith is counter to the science being science.
based on believe and science also ;-)
>>
>>>> For instance: here you need to discuss the question first, whether
>>>> physicst build a sect or cult prior to claiming, that mentioning this
>>>> is 'crackpottery'.
>>>
>>> No physicist is claiming crackpottery. The purported crackpot is
>>> claiming science is a cult to "earn" points for this.
>>
>>
>>
>> Most people are not destructive intentionally, hence actually seek
>> real truth.
>
> That they make unsupported claims instead of seeking truth is what earns
> them crackpot points.
>>
>> But obviously most scientists fail in their endeavour to find the
>> lasts truth in the universe.
>>
>> So, most scientists are in an objective way wrong in what they believe.
>
> Science is finding the best model to demonstrate and predict what nature
> is doing. Scientists know there is no "final" "last" truth. There will
> be better models one day.
know the mechanisms of natur, but cannot use this knowledge yourself,
because you are not nature.
Predictions would require a one to one correspondence between modell and
the real world, which only the real world can provide.
We can eventually find usuable modell in some cases, which predict
things to a sufficant degree, but can never ever get better than that,
because we cannot immitate nature precisely enough.
IOW: only the universe itself can predict the future of the universe
correctly.
>>
>> This wrongness is not really 'crackpottery', but in most cases a
>> necessary step in a long lasting project in search of true knowledge.
>
> What does all this have to do with crackpots rejecting science as a cult
> or something?
I meant something else:
even wrong theories are not 'crackpottery', because errors are a
necessary part in any research.
But the errors should be sorted out as soon as possible.
...
TH
Timothy Golden
Dec 25, 2022, 12:20:36 PM12/25/22
to
On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 2:46:13 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> Many people score crank posts according to John Baez's Crackpot Index
> (https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html). But it's almost a
> quarter century old. I've been thinking of updating it, since cranks
> have come up with many novel techniques since 1998 that are not listed.
> For example, using crackpot-only words and phrases, for example
> "Einsteinian" and "relativist", usually intended to insult scientists.
>
> Is this worth doing?
> Should I take the existing crackpot index and simply add to it?
> Should any of its original entries be changed, even if only the points?
> Should I redo this in a completely different format? If so, suggestions?
> Should point scores apply to individual posts or the poster overall?
>
> In any case, full credit will be given to Baez for the original.
>
>
> Do you have suggestions for added entries, plus point scores for each?
>
> Example additions, exact phrasing and points not yet determined:
>
> People who agree with an argument promoted by an expert are "worshiping"
> him, are brainwashed, indoctrinated, or are parrots.
> Sour grapes: "The Nobel Prize is worthless"/"the committee awarding it
> is corrupt", etc. because they didn't win a Nobel.
> specific or creationism specific. Also certain behavior unique to only
> one crank probably shouldn't be included.
>
> I set followups to sci.physics.
Pretty sure by owning that he works here https://www.quantumlah.org/people/profile/John
the crackpot index will go down in history as a Dunning-Kruger en masse event.
To what degree all of physics is in danger is an open-minded approach; one that is lacking by that professional.
Regurgitant aside, the human race is living on a limited course of habituation. The tension is obnoxious.
> Many people score crank posts according to John Baez's Crackpot Index
> (https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html). But it's almost a
> quarter century old. I've been thinking of updating it, since cranks
> have come up with many novel techniques since 1998 that are not listed.
> For example, using crackpot-only words and phrases, for example
> "Einsteinian" and "relativist", usually intended to insult scientists.
>
> Is this worth doing?
> Should I take the existing crackpot index and simply add to it?
> Should any of its original entries be changed, even if only the points?
> Should I redo this in a completely different format? If so, suggestions?
> Should point scores apply to individual posts or the poster overall?
>
> In any case, full credit will be given to Baez for the original.
>
>
> Do you have suggestions for added entries, plus point scores for each?
>
> Example additions, exact phrasing and points not yet determined:
>
> People who agree with an argument promoted by an expert are "worshiping"
> him, are brainwashed, indoctrinated, or are parrots.
>
> Silence is consent: "I notice that there are no comments on my
> manifesto. That means that you all agree with it!"
>
> "Physics is a religion/cult!"
> Silence is consent: "I notice that there are no comments on my
> manifesto. That means that you all agree with it!"
>
>
> References to things like "Old Biology" (textbook standard biology) and
> "New Biology" (the crank's version of biology including bizarre changes,
> the crank believes his version is or will be accepted)
>
> References to things like "Old Biology" (textbook standard biology) and
> "New Biology" (the crank's version of biology including bizarre changes,
> the crank believes his version is or will be accepted)
>
> Expand Baez's Item #21: "I won a Nobel Prize for my discovery" when they
> didn't.
> Less delusional: "I should have won a Nobel Prize for my discovery."
> didn't.
> Sour grapes: "The Nobel Prize is worthless"/"the committee awarding it
> is corrupt", etc. because they didn't win a Nobel.
> "I was offered the Nobel Prize but I turned it down because it's worthless."
>
>
> I want to keep this generic, otherwise it may become relativity/Einstein
>
>
> specific or creationism specific. Also certain behavior unique to only
> one crank probably shouldn't be included.
>
> I set followups to sci.physics.
Pretty sure by owning that he works here https://www.quantumlah.org/people/profile/John
the crackpot index will go down in history as a Dunning-Kruger en masse event.
To what degree all of physics is in danger is an open-minded approach; one that is lacking by that professional.
Regurgitant aside, the human race is living on a limited course of habituation. The tension is obnoxious.
Message has been deleted
Volney
Dec 26, 2022, 2:10:19 PM12/26/22
to
On 12/25/2022 5:17 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 24.12.2022 um 21:32 schrieb Volney:
>> On 12/24/2022 3:57 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> The claim is more or less, that cults took over science and turned it
>>> away from the scientific method.
>>
>> Then what is produced would not follow the scientific method, yet it
>> still does. Plus the "cult followers" bit is never supported with
>> evidence that such a "takeover" happened.
>
>
> I personally think, that such a 'takeover' actually happened.
Without evidence of that, nobody cares what you think.
> Am 24.12.2022 um 21:32 schrieb Volney:
>> On 12/24/2022 3:57 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> The claim is more or less, that cults took over science and turned it
>>> away from the scientific method.
>>
>> Then what is produced would not follow the scientific method, yet it
>> still does. Plus the "cult followers" bit is never supported with
>> evidence that such a "takeover" happened.
>
>
> I personally think, that such a 'takeover' actually happened.
>
> For instance I have studies Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving
> bodies' for a very long time in detail. But I found a very large number
> of errors in it (well over 400).
No, you haven't. As has been repeatedly explained to you.
> For instance I have studies Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving
> bodies' for a very long time in detail. But I found a very large number
> of errors in it (well over 400).
>
> These errors could not been overlooked by Planck, who was a world-class
> physicist.
Since there were no such errors, there was nothing for Planck to overlook.
> These errors could not been overlooked by Planck, who was a world-class
> physicist.
>
> The only possibility is, that this particular article was knowingly
> published with malicious intentions in a cooperation of at least two
> people (Planck and Einstein).
Since this is based on a false assumption (400+ errors) all that follows
> The only possibility is, that this particular article was knowingly
> published with malicious intentions in a cooperation of at least two
> people (Planck and Einstein).
from this assumption is irrelevant.
> Now you only need to assume a hidden connection and a malicious plan and
> get a perfect 'conspiracy theory'.
something COULD have happened (assuming it actually could) doesn't mean
it DID happen.
>
>>> Then, in the next step, the heritics were expelled and replaced by own
>>> people.
And these expelled "heretics" remained silent?
>>> Then, in the next step, the heritics were expelled and replaced by own
>>> people.
>>>
>>> This is assisted by a takeover of the media, which would not publish
>>> heretics anymore.
Yeah. Right. Another conspiracy necessary.
>>> This is assisted by a takeover of the media, which would not publish
>>> heretics anymore.
One part of conspiracies is that the larger they are, the more likely it
is for someone/multiple someones to spill the beans.
(and it is interesting to know that somehow, the cranks know all about
the conspiracies)
>>
>> Well conspiracy theories are a crank sign, but different cranks have
>> different beliefs. Specific to relativity, according to some, the
>> relativity cult started with Einstein as the cult leader, so there was
>> no takeover.
>
> No.
>
> 'Conspiracy theories' are usually not theories about conspiracies, but
> assumptions about illegal activities of powerfull and secret groups.
What "powerful and secret groups" was Einstein, essentially unknown in
>> Well conspiracy theories are a crank sign, but different cranks have
>> different beliefs. Specific to relativity, according to some, the
>> relativity cult started with Einstein as the cult leader, so there was
>> no takeover.
>
> No.
>
> 'Conspiracy theories' are usually not theories about conspiracies, but
> assumptions about illegal activities of powerfull and secret groups.
1905, part of? Who let this unknown in?
>
> These assumptions are certainly wrong in most cases, but certainly not
> in all.
Again, because something COULD HAVE happened, doesn't mean it DID happen.
> These assumptions are certainly wrong in most cases, but certainly not
> in all.
>
> Therefore you cannot invalidate an assumption, just because you also may
> call it 'Conspiracy theory'.
Occam's razor, without evidence.
> Therefore you cannot invalidate an assumption, just because you also may
> call it 'Conspiracy theory'.
>
> Like always: an assumption is valid until proven wrong.
Occam's razor states bizarre complex assumptions can be ignored, at
> Like always: an assumption is valid until proven wrong.
least without evidence.
>>> Sure, this system is certainly not scientific. But that was not the
>>> claim, but whether or not this would be real.
>>
>> The entry remains as someone claiming valid science according to the
>> scientific method is a religion or cult, implying faith is involved,
>> gets points for that, as faith is counter to the science being science.
>
> Well, science and religion are certainly not the same thing. Religion is
> based on believe and science also ;-)
Science has theories/models, these have scientific observations and
experimental evidence which supports them. Science also knows that
future evidence can come along which discredits the model but even in
that case the old model may remain close in the future (like continuing
to use Newtonian physics at low speeds and weak gravity).
>
>>>
>>>>> For instance: here you need to discuss the question first, whether
>>>>> physicst build a sect or cult prior to claiming, that mentioning this
>>>>> is 'crackpottery'.
>>>>
>>>> No physicist is claiming crackpottery. The purported crackpot is
>>>> claiming science is a cult to "earn" points for this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Most people are not destructive intentionally, hence actually seek
>>> real truth.
>>
>> That they make unsupported claims instead of seeking truth is what earns
>> them crackpot points.
>>>
>>> But obviously most scientists fail in their endeavour to find the
>>> lasts truth in the universe.
>>>
>>> So, most scientists are in an objective way wrong in what they believe.
>>
>> Science is finding the best model to demonstrate and predict what nature
>> is doing. Scientists know there is no "final" "last" truth. There will
>> be better models one day.
>
> Predictions are not a valid goal of science, because you may possibly
> know the mechanisms of natur, but cannot use this knowledge yourself,
> because you are not nature.
Nope. Science is about finding the best model, and one of the
>>>
>>>>> For instance: here you need to discuss the question first, whether
>>>>> physicst build a sect or cult prior to claiming, that mentioning this
>>>>> is 'crackpottery'.
>>>>
>>>> No physicist is claiming crackpottery. The purported crackpot is
>>>> claiming science is a cult to "earn" points for this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Most people are not destructive intentionally, hence actually seek
>>> real truth.
>>
>> That they make unsupported claims instead of seeking truth is what earns
>> them crackpot points.
>>>
>>> But obviously most scientists fail in their endeavour to find the
>>> lasts truth in the universe.
>>>
>>> So, most scientists are in an objective way wrong in what they believe.
>>
>> Science is finding the best model to demonstrate and predict what nature
>> is doing. Scientists know there is no "final" "last" truth. There will
>> be better models one day.
>
> Predictions are not a valid goal of science, because you may possibly
> know the mechanisms of natur, but cannot use this knowledge yourself,
> because you are not nature.
definitions of "best" is being able to make accurate predictions.
>
> Predictions would require a one to one correspondence between modell and
> the real world, which only the real world can provide. >
> We can eventually find usuable modell in some cases, which predict
> things to a sufficant degree, but can never ever get better than that,
> because we cannot immitate nature precisely enough.
Predictions of models are good within a certain defined error range. A
> Predictions would require a one to one correspondence between modell and
> the real world, which only the real world can provide. >
> We can eventually find usuable modell in some cases, which predict
> things to a sufficant degree, but can never ever get better than that,
> because we cannot immitate nature precisely enough.
new model with
>
> IOW: only the universe itself can predict the future of the universe
> correctly.
Predict exactly, yes, but physics knows that is impossible so comes up
> IOW: only the universe itself can predict the future of the universe
> correctly.
with models which predict as best as possible.
>
>>>
>>> This wrongness is not really 'crackpottery', but in most cases a
>>> necessary step in a long lasting project in search of true knowledge.
>>
>> What does all this have to do with crackpots rejecting science as a cult
>> or something?
>
> Nothing.
>
> I meant something else:
> even wrong theories are not 'crackpottery', because errors are a
> necessary part in any research.
Sticking to already disproven, wrong theories, or to "theories" with no
>>>
>>> This wrongness is not really 'crackpottery', but in most cases a
>>> necessary step in a long lasting project in search of true knowledge.
>>
>> What does all this have to do with crackpots rejecting science as a cult
>> or something?
>
> Nothing.
>
> I meant something else:
> even wrong theories are not 'crackpottery', because errors are a
> necessary part in any research.
basis on science, is crackpottery.
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 26, 2022, 3:31:07 PM12/26/22
to
John Stillwell, Ace Crackpot of fake math textbooks with ellipse a conic???
Fred Jeffries pointing out the fakery of geometry math failures?? For at least Jeffries can ask the question which is slant cut of cone -- oval or ellipse, while all that John Stillwell can do in math is Run John Hide John and write another fake math textbook
> On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 5:59:58 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 1:49:50 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 7:00:38 PM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:
> > > > *
> > > > Several of you have questioned: Is the ellipse a conic section? The answer depends.
> > > > If you are Archimedes Plutonium, the answer is no. If you are one of the other 398,726 mahematicians living today, the answer is yes.
> > > >
> > > > earle
> > > > *
> > > The failed meathead Earle Jones, looks like you have 398,726 subtract 1, as it appears Fred Jeffries below in this thread is starting to question the second axis of symmetry in the slant cut of cone.
> > > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 5:41:05 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 6:23:18 PM UTC-8, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Disney did a nice animation on it:
> > > > >
> > > > http ----------
> > > > But it also fails to show how to find the second axis of symmetry
So where is John Stillwell failure of math propose where the missing 2nd axis is hiding?? Is it running and hiding along with the math failure John Stillwell??
1--Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Beal, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Gerald Edgar, AMS, no-one there can do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, all they can offer is a limit analysis, so shoddy in logic they never realized that "analyzing" is not the same as "proving" for analyzing is much in the same as "measuring but not proving". And yet, none can do a geometry proof and the reason is quite clear for none can even see that the slant cut in single right-circular cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So they could never do a geometry proof of FTC even if they wanted to. For they have no logical geometry brain to begin to do anything geometrical. Is it that Andrew Wiles and Terence Tao cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Not having a Logical brain to do math, for any rational person would be upset by Wiles, Tao saying truth table of AND is TFFF when it actually is TTTF. Is that why neither Terence Tao or Andrew Wiles can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?
>
> Maybe they need to take up Earle Jones offer to wash dishes or pots at Stanford Univ or where ever, for they sure cannot do mathematics.
> Why are these people failures of Math?? For none can even contemplate these 4 questions.
>
> 1) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
> 2) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
> 3) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
> 4) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sap-heads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.
>
>
> Is Jim Holt, Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
> John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason, more of propagandists and belong in "Abnormal Psychology" dept than in the department of logic, like Dan Christensen a laugh a minute logician? Probably because none can admit slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, due to axes of symmetry for cone and oval have 1 while ellipse has 2. Why they cannot even count beyond 1. Yet their minds were never good enough to see the error nor admit to their mistakes. They failed logic so badly they accept Boole's insane AND truth table of TFFF when it is TTTF avoiding the painful 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Or is it because none of these logicians has a single marble of logic in their entire brain to realize calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not a "limit analysis" for analysis is like a measurement, not a proving exercise. Analysis does not prove, only adds data and facts, but never is a proof of itself. I analyze things daily, and none of which is a proof. So are all these logicians like what Clutterfreak the propaganda stooge says they are.
Fred Jeffries pointing out the fakery of geometry math failures?? For at least Jeffries can ask the question which is slant cut of cone -- oval or ellipse, while all that John Stillwell can do in math is Run John Hide John and write another fake math textbook
> On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 5:59:58 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 1:49:50 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 7:00:38 PM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:
> > > > *
> > > > Several of you have questioned: Is the ellipse a conic section? The answer depends.
> > > > If you are Archimedes Plutonium, the answer is no. If you are one of the other 398,726 mahematicians living today, the answer is yes.
> > > >
> > > > earle
> > > > *
> > > The failed meathead Earle Jones, looks like you have 398,726 subtract 1, as it appears Fred Jeffries below in this thread is starting to question the second axis of symmetry in the slant cut of cone.
> > > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 5:41:05 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 6:23:18 PM UTC-8, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Disney did a nice animation on it:
> > > > >
> > > > http ----------
> > > > But it also fails to show how to find the second axis of symmetry
So where is John Stillwell failure of math propose where the missing 2nd axis is hiding?? Is it running and hiding along with the math failure John Stillwell??
1--Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Beal, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Gerald Edgar, AMS, no-one there can do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, all they can offer is a limit analysis, so shoddy in logic they never realized that "analyzing" is not the same as "proving" for analyzing is much in the same as "measuring but not proving". And yet, none can do a geometry proof and the reason is quite clear for none can even see that the slant cut in single right-circular cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So they could never do a geometry proof of FTC even if they wanted to. For they have no logical geometry brain to begin to do anything geometrical. Is it that Andrew Wiles and Terence Tao cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Not having a Logical brain to do math, for any rational person would be upset by Wiles, Tao saying truth table of AND is TFFF when it actually is TTTF. Is that why neither Terence Tao or Andrew Wiles can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?
>
> Maybe they need to take up Earle Jones offer to wash dishes or pots at Stanford Univ or where ever, for they sure cannot do mathematics.
> Why are these people failures of Math?? For none can even contemplate these 4 questions.
>
> 1) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
> 2) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
> 3) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
> 4) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sap-heads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.
>
>
> Is Jim Holt, Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
> John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason, more of propagandists and belong in "Abnormal Psychology" dept than in the department of logic, like Dan Christensen a laugh a minute logician? Probably because none can admit slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, due to axes of symmetry for cone and oval have 1 while ellipse has 2. Why they cannot even count beyond 1. Yet their minds were never good enough to see the error nor admit to their mistakes. They failed logic so badly they accept Boole's insane AND truth table of TFFF when it is TTTF avoiding the painful 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Or is it because none of these logicians has a single marble of logic in their entire brain to realize calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not a "limit analysis" for analysis is like a measurement, not a proving exercise. Analysis does not prove, only adds data and facts, but never is a proof of itself. I analyze things daily, and none of which is a proof. So are all these logicians like what Clutterfreak the propaganda stooge says they are.
Thomas Heger
Dec 27, 2022, 3:36:24 AM12/27/22
to
Am 26.12.2022 um 20:10 schrieb Volney:
> On 12/25/2022 5:17 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 24.12.2022 um 21:32 schrieb Volney:
>>> On 12/24/2022 3:57 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>>>> The claim is more or less, that cults took over science and turned it
>>>> away from the scientific method.
>>>
>>> Then what is produced would not follow the scientific method, yet it
>>> still does. Plus the "cult followers" bit is never supported with
>>> evidence that such a "takeover" happened.
>>
>>
>> I personally think, that such a 'takeover' actually happened.
>
> Without evidence of that, nobody cares what you think.
>>
>> For instance I have studies Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of
>> moving bodies' for a very long time in detail. But I found a very
>> large number of errors in it (well over 400).
>
> No, you haven't. As has been repeatedly explained to you.
>>
>> These errors could not been overlooked by Planck, who was a
>> world-class physicist.
>
> Since there were no such errors, there was nothing for Planck to overlook.
I have discussed now lots of errors (in my view) and the result was
> On 12/25/2022 5:17 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 24.12.2022 um 21:32 schrieb Volney:
>>> On 12/24/2022 3:57 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>>>> The claim is more or less, that cults took over science and turned it
>>>> away from the scientific method.
>>>
>>> Then what is produced would not follow the scientific method, yet it
>>> still does. Plus the "cult followers" bit is never supported with
>>> evidence that such a "takeover" happened.
>>
>>
>> I personally think, that such a 'takeover' actually happened.
>
> Without evidence of that, nobody cares what you think.
>>
>> For instance I have studies Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of
>> moving bodies' for a very long time in detail. But I found a very
>> large number of errors in it (well over 400).
>
> No, you haven't. As has been repeatedly explained to you.
>>
>> These errors could not been overlooked by Planck, who was a
>> world-class physicist.
>
> Since there were no such errors, there was nothing for Planck to overlook.
always the same:
the errors are simply denied, the critique was uttered by a crank (me)
and the case is closed.
But I can provide something new for you to defend:
it is actually a very simple error and belongs to a class called 'non
sequitur'. (This means 'it does not follow'.)
It is on page 8 in § 3 about 'Theory of the Transformation of
Co-ordinates ...'
There are two equations in the upper part of page 8, which both describe
a certain point (x,y,z) in K coordinates, which was '...just attained by
this wave,...'.
Now the first equation describes the length of the path of a wave from
the origin to that point by kind of '3d-pythagoras':
x² +y² +z² = c²*t²
That is certainly true and not particularily interesting.
The second equation is this
ξ² +η² +ζ² = c²* τ²
This is the same point in coordinates from k.
This is also not very spectacular, even if the coordinate system k is
moving and the equation does not make any attempt to compensate that
movement. (Actually only Latin variable names are exchanged for small
Greek letters.)
But for a single point it is not real necessary, if the coordinate
systems K and k coincide for that instant in time.
But from this 'calculation' Einstein had drawn this conclusion:
"The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical wave
with velocity of propagation c when viewed in the moving system. "
And this does not follow and is also wrong, because a spherical wave in
motion gets red- or blueshifted, hence would not qualify as 'spherical'
any more.
But more imprtant is, that the conclusion is not justified by the
'result' of his 'calculation', because the same point (x,y,z) was meant
and no wave whatsoever.
...
TH
Thurman De palma
Dec 27, 2022, 8:57:45 AM12/27/22
to
Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 26.12.2022 um 20:10 schrieb Volney:
>> S̶i̶n̶c̶e̶ t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ w̶e̶r̶e̶ n̶o̶ s̶u̶c̶h̶ e̶r̶r̶o̶r̶s̶, t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ w̶a̶s̶ n̶o̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ f̶o̶r̶ P̶l̶a̶n̶c̶k̶ t̶o̶
> Am 26.12.2022 um 20:10 schrieb Volney:
>> o̶v̶e̶r̶l̶o̶o̶k̶.
>
> I have discussed now lots of errors (in my view) and the result was
> always the same: the errors are simply denied, the critique was uttered
> by a crank (me) and the case is closed.
so true indeed. This bad khazar mazafaka is saying *_you_are_an_wanker_*
> I have discussed now lots of errors (in my view) and the result was
> always the same: the errors are simply denied, the critique was uttered
> by a crank (me) and the case is closed.
and cannot revolt, since *_you_can't_organize_*, in *_communist_* parties,
unions etc. So they can do anything with your life an family, legal or
not, lying, killing you etc. Revolts, according to this capitalist, is
something from the 19th and 20th century.
Yuval Noah Harari： What to do with useless people
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/QqTLsjclymdx
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥
when are you going to learn, that without a communist party, they are
killing you and don't give a shit. Can you see they organize, with the
money taken from you, can you see it??
Emmet Robustelli
Dec 29, 2022, 4:28:24 PM12/29/22
to
Volney wrote:
> W̶h̶a̶t̶ m̶o̶v̶e̶m̶e̶n̶t̶? F̶r̶o̶m̶ f̶r̶a̶m̶e̶ k̶, f̶r̶a̶m̶e̶ k̶ i̶s̶ s̶t̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶a̶r̶y̶ (t̶a̶u̶t̶o̶l̶o̶g̶y̶) b̶u̶t̶ f̶r̶a̶m̶e̶ K̶
> i̶s̶ m̶o̶v̶i̶n̶g̶. D̶o̶ r̶e̶m̶e̶m̶b̶e̶r̶ "m̶o̶v̶i̶n̶g̶ s̶y̶s̶t̶e̶m̶" i̶s̶ e̶s̶s̶e̶n̶t̶i̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ a̶ N̶A̶M̶E̶ s̶i̶n̶c̶e̶ t̶h̶e̶
> o̶r̶i̶g̶i̶n̶a̶l̶ f̶r̶a̶m̶e̶ K̶ i̶s̶ d̶e̶s̶c̶r̶i̶b̶e̶d̶ a̶s̶ s̶t̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶a̶r̶y̶ (r̶e̶l̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶ t̶o̶ a̶n̶ u̶n̶s̶p̶e̶c̶i̶f̶i̶e̶d̶
> o̶r̶i̶g̶i̶n̶a̶l̶ o̶b̶s̶e̶r̶v̶e̶r̶), s̶o̶ k̶ i̶s̶ m̶o̶v̶i̶n̶g̶ w̶r̶t̶ t̶h̶i̶s̶ o̶r̶i̶g̶i̶n̶a̶l̶ o̶b̶s̶e̶r̶v̶e̶r̶ b̶e̶c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶ i̶t̶
> i̶s̶ m̶o̶v̶i̶n̶g̶ r̶e̶l̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶ t̶o̶ K̶.
Estonia does not want “a new community” in the country “that doesn’t speak Estonian,” PM Kaja Kallas says
https://%72%74.com/%72%75%73%73%69%61/569122-estonia-ukrainians-language-policy/
The PM’s comments on Estonian courses for Ukrainian refugees did not escape Moscow’s attention. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova took to Telegram to respond: “Kaja, Adolf [Hitler] would be proud of you. Without you it would be much more difficult to prove the dehumanization of the collective West. Estonia for Estonians, right? Say it already, and stop palping the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with your sweaty palms.”
the nazis of uKraine admits severe */_war_crimes_/*.
Ukrainian Soldiers Execute Prisoners Of War – Admits U.S. Mercenary 12-28-22 The Jimmy Dore Show
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/Q7NyWiFpgGvN
you are sold as *slave* already. You are fucking *patented*.
Listen closely to every single word. Israel is last for a reason. Khazarian Mafia.
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/TLUG36poJytT
> W̶h̶a̶t̶ m̶o̶v̶e̶m̶e̶n̶t̶? F̶r̶o̶m̶ f̶r̶a̶m̶e̶ k̶, f̶r̶a̶m̶e̶ k̶ i̶s̶ s̶t̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶a̶r̶y̶ (t̶a̶u̶t̶o̶l̶o̶g̶y̶) b̶u̶t̶ f̶r̶a̶m̶e̶ K̶
> i̶s̶ m̶o̶v̶i̶n̶g̶. D̶o̶ r̶e̶m̶e̶m̶b̶e̶r̶ "m̶o̶v̶i̶n̶g̶ s̶y̶s̶t̶e̶m̶" i̶s̶ e̶s̶s̶e̶n̶t̶i̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ a̶ N̶A̶M̶E̶ s̶i̶n̶c̶e̶ t̶h̶e̶
> o̶r̶i̶g̶i̶n̶a̶l̶ f̶r̶a̶m̶e̶ K̶ i̶s̶ d̶e̶s̶c̶r̶i̶b̶e̶d̶ a̶s̶ s̶t̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶a̶r̶y̶ (r̶e̶l̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶ t̶o̶ a̶n̶ u̶n̶s̶p̶e̶c̶i̶f̶i̶e̶d̶
> o̶r̶i̶g̶i̶n̶a̶l̶ o̶b̶s̶e̶r̶v̶e̶r̶), s̶o̶ k̶ i̶s̶ m̶o̶v̶i̶n̶g̶ w̶r̶t̶ t̶h̶i̶s̶ o̶r̶i̶g̶i̶n̶a̶l̶ o̶b̶s̶e̶r̶v̶e̶r̶ b̶e̶c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶ i̶t̶
> i̶s̶ m̶o̶v̶i̶n̶g̶ r̶e̶l̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶ t̶o̶ K̶.
Estonia does not want “a new community” in the country “that doesn’t speak Estonian,” PM Kaja Kallas says
https://%72%74.com/%72%75%73%73%69%61/569122-estonia-ukrainians-language-policy/
The PM’s comments on Estonian courses for Ukrainian refugees did not escape Moscow’s attention. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova took to Telegram to respond: “Kaja, Adolf [Hitler] would be proud of you. Without you it would be much more difficult to prove the dehumanization of the collective West. Estonia for Estonians, right? Say it already, and stop palping the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with your sweaty palms.”
the nazis of uKraine admits severe */_war_crimes_/*.
Ukrainian Soldiers Execute Prisoners Of War – Admits U.S. Mercenary 12-28-22 The Jimmy Dore Show
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/Q7NyWiFpgGvN
you are sold as *slave* already. You are fucking *patented*.
Listen closely to every single word. Israel is last for a reason. Khazarian Mafia.
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/TLUG36poJytT
Luigi Tumicelli
Jan 9, 2023, 4:04:13 AM1/9/23
to
Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Anyway, this perfect science pictured by Popper
>> could never work. But science as it really is - can.
>
> Popper was a philosopher.
> These people are usually not concerned with ugly reality.
here more proof the khazars are nazis.
The ADL issues statement declaring Ukraine’s Azov Battalion no longer ‘far-right’
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2023/01/08/the-adl-issues-statement-declaring-ukraines-azov-battalion-no-longer-far-right/
In the November interview, Boneface admitted to taking photographs of Ukrainian fighters “posing with the corpses of a lynched pregnant woman and a man they said was her husband” for a video entitled “Kikes get the rope.” He also claimed to have appeared in a video depicting a botched crucifixion.
unbelievable, they kill everybody, including some of them self.
>> Anyway, this perfect science pictured by Popper
>> could never work. But science as it really is - can.
>
> Popper was a philosopher.
> These people are usually not concerned with ugly reality.
here more proof the khazars are nazis.
The ADL issues statement declaring Ukraine’s Azov Battalion no longer ‘far-right’
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2023/01/08/the-adl-issues-statement-declaring-ukraines-azov-battalion-no-longer-far-right/
In the November interview, Boneface admitted to taking photographs of Ukrainian fighters “posing with the corpses of a lynched pregnant woman and a man they said was her husband” for a video entitled “Kikes get the rope.” He also claimed to have appeared in a video depicting a botched crucifixion.
unbelievable, they kill everybody, including some of them self.
Y A
Jan 9, 2023, 5:21:50 AM1/9/23
to
Look this
↓
↓
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀🌞⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀ ⠀ ⠀ ⠀ ⠀ ⠀ ⠀ ⠀ ⠀ 🛩
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀🌧️🌧️🌧️⠀⠀🌧️🌧️⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀🌧️🌧️🌧️⠀⠀🌧️🌧️🌧️🌧️⠀⠀🌧️🌧️⠀⠀⠀🌧️🌧️🌧️⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀🕊️ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀🌴⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀🍄 ⠀⠀⠀⠀ 🌼⠀⠀⠀⠀ 🌻
🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫
How do You rate this on 1....10 scale ?
0 new messages