None of you can explain shit

[James McGinn]

On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 8:38:54 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 8:32:33 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 8:28:42 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > On 1/16/2022 8:59 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > >
> > > > ARE YOU ALL REALLY THIS FUCKING STUPID?
>
> > > No, James, just you. Just you. Too stupid to put the H2O state table and Dalton's Law together.
>
> > Like you have a fucking clue.
> "The belief that one`s own view of reality is the only reality is the most dangerous of all delusions."
> - Paul Watzlawick

You idiots don't even have a view. You just believe. None of you can explain shit. You believe because that's what believers do.

James McGinn / Genius

[Jim Pennino]

Reposting the same delusional nonsense over and over will not change the
response.

> James McGinn / Delusional

[Claudius Denk]

McGinn is right. You idiots don't even have a view. You just believe. None of you can explain shit. You believe because that's what believers do.

[Claudius Denk]

[Jim Pennino]

You ARE McGinn.

Claudius Denk is your imaginary friend created by you delusions so you
can say that you have a friend and someone that agrees with your
delusions.

All the rest is just typical response of the deeply delusional.

[Jim Pennino]

And yet another repost by McGinn's imaginary friend Denk.

[James McGinn]

Yep.

James McGinn / Genius

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Don't let your finite shit go infinite...

[Jim Pennino]

James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 8:46:49 AM UTC-8, claudi...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 7:01:13 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
>> > James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 8:38:54 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > >> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 8:32:33 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
>> > >> > On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 8:28:42 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> > >> > > On 1/16/2022 8:59 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > > ARE YOU ALL REALLY THIS FUCKING STUPID?
>> > >>
>> > >> > > No, James, just you. Just you. Too stupid to put the H2O state table and Dalton's Law together.
>> > >>
>> > >> > Like you have a fucking clue.
>> > >> "The belief that one`s own view of reality is the only reality is the most dangerous of all delusions."
>> > >> - Paul Watzlawick
>> > >
>> > > You idiots don't even have a view. You just believe. None of you can
>> > > explain shit. You believe because that's what believers do.
>> > Reposting the same delusional nonsense over and over will not change the
>> > response.
>> McGinn is right. You idiots don't even have a view. You just believe. None of you can explain shit. You believe because that's what believers do.
>
> Yep.

On no, another reposting frenzy where the imaginary BFFs pretend to
agree with each other.

> James McGinn / Claudius Denk /Imaginary BFFs

[sergio]

McGinn atoms are in your toilet, Denk. They will evaporate out into the air you breath.

[James McGinn]

[Claudius Denk]

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

I can. You leave atoms in your toilet...
It means... you are full of it...

Mitchell Raemsch

[sergio]

dance, monkey, dance !

[Archimedes Plutonium]

McGinn asks Dr.Carol Christ Berkeley, Dr. Mary Papazian SJSU California State Univ,CSUN Dr.Beck which is the atom's true real electron-- the Muon or the 0.5MeV particle, why CSUN offers physics, when no-one understands physics at CSUN-Is McGinn funded by CSUN Dr.Beck, Dr.Joseph Castro California State Univ System ???

> > > > Who is paying for the McGinn front page hogging-SPAM of sci.physics-- NSF? Calif University state system? US Dept of Educ??? 6 or more bad actors McGinn, Claudius, Pennino, Pnal, tornado, et al.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please do not be fooled-- there is no science going on with McGinn but rather all a stunt to keep all posts from lasting on the front page of sci.physics for more than 2 minutes--- whoosh, your post is on 2nd page.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is the new form of censor of sci.physics-- flood the front page with b.s.
> > > > >
> 32> McGinn spam originates from CSUN-- is that right Dr. Beck? SheldonGlashow in Harvard, Peter Higgs in Edinburgh still teaching 2 OR 1= 3 with AND as subtraction, ellipse a conic when in reality it is a oval, and never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, electron as 0.5MeV when it really is the muon. So stupid are these universities that they still teach a hydrogen atom electron flies at 99.9% speed of light OUTSIDE a 938MeV proton. AP says these schools are losers of science for the truth of science is the muon is the real electron of atoms and a muon is stuck INSIDE a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law, which makes sense because flying at 99.4% speed of light inside a proton, the hydrogen atom can exist.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > >
> 45> > So ask yourself, do you want to go to a school that cannot even fix its mindless mistakes-- 2 OR 1 = 3, slant cut in cone is ellipse when truthfully it is Oval, and they cannot even see that a electron outside a proton would fly away.
> > > > > > Harry Cliff LHCb physicist needs 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.
> 87 > > 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.
> > > > > > > >
> 88 > > 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.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, Harry Cliff, AP requires you to publish in Cambridge student newspaper your apology for the boneheaded physics you pursue and teach and test on fake physics of the atom.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > AP, King of Science, especially Physics
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > #2-1, 137th published book
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > #3-1, 2nd published book
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > > > > >
> 23 > > Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Length: 1150 pages
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Product details
> > > > > > > > • File Size : 2167 KB
> > > > > > > > • ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ
> > > > > > > > • Publication Date : March 11, 2019
> > > > > > > > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > > > > > > > • Print Length : 1150 pages
> > > > > > > > • Language: : English
> > > > > > > > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> > > > > > > > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> > > > > > > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > > > > > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > > > > > > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> > > > > > > > #181 in General Chemistry & Reference
> > > > > > > > #1324 in General Chemistry
> > > > > > > > #1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > > > > > 3rd published book
> > > > > >
> > > > > > AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Product details
> > > > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> > > > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> > > > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> > > > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> > > > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > > •
> > > > > > •
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> > > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Last revision was 26Jan2022. 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 November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Product details
> > > > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
> > > > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
> > > > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 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 ‏ : ‎ 50 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)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > y
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > | /
> > > > > > > > | /
> > > > > > > > |/______ x
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
> 125> > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium

[Solving Tornadoes]

On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 7:01:13 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:

[Claudius Denk]

[Jim Pennino]

Claudius Denk <claudi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Just a reposted insane denial of reality.

<snip>

>> You idiots don't even have a view. You just believe. None of
>> you can explain shit. You believe because that's what believers do.
>>

>> James McGinn / Insane crackpot

[Claudius Denk]

[Paul Alsing]

> > James McGinn / Complete Dumbfuck

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
- Hamlet, 1. 5

[sergio]

For James McGinn, The Pretend Scientist;

"Do "dumb" people know that they are dumb?
Why do stupid people think they are smart?

There are certain people in this world who are ignorant, less educated, and presume to think they are smart because they lack the ability to give an
objective point of view. They are quick to react with their emotions based on false assumptions, superstition, negative stereotyping, fake news and
information, gossip, and innuendos.

Stupid people are quick to prove that they are right and everyone is wrong. They have closed minds and refuse to give in because of their inflated ego.
They have limited intelligence too. They are stubborn, obnoxious, and rude just to deny the facts in order to save face. They always want to win an
argument to prove they are right.

Stupid people claim to be smart and sassy when an intelligent person makes a mistake or an error in judgment. Stupid people are quick to criticise
anything they don’t understand in this world. And they feel threatened by all those highly intelligent people who can change the world."