Re: McGinn suggests firing UCLA Drs Abers,Abrahams,Arisaka,Bachtis,Becklin, Bern, because they fail to understand Angular Momentum for the chemical bond cannot exist with electron=.5MeV, proton=938MeV. You need 105 to 840 to have chemistry

[James McGinn]

On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 1:59:45 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> About McGinn-- a spamming no nothing big mouth who needs a wooden plug the size of UCLA stuffed into his mouth.
>
> Discussion
> Why dont you troll retards start your own newsgroup so you dont bother real scientists (1)
> By James McGinn 1 post 0 views updated 3:29 PM
>
> Discussion
> The world is full of self-righteous morons (30)
> By James McGinn 32 posts 46 views updated 3:24 PM
>
>
> McGinn suggests firing UCLA Drs Abers,Abrahams,Arisaka,Bachtis,Becklin, Bern, because they fail to understand Angular Momentum for the chemical bond cannot exist with electron=.5MeV, proton=938MeV. You need 105 to 840 to have chemistry
>
>
> -----------------------------------
>
> UCLA Physics dept
> Ernest Abers
> Elihu Abrahams
> Katsushi Arisaka
> Michalis Bachtis
> Eric Becklin
> Zvi Bern
> Rubin Braunstein
> Stuart Brown
> Robijn Bruinsma
> Charles Buchanan
> Wesley Campbell
> Troy Carter
> Sudip Chakravarty
> W. Gilbert Clark
> John Cornwall
> Robert Cousins
> Eric D'Hoker
> Robert Finkelstein
> Christian Fronsdal
> Walter Gekelman
> Graciela Gelmini
> George Gruner
> Michael Gutperle
> Brad Hansen
> Jay Hauser
> Karoly Holczer
> Huan Huang
> Eric Hudson
> George Igo
> Per Kraus
> Alexander Kusenko
> Thomas Mason
> George Morales
> Warren Mori
> Steven Moszkowski
> Christoph Niemann
> Kumar Patel
> Roberto Peccei
> Claudio Pellegrini
> Seth Putterman
> B. Regan
> James Rosenzweig
> Joseph Rudnick
> David Saltzberg
> William Slater
> Reiner Stenzel
> Terry Tomboulis
> Jean Turner
>
>
>    /\-------/\
>    \::O:::O::/
>   (::_  ^  _::)
>    \_`-----'_/
> You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in LA?
> And, even though you-- professors of physics, want to remain stupid in not knowing what is really the electron in atoms has to be the muon at 105MeV and proton at 840MeV with Dirac's magnetic monopole being .5MeV, your students deserve better.
>
> AP
>
>
> Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
> ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu
>
>
>                 ::\ ::|:: /::
>                  ::\::|::/::
>                      _ _
>                     (:Y:)
>                      - -
>                  ::/::|::\::
>                 ::/ ::|:: \::
> One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
>             . \ .  . | .   /.
>            . . \. . .|. . /. .
>               ..\....|.../...
>                ::\:::|::/::
> ---------------      -------------
> --------------- (Y) -------------
> ---------------      --------------
>                ::/:::|::\::
>               ../....|...\...
>            . . /. . .|. . \. .
>             . / .  . | .   \ .
>
>  
> http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ 
whole entire Universe is just one big atom 
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
>
> I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.     
>
> Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe        
> Archimedes Plutonium

H2O polarity is not static. It is highly variable. And H bonds are the mechanism thereof.

[Michael Moroney]

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails:

>On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 4:37:36 PM UTC-6, James McGinn wrote:

>McGinn suggests firing UCLA Drs Abers,Abrahams,Arisaka,Bachtis,Becklin, Ber

No, McGinn has said some stupid things, but even he is not dumb enough to
say something as dumb as that. The only person dumb enough to write that
is the failure Archimedes Plutonium. Not even George Boole was that dumb!

[James McGinn]

Well, the spirit of what archy is saying is true.

He is saying, correctly, that the understanding I am introducing is heresy.

Thats good because revolutionary idea always look like heresy at first.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

Revolutionary ideas still need evidence on the form of experiments and/or observations and *your* revolutionary ideas have neither.

Case closed, you are a certifiable CRANK!

[Michael Moroney]

Chattering Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> chatters:

>1.0Why the alltime most idiotic, stupid and silly mathematics mistake was
>not the ellipse is never a conic, but rather was Boole's logic of 3 OR 2=5
>with 3 AND 2= 1

Why do you invent false 'logic' claims and then blame them on Boole? It's
bad enough that Boole was so dumb and stoopid that he didn't come in out
of the rain, but not even Boole was dumb and stoopid enough to write
something dumb like "3 OR 2 = 5" or "3 AND 2 = 1". Even Boole knew that
it's 3 PLUS 2 = 5, not 3 OR 2, and 3 MINUS 2 = 1, not 3 AND 2.

>George Boole in 1847 set forth a math and logic textbook of The
>Mathematical Analysis of Logic, and in it, Boole crazily thought the OR
>connector of logic had a truth table of TTTF and AND connector of Logic
>had a truth table of TFFF. Trouble is, Boole was an idiot of Logic

How can Boole be an idiot of logic if Boole kicks Plutonium ass at logic
day in and day out, every single day, even if he was too stoopid to come
in out of the rain, and even though he is dead!

[Michael Moroney]

Chattering Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails:

>On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 11:39:35 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium fails at math:

Why does Archimedes Plutonium talk about MIT and Harvard as if he is a
baby?

Archie whines that he isn't 'respected' because he attacks other posters
instead of doing math or physics.

Hey Uncle Al, what do you think about someone who attacks other posters
and expects to be respected for doing so??


"I cannot believe how incredibly stupid Archie-Poo is. I mean rock-hard
stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. Surface of Venus
under 80 atmospheres of red hot carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid vapor
dehydrated for 300 million years rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that
it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different sensorium of
stupid. Archie-Poo is trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid so
collapsed upon itself that it is within its own Schwarzschild radius.
Black hole stupid. Stupid gotten so dense and massive that no intellect
can escape. Singularity stupid. Archie-Poo emits more stupid/second than
our entire galaxy otherwise emits stupid/year. Quasar stupid. Nothing
else in the universe can be this stupid. Archie-Poo is an oozingly
putrescent primordial fragment from the original Big Bang of Stupid, a
pure essence of stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond
the laws of physics that define maximally extrapolated hypergeometric
n-dimensional backgroundless stupid as we can imagine it. Archie-Poo is
Planck stupid, a quantum foam of stupid, a vacuum decay of stupid, a grand
unified theory of stupid.

Archie-Poo is the epitome of stupidity, the epiphany of stupid, the
apotheosis of stupidity. Archie-poo is stooopid."

[James McGinn]

There is akready plenty of evidence.

Andvyou are just a troll.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

McGinn spluttered...

> There is akready plenty of evidence.

> Andvyou are just a troll.

When you get all excited and frustrated it would probably be a good idea to use your spell checker, otherwise you may post stuff that makes you look really ignorant... oh, wait a minute... too late... and by the way, there is zero evidence for any of your claims... zero...

[James McGinn]

So, what were you thinking when you declared there to be a triple point for air? LOL. You made it up on the spot. You are that desperate.

That's pretty pathetic.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

McGinn blurted...

< So, what were you thinking when you declared there to be a triple point for air? LOL. You made it up on the spot. You are that desperate.

< That's pretty pathetic.

Apparently you can't read. That's pretty pathetic. I provided the links, it is up to you to read them. I can't do your thinking for you. That's pretty pathetic, too...

I cerainly didn't make it up on the spot, I researched it and found a variety of evidence supporting its existence. What are you thinking when you deny a fact which is readily shown to be true? THAT is real desperation!

[James McGinn]

Worthless piece of shit.

[James McGinn]

LOL.

Here is a point that is obviated by what is absent in this discussion. Pnal is being very careful to not admit it, but he has made significant effort to chase down evidence of "cold steam" and he has failed.

One cannot find what does not exist. With it dies the convection model of storm theory.

Through further examination we determined that this model is and has always been but a shell of consensus beliefs that conceal an underlying diversity of opinion which forms the basis of a continuing conversation amongst meteorologists and nothing more. IOW, its just a conversation. It isn't a genuine theory or honest hypothesis (And, frankly, it isn't *really* science.)

But here is the aspect that is conspicuously absent: Where is the input or participation from meteorologists, meteorological enthusiasts, meteorology websites, etc. etc. etc. Well, in my opinion, now we know what underlies their absence in this discussion. Meteorology really does not have a viable theory of storms. There is nothing for them to bring to the table. All they have and have ever had is It a vague framework of assumptions that were decided upon by way of democratic processes 170 years ago and in an environment that was almost completely abstracted from any kind of requirement to test or verify these now sacred assumptions.

All in all, meteorology's theory on storms is just marketing. It isn't really a functioning model even remotely grounded in cause and effect and, consequently, none of the particulars of the theory matter with respect to what they (meteorologists) actually do in their daily duties.

You might think that what is stated in the preceding paragraph isn't all that big of a deal but I think you should reconsider with respect to the fact that meteorologists are very much concerned about maintaining the public trust. They have a motive to play dumb. They have nothing to gain by making any of this public. So the meteorology lobby is going to continue to play stupid. (They've had 170 years to become good at it.)

The advantage that Pnal, Bodkin, Moroney, pointy ears, and Sergio have is that they don't have to pretend.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 6:56:32 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 9:30:22 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Revolutionary ideas still need evidence in the form of experiments

> > and/or observations and *your* revolutionary ideas have neither.

> > Case closed, you are a certifiable CRANK!

> LOL.

Yeah, I think it is pretty funny, too.

> Here is a point that is obviated by what is absent in this discussion. Pnal is being very careful to not admit it, but he has made significant effort to chase down evidence of "cold steam" and he has failed.

Not true at all, you f'ing liar. The evidence for the gaseous form of water in the air is easy to find. Just because you are too stupid to find it, or too stupid to understand it does not mean that it is hard to find. Besides, many contributors to this forum have provided much evidence to show that you are wrong, but you just ignore it and bad-mouth the messengers.

> One cannot find what does not exist.

Exactly correct, which is why I claim that *you* have failed over and over again to provide evidence for your claim that the gaseous form of water doesn't exist in the air at STP. One simply cannot find evidence that doesn't exist. Show us your evidence, you dunce.

> Through further examination we determined that this model is and has always been but a shell of consensus beliefs that conceal an underlying diversity of opinion which forms the basis of a continuing conversation amongst meteorologists and nothing more. IOW, its just a conversation. It isn't a genuine theory or honest hypothesis (And, frankly, it isn't *really* science.)

Here you show your complete lack of education and understanding of the science involved. Ignorance is bliss, right, Jim?

<snip regurgitation of McGinn's usual and customary bullshit>

> The advantage that Pnal, Bodkin, Moroney, pointy ears, and Sergio have is that they don't have to pretend.

Well, that's correct, when you have hundreds of years of experiments and observations to make your case, you have no need to pretend. You, on the other hand, are at a distinct disadvantage because you have *zero* empirical evidence to support your position and therefore are reduced to just repeating and repeating the same old tired out non-argument whereas you beat that dead horse mercilessly.

You are a crank and a kook, and that will undoubtedly never change.

[James McGinn]

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 7:37:54 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

> <snip regurgitation of McGinn's usual and customary bullshit>

This is the part he snipped:

All in all, meteorology's theory on storms is just marketing.  It isn't really a functioning model even remotely grounded in cause and effect and, consequently, none of the particulars of the theory matter with respect to what they (meteorologists) actually do in their daily duties.  

You might think that what is stated in the preceding paragraph isn't all that big of a deal but I think you should reconsider with respect to the fact that meteorologists are very much concerned about maintaining the public trust. They have a motive to play dumb. They have nothing to gain by making any of this public. So the meteorology lobby is going to continue to play stupid. (They've had 170 years to become good at it.)

Sometime we find out more about what goons like Pnal are thinking from the things they don't want said than we do from they things they do say.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

With zero evidence you have zero arguments. Deal with it.

[Solving Tornadoes]

fire them all!!!!

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Kibo Parry M says they are too dumb to ask the question, which is the real electron of atoms, the muon or the 0.5MeV particle which AP says is the Dirac monopole.

AP writes: Kibo, what does John Baez say-- was he ever smart enough to ask the question or did he smoke too much peyote in the Calif, Nevada deserts

> >
> > UCLA Physics dept
> > Ernest Abers
> > Elihu Abrahams
> > Katsushi Arisaka
> > Michalis Bachtis
> > Eric Becklin
> > Zvi Bern
> > Rubin Braunstein
> > Stuart Brown
> > Robijn Bruinsma
> > Charles Buchanan
> > Wesley Campbell
> > Troy Carter
> > Sudip Chakravarty
> > W. Gilbert Clark
> > John Cornwall
> > Robert Cousins
> > Eric D'Hoker
> > Robert Finkelstein
> > Christian Fronsdal
> > Walter Gekelman
> > Graciela Gelmini
> > George Gruner
> > Michael Gutperle
> > Brad Hansen
> > Jay Hauser
> > Karoly Holczer
> > Huan Huang
> > Eric Hudson
> > George Igo
> > Per Kraus
> > Alexander Kusenko
> > Thomas Mason
> > George Morales
> > Warren Mori
> > Steven Moszkowski
> > Christoph Niemann
> > Kumar Patel
> > Roberto Peccei
> > Claudio Pellegrini
> > Seth Putterman
> > B. Regan
> > James Rosenzweig
> > Joseph Rudnick
> > David Saltzberg
> > William Slater
> > Reiner Stenzel
> > Terry Tomboulis
> > Jean Turner
> >
> >
> > /\-------/\
> > \::O:::O::/
> > (::_ ^ _::)
> > \_`-----'_/
> > You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in LA?
> > And, even though you-- professors of physics, want to remain stupid in not knowing what is really the electron in atoms has to be the muon at 105MeV and proton at 840MeV with Dirac's magnetic monopole being .5MeV, your students deserve better.
> >

[Archimedes Plutonium]

[Archimedes Plutonium]

McGinn can Carol Christ, Thomas F. Rosenbaum, Gene D. Block, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, Mary Papazian 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 are they wasting too much time on your McGinn Monty Python Physics. Or is Gene D. Block too much of a modern day failed fool of science to ever ask a question on true real electron?
Stanford's_Marc Tessier-Lavigne, Persis Drell,Alexander Fetter, John Lipa, William Little, Douglas Osheroff,, is McGinn correct that Stanford is failed & incompetent to confirm real proton is 840MeV, real electron=105MeV and 0.5MeV was Dirac's magnetic monopole

Re: James McGinn, the blubbery cesspool mind of a moron packed inside a single cell atop a foghorn mouth// why California schools have not yet confirmed real proton = 840MeV, electron= muon and .5MeV was Dirac's monopole
Oct 14, 2019, 10:08:30 AM
by Pete Smith
> I fart you.

On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 6:44:13 PM UTC-6, James McGinn wrote:
> James McGinn / Genius
only if you count a barking fuckdog as genius

On Wednesday, May 29, 2019 at 10:55:04 AM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> >
> > And you too proved yourself incompetent and desperate in that you failed to discuss any of the substance of the argument (the subject of which is way, way over your head).

AP writes: Is the reason Stanford Univ has not yet confirmed real proton is 840MeV not 938, because its scientists like McGinn says is blithering nattering nutter fools-- drinking coffee and eating Danish rolls rather than uncovering the true proton is 840MeV stuck with the real electron as muon doing a Faraday Law dance inside the atom making electricity and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole.

       o-:^>___?
       `~~c--^c'
Navy dog says: yes, I enjoy my Danish rolls with blended coffee, steaks and eggs in the California sun instead of real physics of the atom

Stanford University, math dept.

Gregory Brumfiel, Daniel Bump, Emmanuel Candès, Gunnar Carlsson, Moses Charikar, Sourav Chatterjee, Tom Church, Ralph Cohen, Brian Conrad, Brian Conrey, Amir Dembo, Persi Diaconis, Yakov Eliashberg, Robert Finn, Jacob Fox, Laura Fredrickson, Søren Galatius, George Schaeffer, Or Hershkovits, David Hoffman, Eleny Ionel, Renata Kallosh, Yitzhak Katznelson, Vladimir Kazeev, Michael Kemeny, Steven Kerckhoff, Susie  Kimport, Jun Li, Tai-Ping Liu, Mark Lucianovic, Jonathan Luk, Frederick Manners, Rafe Mazzeo, James R. Milgram, Maryam Mirzakhani, Stefan Mueller, Christopher Ohrt, Donald Ornstein, George Papanicolaou, Lenya Ryzhik, Richard Schoen, Leon Simon, Rick Sommer, Kannan Soundararajan, Tadashi Tokieda, Cheng-Chiang Tsai, Ravi Vakil, András Vasy, Akshay Venkatesh, Jan Vondrák, Brian White, Wojciech Wieczorek, Jennifer Wilson, Alex Wright, Lexing Ying, Xuwen Zhu  


President: Marc Tessier-Lavigne (neuroscience)
Provost: Persis Drell (physics)

Stanford physics dept.

Alexander Fetter, John Lipa, William Little, Douglas Osheroff, David Ritson, H. Alan Schwettman, John Turneaure, Robert Wagoner, Stanley Wojcicki, Mason Yearian

CalTech math dept

Michael Aschbacher, Alexei Borodin, Danny Calegari
Matthias Flach, Anton N. Kapustin, Alexander Kechris     
Alexei Kitaev, Matilde Marcolli, Nikolai Makarov, Vladimir Markovic, Hiroshi Oguri, Eric Rains, Dinakar Ramakrishnan
Barry Simon, Richard Wilson, Tom Graber, Sergei Gukov,
Elena Mantovan, Yi NI,

Caltech Physics Dept

Barry Barish, Felix Boehm, Steven Frautschi
Murray Gell-Mann, David Goodstein, Thomas Phillips,
John Schwarz, Barry Simon, Kip Thorne, Petr Vogel,
Rochus Vogt, Ward Whaling, Michael E. Brown,
Konstantin Batygin


UCLA chancellor: Gene D. Block (biology)

UCLA Physics dept
Ernest Abers, Elihu Abrahams, Katsushi Arisaka, Michalis Bachtis
Eric Becklin, Zvi Bern, Rubin Braunstein, Stuart Brown, Robijn Bruinsma
Charles Buchanan, Wesley Campbell, Troy Carter, Sudip Chakravarty
W. Gilbert Clark, John Cornwall, Robert Cousins, Eric D'Hoker
Robert Finkelstein, Christian Fronsdal, Walter Gekelman, Graciela Gelmini
George Gruner, Michael Gutperle, Brad Hansen, Jay Hauser, Karoly Holczer
Huan Huang, Eric Hudson, George Igo, Per Kraus, Alexander Kusenko
Thomas Mason, George Morales, Warren Mori, Steven Moszkowski
Christoph Niemann, Kumar Patel, Roberto Peccei, Claudio Pellegrini
Seth Putterman, B. Regan, James Rosenzweig, Joseph Rudnick
David Saltzberg, William Slater, Reiner Stenzel, Terry Tomboulis, Jean Turner


Univ Calif San Diego, physics dept

Henry D. I. Abarbanel, Kam S. Arnold, Daniel P. Arovas, Richard D. Averitt, Julio T. Barreiro, Dimitri N. Basov, Steven Boggs, James G. Branson, Adam J. Burgasser, Leonid V. Butov, Alison Coil, Eva-Maria S. Collins, Max Di Ventra, Patrick H. Diamond, Fred C. Driscoll, Daniel H. Dubin, Olga K. Dudko, Raphael M. Flauger, Michael M. Fogler, Alex Frano, George M. Fuller, Daniel R Green, Kim Griest, Benjamin Grinstein, Alexander Groisman, Tarun Grover, Jorge E. Hirsch, Michael Holst, Terence T. Hwa, Kenneth A. Intriligator, Elizabeth Jenkins, Suckjoon Jun, Brian Keating, Dusan Keres, David Kleinfeld, Quinn Konopacky, Elena F. Koslover, Julius Kuti, Tongyan Lin, Aneesh V. Manohar, M. Brian Maple, John A. McGreevy, Thomas W. Murphy, Kaixuan Ni, Michael L. Norman,
Thomas M. O'Neil, Hans P. Paar, Mark Paddock, Jeremie Palacci, Tenio Popmintchev, Wouter-Jan Rappel, Karin M. Sandstrom, Ivan K. Schuller, Lu J. Sham, Vivek Sharma, Tatyana O. Sharpee, Brian Shotwell, Oleg Shpyrko, Elizabeth H Simmons, Sunil K. Sinha, Douglas E. Smith, Harry Suhl

Math dept Univ Calif, San Diego

Edward Bender, James Bunch, Thomas Enright, Ronald Evans, Jay Fillmore, Carl FitzGerald,
Michael Freedman, Adriano Garsia, Fan Graham, Leonard Haff, Hubert Halkin, Richard Hamilton, Bill Helton, Jim Lin, Alfred Manaster, John O'Quigley, Yose Rinott, Burt Rodin, Murray Rosenblatt, Linda Rothschild, Michael Sharpe, Lance Small, Don Smith, Harold Stark, Audrey Terras, Adrian Wadsworth, Nolan Wallach, John Wavrik, Daniel Wulbert



On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 5:29:50 PM UTC-6, James McGinn wrote:
> Weather prediction is not the topic,,,,

John Schwarz,Barry Simon,Kip Thorne,Petr Vogel,Rochus Vogt, of Caltech are you as stupid as McGinn to never understand Angular Momentum for the chemical bond cannot exist with electron=.5MeV, proton=938MeV. You need 105 to 840 to have chemistry

Murray Gell-Mann, David Goodstein, Thomas Phillips, of Caltech are you as stupid as McGinn to never understand Angular Momentum for the chemical bond cannot exist with electron=.5MeV, proton=938MeV. You need 105 to 840 to have chemistry


Stanford's Drs Gregory Brumfiel, Daniel Bump, Emmanuel Candès, Gunnar Carlsson is McGinn the example of how physicists react when told the proton is 840MeV, electron 105MeV to have chemistry bonding


About McGinn, we all know he is an idiot when it comes to science or even thinking straight, and although he deserves 1 or 2 posts per day (some would say that is too much) but he does not deserve 75 posts per day under various names like Denke or Solvingtornado. So either he post 1 or 2, or I recommend he be kicked out permanently as a front page hog spamming jackarse. I hate his practice of just churning his posts, where the creep adds two words, sometimes not even a new word, to his prior post just to get it on the front page again. To think that sci.physics by year 2019 is mostly a airhead spammer on the front page is enough to make any cry and sob into the new year.

On Thursday, January 3, 2019 at 10:19:09 PM UTC-6, James McGinn wrote:
> Aw shucks.


                              ..
            .- " `-.   ,..-'''  ```....'`-..
           ,      . `.'            '        `.
         .'   .' `    `           '   `..     ;
         .   ;  .'                     . `.    ;
         ;   . '                       `.  .   '
          . '                            ` `.  |
        . '.                                  '
       .          0              0            ' `.
      '                                          `
     ;                                            `
    .'                                             `
    ;                      U                        `
    ;    ';                                         `
    :   | ;..                                 :`     `
    :    `;. ```.                           .-; |    '
    '.      `    ``..,                   .'   :'    '
     ;       `        ;'..          ..-''    '     '  Hi I am McGinn under various fake names Denk, tornado etc. My game is to fill sci.physics with nothing but my airhead posts because I love to annoy everybody, and on fast days, I just churn all my old posts by adding a word or sentence, and often pretend I am Jim Pennino or Pnal, to make believe someone is actually talking with me. You see, my foot is where my head is and my head where my foot is.
      `       `        ;  ````'''""'  ;      '    '
       `       `        ;            ;      '    '
        `       `        ;          ;      '    '
         `       `.       ````''''''      '    '
           `       .                     '    '
         /  `       `.                  '    '        .
        /     `       ..            ..'    .'"""""...'
       /   .`   `       ``........-'     .'` .....'''
      / .'' ;     `                    .'   `
  ...'.'    ;    .' `                .'      `
   ""      .'  .' |    `           .; \       `
           ; .'   |      `. . . . ' .  \       `
           :'     |     '   `       ,   `.     `
                  |    '     `      '     `.    `
                  `   '       `     ;       `.  |
                  `.'          `    ;         `-'
                                `...'



CalTech's Rochus Vogt, Ward Whaling, Michael E. Brown,Konstantin Batygin are you like McGinn/pnal too stupid to understand Angular Momentum for the chemical bond cannot exist with electron=.5MeV, proton=938MeV. You need 105 to 840 to have chemistry

Too stupid to understand Angular Momentum for the chemical bond cannot exist with electron=.5MeV, proton=938MeV. You need 105 to 840 to have chemistry. The .5MeV particle that Thomson discovered was actually Dirac's magnetic monopole

Why does McGinn simply not ask professors of physics at UCLA why they think the real proton is not 840MeV and real electron = 105MeV with .5 MeV the Dirac Magnetic Monopole

Why does any physicist not believe proton is 840MeV, electron is 105MeV in order to have chemistry bonding, because a ratio of 840 to 105 allows for Angular Momentum
-----------------------------------

Stanford University, math dept.

Gregory Brumfiel, Daniel Bump, Emmanuel Candès, Gunnar Carlsson, Moses Charikar, Sourav Chatterjee, Tom Church, Ralph Cohen, Brian Conrad, Brian Conrey, Amir Dembo, Persi Diaconis, Yakov Eliashberg, Robert Finn, Jacob Fox, Laura Fredrickson, Søren Galatius, George Schaeffer, Or Hershkovits, David Hoffman, Eleny Ionel, Renata Kallosh, Yitzhak Katznelson, Vladimir Kazeev, Michael Kemeny, Steven Kerckhoff, Susie  Kimport, Jun Li, Tai-Ping Liu, Mark Lucianovic, Jonathan Luk, Frederick Manners, Rafe Mazzeo, James R. Milgram, Maryam Mirzakhani, Stefan Mueller, Christopher Ohrt, Donald Ornstein, George Papanicolaou, Lenya Ryzhik, Richard Schoen, Leon Simon, Rick Sommer, Kannan Soundararajan, Tadashi Tokieda, Cheng-Chiang Tsai, Ravi Vakil, András Vasy, Akshay Venkatesh, Jan Vondrák, Brian White, Wojciech Wieczorek, Jennifer Wilson, Alex Wright, Lexing Ying, Xuwen Zhu  


President: Marc Tessier-Lavigne (neuroscience)
Provost: Persis Drell (physics)

Stanford physics dept.

Alexander Fetter, John Lipa, William Little, Douglas Osheroff, David Ritson, H. Alan Schwettman, John Turneaure, Robert Wagoner, Stanley Wojcicki, Mason Yearian


CalTech math dept

Michael Aschbacher, Alexei Borodin, Danny Calegari
Matthias Flach, Anton N. Kapustin, Alexander Kechris     
Alexei Kitaev, Matilde Marcolli, Nikolai Makarov, Vladimir Markovic, Hiroshi Oguri, Eric Rains, Dinakar Ramakrishnan
Barry Simon, Richard Wilson, Tom Graber, Sergei Gukov,
Elena Mantovan, Yi NI,

Caltech Physics Dept

Barry Barish, Felix Boehm, Steven Frautschi
Murray Gell-Mann, David Goodstein, Thomas Phillips,
John Schwarz, Barry Simon, Kip Thorne, Petr Vogel,
Rochus Vogt, Ward Whaling, Michael E. Brown,
Konstantin Batygin

   /\-------/\
   \::O:::O::/
  (::_  ^  _::)
   \_`-----'_/

You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in sunny California?


And, even though you-- professors of physics, want to remain stupid in not knowing what is really the electron in atoms has to be the muon at 105MeV and proton at 840MeV with Dirac's magnetic monopole being 0.5MeV, your students deserve better.

And, even though you-- professors of physics/math, want to remain silent and stupid in Real Electron = muon, and true real Calculus with a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, your students deserve better.

Yes, there, what did they say-- the power of Sun and stars is not really fusion but is the Faraday Law inside of atoms creating monopoles and turning Space into energy that fuels the Sun and stars. My rough estimate is that fusion only supplies 10% or less of Sun and stars.

But of course, I could not have discovered the true starpower when under the idiotic idea that the electron was a mere .5MeV when it truly is 105 MeV.

What answer did they give?


#1-3, 74th published book

HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

In 2016-2017, AP discovered that the real proton has a mass of 840 MeV, not 938. The real electron was actually the muon and the muon stays inside the proton that forms a proton torus of 8 rings and with the muon as bar magnet is a Faraday Law producing magnetic monopoles. So this book is all about why researchers of physics and engineers keep getting the number 938MeV when they should be getting the number 840 MeV + 105 MeV = 945 MeV.

Cover Picture is a proton torus of 8 rings with a muon of 1 ring inside the proton torus, doing the Faraday Law and producing magnetic monopoles.
Length: 17 pages

Product details
• Publication Date : December 18, 2019
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 17 pages
• File Size : 698 KB
• ASIN : B082WYGVNG
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled

#1-4, 105th published book

Atom Geometry is Torus Geometry // Atom Totality series, book 4 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Since all atoms are doing the Faraday Law inside them, of their thrusting muon into a proton coil in the shape of a geometry torus, then the torus is the geometry of each and every atom. But then we must explain the neutrons since the muon and proton are doing Faraday's Law, then the neutron needs to be explained in terms of this proton torus with muon inside, all three shaped as rings. The muon is a single ring and each proton is 8 rings. The neutron is shaped like a plate and is solid not hollow. The explanation of a neutron is that of a capacitor storing what the proton-muon rings produce in electricity. Where would the neutron parallel plates be located? I argue in this text that the neutron plates when fully grown from 1 eV until 945MeV are like two parallel plate capacitors where each neutron is part of one plate, like two pieces of bread with the proton-muon torus being a hamburger patty.

Cover Picture: I assembled two atoms in this picture where the proton torus with a band of muons inside traveling around and around the proton torus producing electricity. And the pie-plates represent neutrons as parallel-plate capacitors.
Length: 39 pages

Product details
• Publication Date : March 24, 2020
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• ASIN : B086BGSNXN
• Print Length : 39 pages
• File Size : 935 KB
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,656,820 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#6413 in Mathematics (Kindle Store)
#315 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
#4953 in Physics (Kindle Store)



#1-5, 112th published book

New Perspective on Psi^2 in the Schrodinger Equation in a Atom Totality Universe// Atom Totality series, book 5
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

I first heard of the Schrodinger equation in college chemistry class. We never actually did any problem solving with the equation, and we were only told about it. Then taking physics my next year in college and after I bought the Feynman Lectures on Physics, just for fun for side reading, three volume set did I learn what this Schrodinger equation and the Psi^2 wavefunction was about. I am not going to teach the mathematics of the Schrodinger equation and the math calculations of the Psi or Psi^2 in this book, but leave that up to the reader or student to do that from Feynman's Lectures on Physics. The purpose of this book is to give a new and different interpretation of what Psi^2 is, what Psi^2 means. Correct interpretation of physics experiments and observations turns out to be one of the most difficult tasks in all of physics.

Cover Picture: a photograph taken of me in 1993, after the discovery of Plutonium Atom Totality, and I was 43 years old then, on a wintery hill of New Hampshire. It is nice that Feynman wrote a physics textbook series, for I am very much benefitting from his wisdom. If he had not done that, getting organized in physics by writing textbooks, I would not be writing this book. And I would not have discovered the true meaning of the Fine Structure Constant, for it was Feynman who showed us that FSC is really 0.0854, not that of 0.0072. All because 0.0854 is Psi, and Psi^2 is 0.0072.
Length: 20 pages

Product details
• ASIN : B0875SVDC7
• Publication date : April 15, 2020
• Language: : English
• File size : 1134 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 20 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #240,066 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #5 in 30-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #65 in General Chemistry & Reference
◦ #481 in Physics (Kindle Store)

#1-6, 135th published book

QED in Atom Totality theory where proton is a 8 ring torus and electron = muon inside proton doing Faraday Law// Atom Totality series, book 6 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 

Since the real true electron of atoms is the muon and is a one ring bar magnet thrusting through the 8 ring torus of a proton, we need a whole entire new model of the hydrogen atom. Because the Bohr model with the 0.5MeV particle jumping orbitals as the explanation of Spectral Lines is all wrong. In this vacuum of explaining spectral line physics, comes the AP Model which simply states that the hydrogen atom creates Spectral lines because at any one instant of time 4 of the 8 proton rings is "in view" and the electricity coming from those 4 view rings creates spectral line physics.

Cover Picture: Is a imitation of the 8 ring proton torus, with my fingers holding on the proton ring that has the muon ring perpendicular and in the equatorial plane of the proton rings, thrusting through. This muon ring is the same size as the 8 proton rings making 9 x 105MeV = 945MeV of energy. The muon ring has to be perpendicular and lie on the equator of the proton torus. Surrounding the proton-torus would be neutrons as skin or coating cover and act as capacitors in storing the electricity produced by the proton+muon.


Product details
• ASIN : B08K47K5BB
• Publication date : September 25, 2020
• Language : English
• File size : 587 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 25 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #291,001 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #13 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #52 in General Chemistry & Reference
◦ #334 in General Chemistry



#1-7, 138th published book
The true NUCLEUS of Atoms are inner toruses moving around in circles of a larger outer torus// Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden Experiment revisited // Atom Totality Series, book 7 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

The geometry of Atoms of the Table of Chemical Elements is torus geometry. We know this to be true for the torus geometry forms the maximum electricity production when using the Faraday Law. We see this in Old Physics with their tokamak toruses attempting to make fusion, by accelerating particles of the highest possible acceleration for the torus is that geometry. But the torus is the geometry not only of maximum acceleration but of maximum electrical generation by having a speeding bar magnet go around and around inside a torus== the Faraday law, where the torus rings are the copper closed wire loop. The protons of atoms are 8 loops of rings in a torus geometry, and the electron of atoms is the muon as bar magnet, almost the same size as the proton loops but small enough to fit inside proton loops. It is torus geometry that we investigate the geometry of all atoms.
Length: 41 pages

Product details
• Publication Date : October 9, 2020
• File Size : 828 KB
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print Length : 41 pages
• ASIN : B08KZT5TCD
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled

#1-8, 1st published book

Atom Totality Universe, 8th edition, 2017// A history log book: Atom Totality Series book 8 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)


Last revision 7Apr2021. This was AP's first published science book.

Advisory: This is a difficult book to read and is AP's research log book of the Atom Totality in 2016-2017. I want to keep it for its history value. AP advises all readers wanting to know the Plutonium Atom Totality theory to go to the 9th edition that is the latest up to date account of this theory. The reason AP wants to keep the 8th edition is because of Historical Value, for in this book, while writing it, caused the discovery of the real electron is the muon of atoms. The real proton of atoms is 840MeV and not the 938MeV that most books claim. The particle discovered by JJ Thomson in 1897 thinking he discovered the electron of atoms was actually the Dirac magnetic monopole at 0.5MeV. This discovery changes every, every science that uses atoms and electricity and magnetism, in other words, every science.

Foreward:
I wrote the 8th edition of Atom Totality and near the end of writing it in 2017, I had my second greatest physics discovery. I learned the real electron of atoms was the muon at 105MeV and not the tiny 0.5MeV particle that J.J.Thomson found in 1897. So I desperately tried to include that discovery in my 8th edition and it is quite plain to see for I tried to write paragraphs after each chapter saying as much. I knew in 2017, that it was a great discovery, changing all the hard sciences, and reframing and restructuring all the hard sciences.
Length: 632 pages


Product details
File Size: 1132 KB
Print Length: 632 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLP9NDR
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
 Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #578,229 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
                #1610 in Physics (Kindle Store)
                #8526 in Physics (Books)
                #18851 in Biological Sciences (Books)


y  z
|  /
| /
|/______ x

More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, 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.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe  
Archimedes Plutonium

#2-1, 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
• 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 ‏ : ‎ 1033 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 386 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled




y  z
|  /
| /
|/______ x

More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, 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.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe  
Archimedes Plutonium








#3-1, 2nd published book

True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere.

Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule.

Length: 1150 pages

Product details
• File Size : 2167 KB
• ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ
• Publication Date : March 11, 2019
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 1150 pages
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#181 in General Chemistry & Reference
#1324 in General Chemistry
#1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)

[Archimedes Plutonium]

McGinn on Douglas E. Smith, Harry Suhl, Thomas F. Rosenbaum, Gene D. Block, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, Carol Christ, Mary Papazian 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 are they wasting too much time on your McGinn Monty Python Physics. Or is Gene D. Block too much of a modern day failed fool of science to ever ask a question on true real electron?

     ;       `        ;'..          ..-''    '     '  Hi I am McGinn under various fake names Denk, Claudius, tornado Pennino, Pnal are my buddies keeping my posts on 1st page 24-7 etc. My game is to fill sci.physics with nothing but my airhead posts because I love to annoy everybody, and on fast days, I just churn all my old posts by adding a word or sentence, and often pretend I am Jim Pennino or Pnal, to make believe someone is actually talking with me. You see, my foot is where my head is and my head where my foot is.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

McGinn lip synch the question Thomas F. Rosenbaum, Gene D. Block, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, Carol Christ, Mary Papazian please 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 are they wasting too much time on your McGinn Monty Python Physics. Or is Gene D. Block too much of a modern day failed fool of science to ever ask a question on true real electron?

> > > > ; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' Hi I am McGinn under various fake names Denk, Claudius, tornado Pennino, Pnal are my buddies keeping my posts on 1st page 24-7 etc. My game is to fill sci.physics with nothing but my airhead posts because I love to annoy everybody, and on fast days, I just churn all my old posts by adding a word or sentence, and often pretend I am Jim Pennino or Pnal, to make believe someone is actually talking with me. You see, my foot is where my head is and my head where my foot is.

> > 


[Archimedes Plutonium]

CSUN,Adriana Ocampo, Scott J. Horowitz, Erika D. Beck, William Karush, Lorraine Foster, Olympia LePoint,
> 
> John C. Mather, George F. Smoot, Roy J. Glauber, David J. Gross, Hugh David Politzer, Frank Wilczek, Sheldon Glashow with their mindless Standard Model, these two imps of physics could never multiply muon mass 105MeV by 9 and see it is within Sigma Error of the neutron and proton (alleged proton rest mass) of 940MeV. Meaning what? Meaning that the proton is a composite of 8 muon rings and the neutron is 9 muon rings. And the muon is the real true electron of atoms, stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law of creating new electrical energy-- the reason stars and Sun shine. But no, the imps of physics like Sheldon Glashow and Peter Higgs put physics knowledge and understanding backwards in time, to caveman mentality physics with their impish Standard Model.
> > 
> > >
> > > Why do imps of physics like Glashow or Higgs never understand that a do nothing electron and do nothing proton are imp reasoning in physics. Whereas AP's particles are always doing some law of Electrodynamics. And why does Nobel award imps of science, do they like imp physics instead of true physics?
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > Makoto Kobayashi, Toshihide Maskawa, Yoichiro Nambu, John C. Mather, George F. Smoot, Roy J. Glauber, David J. Gross -- please, please can they ever ask the simple question, of which is the atom's true real electron, the muon or the 0.5MeV particle that AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
1> > > ..

> > > .- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
> > > , . `.' ' `.
> > > .' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
> > > . ; .' . `. ;
> > > ; . ' `. . '
> > > . ' ` `. |
> > > . '. '
> > > . 0 0 ' `.
> > > ' `
> > > ; `
> > > .' `
> > > ; U `
> > > ; '; `
> > > : | ;.. :` `
> > > : `;. ```. .-; | '
> > > '. ` ``.., .' :' '

2> > > ; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' Hi, I am McGinn shithead of science with my fake names who pollutes sci.physics everyday with antiscience b.s., and the only thing I have going for me is a enormous loud mouth.

> > > ` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
> > > ` ` ; ; ' '
> > > ` ` ; ; ' '
> > > ` `. ````'''''' ' '
> > > ` . ' '
> > > / ` `. ' ' .
> > > / ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
> > > / .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
> > > / .'' ; ` .' `
> > > ...'.' ; .' ` .' `
> > > "" .' .' | ` .; \ `
> > > ; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
> > > :' | ' ` , `. `
> > > | ' ` ' `. `
> > > ` ' ` ; `. |
> > > `.' ` ; `-'
> > > `...'

3> > >
> > >
4> > > Robert Ingalls,David Kaplan,Univ Washington,Henry Lubatti,Lillian McDermott,Larry McLerran,Gerald Miller is the reason you have not yet confirmed real proton=840MeV, electron=105MeV, and .5MeV= Dirac magnetic monopole is offtopic Relf? Is Relf taking away your attention?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
5> > > Stupid Nobel Physics prizes to those who cannot even ask the question of which is the atom's real true electron, the muon or 0.5MeV particle that AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole

> > 
> > >
> > >
> > > Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,
> > > Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish
> > > David J. Thouless, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita
> > > Arthur B. McDonald
> > > Francois Englert
> > > Saul Perlmutter
> > > Brian P. Schmidt
> > > Adam G. Riess
> > > Makoto Kobayashi
> > > Toshihide Maskawa
> > > Yoichiro Nambu
> > > John C. Mather
> > > George F. Smoot
> > > Roy J. Glauber
> > > David J. Gross
> > > Hugh David Politzer
> > > Frank Wilczek
> > > Raymond Davis Jr.
> > > Masatoshi Koshiba
> > > Riccardo Giacconi
> > > Gerardus 't Hooft
> > > Martinus J.G. Veltman
> > > Jerome I. Friedman
> > > Henry W. Kendall
> > > Richard E. Taylor
> > > Carlo Rubbia
> > > Simon van der Meer
> > > William Alfred Fowler
> > > Kenneth G. Wilson
> > > James Watson Cronin
> > > Val Logsdon Fitch
> > > Sheldon Lee Glashow
> > > Steven Weinberg
> > > .
> > > .
> > > little fishes
> > > .
> > > .
> > > Layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = subtraction of either 3 or 2, while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV
> > >
> > > Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass
> > > Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu
> > > more and more layers of error thinking physics
> > > .
> > > .
> > > John Baez
> > > Brian Greene
> > > Lisa Randall
> > > Alan H. Guth
> > > Michael E. Brown
> > > Konstantin Batygin
> > > Ben Bullock
> > > Larry Harson
> > > Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
> > > Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
> > > None at all - he was a raving nutter.
> > > Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley
> > > Edward Witten
> > 
> > 

> > 5> > #1-7, 138th published book

> > 4> > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe

> > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > #2-1, 137th published book
> > > >

> > 1> > Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition

> > 2> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4

> > 3> > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe

[Archimedes Plutonium]

CSUN,Erika D. Beck, Lorraine Foster, Olympia LePoint, Adriana Ocampo, Scott J. Horowitz, William Karush,


John C. Mather, George F. Smoot, Roy J. Glauber, David J. Gross, Hugh David Politzer, Frank Wilczek, Sheldon Glashow with their mindless Standard Model, these two imps of physics could never multiply muon mass 105MeV by 9 and see it is within Sigma Error of the neutron and proton (alleged proton rest mass) of 940MeV. Meaning what? Meaning that the proton is a composite of 8 muon rings and the neutron is 9 muon rings. And the muon is the real true electron of atoms, stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law of creating new electrical energy-- the reason stars and Sun shine. But no, the imps of physics like Sheldon Glashow and Peter Higgs put physics knowledge and understanding backwards in time, to caveman mentality physics with their impish Standard Model.
> 
> >
> > Why do imps of physics like Glashow or Higgs never understand that a do nothing electron and do nothing proton are imp reasoning in physics. Whereas AP's particles are always doing some law of Electrodynamics. And why does Nobel award imps of science, do they like imp physics instead of true physics?
> >
>
> >
> > Makoto Kobayashi, Toshihide Maskawa, Yoichiro Nambu, John C. Mather, George F. Smoot, Roy J. Glauber, David J. Gross -- please, please can they ever ask the simple question, of which is the atom's true real electron, the muon or the 0.5MeV particle that AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole.
> >
> >
>
> >
> >
> >

> > ..
> > .- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
> > , . `.' ' `.
> > .' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
> > . ; .' . `. ;
> > ; . ' `. . '
> > . ' ` `. |
> > . '. '
> > . 0 0 ' `.
> > ' `
> > ; `
> > .' `
> > ; U `
> > ; '; `
> > : | ;.. :` `
> > : `;. ```. .-; | '
> > '. ` ``.., .' :' '

> > ; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' Hi, I am McGinn shithead of science with my fake names who pollutes sci.physics everyday with antiscience b.s., and the only thing I have going for me is a enormous loud mouth.

> > ` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
> > ` ` ; ; ' '
> > ` ` ; ; ' '
> > ` `. ````'''''' ' '
> > ` . ' '
> > / ` `. ' ' .
> > / ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
> > / .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
> > / .'' ; ` .' `
> > ...'.' ; .' ` .' `
> > "" .' .' | ` .; \ `
> > ; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
> > :' | ' ` , `. `
> > | ' ` ' `. `
> > ` ' ` ; `. |
> > `.' ` ; `-'
> > `...'
> >
> >

> > Robert Ingalls,David Kaplan,Univ Washington,Henry Lubatti,Lillian McDermott,Larry McLerran,Gerald Miller is the reason you have not yet confirmed real proton=840MeV, electron=105MeV, and .5MeV= Dirac magnetic monopole is offtopic Relf? Is Relf taking away your attention?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 

[Archimedes Plutonium]

CSUN,William Karush,Erika D. Beck, Lorraine Foster, Olympia LePoint, Adriana Ocampo, Scott J. Horowitz,
> 
3> John C. Mather, George F. Smoot, Roy J. Glauber, David J. Gross, Hugh David Politzer, Frank Wilczek, Sheldon Glashow with their mindless Standard Model, these two imps of physics could never multiply muon mass 105MeV by 9 and see it is within Sigma Error of the neutron and proton (alleged proton rest mass) of 940MeV. Meaning what? Meaning that the proton is a composite of 8 muon rings and the neutron is 9 muon rings. And the muon is the real true electron of atoms, stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law of creating new electrical energy-- the reason stars and Sun shine. But no, the imps of physics like Sheldon Glashow and Peter Higgs put physics knowledge and understanding backwards in time, to caveman mentality physics with their impish Standard Model.
> > 
> > >
4> > > Why do imps of physics like Glashow or Higgs never understand that a do nothing electron and do nothing proton are imp reasoning in physics. Whereas AP's particles are always doing some law of Electrodynamics. And why does Nobel award imps of science, do they like imp physics instead of true physics?

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Kenneth G. Wilson, James Watson Cronin, Val Logsdon Fitch, Sheldon Lee Glashow, William Alfred Fowler, with their mindless Standard Model, these imps of physics could never multiply muon mass 105MeV by 9 and see it is within Sigma Error of the neutron and proton (alleged proton rest mass) of 940MeV. Meaning what? Meaning that the proton is a composite of 8 muon rings and the neutron is 9 muon rings. And the muon is the real true electron of atoms, stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law of creating new electrical energy-- the reason stars and Sun shine. But no, the imps of physics like Sheldon Glashow and Peter Higgs put physics knowledge and understanding backwards in time, to caveman mentality physics with their impish Standard Model.

Why do imps of physics like Glashow or Higgs never understand that a do nothing electron and do nothing proton are imp reasoning in physics. Whereas AP's particles are always doing some law of Electrodynamics. And why does Nobel award imps of science, do they like imp physics instead of true physics?

Makoto Kobayashi, Toshihide Maskawa, Yoichiro Nambu, John C. Mather, George F. Smoot, Roy J. Glauber, David J. Gross -- please, please can they ever ask the simple question, of which is the atom's true real electron, the muon or the 0.5MeV particle that AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole.

> > > ..
> > > .- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
> > > , . `.' ' `.
> > > .' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
> > > . ; .' . `. ;
> > > ; . ' `. . '
> > > . ' ` `. |
> > > . '. '
> > > . 0 0 ' `.
> > > ' `
> > > ; `
> > > .' `
> > > ; U `
> > > ; '; `
> > > : | ;.. :` `
> > > : `;. ```. .-; | '
> > > '. ` ``.., .' :' '

> > > ; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' Hi, I am McGinn antiscience, together with my friends Claudius, Pennino, Pnal flood sci.physics everyday so as to hog front page, and thus no other post survives the front page more than 5 seconds.

#1-9, 163rd published book


Stellar System Evolution for Advanced Intelligent Life //Atom Totality science Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Format: Kindle Edition


Preface: This book explores the question of why the Sun has a planet with abundant life that evolved over 3.7 billion years ago into the advanced intelligent life of humans, yet the Sun has gone Red Giant initiation phase that threatens to destroy all life on Earth in the next few thousand years. The question of why even bother having advanced intelligent life if the home star quickly destroys that life and the planet it resides upon? Why bother with advanced intelligent life if it is put under such enormous stress and strain and energy to move to a distant satellite of Europa and Ganymede. Surely the Cosmic design must tell us why this is our fate.
Cover Picture: is my iphone photograph of Europa.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09NQ65H9F
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 15, 2021
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 999 KB

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

• Print length ‏ : ‎ 60 pages

• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled


y  z
|  /
| /
|/______ x

More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, 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.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe  
Archimedes Plutonium



#2-1, 137th published book

[Archimedes Plutonium]

MATHOPEDIA-- List of 76 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// Student teaches professor

by Archimedes Plutonium

Preface:
A Mathopedia is like a special type of encyclopedia on the subject of mathematics. It is about the assessment of the worth of mathematics and the subject material of mathematics. It is a overall examination and a evaluation of mathematics and its topics.

The ordering of Mathopedia is not a alphabetic ordering, nor does it have a index. The ordering is purely that of importance at beginning and importance at end.

The greatest use of Mathopedia is a guide to students of what not to waste your time on and what to focus most of your time. I know so many college classes in mathematics are just a total waste of time, waste of valuable time for the class is math fakery. I know because I have been there.

Now I am going to cite various reference sources of AP books if anyone wants more details and can be seen in the Appendix at the end of the book.

I suppose, going forward, mathematics should always have a mathopedia, where major parts of mathematics as a science are held under scrutiny and question as to correctness. In past history we have called these incidents as "doubters of the mainstream". Yet math, like physics, can have no permanent mainstream, since there is always question of correctness in physics, there then corresponds questions of correctness in mathematics (because math is a subset of physics). What I mean is that each future generation corrects some mistakes of past mathematics. If anyone is unsure of what I am saying here, both math and physics need constant correcting, of that which never belonged in science. This then converges with the logic-philosophy of Pragmatism (see AP's book of logic on Pragmatism).

----------------------------
Table of Contents
----------------------------

1) Introduction

2) List of 76 errors, mistakes and fakes of Old Math.

3) Appendix

---------
Text
---------

1) Introduction


Alright, well, mathematics is a closed subject. What I mean by that is due to the textbook series of Archimedes Plutonium TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, that once you learn the polynomial transform and learn the two Power Rules of Calculus, you reached the peak, the pinnacle of all of mathematics, and anything further in math is just details of what you learn in that textbook series. Math is a completed science because it has this "peak of calculus", unlike the other 5 hard sciences of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy. Those other five will continue to find new ideas, new things, while math remains static and complete to its peak of calculus understanding. Mathematics is finished complete as far as a science goes because the peak of math is going nowhere. And even though Physics will find new science such as how the proton toruses inside of atoms are configured in geometry, the geometry and calculus used in that configuration, that new science does not change nor does it create or require a new math peak/summit to handle the new physics.

[Michael Moroney]

🐁 of Math and 🐀 of Physics Archimedes "failure" Plutonium
<plutonium....@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

> MATHOPEDIA-- List of 76 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// Student teaches professor

And ArchiePoo's back, after (much) less than 24 hours!

Of course he never left, he was too busy spamming that he's leaving...
ArchiePoo has enough time to spam that falsehood of leaving, but dealing
with the nonexistent CIA spam takes "Too much time"...

>
> MATHOPEDIA-- List of 76 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// Student teaches professor

1) Ludwig Poehlmann
2) Ludwig Hansen
3) Ludwig van Ludvig
4) Ludwig Plutonium
5) Archimedes Plutonium
6) Archimedes Plutonium
...
76) Archimedes Plutonium

[Archimedes Plutonium]

2McGinn lip synch the question Sheldon Glashow,Thomas F. Rosenbaum, Gene D. Block, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, Carol Christ, Mary Papazian please 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 are they wasting too much time on your McGinn Monty Python Physics. Or is Gene D. Block too much of a modern day failed fool of science to ever ask a question on true real electron?

[Archimedes Plutonium]

3McGinn lip synch the question Roger Penrose, Sheldon Glashow,Thomas F. Rosenbaum, Gene D. Block, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, Carol Christ, Mary Papazian please 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 are they wasting too much time on your McGinn Monty Python Physics. Or is Gene D. Block too much of a modern day failed fool of science to ever ask a question on true real electron?

[Archimedes Plutonium]

4McGinn lip synch the question RogerPenrose, Sheldon Glashow,Thomas F. Rosenbaum, Gene D. Block, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, Carol Christ, Mary Papazian please 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 are they wasting too much time on your McGinn Monty Python Physics. Or is Gene D. Block too much of a modern day failed fool of science to ever ask a question on true real electron?

[Archimedes Plutonium]

5McGinn lip synch the question Marc Tessier-Lavigne,RogerPenrose, Sheldon Glashow,Thomas F. Rosenbaum, Gene D. Block,Carol Christ, Mary Papazian please 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 are they wasting too much time on your McGinn Monty Python Physics. Or is Gene D. Block too much of a modern day failed fool of science to ever ask a question on true real electron?

[Archimedes Plutonium]

6McGinn lip synch the question CSUN,Erika D. Beck,Marc Tessier-Lavigne,RogerPenrose, Sheldon Glashow,Thomas F. Rosenbaum, Gene D. Block,Carol Christ, Mary Papazian please 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 are they wasting too much time on your McGinn Monty Python Physics. Or is Gene D. Block too much of a modern day failed fool of science to ever ask a question on true real electron?

[Archimedes Plutonium]

7McGinn lip synch the question GeneD.Block,CSUN Erika D. Beck,Marc Tessier-Lavigne,RogerPenrose, Sheldon Glashow,Thomas F. Rosenbaum,Carol Christ, Mary Papazian please 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 are they wasting too much time on your McGinn Monty Python Physics. Or is Gene D. Block too much of a modern day failed fool of science to ever ask a question on true real electron?

[Archimedes Plutonium]

AP's 168th book of Science// Evolution of First Heart and concurrent with First Gill/Lung After the easy solution of First Eye with First Mitosis and First Meiosis, AP is sort of reveling in joy. So when you find something
12k views
Subscribe

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 3, 2022, 3:33:47 PM (yesterday)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
168th book of Science// Evolution of First Heart and concurrent with First Gill/Lung



After the easy solution of First Eye with First Mitosis and First Meiosis, AP is sort of reveling in joy. So when you find something easy to solve, you naturally push onwards for more challenges. The next challenge is first heart with first gill/lung.



So much of evolution was done in water so it is not surprising that first lung is probably first gill.



And the angle of attack for a solution is this idea of mechanism of a cancer tumor forming first heart and a cancer tumor forming first gill/lung.



Probably fungus, in need of faster locomotion need a heart & gill/lung.



But here I would be researching how we can have cancers of organelles of the single cell. Cancers of multicellular are obvious.



So here, in this research I am having levels of organization of cancer. Cancer in multicellular is more cells. So what is cancer in a unicellular body?



Of course AP, looks at cancer as opposite of what nearly 100% of people look at cancer as a dreaded nightmare of nothing but bad bad bad. AP sees cancer as a necessary feature of life itself. Directing change for the betterment of the entire species, but to the detriment of some individuals.



So in this research I need to focus on Fungus and on organelles in single cells. Focus on how organelles can go cancerous.



AP, King of Science, especially Physics

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 3, 2022, 7:26:38 PM (yesterday)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Now of course no heart or gill/lung ever evolved in a single cell, and most readers would be confused over this. Of course the heart and gill/lung evolved in multicellular organisms.

What AP is thinking is that the heart evolved from a organelle inside a single cell. An organelle that has a Pumping action function of the cell. And this organelle had cancer, ending up with tranforming a organelle pump into a multicellular pump evolving into a heart. Same thing for gills/lungs. The cancer growth of an organelle transforming into a multicellular gill/lung.

This would mean the heart and gill/lung occurred in a multicellular organism approximately 600 to 542 million years ago.

Are there pumping organelles in fungus? Are there gill slit openings -- resembling gill slits in fungus?

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 4, 2022, 12:49:59 AM (yesterday)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
It looks as though the first heart and gill/lung system comes from fungi of molds, the multicellular fungi.

The organelle for first heart was the mitochondria.

Recent research in mitochondria shows them to be multiple small batteries packed together as 1 mitochondria.

Plants have chloroplasts, while animals have mitochondria.

Now I need to find out how the mitochondria becomes a animal heart. Is it a process of a intercellular cancer that makes a mitochondria become more than a organelle but transform into a organ for a multicellular organism? The sponge for instance? And looking that up, I see sponges have 3 hearts.

So I believe I am well on the way of discovery of First Heart on Earth. As coming from a cancer of mitochondria of Mold. Then evolving into Sponges.

Can we view a sponge as a evolutionary relative of Molds?

What does the DNA of Sponges have in terms of the DNA of Molds? Are they closely related, or distant?

AP

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 4, 2022, 1:13:27 AM (yesterday)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
I do not know if any researcher has ever seen a mitochondria having cancer. A mitochondria multiplying itself cancerously. It may have been observed and mistaken for something else. And given a name which is not what it actually is.

I need to explore this to get the easiest way possible of evolving the Heart and the gill/lungs simultaneously. Can we envision the gill/lung as a different sort of mitochondria?

In theoretical science, it is best to attack these hard questions by proposing the Most Easiest Route of Getting What is Wanted. A cancerous mitochondria in Mold some 600 million years ago is the fastest and easiest way of First Heart with First Gill/Lung in tow.

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 4, 2022, 1:59:37 AM (yesterday)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 4, 2022, 1:34 AM
to sci.physics
Maybe I am not asking the correct question on cancer of mitochondria to become both heart and gill/lung simultaneously.

Although it is very very easy to see that ellipsoid shaped mitochondria become a heart or one lobe of a gill slit or lobe of a lung.

I should first ask how Mitochondria are stacks of Small Batteries, much like the modern electric car vehicle are stacks of smaller batteries, like my Toyota Prius.

Look inside a Mitochondria and it is stacks of smaller batteries.

So here we have a big clue, that you can have a cancer of an organelle like the mitochondria. And that cancer transformed the mitochondria into being a Multitude of smaller mitochondria.

So that about 600 million years ago, maybe 700 million years ago, those ancient mitochondria were having cancers and going from being 1 large battery to being 100s of small batteries as the Mitochondria, but then it did not stop at 100 small batteries, that the mitochondria some 700 - 600 million years ago went cancerous to become a Mitochondria-Heart plus a Gill/Lung in addition all in one organ.

Apparently sponges have no internal organs so to speak-- and there are many websites fobbing off wrong information.
Apparently sponges have pores, belonging to the phylum Porifera. Sponges breathe by diffusion through pores.

So I need to look for another animal that has heart-gill/lung closely related to Mold.

How close or distant related is the Mold with the Sponge????

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 4, 2022, 2:11:25 AM (yesterday)



to Plutonium Atom Universe

P.S. a new way of attacking AP has been revealed tonight. Where someone follows and tracks AP searching the Internet. And once AP opens a site, the hackers up and alter the information to say something like a Sponge has 3 hearts. Google sent me a "heavy traffic warning". So someone is now attacking AP by means of tracking his moves over the Internet and once AP lands on a site, the hackers alter the information of the original site. The octopus has 3 hearts, not the sponge.

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 4, 2022, 2:17:46 AM (yesterday)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, it is the octopus I need to investigate for it has 3 hearts and it has multiple gill slits. Does it have 3 sets of gill slits???

Has anyone done a DNA analysis to see how closely related is the DNA of Mold compared to Octopus and to Sponge???

It could be that the Octopus is the first animal that is multicellular and possessed the First Heart of all animals to follow.

Would that make logical commonsense, that the animal with the most hearts was where the first heart was evolved? Yes, that makes logical commonsense, the animal with the most hearts was the animal with the first heart.

Now we definitely need that DNA study to show if Mold is directly related to Octopus!!!

AP


Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 4, 2022, 2:25:42 AM (yesterday)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, it is the octopus I need to investigate for it has 3 hearts and it has multiple gill slits. Does it have 3 sets of gill slits???

Has anyone done a DNA analysis to see how closely related is the DNA of Mold compared to Octopus and to Sponge???

It could be that the Octopus is the first animal that is multicellular and possessed the First Heart of all animals to follow.

Would that make logical commonsense, that the animal with the most hearts was where the first heart was evolved? Yes, that makes logical commonsense, the animal with the most hearts was the animal with the first heart.

Now we definitely need that DNA study to show if Mold is directly related to Octopus!!!

And come to think about it the Mold hyphae closely resemble the tentacles of the Octopus. What a remarkable link up, the white hyphae of Mold evolving over 100 million years in the Proterozoic before the Paleozoic, evolving into the tentacles of octopus. One has to remember Earth had no Moon then, and that 1/2 of Earth was in full sunlight all the time while the other side of Earth in total darkness means the oceans were frozen on that side and the sunlight side was Shallow Seas for octopus to thrive and prosper and evolve.

AP

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 4, 2022, 3:56:05 AM (23 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, I ran into a Scientific American article on how Octopus have this special ability to override evolution of DNA, because they can edit their own RNA, called RNA editing.

Then I went to look if Mold has that ability of RNA editing, and sure enough in springer.com on "Fungal RNA editing: who, when, and why?"

This should make it easier to trace if the DNA of octopus is closely related to the DNA of Mold. For the DNA was held constant while the octopus kept altering its RNA. And this mechanism is altogether new to me, how animals can bypass Darwin Evolution and tinker with their own evolution by tinkering with their own RNA. Totally new to me.

And the earliest fossils of Octopus go back to more than 500 million years ago.

This is looking swell for the idea that First Heart evolved in animals was the Octopus from the Mold.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 4, 2022, 2:52:59 PM (12 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Wikipedia says of the octopus "The Cephalopoda evolved from a mollusc resembling the Monoplacophora in the Cambrian some 530 million years ago." Marshak's timeline in Essentials of Geology, 2009, says that Cambrian starts 542 million years ago with early multicellular organisms and with first corals and shellfish and many organisms with skeletons in a Cambrian explosion of life forms.

Can, all this animal life explosion in the Cambrian be mostly due to one ancestor-- the Mold family of animals with their RNA editing allowing them to explode in various lifeforms to make up the Cambrian Explosion?

So many of these animals with 8 legs can easily come from hyphae of molds through RNA editing.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 4, 2022, 3:08:37 PM (11 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Now I started this exploration of First Heart with the idea that the mechanism was going to be a cancer of some organelle in single cell organisms. But as the research progressed from fungus Mold to that of Octopus and knowing the Octopus and Mold both do RNA editing, which can be described as -- accelerated Darwin Evolution -- for RNA editing is adapting animals to their environment far faster than the Darwin evolution does.

So here I have a confluence of two mechanisms-- my cancer mechanism and then the mechanism of RNA editing.

So here, at this juncture point of research, makes me think that RNA editing is a far larger concept than is cancer. And that cancer is caused by RNA editing. Something to do with the telomeres of DNA. In this sense, every cancer that occurs has some interplay of RNA editing. And that cancer is just a word used for the broad generalized mechanism of RNA editing.

Cancer is a tiny subset of RNA editing.

In my research last night, I found that Mold does a lot of RNA editing as well as the Octopus. This is a direct link to saying Octopus evolved from mold.

And one picture in particular from Wikipedia, makes the Octopus look like a spider. I would not be surprised at all, that the spider evolved from RNA editing of the Octopus some 500 - 400 million years ago, when the first spiders start to appear.

So, not only do we need DNA analysis to show Octopus DNA is a direct descendent of Mold DNA, but that spider DNA is a direct descendent of Octopus DNA.

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
2:31 AM (now)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Instead of being the 226th book of science, I decided to push it up as my 168th book of science, seeing that I am on a roll here in biology.

There is a wise saying in finance, commerce and economics -- when profiting, let your profits Run.

So let my biology books run.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

McGinn lip synch the question Thomas F. Rosenbaum,GeneD.Block,CSUN Erika D. Beck,Marc Tessier-Lavigne,RogerPenrose, Sheldon Glashow, Carol Christ, Mary Papazian please 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 are they wasting too much time on your McGinn Monty Python Physics. Or is Gene D. Block too much of a modern day failed fool of science to ever ask a question on true real electron?

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Yes, Hi Greta, I am afraid Richard Borcherds will remain a failed goonclod of math all his life long, with his dumb Boole logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.

With his mindless slant cut in single cone as a ellipse--does the idiot not realize a cone has one axis of symmetry and cannot possibly ever give a ellipse cross section.

But worst of all, the ignorant Borcherds thinks a "limit analysis" is a proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and the thought never passing through his math ignorant mind that Calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of FTC. Brocherds is as dumb and failed in mathematics as is Terence Tao and Andrew Wiles with they stupidity of limit analysis. Do they not understand that analyzing something is not proving something??? They should crawl back under the rock from which they came from.

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
•
•


#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)

5th published book

Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
Preface:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.

The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.

My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.

Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.

Product details
File Size: 773 KB
Print Length: 72 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019

Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English

ASIN: B07PMB69F5

Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  


Word Wise: Not Enabled

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Sheldon Glashow,William Karush,CSUN Erika D. Beck,Adriana Ocampo, Scott J. Horowitz, William Karush, Lorraine Foster, Olympia LePoint, William Alfred Fowler, Kenneth G. Wilson, James Watson Cronin, Val Logsdon Fitch, with their silly Standard Model, can they ever multiply muon mass 105MeV by 9 and see it is within Sigma Error of the neutron and proton (alleged proton rest mass) of 940MeV. Meaning what? Meaning that the proton is a composite of 8 muon rings and the neutron is 9 muon rings. And the muon is the real true electron of atoms, stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law of creating new electrical energy-- the reason stars and Sun shine. But no, the imps of physics like Sheldon Glashow and Peter Higgs put physics knowledge and understanding backwards in time, to caveman mentality physics with their impish Standard Model.


>
> Why do imps of physics like Glashow or Higgs never understand that a do nothing electron and do nothing proton are imp reasoning in physics. Whereas AP's particles are always doing some law of Electrodynamics. And why does Nobel award imps of science, do they like imp physics instead of true physics?
>
> Makoto Kobayashi, Toshihide Maskawa, Yoichiro Nambu, John C. Mather, George F. Smoot, Roy J. Glauber, David J. Gross -- please, please can they ever ask the simple question, of which is the atom's true real electron, the muon or the 0.5MeV particle that AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole.
>

> > > > ..
> > > > .- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
> > > > , . `.' ' `.
> > > > .' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
> > > > . ; .' . `. ;
> > > > ; . ' `. . '
> > > > . ' ` `. |
> > > > . '. '
> > > > . 0 0 ' `.
> > > > ' `
> > > > ; `
> > > > .' `
> > > > ; U `
> > > > ; '; `
> > > > : | ;.. :` `
> > > > : `;. ```. .-; | '
> > > > '. ` ``.., .' :' '

> > > > ; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' Hi, I am McGinn antiscience with together my friends Claudius, Pennino, Pnal flood sci.physics everyday so as to hog front page, and thus no other post survives the front page more than 5 seconds.

> > > > ` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
> > > > ` ` ; ; ' '
> > > > ` ` ; ; ' '
> > > > ` `. ````'''''' ' '
> > > > ` . ' '
> > > > / ` `. ' ' .
> > > > / ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
> > > > / .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
> > > > / .'' ; ` .' `
> > > > ...'.' ; .' ` .' `
> > > > "" .' .' | ` .; \ `
> > > > ; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
> > > > :' | ' ` , `. `
> > > > | ' ` ' `. `
> > > > ` ' ` ; `. |
> > > > `.' ` ; `-'
> > > > `...'
>
>

> Robert Ingalls,David Kaplan,Univ Washington,Henry Lubatti,Lillian McDermott,Larry McLerran,Gerald Miller is the reason you have not yet confirmed real proton=840MeV, electron=105MeV, and .5MeV= Dirac magnetic monopole is offtopic Relf? Is Relf taking away your attention?
>
>
> Stupid Nobel Physics prizes to those who cannot even ask the question of which is the atom's real true electron, the muon or 0.5MeV particle that AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole

> 
> 

> #1-5, 112th published book
>
> New Perspective on Psi^2 in the Schrodinger Equation in a Atom Totality Universe// Atom Totality series, book 5

> Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>

> I first heard of the Schrodinger equation in college chemistry class. We never actually did any problem solving with the equation, and we were only told about it. Then taking physics my next year in college and after I bought the Feynman Lectures on Physics, just for fun for side reading, three volume set did I learn what this Schrodinger equation and the Psi^2 wavefunction was about. I am not going to teach the mathematics of the Schrodinger equation and the math calculations of the Psi or Psi^2 in this book, but leave that up to the reader or student to do that from Feynman's Lectures on Physics. The purpose of this book is to give a new and different interpretation of what Psi^2 is, what Psi^2 means. Correct interpretation of physics experiments and observations turns out to be one of the most difficult tasks in all of physics.
>
> Cover Picture: a photograph taken of me in 1993, after the discovery of Plutonium Atom Totality, and I was 43 years old then, on a wintery hill of New Hampshire. It is nice that Feynman wrote a physics textbook series, for I am very much benefitting from his wisdom. If he had not done that, getting organized in physics by writing textbooks, I would not be writing this book. And I would not have discovered the true meaning of the Fine Structure Constant, for it was Feynman who showed us that FSC is really 0.0854, not that of 0.0072. All because 0.0854 is Psi, and Psi^2 is 0.0072.
> Length: 20 pages
>
> Product details
> • ASIN : B0875SVDC7
> • Publication date : April 15, 2020
> • Language: : English

> • File size : 1134 KB

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

> • Word Wise : Enabled

> • Print length : 20 pages
> • Lending : Enabled

> • Best Sellers Rank: #240,066 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #5 in 30-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> ◦ #65 in General Chemistry & Reference
> ◦ #481 in Physics (Kindle Store)
>
> #1-6, 135th published book

> y
> 
> 
> 

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Peter Higgs,William Karush,CSUN Erika D. Beck,Adriana Ocampo, Scott J. Horowitz, William Karush, Lorraine Foster, Olympia LePoint, William Alfred Fowler, Kenneth G. Wilson, James Watson Cronin, Val Logsdon Fitch, with their silly Standard Model, can they ever multiply muon mass 105MeV by 9 and see it is within Sigma Error of the neutron and proton (alleged proton rest mass) of 940MeV. Meaning what? Meaning that the proton is a composite of 8 muon rings and the neutron is 9 muon rings. And the muon is the real true electron of atoms, stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law of creating new electrical energy-- the reason stars and Sun shine. But no, the imps of physics like Sheldon Glashow and Peter Higgs put physics knowledge and understanding backwards in time, to caveman mentality physics with their impish Standard Model.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Sheldon Glashow,Peter Higgs,William Karush,CSUN Erika D. Beck,Adriana Ocampo, Scott J. Horowitz, William Karush, Lorraine Foster, Olympia LePoint, William Alfred Fowler, Kenneth G. Wilson, James Watson Cronin, Val Logsdon Fitch, with their silly Standard Model, can they ever multiply muon mass 105MeV by 9 and see it is within Sigma Error of the neutron and proton (alleged proton rest mass) of 940MeV. Meaning what? Meaning that the proton is a composite of 8 muon rings and the neutron is 9 muon rings. And the muon is the real true electron of atoms, stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law of creating new electrical energy-- the reason stars and Sun shine. But no, the imps of physics like Sheldon Glashow and Peter Higgs put physics knowledge and understanding backwards in time, to caveman mentality physics with their impish Standard Model.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Emmet in Old Shanghai celebrating the Russian stealing of Vladivostok and Outer Manchuria. Emmet, will Putin move his army to Manchuria, next? Seeing that Xi and CCP are so dumb in love with Russia for stealing their land while they hate USA for making them richer, this is not inscrutable behavior but outright idiotic behavior on the part of Xi.

Emmet celebrating 9May as Russia stole Outer Manchuria & Vladivostok from Xi's China and Xi loving Russia for stealing Outer Manchuria and hating the USA for making China richer by the day. Emmet is this why they call Xi and China as "inscrutable". I would say they are just plain dumb people, probably from all the air pollution they breathe in China. What is Putin's Russia stealing next from China, Emmet, is it the ports Dalian, Tianjin, Qingdao.

On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 2:58:58 AM UTC-5, Emmet Shibanuma wrote:
>you slavic nazis don't want people believe what you nazis do along your
>systems. What is your name,
Outer Manchuria

Emmet will Putin's Russia flatten those Chinese cities like they flattened Mariupol? And then Xi and the Chinese Communist Party praise and love Putin even more and hate and despise USA even more for making them rich. The Chinese are not just inscrutable, but just plain dumb, dumber than a crackpot.

On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 2:58:58 AM UTC-5, Emmet Shibanuma wrote:
> is calling the strongest and biggest economy in europe, the
> fathers of Mercedes and BMW, for being *_a_sulky_liver_sausage_*. Ohh my
> ass, this world turns shit upside-down.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

UCSD, RICHARD D. AVERITT, JULIO T. BARREIRO, DIMITRI N. BASOV,
UCSD, why not admit the truth Oval is the slant cut in single cone, never the ellipse. UCSD -- __truth always wins__ and your actions of hiring or __complacent with__ hate-stalker criminals of Kibo Parry M. or Jan Burse or Dan Christensen or their dozen allies J. McGinn, J.Pennino of hatred, only shows that UCSD is no longer in the business of science and truth but has gone corrupt.

Not much difference between the corrupt Donald Trump and his mindless "big lie" and UCSD with their mindless big lie of ellipse a conic section.

No point in asking any UCSD professor which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle when the bozo the clowns cannot even tell apart a ellipse from oval.

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)

UCSD-- why not tell the truth of science instead of being complacent or hiring a moron paid for hate-stalker like Kibo Parry M. You must know, truth always wins.
On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 4:59:49 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>why do you have to be such a crybaby about the ellipse being a conic
> section?


UCSD

Univ Calif San Diego, physics dept

HENRY D. I. ABARBANEL, KAM S. ARNOLD, DANIEL P. AROVAS,
RICHARD D. AVERITT, JULIO T. BARREIRO, DIMITRI N. BASOV,
STEVEN BOGGS, JAMES G. BRANSON, ADAM J. BURGASSER, LEONID V. BUTOV, ALISON COIL,EVA-MARIA S. COLLINS, MAX (MASSIMILIANO) DI VENTRA,
PATRICK H. DIAMOND, FRED C. DRISCOLL, DANIEL H. DUBIN, OLGA K. DUDKO, RAPHAEL M. FLAUGER,MICHAEL M. FOGLER, ALEX FRAÑÓ, GEORGE M. FULLER,DANIEL R GREEN, KIM GRIEST, BENJAMIN GRINSTEIN,ALEXANDER GROISMAN, TARUN GROVER, JORGE E. HIRSCH, MICHAEL HOLST, TERENCE T. HWA, KENNETH A. INTRILIGATOR, ELIZABETH JENKINS, SUCKJOON JUN, BRIAN KEATING, DUSAN KERES, DAVID KLEINFELD
, QUINN M. KONOPACKY, ELENA F. KOSLOVER, JULIUS KUTI, TONGYAN LIN, ANEESH V. MANOHAR, M. BRIAN MAPLE, JOHN A. MCGREEVY, THOMAS W. MURPHY, KAIXUAN NI, MICHAEL L. NORMAN, THOMAS M. O'NEIL, HANS P. PAAR, MARK PADDOCK, JEREMIE PALACCI, TENIO POPMINTCHEV, WOUTER-JAN RAPPEL,KARIN M. SANDSTROM, IVAN K. SCHULLER, LU J. SHAM,VIVEK SHARMA, TATYANA O. SHARPEE, BRIAN SHOTWELL, OLEG SHPYRKO, ELIZABETH H SIMMONS,SUNIL K. SINHA, DOUGLAS E. SMITH, HARRY SUHL

[Archimedes Plutonium]

McGinn on Makoto Kobayashi, Toshihide Maskawa, Yoichiro Nambu, George F. Smoot, Roy J. Glauber, Sheldon Glashow, Peter Higgs, Hugh David Politzer, Frank Wilczek, Raymond Davis Jr.,Adam G. Riess, John C. Mather. Amine and McGinn why?? They believe their mindless Standard Model, these imps of physics could never multiply muon mass 105MeV by 9 and see it is within Sigma Error of the neutron and proton (alleged proton rest mass) of 940MeV. Meaning what? Meaning that the proton is a composite of 8 muon rings and the neutron is 9 muon rings. And the muon is the real true electron of atoms, stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law of creating new electrical energy-- the reason stars and Sun shine. But no, the imps of physics like Sheldon Glashow and Peter Higgs put physics knowledge and understanding backwards in time, to caveman mentality physics with their impish Standard Model.

>
Spam in sci.math with Amine whose only purpose is bump everyone off front page.
> Spam in sci.physics by Clutterfreak or McGinn.
> Pennino
> 10
> unread,
> You fucking morons can't differentiate between vapor and liquid
> Claudius Denk <claudi...@gmail.com> wrote: <snip> > So, IeRayne did not and could
> 11:01 PM
> 
> James McGinn's profile photo
> James McGinn
> ,
> Jim Pennino
> 2
> unread,
> The Difference Between H2O Vapor and Gaseous H2O
> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote: > What is the difference between vapor pressure
> 11:01 PM
> 
> ClutterFreak's profile photo
> ClutterFreak
> , …
> Jim Pennino
> 107

>
> Why do imps of physics like Glashow or Higgs never understand that a do nothing electron and do nothing proton are imp reasoning in physics. Whereas AP's particles are always doing some law of Electrodynamics. And why does Nobel award imps of science, do they like imp physics instead of true physics?
>
> > Makoto Kobayashi, Toshihide Maskawa, Yoichiro Nambu, John C. Mather, George F. Smoot, Roy J. Glauber, David J. Gross -- please, please can they ever ask the simple question, of which is the atom's true real electron, the muon or the 0.5MeV particle that AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole.
> >
> >
>
> >
> >
> >
> > ..
> > .- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
> > , . `.' ' `.
> > .' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
> > . ; .' . `. ;
> > ; . ' `. . '
> > . ' ` `. |
> > . '. '
> > . 0 0 ' `.
> > ' `
> > ; `
> > .' `
> > ; U `
> > ; '; `
> > : | ;.. :` `
> > : `;. ```. .-; | '
> > '. ` ``.., .' :' '

> > ; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' Hi, I am McGinn with my buddy Pennino whose game is to front page hog sci.physics and throw everyone else to the hinter pages.

> > ` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
> > ` ` ; ; ' '
> > ` ` ; ; ' '
> > ` `. ````'''''' ' '
> > ` . ' '
> > / ` `. ' ' .
> > / ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
> > / .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
> > / .'' ; ` .' `
> > ...'.' ; .' ` .' `
> > "" .' .' | ` .; \ `
> > ; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
> > :' | ' ` , `. `
> > | ' ` ' `. `
> > ` ' ` ; `. |
> > `.' ` ; `-'
> > `...'
> >

> > Stupid Nobel Physics prizes to those who cannot even ask the question of which is the atom's real true electron, the muon or 0.5MeV particle that AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole
> >
> >


> 

> >
> >
> > > HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

> > > In 2016-2017, AP discovered that the real proton has a mass of 840 MeV, not 938. The real electron was actually the muon and the muon stays inside the proton that forms a proton torus of 8 rings and with the muon as bar magnet is a Faraday Law producing magnetic monopoles. So this book is all about why researchers of physics and engineers keep getting the number 938MeV when they should be getting the number 840 MeV + 105 MeV = 945 MeV.
> > >
> > > Cover Picture is a proton torus of 8 rings with a muon of 1 ring inside the proton torus, doing the Faraday Law and producing magnetic monopoles.
> > > Length: 17 pages
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • Publication Date : December 18, 2019
> > > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > > • Print Length : 17 pages
> > > • File Size : 698 KB
> > > • ASIN : B082WYGVNG
> > > • Language: : English
> > > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> > > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > #1-4, 105th published book
> > >

> > > Atom Geometry is Torus Geometry // Atom Totality series, book 4 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

> > > Since all atoms are doing the Faraday Law inside them, of their thrusting muon into a proton coil in the shape of a geometry torus, then the torus is the geometry of each and every atom. But then we must explain the neutrons since the muon and proton are doing Faraday's Law, then the neutron needs to be explained in terms of this proton torus with muon inside, all three shaped as rings. The muon is a single ring and each proton is 8 rings. The neutron is shaped like a plate and is solid not hollow. The explanation of a neutron is that of a capacitor storing what the proton-muon rings produce in electricity. Where would the neutron parallel plates be located? I argue in this text that the neutron plates when fully grown from 1 eV until 945MeV are like two parallel plate capacitors where each neutron is part of one plate, like two pieces of bread with the proton-muon torus being a hamburger patty.
> > >
> > > Cover Picture: I assembled two atoms in this picture where the proton torus with a band of muons inside traveling around and around the proton torus producing electricity. And the pie-plates represent neutrons as parallel-plate capacitors.
> > > Length: 39 pages
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • Publication Date : March 24, 2020
> > > • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> > > • ASIN : B086BGSNXN
> > > • Print Length : 39 pages
> > > • File Size : 935 KB
> > > • Language: : English
> > > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> > > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,656,820 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> > > #6413 in Mathematics (Kindle Store)
> > > #315 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
> > > #4953 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > > 

> > >

> > > #1-5, 112th published book
> > >
> > > New Perspective on Psi^2 in the Schrodinger Equation in a Atom Totality Universe// Atom Totality series, book 5

> > > Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

> > > I first heard of the Schrodinger equation in college chemistry class. We never actually did any problem solving with the equation, and we were only told about it. Then taking physics my next year in college and after I bought the Feynman Lectures on Physics, just for fun for side reading, three volume set did I learn what this Schrodinger equation and the Psi^2 wavefunction was about. I am not going to teach the mathematics of the Schrodinger equation and the math calculations of the Psi or Psi^2 in this book, but leave that up to the reader or student to do that from Feynman's Lectures on Physics. The purpose of this book is to give a new and different interpretation of what Psi^2 is, what Psi^2 means. Correct interpretation of physics experiments and observations turns out to be one of the most difficult tasks in all of physics.
> > >
> > > Cover Picture: a photograph taken of me in 1993, after the discovery of Plutonium Atom Totality, and I was 43 years old then, on a wintery hill of New Hampshire. It is nice that Feynman wrote a physics textbook series, for I am very much benefitting from his wisdom. If he had not done that, getting organized in physics by writing textbooks, I would not be writing this book. And I would not have discovered the true meaning of the Fine Structure Constant, for it was Feynman who showed us that FSC is really 0.0854, not that of 0.0072. All because 0.0854 is Psi, and Psi^2 is 0.0072.
> > > Length: 20 pages
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN : B0875SVDC7
> > > • Publication date : April 15, 2020
> > > • Language: : English

> > > • File size : 1134 KB

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

> > > • Word Wise : Enabled

> > > • Print length : 20 pages
> > > • Lending : Enabled

> > > • Best Sellers Rank: #240,066 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #5 in 30-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> > > ◦ #65 in General Chemistry & Reference
> > > ◦ #481 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > >
> > > #1-6, 135th published book

> > > QED in Atom Totality theory where proton is a 8 ring torus and electron = muon inside proton doing Faraday Law// Atom Totality series, book 6 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

> > > Since the real true electron of atoms is the muon and is a one ring bar magnet thrusting through the 8 ring torus of a proton, we need a whole entire new model of the hydrogen atom. Because the Bohr model with the 0.5MeV particle jumping orbitals as the explanation of Spectral Lines is all wrong. In this vacuum of explaining spectral line physics, comes the AP Model which simply states that the hydrogen atom creates Spectral lines because at any one instant of time 4 of the 8 proton rings is "in view" and the electricity coming from those 4 view rings creates spectral line physics.
> > >
> > > Cover Picture: Is a imitation of the 8 ring proton torus, with my fingers holding on the proton ring that has the muon ring perpendicular and in the equatorial plane of the proton rings, thrusting through. This muon ring is the same size as the 8 proton rings making 9 x 105MeV = 945MeV of energy. The muon ring has to be perpendicular and lie on the equator of the proton torus. Surrounding the proton-torus would be neutrons as skin or coating cover and act as capacitors in storing the electricity produced by the proton+muon.
> > >
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN : B08K47K5BB

> > > • Publication date : September 25, 2020
> > > • Language : English
> > > • File size : 587 KB

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

> > > • Print length : 25 pages
> > > • Lending : Enabled

> > > • Best Sellers Rank: #291,001 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #13 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> > > ◦ #52 in General Chemistry & Reference
> > > ◦ #334 in General Chemistry
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > #1-7, 138th published book

> > > The true NUCLEUS of Atoms are inner toruses moving around in circles of a larger outer torus// Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden Experiment revisited // Atom Totality Series, book 7 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

> > > The geometry of Atoms of the Table of Chemical Elements is torus geometry. We know this to be true for the torus geometry forms the maximum electricity production when using the Faraday Law. We see this in Old Physics with their tokamak toruses attempting to make fusion, by accelerating particles of the highest possible acceleration for the torus is that geometry. But the torus is the geometry not only of maximum acceleration but of maximum electrical generation by having a speeding bar magnet go around and around inside a torus== the Faraday law, where the torus rings are the copper closed wire loop. The protons of atoms are 8 loops of rings in a torus geometry, and the electron of atoms is the muon as bar magnet, almost the same size as the proton loops but small enough to fit inside proton loops. It is torus geometry that we investigate the geometry of all atoms.
> > > Length: 41 pages
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • Publication Date : October 9, 2020
> > > • File Size : 828 KB

> > > • Word Wise : Not Enabled

> > > • Print Length : 41 pages
> > > • ASIN : B08KZT5TCD
> > > • Language: : English
> > > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> > > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > #1-8, 1st published book
> > >

> > > Atom Totality Universe, 8th edition, 2017// A history log book: Atom Totality Series book 8 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

> > > Last revision 7Apr2021. This was AP's first published science book.
> > >
> > > Advisory: This is a difficult book to read and is AP's research log book of the Atom Totality in 2016-2017. I want to keep it for its history value. AP advises all readers wanting to know the Plutonium Atom Totality theory to go to the 9th edition that is the latest up to date account of this theory. The reason AP wants to keep the 8th edition is because of Historical Value, for in this book, while writing it, caused the discovery of the real electron is the muon of atoms. The real proton of atoms is 840MeV and not the 938MeV that most books claim. The particle discovered by JJ Thomson in 1897 thinking he discovered the electron of atoms was actually the Dirac magnetic monopole at 0.5MeV. This discovery changes every, every science that uses atoms and electricity and magnetism, in other words, every science.
> > >
> > > Foreward:
> > > I wrote the 8th edition of Atom Totality and near the end of writing it in 2017, I had my second greatest physics discovery. I learned the real electron of atoms was the muon at 105MeV and not the tiny 0.5MeV particle that J.J.Thomson found in 1897. So I desperately tried to include that discovery in my 8th edition and it is quite plain to see for I tried to write paragraphs after each chapter saying as much. I knew in 2017, that it was a great discovery, changing all the hard sciences, and reframing and restructuring all the hard sciences.
> > > Length: 632 pages
> > >
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > File Size: 1132 KB
> > > Print Length: 632 pages

> > > Publication Date: March 11, 2019

> > > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > > Language: English

> > > ASIN: B07PLP9NDR
> > > Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> > > X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 

> > > Word Wise: Enabled
> > > Lending: Enabled
> > > Screen Reader: Supported
> > > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

> > > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #578,229 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> > > #1610 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > > #8526 in Physics (Books)
> > > #18851 in Biological Sciences (Books)
> > > y z

> > > | /
> > > | /
> > > |/______ x
> > >
> > > More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, 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.
> > > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > >
> > >
> > >

> > > #2-1, 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
> > > • 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 ‏ : ‎ 1033 KB

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

> > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 386 pages
> > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > y z

> > > | /
> > > | /
> > > |/______ x
> > >
> > > More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, 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.
> > > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > >

> > > #3-1, 2nd published book
> > > 
> > >
> > > True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Andrea Ghez, Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish, David J. Thouless, F. Duncan M. Haldane far too stupid in physics to ask the question, which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle which AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole while the real electron is a muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. In fact so stupid is this list of so called physicists that they went through life believing the slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, when in reality it is a Oval of 1 axis of symmetry for the cone has 1 axis of symmetry but ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry. The minds of all these so called physicists are not good enough to be doing physics. In fact, so stupid in science and math are all these people that when told in High School or College that a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, they believed it, and believe in it to this day without so much as ever questioning the idea that a single cone and oval have just 1 axis of symmetry while ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, and yet many on this list were awarded science prizes. Maybe for ignorance of science but not for truth of science.

Hi ginni pig McGinn the spamming front page hog payed to spam.
Why McGinn, they failed on all these 4 issues key to physics, logic, math?

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

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

• 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)



#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




#2-9, 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

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Richard E. Taylor,Carlo Rubbia,Simon van der Meer far too stupid in physics to ask the question, which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle which AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole while the real electron is a muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. In fact so stupid is this list of so called physicists that they went through life believing the slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, when in reality it is a Oval of 1 axis of symmetry for the cone has 1 axis of symmetry but ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry. The minds of all these so called physicists are not good enough to be doing physics. In fact, so stupid in science and math are all these people that when told in High School or College that a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, they believed it, and believe in it to this day without so much as ever questioning the idea that a single cone and oval have just 1 axis of symmetry while ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, and yet many on this list were awarded science prizes. Maybe for ignorance of science but not for truth of science.

McGinn and his many aliases-- Claudius, solvingtornado, the spamming front page hog sickfuck, payed to spam. Please, new readers, do not be fooled by the McGinn-Pennino-Pnal spam mill act, for it exists as a means of throwing all posts to the 2nd or 3rd pages-- out of sight. There is NO SCIENCE in the McGinn spam mill. And whether McGinn spam is payed for by govt, or by church or by schools, payed to spam.


Why McGinn, Nobel winning scientists failed on all these 4 issues key to physics, logic, math!!!!!


[Archimedes Plutonium]

Lisa Randall,Mark Barton- he was a raving nutter,Richard A. Muller,Jennifer Kahn,Eric Francis Coppolino,George Witte, far too stupid in physics to ask the question, which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle which AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole while the real electron is a muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. In fact so stupid is this list of so called physicists that they went through life believing the slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, when in reality it is a Oval of 1 axis of symmetry for the cone has 1 axis of symmetry but ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry. The minds of all these so called physicists are not good enough to be doing physics. In fact, so stupid in science and math are all these people that when told in High School or College that a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, they believed it, and believe in it to this day without so much as ever questioning the idea that a single cone and oval have just 1 axis of symmetry while ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, and yet many on this list were awarded science prizes. Maybe for ignorance of science but not for truth of science.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Mark Barton- he was a raving nutter,Richard A. Muller,Jennifer Kahn,Eric Francis Coppolino,George Witte, far too stupid in physics to ask the question, which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle which AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole while the real electron is a muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. In fact so stupid is this list of so called physicists that they went through life believing the slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, when in reality it is a Oval of 1 axis of symmetry for the cone has 1 axis of symmetry but ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry. The minds of all these so called physicists are not good enough to be doing physics. In fact, so stupid in science and math are all these people that when told in High School or College that a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, they believed it, and believe in it to this day without so much as ever questioning the idea that a single cone and oval have just 1 axis of symmetry while ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, and yet many on this list were awarded science prizes. Maybe for ignorance of science but not for truth of science.

McGinn are the raving nutters on Twitter?

[Archimedes Plutonium]

McGinn can Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel ever, 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 are they too far brainwashed in mind that they lost the ability to ask questions?

Much of cooking (see far below) is a mindless act-- voiced by McGinn, Pennino, and Pnal, just like their "no physics" in sci.physics and echoed by these losers of physics who hoodwinked a Nobel Prize in physics.
Hoodwinked because none can ask the childlike question that even a child knows to ask-- which is the atom's true electron, is it the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus of 8 rings doing the Faraday law, or is the true electron of atoms the 0.5MeV particle that AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole. (See cooking 8Dec21 below of making chocolate chip cookies with the least electricity possible).

John Baez
Brian Greene
Lisa Randall
Alan H. Guth
Michael E. Brown
Konstantin Batygin
Ben Bullock
Larry Harson
Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
None at all - he was a raving nutter.
Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley

Edward Witten

Why cannot any of the above listed bozo the clowns of physics ever ask a LOGICAL question, for we have to wonder whether a degree in physics is mindboggling a 100% corruption of the brain, so far brainwashed, for example that Peter Higgs could never ever ask the question which is the atom's real electron, for Peter's brain was excavated out by the school system having him memorize that 0.5MeV is the atom's real electron, and the Logical question is -out of the question- for the excavated brain mind of Peter Higgs physics.

So, here on 8Dec21 we have a cooking lesson of a mind that if Free of pollution and brainwashed schooling. A mind capable of asking questions, capable of experimentation unlike McGinn, Pnal, Pennino, Peter Higgs. So about 2 months ago I was experimenting with toasted cheese with tomato slices to perfect that cooking and quite by accident I left a sandwich on top of the electric heater in the living room. And almost forgot it, doing some science. When I returned, I had found that the slow and small heat by the radiator electric heater had toasted that cheese-tomato sandwich to perfection, so that there was just a tiny layer of toast on bottom and the cheese and tomato were perfectly cooked. The best toasted or grilled cheese sandwich in my entire life.

So with that experience I bought Amy's (hard to keep straight all these female names, --- Amy, Alice, Ann, Newman's daughter... for the last time at the organic food store I was confused if it was Amy yoghurt or Alice yoghurt or Ann's yoghurt as I even confused the stockman filling the shelves).

Anyway, I bought a box of Amy's, not Ann's nor Alice's, nor Newman's daughter chocolate chip cookies for the expressed purpose of seeing if I can cook those cookies to perfection on my living room electric heater.

No oven, of course not. For this is what I call the mindless cooking act, the memorized cooking by those who have no mind to ever think of experimentation of what everyone, including McGinn, Pennino & Pnal when not spamming sci.physics or Peter Higgs use to cook.

Everyone uses the wasteful wasteful wasteful energy of ovens for hours, while AP uses a radiant electric heater that is in use already to heat the house, and why waste kilotherms and kilotherms of electric power for a oven.

The cookies are in a stainless steel pot with tight lid sitting on the heater as I type. And I added a stick of butter, and 1 egg, and a bit of milk to make it a dough like.

So, will report throughout the day on how it goes-- does AP achieve cookie perfection with spending the least amount of energy?

1st report-- going well, and removed the lid so as to form crusts.

[James McGinn]

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 8:23:40 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 7:37:54 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > <snip regurgitation of McGinn's usual and customary bullshit>
> This is the part he snipped:
> All in all, meteorology's theory on storms is just marketing. It isn't really a functioning model even remotely grounded in cause and effect and, consequently, none of the particulars of the theory matter with respect to what they (meteorologists) actually do in their daily duties.
>
> You might think that what is stated in the preceding paragraph isn't all that big of a deal but I think you should reconsider with respect to the fact that meteorologists are very much concerned about maintaining the public trust. They have a motive to play dumb. They have nothing to gain by making any of this public. So the meteorology lobby is going to continue to play stupid. (They've had 170 years to become good at it.)
> Sometime we find out more about what goons like Pnal are thinking from the things they don't want said than we do from they things they do say.
> James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

So, this is it:

[Jim Pennino]

James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip insane reposting>

> So, this is it:

What is it, are you going to call 1-800-704-0900 and press 2?

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish, David J. Thouless far too stupid in physics to ask the question, which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle which AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole while the real electron is a muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. In fact so stupid is this list of so called physicists that they went through life believing the slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, when in reality it is a Oval of 1 axis of symmetry for the cone has 1 axis of symmetry but ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry. The minds of all these so called physicists are not good enough to be doing physics. In fact, so stupid in science and math are all these people that when told in High School or College that a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, they believed it, and believe in it to this day without so much as ever questioning the idea that a single cone and oval have just 1 axis of symmetry while ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, and yet many on this list were awarded science prizes. Maybe for ignorance of science but not for truth of science.
>
> Hi ginni pig McGinn the spamming front page hog payed to spam.
> Why McGinn, they failed on all these 4 issues key to physics, logic, math?

>
> 1) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
> 2) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
> 3) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
> 4) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sapheads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.
>
>
>

> 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

[Archimedes Plutonium]

McGinn spam says no-one at UCLA or Harvard can turn the light switch off in Harvard's Hau experiment. Why McGinn?? Is it that the physics community rather stay in the dark than to give credit to AP for the discovery that Light Waves are closed loop pencil ellipses.

Harvard's Dr. Hau is not really a scientist because she refuses to turn the light switch off as a vendetta against AP. She does not want AP to get credit that light is a closed loop circuit, and not her straightline arrow ray.

Canadian failure of science and math, stalked:
On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 12:31:24 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of

Should Harvard's Dr. Hau be put in a science-jail for Obstruction of Science? Years back I wrote a book on Quantum Entanglement, explaining it fully as the fact that light waves along with electricity is a closed loop phenomenon. Most people would

Years back I wrote a book on Quantum Entanglement, explaining it fully as the fact that light waves along with electricity is a closed loop phenomenon. Most people would not understand that because it looks like a light beam is a straight line phenomenon not a closed loop. But it truly is a closed loop for even the electric extension cord, which looks like a straight line, is in fact a closed loop.

Apparently, to Harvard's Dr.Hau, physics means being in the dark about understanding light waves is more important than understanding light waves and having to give credit to Archimedes Plutonium for predicting light is not a straightline arrow ray but a closed loop circuit. Apparently at Harvard being a scientist is never give credit to AP, is worse than finding out the truth about science and physics. Such petty petty people hatred that Harvard endorses, rather than --- science is all about the truth of the world, not about-- who do you hate.

So, years back, I wanted Harvard's Dr. Hau to set up her slow light experiment, get the light beam to crawl through the BEC, then, abruptly turn off the light beam at the source. What Dr. Hau would predict (I am guessing) is she would predict the slow light inside the BEC is still on and moving. What AP predicts because all light is a closed loop, is that the instant the beam is turned off at the source, all the light in the experiment INSTANTANEOUSLY goes out all at once.

So, can the science community stop obstructing progress and get on with it-- get Dr. Hau or any other similar experiment to "turn off the light" and prove AP correct or prove AP wrong. It is one or the other, and I am totally confident I will win this.

I have other evidence that I will win this.

1) News reporter far away, such as from Europe to Asia, or USA to Asia, have a speed of light lag time in talking to one another. But if the "so to speak circuit was turned off" the loss of signal is instantaneous. We can see it in radio waves where the speed of light has a lag time, not much but a noticeable lag. But if the communication was interrupted, the interruption is not the speed of light but instantaneous.

2) Solar eclipse. This is where the moon directly overhead blocks the Sun. Now, if light waves had no instantaneous shut off, and since it takes 8 minutes for light to travel from Sun to Earth. Then if light cannot be instantaneously shut off, means that in a solar eclipse, we need the Moon to be 8 minutes in its arc to experience the eclipse, not directly overhead.

3) Communication with our rockets such as Voyager 1, the contents of messages from Earth to spacecraft or vice versa take the speed of light time, but the turning off of the signal is instantaneous at both ends-- and is in "real time" not delayed to the speed of light. Just as in Slow Light experiments, turn the source switch off, and all the light downstream disappears instantly.


On Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 1:19:54 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 1- AP's 145th book// TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
> by Archimedes Plutonium
>
> Books in this series are.
> 137th book Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1
> 145th book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS High School junior year, book 2
> 146th book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS High School senior year, book 3
> 147th book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS Freshperson college, book 4
> 148th book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS Sophomore college, book 5
> 149th book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS Junior college, book 6
> 150th book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS Senior college, book 7
>
> Preface: As I said before, each generation of approximately 30 to 60 years time span, it does not have to be exact, but about 30 to 60 years needs a preeminent, premier scientist to write the authoritative texts of physics. There is about that much time span that major discoveries and developments occur to warrant that textbook. And the purpose of which is to set the foundations and fundamentals of physics. The last person to do this was Feynman in his Lectures on Physics in 1960s. Perhaps Rutherford and Bohr did this in early 1900s. But most definitely Maxwell served this function of leading expert on physics with his 1860s book on Maxwell Equations. The time before was Faraday and all his writings circa 1830.
>
> Here it is 2020, and we need to replace the Feynman Lectures on Physics with all the new found knowledge and discoveries since Feynman of 1960s.
>
> What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes 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 education with.
>
> And this Junior year in High School is mostly to be like a laboratory learning, a hands on experiment of physics, mostly electricity and magnetism. This is to emphasize to young students, that physics is, well, mostly about electricity and magnetism and anything else is side show.
>
> Cover Picture: Is two books of Time-Life Lighting & Electricity 1987, and Advanced Wiring 1998, which I will use as template books in writing this book.
>
> What is a template in writing? It means that I will use these two books as much of the substance of this course in physics. Of course I will correct things in the two template books. And the reason for having template books is to save time. If I do not use template books this project could take me anywhere from 5 to 10 years to write these 6 textbooks. By using these template books I cut the time down to perhaps 5 to 10 months.
>
> I need template books for Junior High School that are exceptionally well written and have a laboratory manual type of structure, a lab manual so to speak. And Time-Life books are excellently written. The trouble I found in High School and College lab manuals is they are poorly written, poorly written for first-time students to understand what is going on. And the teacher for these lab manuals did not know much about the experiments either. So lab courses turned into nightmares, is what High School and College was. To this very day, I cannot remember a single lab experiment in which I learned anything. Partly due to the fact that instructors in High School or College seldom get any training in how to teach lab courses. College professors seldom take "how to teach students course" to be a effective teacher. That means, getting down to the level of understanding of first time young students. And that is what Time-Life books overcome with plenty of pictures and clear concise prose to teach.
>
> Junior High School physics should be ample hands on doing, like a laboratory.
>
> So, in TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, AP is going to start with the Ancient Greek Theory of Atoms then jump directly to magnetism and electricity. I am bypassing all the Newton laws and Newton gravity. I am going from Ancient Greek physics to electricity and magnetism.
>
> And this is quite acceptable in the fact that Newton laws and gravity were "idealizations", pointing to the underlying unification that is EM force.
>
> Now I was looking for a picture of magnetism and Halliday & Resnick PHYSICS, part 2, extended version, 1986, which I use as the template book for 1st year college, on pages 584 and 580 shows lines of force from a magnet and/or electric.
>
> In Halliday & Resnick, Fundamentals of Physics, 3rd edition, 1988, page 687, Figure 1 Iron filings sprinkled on a sheet of paper tell us that there is a bar magnet underneath.
>
> I was hoping that Feynman had a picture of magnetic lines of force, but did not. But to his credit, his first pictures are that of "atoms in motion" in his Lectures of Physics.
>
> The Senior High School template book, Asimov in his History of Physics, 1966, page 392 has a picture of magnetic lines of force.
>
> AP
>
>
> Table of Contents
> ---------------------------
>
> 1) The Atomic Theory by Ancient Greek time.
>
> 2) Experiment, experiment, experiment, that is what gives us scientific truth.
>
> 3) Experiment and classroom demonstration on magnetism.
>
> 4) Experiment and classroom demonstration on Faraday Law.
>
> 5) What electric current looks like and how it flows in wire circuits.
>
> 6) Principles of Light and Electricity.
>
> 7) The Mathematical Equations that governs all of Physics (for Junior High School).

Principles of Light and Electricity.
1) Travels at maximum speed 3.16*10^8 m/s. No speed can exceed this maximum.
2) Travels at a constant maximum speed 3.16*10^8 m/s in vacuum. Do not forget the vacuum.
3) Travels as a closed loop circuit. This is what was missed in Special Relativity physics of Old Physics.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Caltech,Dr.Goodstein, why can no-one at Caltech finish Water Electrolysis properly like a full scientist, not a half arse and weigh the hydrogen and oxygen

Volney (CIA) selling CalTech because they cannot do Water Electrolysis properly-- forgetting to actually weigh the mass of hydrogen compared to oxygen, and stop at observing volume. Caltech science is so shoddy of logical reasoning.


Volney, who can weigh

Felix Boehm, Steven Frautschi
Murray Gell-Mann, David Goodstein, Thomas Phillips,
John Schwarz, Barry Simon, Kip Thorne, Petr Vogel,
Rochus Vogt, Ward Whaling, Michael E. Brown,

Konstantin Batygin, Dr.Frances Arnold (chem), Dr.Barry Barish, Dr.Rudolph Marcus (chem), Dr.Hugh Politzer
the hydrogen and oxygen in Water Electrolysis, for it is unusual that Caltech physics is so shoddy in logical thought as to think of stopping Water Electrolysis by observation of Volume and not weighing the masses.


Volney Physics failures..CalTech_Dr.David Goodstein,Dr.Frances Arnold (chem), Dr.Barry Barish, Dr.Rudolph Marcus (chem), Dr.Hugh Politzer NSF Dr.Panchanathan,Alejandro Adem, Purdue Univ_France Cordova,

Physics failures..Rensselaer,Dr.Esther A. Wertz,Dr.Heidi Jo Newberg,Dr.Glenn Ciolek,Dr.Charles Martin,Dr.Joseph Darryl Michael,NSF Dr.Panchanathan,Alejandro Adem,Purdue Univ_France Cordova,..

Why Volney?? Because they are so sloppy and slipshod in Physics experiment of Water Electrolysis, stopping and ceasing the experiment before weighing the mass of the hydrogen compared to mass of oxygen. Is it that they are stupid silly thinking volume and mass are the same. For AP needs to prove decisively, if Water is really H4O or H2O. And of course, this experiment would destroy the Standard Model-- that post-diction theory of physics that never gave a single prediction in all of its tenure.

And they even know that a weighing balance of Quartz Crystal MicroBalance has been around since the 1960s, what are they waiting for???

Or is it because they cannot admit the truth of math geometry that slant cut of cone is oval, not ellipse for you need the symmetry of slant cut of cylinder to yield a ellipse.


This is Volney-Kibo Parry Moroney spam (CIA connected drag net spam b.s.), and no matter how much you report it to Google Abuse-- they cannot kick the miscreant out-- I suggest reporting this spam to your Congress-person. Not only do they stalk you for 30 years but destroy the newsgroup they pollute. Just look at sci.chem which is a destroyed newsgroup. The Google Abuse report only hides the miscreant, but the next day-- new fresh b.s.spam is there.


Kibo Parry Moron-Volney blowing his cover with the CIA in 1997
Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
On Sunday, June 8, 1997 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes:
> >

Re: Dan is the Kibo Parry Moroney Volney CIA equivalent for Canada-- using Usenet but destroying newsgroups of science in the process


Volney
3
Dan Christensen using TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS at Univ Western Ontario instead of the fake Old Math calculus with its thousands of rules and memorization of trig functions. New Math has 1 rule-- Power Rule
9:03 PM


,
Volney
3
WM using AP's TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS to teach 13-14 year olds CALCULUS, those heading for Gottingen & Uni Berlin for AP reduced Calculus to its most simple form-- add or subtract 1 from exponent.
9:01 PM


182b-Volney uses TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS to teach 13-14 year olds CALCULUS, those heading for Berkeley,Caltech, Stanford, for AP reduced Calculus to its most simple form-- add or subtract 1 from exponent.
8:52 PM


,
Volney
2
Volney uses TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS to teach 13-14 year olds CALCULUS, those heading for Berkeley,Caltech, Stanford, for AP reduced Calculus to its most simple form-- add or subtract 1 from exponent.
8:45 PM

Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen
, …
Volney
14
unread,
Re: Dr.Terence Tao along with Dr. Gene D.Block fired from UCLA for teaching propaganda -- truth is slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse, yet UCLA continues their propaganda of ellipse as slant cut.
8:43 PM



Caltech Physics Dept

Felix Boehm, Steven Frautschi
Murray Gell-Mann, David Goodstein, Thomas Phillips,
John Schwarz, Barry Simon, Kip Thorne, Petr Vogel,
Rochus Vogt, Ward Whaling, Michael E. Brown,

Konstantin Batygin, Dr.Frances Arnold (chem), Dr.Barry Barish, Dr.Rudolph Marcus (chem), Dr.Hugh Politzer

Apparently Kibo realized he was a science failure when he could not even do a proper percentage. But then one has to wonder how much he paid to bribe Rensselaer to graduate from the school in engineering unable to do a percentage properly???? For I certainly would not hire a engineer who cannot even do proper percentage.


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.


Why Volney?? Because they stop short of completing the Water Electrolysis Experiment by only looking at volume, when they are meant to weigh the mass of hydrogen versus oxygen?? Such shoddy minds in experimental physics and chemistry.

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Physics dept Dr.Martin Schmidt (ee), Dr.Ivar Giaever
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

On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 12:13:14 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Physics minnow
> WARNING TO ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING STUDENTS:

What warning is that Kibo Parry failure of science-- warning that insane persons like Kibo Parry Moroney Volney spends their entire life in a hate-mill, never doing anything in science itself. And paid to stalk hate spew

Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney blowing his cover with the CIA in 1997
> Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
> On Sunday, June 8, 1997 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes:
> > >


---quoting Wikipedia ---
> Controversy
> Many government and university installations blocked, threatened to block, or attempted to shut-down The World's Internet connection until Software Tool & Die was eventually granted permission by the National Science Foundation to provide public Internet access on "an experimental basis."
--- end quote ---

> NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
>
> Dr. Panchanathan , present day
> NSF Dr. Panchanathan, F. Fleming Crim, Dorothy E Aronson, Brian Stone, James S Ulvestad (math), Rebecca Lynn Keiser, Vernon D. Ross, Lloyd Whitman, John J. Veysey (physics), Scott Stanley
> France Anne Cordova
> Subra Suresh (bioengineer)
> Arden Lee Bement Jr. (nuclear engineering)
> Rita R. Colwell (microbiology)
> Neal Francis Lane
> John Howard Gibbons 1993
>
> Barry Shein, kibo parry std world
> Jim Frost, Joe "Spike" Ilacqua
>
> Canada-- NSERC , Alejandro Adem (math) , Navdeep Bains, Francois-Philippe Champagne


News starting to come in that AP's Water Electrolysis Experiment proves the true formula of Water is H4O, not H2O is starting to come in.

> Aug 30, 2023, 10:19:20 PM
> to Plutonium Atom Universe
> News starting to come in that AP's Water Electrolysis Experiment proves the true formula of Water is H4O, not H2O is starting to come in.
>
> I received a letter today of Experiment results on Water Electrolysis of weighing the hydrogen test tube versus oxygen test tube and the result is 1/4 atomic mass units of Hydrogen compared to Oxygen.
>
> The researcher weighing 1600 micrograms of hydrogen, using a Eisco-Brownlee-Water-Electrolysis Apparatus.
>
> Using sulfuric acid as electrolyte on ultra pure water. Using low voltage DC of 1.5 volts, 1 amp.
>
> I am not surprised that news of the true formula of Water is H4O comes so quickly. For not much in science is more important than knowing the truth of Water. And this means the start of the complete downfall and throwing out the sick Standard Model of Physics, for it is such an insane theory that it cannot get passed the idea of its subatomic particles as stick and ball, with no job, no function, no task. The Standard Model of Physics, is crazy insane physics for it is all postdiction, never prediction. The idea that the hydrogen atom is H2 not H, is because of the prediction of Atom Totality Theory where a atom is a proton torus with muon inside doing the Faraday law and all atoms require at least 1 capacitor. That means the one proton in H2 serves as a neutron to the other proton, storaging the electricity produced by the other proton.
>
> The true Hydrogen Atom is H2 for all atoms need at least one capacitor, and one of the protons in H2 serves as a neutron.
>
> Sad that chemistry and physics throughout the 20th century were too stupid to actually weigh the mass of hydrogen and oxygen in electrolysis, no, the ignorant fools stopped at looking when they saw the volume of hydrogen was twice that of oxygen. A real scientist is not that shoddy and slipshod ignorant, the real scientist then proceeds with -- let us weigh the hydrogen test tube mass versus the oxygen test tube mass.
>
> Thanks for the news!!!!!
>
> AP
>
> News starting to come in that AP's Water Electrolysis Experiment proves the true formula of Water is H4O, not H2O is starting to come in.

> There is another experiment that achieves the same result that Water is truly H4O and not H2O, but I suspect this second method is hugely fraught with difficulty.
>
> The prediction of H4O comes from the Physics idea that a Atom is composed, all atoms mind you, is composed of a proton torus with muon/s inside going round and round thrusting through the torus in the Faraday law and producing electricity. So that when you have Hydrogen without a neutron, there is no way to collect the electricity produced by the Faraday law. Think of it as a automobile engine, you cannot have a engine if there is no crank shaft to collect the energy from the thrusting piston inside the crankcase.
>
> Same thing with an Atom, it needs 3 parts-- muon as bar magnet, proton as torus of coils, and a capacitor to storage the produced electricity. If one of those parts is missing, the entity is a Subatomic particle and not a atom.
>
> So, when we have Hydrogen as a proton with muon inside, it is not a Atom, until it has a neutron, or, has another proton of hydrogen H2, then it is a Atom.
>
> So that H2 is not a molecule but a Atom. H alone is a subatomic particle.
>
> SECOND EXPERIMENT:
>
> Much harder than Water Electrolysis.
>
> We need to get two identical containers.
>
> We need to be able to make pure heavy-water with deuterium. Deuterium is proton + neutron as hydrogen. Proton + proton is H2 as hydrogen.
>
> So we have two identical containers and we fill one with pure heavy water, deuterium water.
>
> We have the second container and we fill it with pure (light) water.
>
> We now weigh both of them.
>
> If AP is correct, that water is really H4O and not H2O, then both containers should weigh almost the same. Only a tiny fraction difference because the neutron is known to be 940MeV versus proton in Old Physics as 938MeV a tiny difference of 2MeV, but we realize we have a huge number of water molecules in the two identical containers.
>
> If water is truly H4O, the weights should be almost the same. If water is H2O, then there is a **large difference** in weights.
>
> But the Water Electrolysis experiment is much easier to conduct and get results.
>

> And, there is the biological processes that apparently cannot distinguish between heavy water and that of regular normal water.
>
> Deuterium Water is the same in biology as is normal regular water. This means that water must be H4O, due to biology as proof.
>
> Deuterium Water in atomic mass units is 16 for the oxygen and 4 for the deuterium.
>
> Regular normal Water in atomic mass units is 16 for the oxygen and 4 for the 4 protons in H4O.
>
> Old Physics and Old Chemistry had regular water as H2O in atomic mass units of 16 oxygen and 2 hydrogen for 2 protons.
>
> If biology functions whether heavy water or normal water all the same, then water itself must be H4O.
>
> Now, there maybe some animal or plant that can separate out heavy water from H4O water???
>
> Searching the literature today for where biology needs as essential deuterium water. And not too surprised that it is a essential requirement in metabolism. In fact one web site listed the need for deuterium more than the need of many minerals and vitamins.
>
> Now tonight I came up with two new exciting experiments to verify that Water is truly H4O and not H2O.
>
> H4O is 4 protons with muons inside the 840MeV proton toruses.
>
> Deuterium water is DOD. And the difference between D2O and H4O is merely the difference of 4MeV for as last reported, neutron = 940MeV and proton (with muon inside) is 938MeV, a difference of 2MeV but for water is 2+2 = 4MeV.
>
> So these two new experiments take advantage of the fact that what we think is normal regular water is actually very close to heavy water of D2O, with only a 4MeV difference.
>
> EXPERIMENT #3 Water layers in still pond of D2O mixed with H4O (what we thought was H2O.
>
> So in this experiment we get a clear glass container and mix H4O with D2O. If Old Physics is correct, the heavy water should sink rapidly in the container while the light water floats to the top rapidly. And we have some sort of beam of photons that can distinguish D2O from H4O (thought of as H2O. We obtain pure D2O and pure H4O each filling 1/2 of the container. We stir and mix them. And then we observe with the EM beam for separation. If the light water is truly H4O, it takes a long time for the D2O to be on bottom and H4O on top. We measure the time of a settled container and determine this time from the theoretical 4MeV difference should take a long time, whereas if Old Physics is correct, the separation would be almost instantly and quick time.
>
>
> EXPERIMENT #4 also plays on this minor difference of 4MeV. We devise a sort of squirt gun for D2O and a identical squirt gun for H4O (what we call H2O). We put pure D2O in one squirt gun and the H40 or light water in the other squirt gun. Both guns forcing the water a certain distance.
>
> If AP is correct that light water is really H4O and not H2O as we squirt both guns, where the water lands should be almost the same distance considering H4O is only 4MeV apart from D2O.
>
> If Old Physics and Old Chemistry is correct, then D2O water is 940 + 940 = 1880MeV apart from light water of H2O, and H4O is only 4MeV apart.
>
> So where the squirt gun lands the D2O is a very much shorter distance than a H2O land, but a H4 land distance is nearly the same as the D2O land.
>
> These two experiments are very exciting and would be a very nice confirming evidence to Water Electrolysis actual weighing the mass in atomic mass units.
>
> On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 5:07:13 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Searching the literature today for where biology needs as essential deuterium water. And not too surprised that it is a essential requirement in metabolism. In fact one web site listed the need for deuterium more than the need of many minerals and vitamins.
> >
> > Now tonight I came up with two new exciting experiments to verify that Water is truly H4O and not H2O.
> >
> > H4O is 4 protons with muons inside the 840MeV proton toruses.
> >
> > Deuterium water is DOD. And the difference between D2O and H4O is merely the difference of 4MeV for as last reported, neutron = 940MeV and proton (with muon inside) is 938MeV, a difference of 2MeV but for water is 2+2 = 4MeV.
> >
> > So these two new experiments take advantage of the fact that what we think is normal regular water is actually very close to heavy water of D2O, with only a 4MeV difference.
> >
> > EXPERIMENT #3 Water layers in still pond of D2O mixed with H4O (what we thought was H2O.
> >
> > So in this experiment we get a clear glass container and mix H4O with D2O. If Old Physics is correct, the heavy water should sink rapidly in the container while the light water floats to the top rapidly. And we have some sort of beam of photons that can distinguish D2O from H4O (thought of as H2O. We obtain pure D2O and pure H4O each filling 1/2 of the container. We stir and mix them. And then we observe with the EM beam for separation. If the light water is truly H4O, it takes a long time for the D2O to be on bottom and H4O on top. We measure the time of a settled container and determine this time from the theoretical 4MeV difference should take a long time, whereas if Old Physics is correct, the separation would be almost instantly and quick time.
> >
>
> Apparently this Experiment is already done and called for-- There is Uniform Distribution of heavy water Deuterium Water in the Oceans, Lakes, Ponds, Streams and Rivers. Heavy Water is not layered in the oceans or lakes or ponds or streams or rivers. Uniformity means that the difference between D2O and H4O is so slight of a difference (only 4MeV, compared to 1880MeV for H2O, that Brownian motion keeps the D2O and H4O in a Uniform Distribution in all bodies of water. I was going through the research literature today and find that scientists discover Uniformity of Distribution of deuterium water. This thus closes the case on Water, for uniformity of distribution of D2O implies that Water is itself H4O and not H2O.
>

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

Caltech & Rensselaer Polytech do only slipshod physics-chemistry experiments of Water Electrolysis, too dumb to weigh the hydrogen & oxygen to see if H4O or H2O

[Archimedes Plutonium]

McGinn, who can weigh

David Goodstein, Thomas Phillips,
John Schwarz, Barry Simon, Kip Thorne, Petr Vogel,

Rochus Vogt, Ward Whaling, Michael E. Brown, Felix Boehm, Steven Frautschi, Murray Gell-Mann

Konstantin Batygin, Dr.Frances Arnold (chem), Dr.Barry Barish, Dr.Rudolph Marcus (chem), Dr.Hugh Politzer
the hydrogen and oxygen in Water Electrolysis, for it is unusual that Caltech physics is so shoddy in logical thought as to think of stopping Water Electrolysis by observation of Volume and not weighing the masses.

Volney (CIA) selling CalTech because they cannot do Water Electrolysis properly-- forgetting to actually weigh the mass of hydrogen compared to oxygen, and stop at observing volume. Caltech science is so shoddy of logical reasoning.

Volney Physics failures..CalTech_Dr.David Goodstein,Dr.Frances Arnold (chem), Dr.Barry Barish, Dr.Rudolph Marcus (chem), Dr.Hugh Politzer NSF Dr.Panchanathan,Alejandro Adem, Purdue Univ_France Cordova,

Physics failures..Rensselaer,Dr.Esther A. Wertz,Dr.Heidi Jo Newberg,Dr.Glenn Ciolek,Dr.Charles Martin,Dr.Joseph Darryl Michael,NSF Dr.Panchanathan,Alejandro Adem,Purdue Univ_France Cordova,..

Why Volney?? Because they are so sloppy and slipshod in Physics experiment of Water Electrolysis, stopping and ceasing the experiment before weighing the mass of the hydrogen compared to mass of oxygen. Is it that they are stupid silly thinking volume and mass are the same. For AP needs to prove decisively, if Water is really H4O or H2O. And of course, this experiment would destroy the Standard Model-- that post-diction theory of physics that never gave a single prediction in all of its tenure.

And they even know that a weighing balance of Quartz Crystal MicroBalance has been around since the 1960s, what are they waiting for???

Or is it because they cannot admit the truth of math geometry that slant cut of cone is oval, not ellipse for you need the symmetry of slant cut of cylinder to yield a ellipse.

Re: 2-Looking for a concordance of Dr. Richard Feynmann talking about AP-- on suffering of fools
by Volney 3:57 PM, 17Oct2023