Re: Arindam Banerjee asks Mehta B.R. , Mehta D.S.,Narendra Modi if the 2nd derivative in Feynman's Electric field equation E = (q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')] if that 2nd derivative is the same as C'

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Sunday, 2 April 2023 at 11:37:40 UTC+10, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee asks Mehta B.R. , Mehta D.S.,Narendra Modi if the 2nd derivative in Feynman's Electric field equation E = (q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')] if that 2nd derivative is the same as C' in

No Archie, I do not involve myself in bogus physics.

>
>
> Indian Institute of Technology
>
> Physics dept. Anurag Sharma, Babu Sujin B, Banerjee Varsha, Bhattacharya Saswata, Bhatnagar M.C. , Chatterjee R., Chaudhary Sujeet, Das Pintu, Dhaka Rajendra S., Ghosh Joyee, Ghosh Pradipta, Ghosh Sankalpa, Ghosh Santanu, Joseph Joby, Kanseri Bhaskar, Kedar B Khare, Khare Neeraj, Kumar Sunil, Malik H.K., Mani Brajesh Kumar, Marathe Rahul, Mehta B.R. , Mehta D.S. , Mishra Amruta, Muduli P.K., Ravishankar V. , Reddy G.B. , Saxena Vikrant, Sengupta Amartya, Senthilkumaran P. ,Shenoy M.R. , Shukla A.K., Singh J.P., Singh Rajendra, Sinha Aloka, Soni Ravi Kant, Srivastava Pankaj, Varshney R.K., Vijaya Prakash G.
>
> Narendra Modi, Indian Prime Minister
> Dharmendra Pradhan Minister of Education
>
> WM-Feldhase asks Metin Tolan, Annalena Baerbock,Olaf Scholz if the 2nd derivative in Feynman's Electric field equation E = (q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')] if that 2nd derivative is the same as C' in
> 5m views
>
> WM picture profile
> WM
> Fritz Feldhase
> 263
> 7:27PM
> An inconsistency between...
>
>
>
>
> Pete Olcott asks Harry Cliff, Roger Penrose, David Sainsbury if the 2nd derivative in Feynman's Electric field equation E = (q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')] if that 2nd derivative is the same as C' in AP's EM equations (modern day replacement of Maxwell Equations) E' = V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2 = V'/CB - VC'/C^2B - VB'/CB^2. Now in the Schrodinger equation we also run into a 2nd derivative but there are only 1st derivatives in AP's EM equations. So we have to ask if the C' is a 2nd derivative.
>
> Kibo Parry M asks Univ Dayton Todd B Smith, J. Michael O'Hare which of the terms of the AP-EM Equations contains the Schrodinger Equation, is it in the Electric field derivative E' = (V/(CB))'
> 3m views
>
> AP now thinks the second term - VC'B/(CB)^2 is the Schrodinger Equation in EM theory, would you agree?
>
> Kibo Parry M asking Vincent Meunier, Donald Schwendeman which of the terms of the AP-EM Equations contains the Schrodinger Equation, is it in the Electric field derivative E' = (V/(CB))'
>
> Kibo Parry M says Rensselaer physics is tarded
> On Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 10:27:58 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > tarded:
>
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Physics dept
> Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek, Julian S. Georg, Joel T. Giedt, Yong Sung Kim, Gyorgy Korniss, Toh-Ming Lu, Charles Martin, Joseph Darryl Michael, Heidi Jo Newberg, Moussa N'Gom, Peter Persans, John Schroeder, Michael Shur, Shawn-Yu Lin, Humberto Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang, Morris A Washington, Esther A. Wertz, Christian M. Wetzel, Ingrid Wilke, Shengbai Zhang
>
> Rensselaer math department
> Donald Schwendeman, Jeffrey Banks, Kristin Bennett, Mohamed Boudjelkha, Joseph Ecker, William Henshaw, Isom Herron, Mark H Holmes, David Isaacson, Elizabeth Kam, Ashwani Kapila, Maya Kiehl, Gregor Kovacic, Peter Kramer, Gina Kucinski, Rongjie Lai, Fengyan Li, Chjan Lim, Yuri V Lvov, Harry McLaughlin, John E. Mitchell, Bruce Piper, David A Schmidt, Daniel Stevenson, Yangyang Xu, Bulent Yener, Donald Drew, William Siegmann
>
> CHEM ONE authors gives us a clue in their Schrodinger formula of E_n = - (2*pi^2*m*Z^2*e^4) / (n^2*h^2* alpha^2) with a footnote: alpha = 1.113*10^-10 C^2J^-1 m^-1 which is Coulomb force.
>
> Kibo Parry M proud of his 2017 invention of the word ana........
> On Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 10:27:58 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >of Physics
> >tarded:
> >tries to blame his Stupid Word
> > "antipositron" on me, like he blames his other Stupid Word
> > "*n*lb*ttf*ckm*n*r*
>
> AP writes: is that how you pronounce your invented word at Spelling Bees
> Professor Wordsmith doing a documentary on Kibo's failure at Rensselaer with his 938 is 12% short of 945, yet, still Rensselaer graduates Kibo in engineering.
>
>
> Re: Kibo Parry Moroney stalks "AnalButtfuckManure Attacks" Dartmouth's Philip J. Hanlon, Stanford's Marc Tessier-Lavigne with his 10 OR 6 = 16; his ellipse a conic when it never was; his proton to electron at 938 to 0.5 MeV when in truth..
> 1481 views
> by Professor Wordsmith Aug 14, 2020, 11:07:05 AM
>
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> > Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
> Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> > of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
>
>
> Force of gravity = G*(m_1*m_2)/ distance^2 (Newton's law by 1687)
>
> Force of electrostatics = C(q_1*q_2)/ distance^2 (Coulomb law by 1785)
>
> So let us state the Coulomb-gravity law of Physics. From one of the permutations of V= CBE we have E = (V/(CB)) and when we differentiate that by the calculus we have E' = (V/(CB))'. Now we use the quotient rule of calculus, which is (f/gh)' = (f'gh - fg'h - fgh')/(gh)^2 and as we reduce that we get 3 terms of f'/gh -fg'/g^2h - fh'/gh^2. And using the quotient rule renders (V/(CB))' as that of V'/CB - VC'/C^2B - VB'/CB^2.
>
> E' = (V/(CB))' = V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2 = V'/CB - VC'/C^2B - VB'/CB^2.
>
> Harry, which term looks like the CHEM ONE equation--E_n = - (2*pi^2*m*Z^2*e^4) / (n^2*h^2* alpha^2)
>
>
>
> So our Coulomb-gravity law has 3 terms and we can break down each of those 3 terms into statements.
>
>
> So which of the AP-EM Equations is the Schrodinger Equation as given by CHEM ONE.
> > And I easily flip open some pages in CHEM ONE, 2nd edition, 1980 Waser, Trueblood, Knobler to page 311 for a sample of the Schrodinger equation as given by E_n = - (2*pi^2*m*Z^2*e^4) / (n^2*h^2* alpha^2).
> >
> > This is the question before me. Which term in which equation of the AP-EM laws is the Schrodinger Equation?
> >
> >
> >
> > Those 6 laws are these.
> >
> > 1) Magnetic monopole telling us what magnetism and electric current and magnetic field and electric field are.
> >
> > 2) New Ohm's law Voltage = capacitor-battery = quantity of current C times magnetic field times electric field. V= CBE. The equation of New Ohm's law is a math equation of volume Volume = length x width x height so we can expect that New Ohm's law is a measuring of volume in physics, volume of energy.
> >
> > The next 4 laws are derivatives of all the possible 4 permutations of C, B, E, and V.
> >
> > 3) Rate of change of C, quantity current, C' = (V/(BE))' Faraday law.
> >
> > 4) Rate of change of B, magnetic field, B' = (V/(CE))' Ampere-Maxwell law.
> >
> > 5) Rate of change of E, electric field, E' = (V/(CB))' Coulomb law & gravity.
> >
> > 6) The rate of change of V= CBE as V' = (CBE)' as AC transformer law.
> >
> > C' = (V/(BE))' = V'BE/(BE)^2 - VB'E/(BE)^2 - VBE'/(BE)^2 which is Faraday's law.
> > 1st term as current production -- 2nd term as Lenz law -- 3rd term as DC, AC direction
> >
> > B' = (V/(CE))' = V'CE/(CE)^2 - VC'E/(CE)^2 - VCE')/(CE)^2 which is Ampere-Maxwell law.
> > 1st term as B production -- 2nd term as Displacement current -- 3rd term as parallel attract
> >
> > E' = (V/(CB))' = V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2 which is Coulomb-gravity law.
> > 1st term as E production -- 2nd term as inverse square of distance -- 3rd term as spin and orbit synchronicity
> >
> > V' = (CBE)' = C'BE + CB'E + CBE' which is Transformer law
> > 1st term as V production in a transformer -- 2nd term as inverse square root -- 3rd term as DC, AC synchronicity
> >
> >
> > Review all of this, the EM equations of physics and mathematics.
> >
> > Faraday Law is (V/(B*L))' = i' from the AP-Maxwell Equations you learned in 1st year College.
> >
> > 1) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
> > 2) V = i*B*L New Ohm's law, law of electricity
> > 3) V' = (i*B*L)' Capacitor Law of Physics
> > 4) (V/i*L)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
> > 5) (V/(B*L))' = i' Faraday law
> > 6) (V/(i*B))' = L' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
> >
> >
> > PHYSICS LAWS
> >
> > 1) all the facts of chemistry and physics
> > 2) Voltage V = kg*m^2/A*s^3
> > 3) Current i = A = magnetic monopoles
> > 4) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
> > 5) angular momentum L = m^2/(A*s)
> > 6) V = i*B*L New Ohm's law, law of electricity
> > 7) V' = (i*B*L)' Capacitor Law of Physics
> > 8) (V/i*L)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
> > 9) (V/(B*L))' = i' Faraday law
> > 10) (V/(i*B))' = L' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
> >
> >
> >
> > Algebra of 3D Calculus, for remember we did the algebra of
> >
> > V' = (iBL)'
> > i' = (V/BL)'
> > B' = (V/iL)'
> > L' = (V/iB)'
> >
> > --- quoting 1st year calculus from Teaching True ---
> > Using the Product Rule which is (fgh)' = (f'gh + fg'h + fgh')
> >
> > Capacitor Law (i*B*L)' = i'*B*L + i*B'L + i*B*L'
> >
> > V' = (iBL)' = i'*B*L + i*B'*L + i*B*L' here we have three terms explaining capacitors
> >
> > Ampere-Maxwell Law
> >
> > Using the Quotient Rule, which is (f/gh)' = (f'gh - fg'h - fgh')/(gh)^2
> >
> > (V/i*L)' = B' = (V'*i*L - V*i' *L - V*i*L') / (i*L)^2
> >
> > Maxwell had two terms in the Ampere-Maxwell law-- the produced magnetic field and a displacement current, but above we see we have also a third new term.
> >
> > Faraday Law
> >
> > (V/B*L)' = i' = (V'*B*L - V*B' *L - V*B*L') / (B*L)^2
> >
> > ------------
> > V' = (iBL)' = i'*B*L + i*B'*L + i*B*L' reduces to
> > = iBL + iVL + iBL'
> >
> > i' = V'*B*L/ (B*L)^2 - V*B' *L/ (B*L)^2 - V*B*L' / (B*L)^2 reduces to
> > i' = B^2*L/ (B*L)^2 - V^2 *L/ (B*L)^2 - V*B*L' / (B*L)^2 further reduces
> > = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - VL'/BL^2
> >
> > B' = V'*i*L/ (i*L)^2 - V*i' *L/ (i*L)^2 - V*i*L' / (i*L)^2 reduces to
> > B' = B*i*L/ (i*L)^2 - V*i *L/ (i*L)^2 - V*i*L' / (i*L)^2 further reduces to
> > = B/iL - V/iL - VL'/iL^2
> >
> >
> > L' = (V/i*B)' = (V'*i*B - V*i' *B - V*i*B') / (i*B)^2 reduces to
> > L' = i*B^2 / (i*B)^2 - V*i *B / (i*B)^2 - V^2*i / (i*B)^2 further reduces to
> > = 1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2
> >
> > --------
> >
> >
> > (1) V' = iBL + iVL + iBL'
> >
> > (2) i' = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - VL'/BL^2
> >
> > (3) B' = B/iL - V/iL - VL'/iL^2
> >
> > (4) L' = 1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2
> >
> > Alright, so I replace L' in (1) with 1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2
> >
> > I get V' = iBL + iVL + iB*(1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2 )
> > = iBL + iVL + B - V - V^2/ B
> >
> >
> > Doing the replacement in (2)
> >
> > i' = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - VL'/BL^2
> > = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - V*(1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2) /BL^2
> > = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - (V/iBL^2) - (V^2/iB^2L^2) - (V^3/(iB^3L^2))
> >
> > Doing the replacement in (3)
> >
> > B' = B/iL - V/iL - VL'/iL^2
> > = B/iL - V/iL - V(1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2)/iL^2
> > = B/iL - V/iL - (V/i^2L^2) - (V^2/i^2*B*L^2) - (V^3/( i^2B^2L^2))
> >
> > Is there any geometrical significance I can ascribe to this? There are some cubes involved.
> >
> > AP
> >
> >
> > Rest is the daily spam bombing of Pete Olcott in sci.math with his imaginary pretend people like Mr. Fribbleeee.
> >
> > Olcott can John Coates,David Sainsbury, Peter Johnstone, Imre Leader, Gabriel Paternain ever do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, or is that totally foreign to them? Mind you, not a limit analysis hornswaggle for that is not geometry, limit analysis is not even a math proof for anyone can analysis things, analysis this post and only math hypocrites would think it is a proof.
> >
> > Re: Cambridge, you no longer are a premiere University but a school that fosters and shelters losers of logical reasoning. And why do you encourage crank screwballs that repeat computer trash, Pete Olcott, spamming sci.math everyday?
> >
> > On Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 12:45:05 PM UTC-5, peteolcott wrote:
> > > When I correct the errors of the foundation of math in a math group
> > > this is bloody well not frigging spam.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ..
> > .- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
> > , . `.' ' `.
> > .' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
> > . ; .' . `. ;
> > ; . ' `. . '
> > . ' ` `. |
> > . '. '
> > . 0 0 ' `.
> > ' `
> > ; `
> > .' `
> > ; U `
> > ; '; `
> > : | ;.. :` `
> > : `;. ```. .-; | '
> > '. ` ``.., .' :' '
> > ; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' Hi, I am the crank crackpot David Sainsbury owner and shopkeeper and bar that is University of Cambridge who feels passionate that Crackpots like Olcott should spam-bomb over sci.math, heavier than Russia bombs Ukraine. I love my pets Olcott spam sci.math for I feed them both wet and dry food, like my cats, although my prized cat eats mostly fried chicken. Hello David-- this is 2022, not Britain with spitfires in WW2.
> > ` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
> > ` ` ; ; ' '
> > ` ` ; ; ' '
> > ` `. ````'''''' ' '
> > ` . ' '
> > / ` `. ' ' .
> > / ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
> > / .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
> > / .'' ; ` .' `
> > ...'.' ; .' ` .' `
> > "" .' .' | ` .; \ `
> > ; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
> > :' | ' ` , `. `
> > | ' ` ' `. `
> > ` ' ` ; `. |
> > `.' ` ; `-'
> > `...'
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ..
> > .- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
> > , . `.' ' `.
> > .' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
> > . ; .' . `. ;
> > ; . ' `. . '
> > . ' ` `. |
> > . '. '
> > . 0 0 ' `.
> > ' `
> > ; `
> > .' `
> > ; U `
> > ; '; `
> > : | ;.. :` `
> > : `;. ```. .-; | '
> > '. ` ``.., .' :' '
> > ; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' Hi, I am the spam bomber Pete Olcott of sci.math with my endless nonsense of halting. For I spam bomb sci.math because it irritates people, for I myself failed logic, math and science. And my only way of getting attention is to spam bomb sci.math.
> > ` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
> > ` ` ; ; ' '
> > ` ` ; ; ' '
> > ` `. ````'''''' ' '
> > ` . ' '
> > / ` `. ' ' .
> > / ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
> > / .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
> > / .'' ; ` .' `
> > ...'.' ; .' ` .' `
> > "" .' .' | ` .; \ `
> > ; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
> > :' | ' ` , `. `
> > | ' ` ' `. `
> > ` ' ` ; `. |
> > `.' ` ; `-'
> > `...'
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Olcott can Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, ever ask the question, which is the atom's real electron, the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law or the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. Or does that thought fly way too above their heads?
> > >
> > > Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
> > > Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
> > > Genius hits a target no one else can see.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Olcott, why cannot Haniff, Heavens-Ward, Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, Hughes, Irvine, Jardine ask the question which is the atom's real electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle? Is it because they cannot even do logic correctly with their 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction?
> > > >
> > > > Olcott why does Cambridge Univ Stephen J. Toope, David Sainsbury, Peter Johnstone, Imre Leader, Gabriel Paternain keep teaching Boole error filled logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, and never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and these crazies still think the slant cut in cone is a ellipse when in fact it is a Oval. Why brainwash and pollute more students like Pete Olcott who is crazy enough as it is.
> > > >
> > > > Olcott why is noone in Cambridge physics able to ask the question which is the atom's true real electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle? Sargent, Saunders, Saxena, Schneider, Scott, Scrivener, Sebastian, Simmons, Simons, Sirringhaus, Smith?? Do they not have a brain to ask a simple question????
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cambridge professors insane about Logic turns students like Pete Olcott insane also.
> > > >
> > > > Cambridge Physics Dept
> > > >
> > > > Ahnert, Alai, Alexander, Allison, Ansorge, Atature, Barker, Barnes, Bartlett, Batley, Baumberg, Bohndiek, Bowman, Brown, Buscher, Butler, Campbell Carilli, Carter, Castelnovo, Challis, Chalut, Chaudhri, Chin, Ciccarelli, Cicuta, Cole, Cooper, Cowburn, Credgington, Cross, Croze, Deschler, Donald, Duffett-Smith, Dutton, Eiser, Ellis, Euser, Field, Flynn, Ford, Friend, Gibson, Green, Greenham, Gripaios, Grosche, Guck, Gull, Haniff, Heavens-Ward, Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, Hughes, Irvine, Jardine, Jenkins, Jones, Josephson, Keyser, Khmeinitskii, King, Kotlyar, Lamacraft, Lasenby, Lester, Longair, Lonzarich, Maiolino, Marshall, Martin, Mitov, Morris, Mortimer, Moller, Needs, Norman, Nunnenkamp, Padman,Parker, Patel, Payne, Pepper, Phillips, Pramauro, Queloz, Rao, Richer, Riley, Ritchie, Sargent, Saunders, Saxena, Schneider, Scott, Scrivener, Sebastian, Simmons, Simons, Sirringhaus, Smith, Sutherland, Taylor, Teichmann, Terentjev, Thomson, Verrechia, Walker, Ward, Warner, Weale, Webber, Whyles, Withington.
> > > >
> > > > Cambridge Math Dept
> > > >
> > > > Alan Baker
> > > > Bela Bollobas
> > > > Darwin Smith
> > > > John Coates
> > > > Timothy Gowers
> > > > Peter Johnstone
> > > > Imre Leader
> > > > Gabriel Paternain
> > > >
> > > > Can any-one at Cambridge start correcting the error filled Boole, Jevons, Russell, Whitehead, Godel, Wittgenstein, all failures of logic and logical reasoning, include Cantor and his tripe of undefined infinity, an infinity without a borderline between finite and infinite.
> > > >
> > > > Cambridge, you no longer are a premiere University but a school that fosters and shelters losers of logical reasoning.
> > > Cambridge failures of physics who cannot even ask the question which is the atom's true real electron-- the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton or the 0.5MeV particle that AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole. Harry Cliff, AP requires that Harry Cliff LHCb physicist to publish in the Cambridge Univ student newspaper of how sorry he is and apologizes for his physics stupidity of thinking that a hydrogen atom is composed of a electron of 0.5MeV flying around outside of a proton of 938MeV, flying around at 99% speed of light and still holding up and holding together as a hydrogen atom. Such stupid physics.
> > > > >
> > > > > Whereas the truth be known the real electron of a hydrogen atom is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus of 8 rings, where the muon and proton are doing the Faraday Law of producing more new electricity and storaging that electricity in what are known as neutrons. Because the muon is inside the proton it can fly around the torus inside at nearly the speed of light.
> > > > >
> > > > > Old Physics which Harry Cliff is a member, never took Logic, never learned how to think straight, think clear, and thus his physics knowledge is just hand down memorization. So stupid he never understood what the hell is angular momentum for no hydrogen atom can exist with a 0.5MeV particle flying around at 99% speed of light and stay put on a proton of 938MeV.
> > > > >
> > > > > AP says the 0.5MeV particle is Dirac's Magnetic Monopole. Now Dirac was a real physicist, but not Harry Cliff and everyone at CERN with their electron = 0.5MeV are fools of physics
>
> Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> Archimedes Plutonium
> AP
> Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> Archimedes Plutonium
> Jun 30, 2022, 4:30:40 PM
> 
> 
> 
> to
> Kibo Parry M says keep NSF Dr.Panchanathan instead of throwing him out like a piece of garbage but use his skill set of computers to remove errors in all E books across the world. Starting with ellipse a conic when it never was..
>
> Kibo Parry M says keep NSF Dr.Panchanathan instead of throwing him out like a piece of garbage but use his skill set of computers to remove errors in all E books across the world.
>
> On Tuesday, June 28, 2022 at 11:36:37 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >"not one single marble of commonsense in my entire brain"
> >"imp of physics"
> > tarded:
>
> Kibo Parry M opines use NSF Dr.Panchanathan rather than replace him. Use his skill set of computers to electronically replace all E-books in all libraries, especially Colleges and Universities and High School libraries, where they have ellipse is a conic, replace it with Oval is the slant cut in cone.
>
> And use that skill set to replace Boole Logic of AND truth table is TTTF not the horribly wrong TFFF which leads to the God Awful mistake of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction that colleges and universities now teach.
>
> And have Dr. Panchanathan's skill set in computers slip into the E-Books in all libraries around the world that of AP's geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
>
> And finally slip into all physics and chemistry books, E books across the world, the question-- which is the atom's true electron-- the muon or the 0.5MeV particle.
>
> Why fire and replace Dr. Panchanathan, when it is far better to use his skill set of replacing the junk and anti-science and errors by computer manipulation.
>
> 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
>
> #11-2, 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)

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Wednesday, 5 April 2023 at 04:33:04 UTC+10, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> St.Petersburg█۞█knock out St.Petersburg electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
>
>
> On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 9:15:06 PM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> Banerjee, can your rail gun knock out St Petersburg electric lines???
No.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Thursday, 6 April 2023 at 04:26:35 UTC+10, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 5:12:07 AM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> something about electric power lines with Arindam's failure on rail guns
>
>
> Moscow█۞█knock out St.Petersburg electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity

> > >
> > >
> > > On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 9:15:06 PM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > Banerjee, can your rail gun knock out St Petersburg electric lines???
> > No.

> Why not????
Very sad to say, my new design rail gun has even less acceptibility to the powers that be than your plutonium universe, Archie.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Moscow█۞█knock out St.Petersburg electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity

> On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 5:12:07 AM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> something about electric power lines with Arindam's failure on rail guns
>
>
> Moscow█۞█knock out St.Petersburg electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > >
> > >
> > > On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 9:15:06 PM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > Banerjee, can your rail gun knock out St Petersburg electric lines???
> > No.
> Why not????

On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 7:08:51 PM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> Very sad to say, my new design rail gun has even less acceptibility to the powers that be than your plutonium universe, Archie.

Is Arindam Banerjee fixing his rail gun to knock out St.Petersburg electric lines????

How does that rail gun work Arindam, you attach your Rail Gun to a electric line in a network and it destroys the entire network, even the source of power, by blowing up all the transformers in the network.

Bravo, Arindam finally makes good in physics, give Arindam the best Darjeeling tea to be found!!!! You take it with cream Arindam???

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Is A.Banerjee fixing his rail gun█۞█knock out St.Petersburg electric power lines█۞█ to knock out St.Petersburg electric lines????

> On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 7:08:51 PM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > Very sad to say, my new design rail gun has even less acceptibility to the powers that be than your plutonium universe, Archie.
>
> Is Arindam Banerjee fixing his rail gun to knock out St.Petersburg electric lines????
>
> How does that rail gun work Arindam, you attach your Rail Gun to a electric line in a network and it destroys the entire network, even the source of power, by blowing up all the transformers in the network.

> RAIL GUN that knocks out Moscow & St.Petersburg electricity, and here I thought it was going to be drones.

> Bravo, Arindam finally makes good in physics, give Arindam the best Darjeeling tea to be found!!!! You take it with cream Arindam???

No way, Archie.
You sound like Gulliver before the King of Brobdingnag, proposing all sorts of horrid weaponry for victory in war.
The response from His Majesty was, as per Internet:
****
Based on Gulliver's descriptions of their behaviour, the King describes the English as "the most pernicious race of little odious vermin that nature ever suffered to crawl upon the surface of the earth".
****
You Americans are, of course, even more debased than the English of Swift's time.
The English since Swift have been improved with contact from the Brahmanical upper castes of India, but that has not happened to the other whites who could not get such contact.
Which is why, as debased English, you think I should be interested in doing evil stuff you lots are so good at.
Grow up, Archie. Don't be one among the most pernicious race of odious little vermin that nature ever suffered to crawl upon the surface of the earth.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee




> Sanjay Kumar,Mishra Amruta, Muduli P.K., ,Dharmedra Pradhan,Kanseri Bhaskar,Kedar B Khare, Joseph Joby, Ghosh Sankalpa, Ghosh Santanu, of Indian Institute of Tech, is Arindam Banerjee correct when he says you cannot understand the hydrogen proton is 840MeV with a muon stuck inside doing the Faraday law because Arindam says you are "criminal bunglers". Personally I do not see where Arindam gets the criminality out of this????
> >
> > 2Why Drs.V. Venkataraman, Arnab Rai Choudhuri of Indian Institute of Science Bangalore, cannot check to see if the real proton of Atoms is 840MeV with a muon stuck inside doing the Faraday law, as explained by Arindam they are "criminal bunglers".
> >
> >
> > > > Making money by teaching and spreading lies about Nature. The fraud comes from ignoring my discoveries about Nature, thus depriving all.
> > > Dharmedra Pradhan-Ghosh Santanu,Kedar B Khare,Joseph Joby, Kanseri Bhaskar, Ghosh Sankalpa, of Indian Institute of Tech, is Arindam Banerjee correct when he says you cannot understand the hydrogen proton is 840MeV with a muon stuck inside doing the Faraday law because Arindam says you are "criminal bunglers". Personally I do not see where Arindam gets the criminality out of this????
> > >
> > > Mr. Pradhan is Arindam Banerjee typical and indicative of scientists at IIT, claiming the moon landing of Apollo 11 in 1969 was a staged hoax in the Arizona desert, along with other Banerjee (ball tingling notions-- the center of Earth and Sun is a cool 1 degree Kelvin for superconductivity??)
> > >
> > > Why does India encourage whackos who hate science, to spam sci.physics every day with more spam.
> > >
> > > Subhas Sarkar
> > > Annapurna Devi Yadav
> > > Rajkumar Ranjan Singh
> > > Sanjay Kumar
>
> Saxena Vikrant,,Dharmedra Pradhan-Ghosh Santanu,Kedar B Khare,Joseph Joby, Kanseri Bhaskar, Ghosh Sankalpa, of Indian Institute of Tech, is Arindam Banerjee correct when he says you cannot understand the hydrogen proton is 840MeV with a muon stuck inside doing the Faraday law because Arindam says you are "criminal bunglers". Personally I do not see where Arindam gets the criminality out of this????
> >
> > Mr. Pradhan is Arindam Banerjee typical and indicative of scientists at IIT, claiming the moon landing of Apollo 11 in 1969 was a staged hoax in the Arizona desert, along with other Banerjee (ball tingling notions-- the center of Earth and Sun is a cool 1 degree Kelvin for superconductivity??)
> >
> > Why does India encourage whackos who hate science, to spam sci.physics every day with more spam.
> >
> > Subhas Sarkar
> > Annapurna Devi Yadav
> > Rajkumar Ranjan Singh
> > Sanjay Kumar
> > > Constant daily spamming b.s. nonsense from Arindam Banerjee of his hatred of physics and physicists.

>
>
>
>
> Indian Institute of Technology
>
> Physics dept. Anurag Sharma, Babu Sujin B, Banerjee Varsha, Bhattacharya Saswata, Bhatnagar M.C. , Chatterjee R., Chaudhary Sujeet, Das Pintu, Dhaka Rajendra S., Ghosh Joyee, Ghosh Pradipta, Ghosh Sankalpa, Ghosh Santanu, Joseph Joby, Kanseri Bhaskar, Kedar B Khare, Khare Neeraj, Kumar Sunil, Malik H.K., Mani Brajesh Kumar, Marathe Rahul, Mehta B.R. , Mehta D.S. , Mishra Amruta, Muduli P.K., Ravishankar V. , Reddy G.B. , Saxena Vikrant, Sengupta Amartya, Senthilkumaran P. ,Shenoy M.R. , Shukla A.K., Singh J.P., Singh Rajendra, Sinha Aloka, Soni Ravi Kant, Srivastava Pankaj, Varshney R.K., Vijaya Prakash G.
>

> Sinha Aloka, Soni Ravi Kant,Annapurna Devi Yadav,Shenoy M.R. , Shukla A.K.,Kanseri Bhaskar, Babu Sujin B, Banerjee Varsha, Bhattacharya Saswata. Hi professors of Indian Institute of Technology. Can any of you please remember when Arindam Banerjee was a student of IIT (as he claims he was)?? And can you remember if he had his head up his arse in antiscience as he spams each and every day of the year in sci.physics, now????
>
> Sanjay Kumar,Dharmedra Pradhan,Kanseri Bhaskar,Kedar B Khare, Joseph Joby, Ghosh Sankalpa, Ghosh Santanu, of Indian Institute of Tech, is Arindam Banerjee correct when he says you cannot understand the hydrogen proton is 840MeV with a muon stuck inside doing the Faraday law because Arindam says you are "criminal bunglers". Personally I do not see where Arindam gets the criminality out of this????
>
> 2Why Drs.V. Venkataraman, Arnab Rai Choudhuri of Indian Institute of Science Bangalore, cannot check to see if the real proton of Atoms is 840MeV with a muon stuck inside doing the Faraday law, as explained by Arindam they are "criminal bunglers".

> > > 
> > > Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
> > > Arindam Banerjee
> > > unread,
> > > All Nobel laureates in physics are mendacious nincompoops
> > > As the believe in the law of conservation of energy. Energy gets created and destroyed in our
> > > 8:08 PM
> > > 
> > > > Could the professors of IIT realize-- oh o, we have a fruitcake on our hands??? And was it the case that IIT just kept passing Arindam Banerjee up to higher grades just to get rid of the pest, when they should have failed him????

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Is A.Banerjee fixing his rail gun█۞█knock out St.Petersburg electric power lines█۞█ to knock out St.Petersburg electric lines????

No relativity in your railgun, eh Arindam??


Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee

,
Zach
2
unread,
The depravity of relativity
On 4/23/2023 5:24 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Monday, 24 April 2023 at 02:37:36 UTC+10, Ross
7:33 PM


[Arindam Banerjee]

On Monday, 24 April 2023 at 11:46:09 UTC+10, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Is A.Banerjee fixing his rail gun█۞█knock out St.Petersburg electric power lines█۞█ to knock out St.Petersburg electric lines????

No. What can I do, it is part of the bigJew-gujJew world's Arindam-suppression strategy. No notice, thus, for me, Archie. You got more publicity that I, being a wiki celebrity. Not one of the legions of hungry journalists dares to come anywhere near me.

> No relativity in your railgun, eh Arindam??

None whatsoever, I assure you, Archie.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Monday, 24 April 2023 at 11:46:09 UTC+10, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> Is A.Banerjee fixing his rail gun█۞█knock out St.Petersburg electric power lines█۞█ to knock out St.Petersburg electric lines????

No. What can I do, it is part of the bigJew-gujJew world's Arindam-suppression strategy. No notice, thus, for me, Archie. You got more publicity that I, being a wiki celebrity. Not one of the legions of hungry journalists dares to come anywhere near me.

> No relativity in your railgun, eh Arindam??

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Friday, 26 May 2023 at 04:08:48 UTC+10, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 2- Is A.Banerjee fixing his rail gun█۞█knock out St.Petersburg electric power lines█۞█ to knock out St.Petersburg electric lines????

No.
>
> Depraved spammer Arindam Banerjee who hates science and his Apollo 11 a staged hoax on Arizona desert.

Awfully bad direction, Archie.

> 
> Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
> Arindam Banerjee

Beats all Hollywood stars.
> , …
> Enes Richard
> 23
> unread,
> The law of conservation of energy
> czwartek, 25 maja 2023 o 15:37:06 UTC+2 Sylvia Else napisał(a): > On 25-May-23 10:22 pm, Enes
> 1:03 PM

Scrap it, Archie.

> 
> Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
> Arindam Banerjee

Beats all rock stars.

> , …
> Murel Meisner
> 10
> unread,
> About the MMI bungle, leading to the horrendous disaster that is absurd physics
> 12:28 PM

Indeed, indeed.

> 

> > No relativity in your railgun, eh Arindam??

Fat chance, Archie.

They must all be dead now.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

3- Is A.Banerjee fixing his rail gun█۞█knock out St.Petersburg electric power lines█۞█ to knock out St.Petersburg electric lines????

Depraved spammer Arindam Banerjee who hates science and his Apollo 11 a staged hoax on Arizona desert.



Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee

, …
Enes Richard
23
unread,
The law of conservation of energy
czwartek, 25 maja 2023 o 15:37:06 UTC+2 Sylvia Else napisał(a): > On 25-May-23 10:22 pm, Enes
1:03 PM



Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee

, …
Murel Meisner
10
unread,
About the MMI bungle, leading to the horrendous disaster that is absurd physics
12:28 PM




> No relativity in your railgun, eh Arindam??

> 

> > > Indian Institute of Technology
> > >
> > > Physics dept. Anurag Sharma, Babu Sujin B, Banerjee Varsha, Bhattacharya Saswata, Bhatnagar M.C. , Chatterjee R., Chaudhary Sujeet, Das Pintu, Dhaka Rajendra S., Ghosh Joyee, Ghosh Pradipta, Ghosh Sankalpa, Ghosh Santanu, Joseph Joby, Kanseri Bhaskar, Kedar B Khare, Khare Neeraj, Kumar Sunil, Malik H.K., Mani Brajesh Kumar, Marathe Rahul, Mehta B.R. , Mehta D.S. , Mishra Amruta, Muduli P.K., Ravishankar V. , Reddy G.B. , Saxena Vikrant, Sengupta Amartya, Senthilkumaran P. ,Shenoy M.R. , Shukla A.K., Singh J.P., Singh Rajendra, Sinha Aloka, Soni Ravi Kant, Srivastava Pankaj, Varshney R.K., Vijaya Prakash G.
> > >

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Arindam Banerjee why are you and Indian Institute of Tech too stupid to understand real electron of Atoms is the muon inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law while the 0.5MeV particle is Dirac's Magnetic Monopole?? Why such physics idiocy??
>
Arindam, do you want to be a physics failure all your life???

Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
unread,

from the cause of gravity
> > If you bite it off and put it together, you have a synthesis model. The part bitten off is
7:06 PM


Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee

unread,
Physicists if any, do try to answer Roachie's question
Roachie (a wannabe CIA cretin+creep, but he has his uses) asked and I repeated his questions and
7:05 PM


>
> My 137th published book
>
> Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
>
>
> #1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory
>
> This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so I can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me.
>
> Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics community updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast, as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to.
>
> Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory.
> And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
> Length: 64 pages
>
> Product details
> • File Size : 790 KB
> • Publication Date : October 5, 2020
> • Word Wise : Enabled
> • Print Length : 64 pages
> • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> • Screen Reader : Supported
> • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Language: : English
> • ASIN : B08KS4YGWY
> • Lending : Enabled
> • Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory
> ◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
> ◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
>
>
> #2-2, 145th published book
>
>
> TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2

> Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

> What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and errors and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the halls and corridors of education.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN : B08PC99JJB
> • Publication date : November 29, 2020
> • Language: : English
> • File size : 682 KB

> • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> • Screen Reader : Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled

> • Word Wise : Enabled
> • Print length : 78 pages
> • Lending : Enabled
> • Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
> ◦ #344 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> ◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books)
>
>
>
>
> #2-3, 146th published book
>
> TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3

> Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

> I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science, you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the science. I further believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later years of physics courses, we can always pick up on details. So I devote this senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this textbook. Now Asimov's book is full of error and mistakes, and that is disappointing but all of Old Physics is full of error. On errors and mistakes of Old Physics, the best I can do is warn the students, and the largest warning of all is that whenever someone in Old Physics says "electron" what they are talking about is really the Dirac magnetic monopole. And whenever they talk about the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, they are talking about huge huge grave mistakes, for the true atom is protons as 8 ringed toruses with a muon stuck inside of a proton doing the Faraday law and producing those magnetic monopoles as electricity. I use Asimov's book as a template but in the future, I hope to rewrite this textbook using no template at all, that is if I have time in the future.
> Cover Picture: Is the book The History of Physics, by Isaac Asimov, 1966 and on top of the book are 4 cut-outs of bent circles representing magnetic monopoles which revolutionizes modern physics, especially the ElectroMagnetic theory.
>
> Product details
> ◦ ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08RK33T8V
> ◦ Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 28, 2020
> ◦ Language ‏ : ‎ English
> ◦ File size ‏ : ‎ 794 KB

> ◦ Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> ◦ Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> ◦ Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> ◦ X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled

> ◦ Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> ◦ Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
> ◦ Print length ‏ : ‎ 124 pages
> ◦ Best Sellers Rank: #293,315 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #401 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> ◦ #2,236 in Physics (Books)
>
>
> #2-4, 151st published book
>
> TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4

> Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

> Preface: This is AP's 151st book of science published. It is one of my most important books of science because 1st year college physics is so impressionable on students, if they should continue with physics, or look elsewhere for a career. And also, physics is a crossroad to all the other hard core sciences, where physics course is mandatory such as in chemistry or even biology. I have endeavored to make physics 1st year college to be as easy and simple to learn. In this endeavor to make physics super easy, I have made the writing such that you will see core ideas in all capital letters as single sentences as a educational tool. And I have made this textbook chapter writing follow a logical pattern of both algebra and geometry concepts, throughout. The utmost importance of logic in physics needs to be seen and understood. For I have never seen a physics book, prior to this one that is logical. Every Old Physics textbook I have seen is scatter-brained in topics and in writing. I use as template book of Halliday & Resnick because a edition of H&R was one I was taught physics at University of Cincinnati in 1969. And in 1969, I had a choice of majors, do I major in geology, or mathematics, or in physics, for I will graduate from UC in 1972. For me, geology was too easy, but physics was too tough, so I ended up majoring in mathematics. If I had been taught in 1969 using this textbook that I have written, I would have ended up majoring in physics, my first love. For physics is not hard, not hard at all, once you clear out the mistakes and the obnoxious worthless mathematics that clutters up Old Physics, and the illogic that smothers much of Old Physics.
>
> Maybe it was good that I had those impressions of physics education of poor education, which still exists throughout physics today. Because maybe I am forced to write this book, because of that awful experience of learning physics in 1969. Without that awful experience, maybe this textbook would have never been written by me.
>
> Cover picture is the template book of Halliday & Resnick, 1988, 3rd edition Fundamentals of Physics and sitting on top are cut outs of "half bent circles, bent at 90 degrees" to imitate magnetic monopoles. Magnetic Monopoles revolutionizes physics education, and separates-out, what is Old Physics from what is New Physics.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09JW5DVYM
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 19, 2021
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1048 KB

> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled

> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 404 pages
> • Best Sellers Rank: #4,844,838 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #487 in Electromagnetic Theory
> ◦ #1,210 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
> ◦ #8,751 in Electromagnetism (Books)
>
>
> #2-5, 174th published book
>
> TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 2nd year College
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition
>
> Preface: At the moment this is a physics book for 2nd year College. But as the months and years go by I intend to convert it into a textbook of about 200 to 300 pages. It is mostly about thermodynamics for in my own college education 1968-1972 at University of Cincinnati, I took physics thermodynamics in the 2nd year (if memory has not failed me).
> Cover-Picture: Is a iphone photograph of the Chemistry textbook I used at UC 1968-1972 with my own paper cut-outs of magnetic monopoles. Pictured are 4 bent circles, bent at 90degrees from diameter and each bent circle is a individual magnetic monopole.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09TKL4HMC
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 27, 2022
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 675 KB

> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled

> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 41 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
>
>
>
> #2-6, 177th published book
> TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Atoms, 3rd year College
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition
>
> Preface: I come to teaching physics for 3rd year College as the Architecture of Atoms. My writing style will be prose-narrative, until I add on exercise problems and convert it into a textbook. The 1st year College, has to be the equations and laws of electricity and magnetism. For the primal-axiom over all of physics is-- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. The 2nd year College is thermodynamics. And now the 3rd year College physics has to teach the Architecture, the geometry of the inside and exterior surface of the atom. One of the greatest faults, misery, and anti-science teaching of Old Physics is their denial that subatomic particles have to be something more than tiny balls tiny spheres that do-nothing, perform nothing, function as nothing. That the proton and neutron and true electron=muon, has to be matter with a function and purpose and design and task and job. This is a year of physics teaching of the architecture of the atom.
> Cover Picture: A iphone photograph of my book chemistry book, a long time favorite of mine of CHEM ONE, 2nd edition, Waser, Trueblood, Knobler, 1980, and page 307 of that book. Why this page? Because it was instrumental in my discovery of the true Architecture of Atoms. Not many professors of chemistry or physics dive into the Shrodinger Equation that results in a meaningful teaching of "matter waves". Matter waves are the heart of understanding the geometry of Atomic Architecture.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09VFH9QST
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2022
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 823 KB

> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled

> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 74 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
>
>
>
> #2-7, 178th published book
>
> TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Light Waves & Energy, 4th year College
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Kindle edition)
>
>
> Preface: This is 4th year College Physics and the important ideas of physics to learn as last year undergraduate school is the architecture and geometry of the Light Wave & Energy in physics. This is New Physics and not Old Physics. New Physics is defined as physics that knows and uses the true electron of atoms is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus and doing the Faraday law, creating new electrical energy that is storaged in the neutrons of atoms until they grow from 1eV into 945MeV and then create a new higher atomic numbered atom or emitted as radioactivity. Old Physics mistakenly identified the electron of atoms as the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. In 3rd year College we studied the architecture of the interior of atoms. In 4th year College we study the architecture of Light Waves & Energy.
>
> The template book for 4th year College is Feynman's 1985 book of QED.
>
> Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of the template book for this book. Feynman's 1985 QED, quantum electrodynamics, showing my plastic toy model of DNA and my cut-outs of 4 bent circles that each bent circle represents one magnetic monopole. I arranged the monopoles into a single strand of a cycloid wave.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09W58XGDW
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 21, 2022
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 824 KB

> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled

> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 66 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
>
>
> #2-8, 202nd published book
>
> TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Permanent Colony on Europa// graduate school college
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle edition)
>
> Preface: Crisis emergency times call for textbooks to reflect the times. The Sun gone Red Giant Initiation Phase as measured by NASA in the decade of 2010 to 2020 as showing a 0.005% Solar Radiation yearly increase threatens all life on Earth with extinction and oblivion. This crisis calls for "All Hands On Deck" to solve the problem. And to solve that problem we need all scientists in the work effort of getting Europa, the satellite of Jupiter to be our second home. I see no textbook for college graduate school as appropriate, unless it is a book addressing the crisis itself. Just the opposite of Nero was fiddling while Rome burned; we want All Hands on Deck, to save as much life on Earth as possible.
>
>
> Cover Picture: Is my iphone photo of a Google search for Europa with Webb telescope. These are exciting times in that the Webb telescope maybe able to pinpoint life on Europa.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0BC5T9JBH
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ August 27, 2022
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 801 KB

> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled

> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 45 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
>
>
>
>
> #2-9, 161st published book
>
> PHYSICSOPEDIA -- List of 137 fakes and mistakes of Old Physics// Student teaches professor Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 24Apr2022. This is AP's 161st published book of science.
>
> Preface:
> A Physicsopedia is a book of the overall assessment and evaluation of the state of the art of Physics. It is like a report card. It is a total view of the science and a judgement of the science, both of the past, present and the direction forward into the future. Its greatest use is to alert readers and people in science of what is wrong with their subject, and as a ancillary use, to alert students what to avoid in college as a waste of time.
>
> It is not in alphabetical order but mostly, rather, has a ordering of what is most important at the start and only at the very very end. For there is no index.
>
> Physics is the most important hard science for every other science is a specialized part of physics. And Old Physics has three key huge mistakes that this book addresses. The true theory of the Universe is the Atom Totality, not the Big Bang which is a ridiculous theory. The true electron of atoms is not the particle of 0.5MeV which turns out to be Dirac's magnetic monopole, while the true real electron of atoms is the muon of 105MeV which is stuck inside a proton torus of 8 rings of 840MeV. This causes another huge mistake, for a mistake in physics usually has a cascade effect of more and more mistakes. When we take the true electron of atoms is the muon, means the Sun and stars shine not from fusion, but from that muon thrusting through the proton torus in a Faraday law of electricity and magnetism producing electrical energy. So our Sun shines from the Faraday law, not fusion. And this implies the Sun has gone into Red Giant phase with a solar radiation increase of 0.005% yearly increase. That implies all life on Earth is in danger of going extinct as the Sun becomes more and more Red Giant, and unless humanity moves out to Europa, humanity goes extinct.
>
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09N18QPP1
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 3, 2021
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1139 KB

> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled

> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> 
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 82 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
>
>
>
>
> y z
> | /
> | /
> |/______ x

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Monday, 26 June 2023 at 12:38:38 UTC+10, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee why are you and Indian Institute of Tech too stupid to understand real electron of Atoms is the muon inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law while the 0.5MeV particle is Dirac's Magnetic Monopole?? Why such physics idiocy??

Why do you babble out such gibberish, Archie?

Try answering Roachie's question, how long will it take for the imploded submersible's air to rise to the surface. Let us see your greatness here, o king of science!

[Arindam Banerjee]

> Try answering Roachie's question, how long will it take for the imploded submersible's air to rise to the surface. Let us see your greatness here, o self-proclaimed king of science!

And why is the great Nobellipop provider whodat also silent? Prudence? Come on whodat, show us you are not a fake whodumbo. This is your chance! Enlighten us, wise one!

Moroney, will you continue to flatter McGinn with trolling under an alias, or will you use your moronic wits to the utmost to try to answer Roachie's q.

Robot Alsing, can you point out the relevant links?

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Arindam has your Prime Minister gotten those lovely cheetah's out of that broiling Indian sun???

On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 11:21:50 PM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

Arindam on why he is a physics failures.


1) Too stupid to question if Thomson found Dirac's magnetic monopole and not the electron of atoms.
2) Too stupid to realize that in the Rutherford,Geiger, Marsden Experiment when you have increase in velocity of bounce back alpha particles means head on collision with a larger proton torus, hence, the interior of gold atoms are toruses, no nucleus.
3) Too stupid in logic to understand subatomic particles have jobs and tasks to do, not sit around on beaches sipping lemonade what Old Physics says. The proton is a 8 ring torus with muon as electron inside doing the Faraday law producing new electricity.
4) Too stupid to understand stars and our Sun shine not from fusion but from Faraday law of each and every atom inside that star.

5) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
6) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
7) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
8) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sapheads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.



> > Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,
> > Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish
> > David J. Thouless_, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita
> > Arthur B. McDonald
> > Francois Englert
> > Saul Perlmutter
> > Brian P. Schmidt
> > Adam G. Riess
> > Makoto Kobayashi
> > Toshihide Maskawa_
> > Yoichiro Nambu_
> > John C. Mather
> > George F. Smoot
> > Roy J. Glauber_
> > David J. Gross
> > Hugh David Politzer
> > Frank Wilczek
> > Raymond Davis Jr. _
> > Masatoshi Koshiba_
> > Riccardo Giacconi_
> > Gerardus 't Hooft
> > Martinus J.G. Veltman_
> > Jerome I. Friedman
> > Henry W. Kendall_
> > Richard E. Taylor_
> > Carlo Rubbia
> > Simon van der Meer_
> > William Alfred Fowler_
> > Kenneth G. Wilson_
> > James Watson Cronin_
> > Val Logsdon Fitch_
> > Sheldon Lee Glashow
> > Steven Weinberg_
> > .
> > .
> > little fishes
> > .
> > .
> > Layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = subtraction of either 3 or 2, while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV
> >
> > Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass
> > Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu
> > more and more layers of error thinking physics
> > .
> > .
> > Edward Witten
> > John Baez
> > Brian Greene
> > Lisa Randall
> > Alan H. Guth
> > Michael E. Brown
> > Konstantin Batygin
> > Ben Bullock
> > Larry Harson
> > Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
> > Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
> > None at all - he was a raving nutter.
> > Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley
> > Jennifer Kahn, Discover, science hater
> > Eric Francis Coppolino, newsreporter hatred of science, George Witte, St.Martin's Press science hater
> > Toby Howard, The Guardian, science hater
> >
> >
> > #2-1, 137th published book

> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 123 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #4,167,235 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #15,099 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #91,163 in Physics (Books)

> >
> >
> > #2-4, 151st published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4
> > Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Preface: This is AP's 151st book of science published. It is one of my most important books of science because 1st year college physics is so impressionable on students, if they should continue with physics, or look elsewhere for a career. And also, physics is a crossroad to all the other hard core sciences, where physics course is mandatory such as in chemistry or even biology. I have endeavored to make physics 1st year college to be as easy and simple to learn. In this endeavor to make physics super easy, I have made the writing such that you will see core ideas in all capital letters as single sentences as a educational tool. And I have made this textbook chapter writing follow a logical pattern of both algebra and geometry concepts, throughout. The utmost importance of logic in physics needs to be seen and understood. For I have never seen a physics book, prior to this one that is logical. Every Old Physics textbook I have seen is scatter-brained in topics and in writing. I use as template book of Halliday & Resnick because a edition of H&R was one I was taught physics at University of Cincinnati in 1969. And in 1969, I had a choice of majors, do I major in geology, or mathematics, or in physics, for I will graduate from UC in 1972. For me, geology was too easy, but physics was too tough, so I ended up majoring in mathematics. If I had been taught in 1969 using this textbook that I have written, I would have ended up majoring in physics, my first love. For physics is not hard, not hard at all, once you clear out the mistakes and the obnoxious worthless mathematics that clutters up Old Physics, and the illogic that smothers much of Old Physics.
> >
> > Maybe it was good that I had those impressions of physics education of poor education, which still exists throughout physics today. Because maybe I am forced to write this book, because of that awful experience of learning physics in 1969. Without that awful experience, maybe this textbook would have never been written by me.
> >
> > Cover picture is the template book of Halliday & Resnick, 1988, 3rd edition Fundamentals of Physics and sitting on top are cut outs of "half bent circles, bent at 90 degrees" to imitate magnetic monopoles. Magnetic Monopoles revolutionizes physics education, and separates-out, what is Old Physics from what is New Physics.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09JW5DVYM
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 19, 2021
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English

> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1035 KB

> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled

> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 386 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #4,874,333 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #526 in Electromagnetic Theory
> > ◦ #1,321 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #9,546 in Electromagnetism (Books)

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Tuesday, 4 July 2023 at 10:50:13 UTC+10, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Arindam has your Prime Minister gotten those lovely cheetah's out of that broiling Indian sun???

My Prime Minister is the Hon. Anthony (Albo) Albanese at the moment, and he has no control over cheetahs broiling in the Indian sun.
He is now interested in enshrining a voice (whatever that may mean) for the First Nations of Australia, in the Australian constitution.
Cheetahs are not his concern, Archie.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Can_Srivastava Pankaj, Varshney R.K., Vijaya Prakash G. PLEASE step into a physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. AP's homegrown lab cannot do the fine tuning experiment of weighing a test tube of electrolyzed hydrogen and oxygen from water. If AP is correct Water is really H4O, not H2O. My weighing scale is puny and insufficient for the job at hand, 0.00001 gram or less of hydrogen and oxygen test tubes. If AP is correct the hydrogen is 1/4 the weight of oxygen, if mainstream chemistry, physics is correct the hydrogen is 1/8 in amu to oxygen.


Can_Dr.Das Pintu,Dr.Shenoy M.R.,Dr.Bhatnagar M.C.,Dr.Chatterjee R., Dr.Chaudhary Sujeet, Indian Institute of Technology- please-step into the physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. Once weighed the hydrogen test tube should be 1/4 the weight of the oxygen test tube for H4O but if mainstream chemistry is correct then 1/8 atomic mass units. My weighing scales do not go up to 0.00001 gram, and sure that Indian Institute Technology has far better precision. Thanks

I am sure India has plenty of Quartz Crystal MicroBalance scales.

Indian Institute of Technology

Physics dept. Anurag Sharma, Babu Sujin B, Banerjee Varsha, Bhattacharya Saswata, Bhatnagar M.C. , Chatterjee R., Chaudhary Sujeet, Das Pintu, Dhaka Rajendra S., Ghosh Joyee, Ghosh Pradipta, Ghosh Sankalpa, Ghosh Santanu, Joseph Joby, Kanseri Bhaskar, Kedar B Khare, Khare Neeraj, Kumar Sunil, Malik H.K., Mani Brajesh Kumar, Marathe Rahul, Mehta B.R. , Mehta D.S. , Mishra Amruta, Muduli P.K., Ravishankar V. , Reddy G.B. , Saxena Vikrant, Sengupta Amartya, Senthilkumaran P. ,Shenoy M.R. , Shukla A.K., Singh J.P., Singh Rajendra, Sinha Aloka, Soni Ravi Kant, Srivastava Pankaj, Varshney R.K., Vijaya Prakash G.

> > > > > > > Spam mill echo chamber, that is Arindam Banerjee a decades long spammer of sci.physics with his hatred of science and the method of science. Hate, hate, anger and hate.

Is Arindam Banerjee reflective, a reflection of why India never has a Nobel prize in chemistry or physics, for schizophrenic type of behavior-- one moment doing physics-- rail gun, next moment shouting that Apollo 11 was a staged hoax in Arizona desert and that the Sun and Earth cores are a frigid near 0 Kelvin temperature. Maybe all of Indian physics and chemistry is like this-- one moment doing science-- next moment hating science.


> Is Arindam Banerjee the reason ITT fails to have a Nobel winner in chemistry or physics? Like Arindam, his hatred of science is glooming large with his constant hatred of science-- Apollo 11 was a staged hoax, Sun core is a frigid near 0 Kelvin, the man is a lunatic of science, perhaps reflecting why India fails to achieve science honors.
>




+Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within
>
> > > > +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within
> > > >
> > > > 3m views Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium
> > > >
> > > > In Old Chemistry and Old Physics, their subatomic particles were do nothing and no function and no job particles that sit around as balls or whiz around the outside of balls doing nothing but pointless circling.
> > > >
> > > > In New Physics and New Chemistry-- All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. Every subatomic particle has a job a function a purpose as to the Laws of Electromagnetism--- Faraday law, Coulomb law, Ampere law, Capacitor law.
> > > >
> > > > A proton is a torus of 840MeV with 840 windings, while the muon is the true electron of Atoms and is encased inside the proton torus thrusting through and producing electricity-- magnetic monopoles.
> > > >
> > > > The neutron of Atoms is a parallel plate capacitor storing the electricity of proton+muon and is skin cover on the outside of the proton torus in the form of parallel plates.
> > > >
> > > > Can hydrogen be a Atom if it is just a proton+muon? No, all atoms require to have a capacitor such as at least one neutron. Thus the Hydrogen Atom is H2 where you have 2 proton+muon where 1 of the 2 proton+muon acts like a neutron to the other proton+muon. Thus, water molecule is not H2O but rather is H4O.
> > > >
> > > > AP is waiting for experimental chemists and physicists to prove him correct that Water is H4O.
> > > >
> > > > In the meantime we have Hydroxyl which in Old Chemistry, especially Biology is OH, while AP says that is wrong and that is really H2O.
> > > >
> > > > Now glycerine is a hydroxyl with formula C3H8O3. And what I am thinking at this moment, is that hydroxyls will be an easier proof that Water is truly H4O, rather than wait for experimentalists to actually "weigh the electrolysis test tubes of oxygen and hydrogen".
> > > >
> > > > You see, with H4O as water, glycerine is C3(2 waters)O with an extra oxygen. If Water is H2O then glycerine is C3(4 waters) deficit O. It is missing an oxygen if water is H2O.
> > > >
> > > > The reason glycerine is so effective as a skin ointment is because it has glycerine, the extra O oxygen. If water were H2O, then glycerine would be a missing oxygen and not a skin lotion that works, but makes skin even more dry.
> > > >
> > > > Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium
> > > >

> > > > --- quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---
> > > > Perhaps there is only two Faraday laws on Electrolysis. I am looking at the one that states: Faraday's first law of electrolysis relates the mass of a substance liberated (or deposited) at an electrode to the electric charge used (Q). A proportionality constant Z can be used:
> > > >
> > > > m = ZQ = (E/96485)(Q)
> > > >
> > > > m = mass, Q = total charge rewritten as Q = I*t amperes x time in seconds.
> > > >
> > > > This website gives an example: 5amps passed through molten Sodium Chloride for 3 hours. Calculate the mass of Sodium. E=23/1.
> > > >
> > > > m = (23/96485) (5) (3*60*60) approx 12.87 grams.
> > > >
> > > > --- end quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---
> > > >
> > > > Now has such a experiment been performed on Water to see how much atomic mass of hydrogen and of oxygen results??? If AP is correct, the formula of water is H4O, if Old Physics, Old Chemistry is correct the formula is H2O. So which is it???
> > > >
> > > > AP
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No, sorry no, Faraday's Law of Electrolysis is not going to tell the correct mass of hydrogen.
> > > >
> > > > Reading Wikipedia on Faraday's Electrolysis law.
> > > >
> > > > --- quoting Wikipedia ---
> > > > A monovalent ion requires 1 electron for discharge, a divalent ion requires 2 electrons for discharge and so on. Thus, if x electrons flow,
> > > > x/v atoms are discharged.
> > > >
> > > > So the mass m discharged is
> > > >
> > > > m= (xM)/vN_A) = (QM)/(eN_A *v) = (QM) / (vF)
> > > > where
> > > > N_A is the Avogadro constant;
> > > > Q = xe is the total charge, equal to the number of electrons (x) times the elementary charge e;
> > > > F is the Faraday constant.
> > > > --- end quoting Wikipedia ---
> > > >
> > > > No, the Faraday law of Electrolysis will not work on water with a correct answer, because H is not an atom but H2 is an Atom. And where one of the proton+muon converts to being a neutron to the other proton+muon.
> > > >
> > > > So if Faraday's law of Electrolysis was applied to water, thinking it would deliver a true answer is mistaken because the one H converts to neutron.
> > > >
> > > > So it appears that we need to directly measure the test tube of oxygen and the test tube of hydrogen by a direct mass measurement.
> > > >

> > > > I doubt we can measure a test tube of hydrogen or test tube of oxygen, too small to determine the mass on some sort of weight scale.
> > > >
> > > > But here is a possible lucrative idea. We should be able to get pure deuterium water. Then run the electrolysis. Collect the test tubes.
> > > >
> > > > Now have some sort of balancing beam weight scale. Place the regular water of hydrogen test tube on one side, and place the deuterium water hydrogen test tube on other side. If they stay balanced, then AP is correct and Water is really H4O.

> > > > Cosmic Rays from Sun
> > > >
> > > > 90% of Sun's cosmic rays are 840MeV proton+muon inside = H. The hydrogen Atom is H2 where one of the H proton+muon converts to being a neutron.
> > > >
> > > > When these proton+muon hit Earth atmosphere, they can turn into pions and muons.
> > > >
> > > > I commented that H alone is a subatomic particle and that makes sense in the idea that Sun's cosmic rays are 90% these proton+muon.
> > > >
> > > > Now is interstellar hydrogen H2 and intergalactic hydrogen H2 formed when one H cosmic ray joins up with another H cosmic ray to form H2 atom?
> > > >
> > > > Is this how we get H2 in outer space? From the splitting apart of H2 into H cosmic rays?
> > > >
> > > > So how much of the Sun's hydrogen is H2 and how much is H ready to join with another H and reform back into H2. Probably little of the Sun's H is H alone, and the vast majority of the Sun's hydrogen is H2.
> > > >
> > > > How much deuterium in the Sun? And it is a higher percentage than the deuterium in water on Earth?
> > > >
> > > > Water is the only known non-metallic substance that expands when if freezes; its density decreases and it expands approximately 9% by volume. (Source: web Lunar and Planetary Institute)
> > > >
> > > > I have to wait for experimental chemists and physicists to weigh the mass of test tubes from electrolysis, as to the verdict-- water is H4O.
> > > >
> > > > But until that news comes in, I will look for other means of proof.
> > > >
> > > > So AP says that the H2 is not a molecule but is the hydrogen Atom itself, where one proton+muon converts to a neutron and capacitates the other proton+muon which undergo the Faraday law.
> > > >
> > > > There are subatomic particles of H in the form of Cosmic Rays from the Sun, but most of the Sun's hydrogen is H2, and flips back and forth from H to rejoining to form H2. Some gets away from the Sun and is cosmic rays.
> > > >
> > > > But H2 is an Atom and H is a fleeting subatomic particle.
> > > >
> > > > So can I prove Water is H4O from the data of Spectral lines of H2 is the same as deuterium, only slight difference is that the deuterium is a full fledged neutron not a makeshift proton+muon of H.
> > > >
> > > > I suspect that special trait of water freezing is a proof that Water is H4O. Because the 840MeV proton torus with muon inside doing the Faraday law acting as a makeshift neutron capacitor for the other 840MeV proton torus with muon inside, is where H2 gets that expansion characteristic.
> > > >
> > > > A neutron is a parallel plate capacitor and those plates can expand when frozen temperature occurs. As the temperature gets colder, those plates move further apart.
> > > >
> > > > Now does deuterium which truly has a full neutron, does it expand also when frozen?? If so, does it expand as much as H2 which is 2 protons with 2 muons inside?
> > > >
> > > > So comparing the freezing and expansion of the parallel plates of a neutron in deuterium with the freezing and expansion of one of the proton+muon that is acting as a makeshift neutron in H2.
> > > >
> > > > If I can numbers correlate the H2 expansion with the Deuterium expansion would be a alternative proof that Water is really H4O and not H2O.
> > > >
> > > > AP
> > > > to
> > > > So now on Blankenship's book "Molecular Mechanisms of Photosynthesis", 2014, page 134, shows The structure of ATP, ADP, AMP. And within that structure are OH hydroxyls.
> > > >
> > > > In New Chemistry, water is truly H4O, and where hydroxyls are now H2O. And we have first proof of this in the Figure 8.1 of Blankenship's "Chemical structure of ATP".
> > > >
> > > > For in the lower left corner of the diagram, Blankenship has a H+ all alone, (really a mindless error) and has P surrounded by O-, O-, O and OH. The OH is really H2O for hydroxyls are H2O and water itself is H4O, and that would leave that mindless H+ as being hydrogen Atom of H2.
> > > >
> > > > The world of physics and chemistry should drop what they are doing and weigh the electrolysis test tube of hydrogen and oxygen to discover the correct true formula of water is H4O.
> > > >
> > > > AP is total confident, becuase an Atom cannot exist if it has no capacitor structure such as a neutron, or one of the H in H2 acting as a neutron. I am totally confident that Water formula is truly H4O. And I need look only to methane of H4C, to realize that there is no HC, no H2C, no H3C, but starts with H4C, and that tells me water starts with H4O. Totally confident that Old Chemistry, Old Physics did electrolysis experiments and the moment they saw hydrogen test tube be 2x volume of oxygen test tube, they dropped their work and went out for a Danish and coffee break, rather than finish their work--- actual physics weighing of atomic mass units (not the Faraday electrolysis law for it does not apply to water).
> > > >
> > > > When water electrolysis is physics weighed, AP is confident that there are 4H per every one oxygen O. And that Water is truly H4O.
> > > >

> > > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 8:56:57 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > > Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.
> > > >
> > > > Now modern day physics and chemist experimenters can really do a marvelous job if they wanted to. For they could freeze the test tubes of oxygen and hydrogen to where they are liquid and compare liquids from water electrolysis.

> > > > So, what AP is saying here is that we do electrolysis of water. We collect the two test tubes, one with oxygen the other with hydrogen.
> > > >
> > > > To prove Water is truly the formula H4O and not H2O we must weigh the masses of the two tubes to find that the ratio is 1 x 16amu to 4 x 1amu.
> > > >
> > > > The silly grotesque science error of the past was to look at volumes in the two test tubes-- "Hey-- the hydrogen is twice the volume of oxygen so the formula of water is H2O".
> > > >
> > > > No, way was that science good practice. For the correct formula of water needs to be measured by mass, by atomic mass units where Oxygen is 16amu and hydrogen is 1amu.
> > > >
> > > > I suspect a balance beam scale is good enough to see the hydrogen test tube will be 1/4 as massive as the oxygen test tube. To get within precision of electronic weighing scale of 0.00001 gram we just have to make a larger test tube of electrolysis of water.
> > > >
> > > > AP is betting that the readings will be hydrogen test tube 1/4 the mass of oxygen test tube proving Water formula is truly H4O.
> > > >
> > > > Old Physics and Old Chemistry is betting that the mass experiment will have the hydrogen test tube be 1/8 the mass of the oxygen test tube, proving Water formula is H2O.
> > > >
> > > > AP does not have these precision equipment to conduct an at-home experiment of this nature.

> > > > So, once Water is found to actually be H4O, not H2O, we move on to methane, and ask the same question of its hydrogen bonds. Is Methane really that of H8C and not H4C.
> > > >
> > > > Well, looking in the literature for anomalies to methane, I come across a arXiv "Low and high-temperature anomalies in the physical properties of solid methane "The anomalous behavior of thermodynamic, spectral, plastic, elastic and some other properties of solid methane is discussed near 20.48K and...
> > > >
> > > > AP wonders: if they can get methane to solid form, well, I am then hopeful that the mass of the molecule can be determined. Because if methane is truly H8C, that difference of H4 in atomic mass units would be very much noticeable difference.
> > > >
> > > > Chemistry Europe--
> > > > "The Anomalous Deuterium Isotope Effect in the NMR Spectrum of Methane...
> > > >
> > > > P Vermeeren, 2023
> > > > "The abnormally long and weak methylidyne C-H bond.."
> > > > "The C-H bond of the methylidyne radical, CH*, is abnormally long and weak, even longer and..."
> > > >
> > > > AP asks, are these anomalies solved if we consider methane is actually H8C and not H4C?
> > > >
> > > > AP
>
>
> My 250th published book.
>
> TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY; H2 is the hydrogen Atom and water is H4O, not H2O// Chemistry
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
> Prologue: This textbook is 1/2 research history and 1/2 factual textbook combined as one textbook. For many of the experiments described here-in have not yet been performed, such as water is really H4O not H2O. Written in a style of history research with date-time markers, and fact telling. And there are no problem sets. This book is intended for 1st year college. Until I include problem sets and exercises, I leave it to the professor and instructor to provide such. And also, chemistry is hugely a laboratory science, even more so than physics, so a first year college student in the lab to test whether Water is really H4O and not H2O is mighty educational.
>
> Preface: This is my 250th book of science, and the first of my textbooks on Teaching True Chemistry. I have completed the Teaching True Physics and the Teaching True Mathematics textbook series. But had not yet started on a Teaching True Chemistry textbook series. What got me started on this project is the fact that no chemistry textbook had the correct formula for water which is actually H4O and not H2O. Leaving the true formula for hydroxyl groups as H2O and not OH. But none of this is possible in Old Chemistry, Old Physics where they had do-nothing subatomic particles that sit around and do nothing or go whizzing around the outside of balls in a nucleus, in a mindless circling. Once every subatomic particle has a job, task, function, then water cannot be H2O but rather H4O. And a hydrogen atom cannot be H alone but is actually H2. H2 is not a molecule of hydrogen but a full fledged Atom, a single atom of hydrogen.
>
> Cover Picture: Sorry for the crude sketch work but chemistry and physics students are going to have to learn to make such sketches in a minute or less. Just as they make Lewis diagrams or ball & stick diagrams. My 4-5 minute sketch-work of the Water molecule H4O plus the subatomic particle H, and the hydrogen atom H2. Showing how one H is a proton torus with muon inside (blue color) doing the Faraday law. Protons are toruses with many windings. Protons are the coils in Faraday law while muons are the bar magnets. Neutrons are the capacitors as parallel plates, the outer skin cover of atoms.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0CCLPTBDG
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ July 21, 2023
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 788 KB

> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe

> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 168 pages

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 14:02:43 UTC+11, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Can_Srivastava Pankaj, Varshney R.K., Vijaya Prakash G. PLEASE step into a physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. AP's homegrown lab cannot do the fine tuning experiment of weighing a test tube of electrolyzed hydrogen and oxygen from water. If AP is correct Water is really H4O, not H2O. My weighing scale is puny and insufficient for the job at hand, 0.00001 gram or less of hydrogen and oxygen test tubes. If AP is correct the hydrogen is 1/4 the weight of oxygen, if mainstream chemistry, physics is correct the hydrogen is 1/8 in amu to oxygen.

stop begging, Archie.

>
>
> Can_Dr.Das Pintu,Dr.Shenoy M.R.,Dr.Bhatnagar M.C.,Dr.Chatterjee R., Dr.Chaudhary Sujeet, Indian Institute of Technology- please-step into the physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. Once weighed the hydrogen test tube should be 1/4 the weight of the oxygen test tube for H4O but if mainstream chemistry is correct then 1/8 atomic mass units. My weighing scales do not go up to 0.00001 gram, and sure that Indian Institute Technology has far better precision. Thanks

stop begging, Archie.
Show some spine.

> > > > > > > > Spam mill echo chamber, that is Arindam Banerjee a decades long spammer of sci.physics with his hatred of science and the method of science. Hate, hate, anger and hate.

Quit lying, Archie. Don't project your sad attitudes and bad manners upon me.

>
> Is Arindam Banerjee reflective, a reflection of why India never has a Nobel prize in chemistry or physics, for schizophrenic type of behavior-- one moment doing physics-- rail gun, next moment shouting that Apollo 11 was a staged hoax in Arizona desert and that the Sun and Earth cores are a frigid near 0 Kelvin temperature. Maybe all of Indian physics and chemistry is like this-- one moment doing science-- next moment hating science.

It so happens that Indian scientists have to go through a lot to get a career with a decent income, and so they have to be careful.
They will support the greatest genius that I am when they think it is safe for their careers to do so.
They are not inconvenienced by their racism and bigotry as primary reasons for suppressing my new ideas in physics as is the norm among the Western careerists.
So, some hope there.

>
>
> > Is Arindam Banerjee the reason ITT fails to have a Nobel winner in chemistry or physics?

Nobel Prizes were and are a racket, for Eurocentric colonial-missionary-loot practices. Now outdated and useless, with new facts and ideas open for all, online.
Not a monopoly any more, what.
Nobody should care for the Nobel Prize, a feel-good racket for some rich creatures.
They mean nothing.

>> Like Arindam, his hatred of science is glooming large with his constant hatred of science-- Apollo 11 was a staged hoax, Sun core is a frigid near 0 Kelvin, the man is a lunatic of science, perhaps reflecting why India fails to achieve science honors.

Good, it means that Indians are not falling for wrong and bad western notions of the ways the universe works.
Good, good.
It will be a while before Indians have the guts to accept my new ideas in physics.

Till then, it is fun and only fun without the need to go directly teach, for
Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandhi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all time, sole god among lotsa devils.
- Archiebabble&Poo snipped -

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Melbourne Uni Dr.Quiney and McCallum is Banerjee correct in saying the Moon landing of 1969 by Apollo 11 was staged in Australia's Cooper Creek with actors from Uni Melbourne, along the Burke & Wills picnic trails?

Arindam Banerjee anti-science posts such as this insane post:

When will they admit that 1969 moon landings were done in some US desert?
180 views
On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 3:33:18 AM UTC-6, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> Those three robots did not even land on the moon, assuming they got there, and that is a reasonable assumption maybe.

Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee

, …

17
unread,
Re: Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Sylvia Else do not do physics but just play ad hominem games
9:13 PM

Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee

, …

53
unread,
Drs.V. Venkataraman, Arnab Rai Choudhuri of Indian Institute of Science Bangalore--are you as dumb as Arindam Banerjee never realizing the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV,monopole=.5MeV // 12 proofs below
9:02 PM

Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee

, …
Volney
23
unread,
Re: Do they teach how not to steal from others in India, for I know South Africa has that problem as seen in John Gabriel, but then Arindam Banerjee is another stealer who never quotes, never cites reference source, never footnotes. For Benjamin

May 7

Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee

,

8
unread,
Re: Arindam Banerjee, the .... of science, physics, when he never learned what 1st year students learn-- Units, units units-- E=mc^2 multiplied by a scalar makes no changes-- no changes to Old Ohm's law or New Ohm's law when multiplied by sca
May 7

Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee

, …

35
unread,
Re: Bhattacharya Saswata,Indian Institute of Technology,Bhatnagar M.C. ,Chatterjee R.,Chaudhary Sujeet,Das Pintu-- is the reason none of you have confirmed real proton = 840MeV, real electron is the muon and .5MeV was Dirac monopole--busy on
May 2
mitchr...@gmail.com's profile photo
mitchr...@gmail.com
, …
Arindam Banerjee
22
unread,
Re: Anurag Sharma,Babu Sujin B, Banerjee Varsha,Bhattacharya Saswata of Indian Institute of Tech, are you as stupid and pandering fools of Climate Change like Jai Maharaj// thus never able to see real proton = 840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole?
May 1

Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee

, …

53
unread,
Re: Hi, I am Arindam Banerjee a arsewipe of physics,so stupid in physics I am too dumb to ask the question which is the Atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle and thus I attempt to keep Indian Institute of Technology as dumb as Arindam Banerj
Apr 28

Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee

,

8
unread,
Re: Arindam Banerjee asks Mehta B.R. , Mehta D.S.,Narendra Modi if the 2nd derivative in Feynman's Electric field equation E = (q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')] if that 2nd derivative is the same as C'
Apr 25

Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee

,

2
unread,
Re: Paid for anti-science spammers of disinformation like Banerjee & Valev banned from sci.math, sci.physics simply from Economic Sanctions on Russia, Iran, NK, et al
Apr 21

Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee

,

2
unread,
Re: Melbourne Uni Lloyd L Hollenberg Geoffrey N Taylor Raymond R Volkas can you please vouch for the fact ...... rail gun research and that the spammer Arindam Banerjee is just one liaring b.s. cluttering up sci.physics
Apr 10

Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee

,

3
unread,
Re: Arindam Banerjee claims do not square up Uni Melbourne--Harry M Quiney Jeffrey C McCallum Lloyd L Hollenberg, can Australia verify
Apr 10

Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee

, …

32
unread,
Re: Hi, I'm Arindam Banerjee and throw a flaming fresh shit turd into the middle of Physics-- why?
Apr 15

Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee

, …

49
unread,
Re: Ghosh Sankalpa, Ghosh Santanu,Joseph Joby, Kanseri Bhaskar, Kedar B Khare of Indian Institute of Tech, are you as insane nutjob of physics as Arindam Banerjee // not able to see real proton = 840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole and real electron is
Apr 9

Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee

, …

50
unread,
Bhatnagar M.C. ,Indian Institute of Technology,Chatterjee R.,Chaudhary Sujeet,Das Pintu,Dhaka Rajendra S.-- is the reason none of you have confirmed real proton = 840MeV, real electron is the muon and .5MeV was Dirac monopole-- too busy on Arindam??
Apr 9

Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee

, …

66
unread,
Re: Banerjee Varsha,Indian Institute of Technology,Bhattacharya Saswata,Bhatnagar M.C. ,Chatterjee R.-- is the reason none of you have confirmed real proton = 840MeV, real electron is the muon and .5MeV was Dirac monopole--busy with imp Arindam??
Apr 9

Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee

, …

9
unread,
Re: Arindam Banerjee asks Anurag Sharma, Babu Sujin B, Banerjee Varsha if the 2nd derivative in Feynman's Electric field equation E = (q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')] if that 2nd derivative is the same
Apr 9
