Re: I am sure Murray can do a percentage correctly, never Archie Re: Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test

[Michael Moroney]

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

>Michael Moroney writes:
>Feb 6

>No, "physics" doesn't have a "lifelong-generation test".

>You may, but it belongs to you, not "physics".

>AP writes: tell us how you claim to be an engineer yet you failed to ever
>do a percentage correctly

I can do percentages correctly, and you can't.

That's why I am an engineer and you are a Failure in both math and physics.

[Michael Moroney]

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> writes:

>Michael Moroney writes:
>8:36 AM (8 hours ago)


>>Physics Failure Archimedes Plutonium

>>Sorry, there is no such thing as "my thread" on Usenet. Porat has just
>>as much right to babble his nonsense here as you do to babble your
nonsense here. You post something, expect a response.

Do you believe you have more of a right to babble your nonsense
than Porat has to babble his nonsense?

Why cut my quotes to avoid humiliating yourself again, when you
humiliate yourself with just about every one of your posts??

>>Subject: Peter Higgs flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test

>>And what does Peter Higgs, who has never even heard of you, much
less taken your imaginary test, have to do with anything? Are your
thoughts so jumbled up that they jump from Porat to Higgs to..?

>AP writes:: Oh, I think Murray and Peter have heard of the .5MeV and the 105
> MeV particle before.

Of course they have, but we are discussing your imaginary test, plus the
fact neither has ever heard of anyone so dumb to think the electron
is a muon just because you said so.

[Keith Stein]

On 24/02/2018 06:40, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Murray never understood that Chemistry does not exist with electron = .5MeV
>
> Michael Moroney wrote
> Feb 23 (2 hours ago)
>
>> yet you haven't
>> produced a single proof yet. So when will you provide one?
>
> AP writes: Yes, Murray, you never produced a proof that the real electron is .5MeV, for which it could not possibly provide Chemistry with any bonding whatsoever of covalent
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 3:16:35 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>> Physics lifelong-generation Test & Murray Gell-Mann flunked it
>>
>> Now in each generation of about 50 years, there is a big question in science which the general population participates in-- for example Continental Drift from about 1930 to 1970. And from 1980 to present the question is Climate Change. Big science questions where the general public participates in.
>>
>> Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test. It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist, never.
>>
>> Now, Physics has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.
>>
>> PHYSICS TEST::
>>
>> 1) You studied momentum in physics, especially angular momentum, and, can you have Chemistry and the Chemical Bond, the ionic, covalent, metallic bonding, if the Proton was 938MeV while electron is .5MeV. Or, can this bonding exist only when the Proton is 840 MeV, electron = muon = 105 MeV, and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. So, which is it. Chemistry exists only if 840 to 105 MeV for angular momentum sake or 938 to .5?
>>
>> So, all physicists who studied and thought they mastered physics, turns out, they are so pitiful, so pathetic in physics understanding of just about anything, that they believe you can have Chemistry with a 938 MeV proton with a .5 MeV electron.
>>
>> Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test.
>>
>> AP
>
Hi ap ,
remamber me?
you and i ap
we first crossed swords, way back......
late 20th century,so i know you are an old hand,
at this game eh!,and as one old hand to another,
in response to your lifelong*generation* PHYSICS TEST:

and i know,
that they say,
a question
can not be


answered
with a question.
BUT
in this case,
we make an exception .

so
my answer to your question would be:
"with all your experience Archimedes Plutonium,
is that
REALLY

the best
question
YOU
can come up with
?"

Nice to cross swords with you again old timer

keith stein eh!

[Michael Moroney]

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


>Michael Moroney writes:
>9:27 PM (23 minutes ago)

>>What, you want me to compute the

>AP writes: Moroney is a worthless stalker, cannot even do a correct percentage,

What, you want me to compute the Plutonium Failure Score yet again? Wow,
the Plutonium Failure Score calculation is much more popular than I
thought it would be!

Here we go again!

☑ Archie responds to criticism but is unable to discuss the issue...
☑ ...Zero new content, in fact...
☑ ...Giggle Groups screenshot cut and pasted...
☑ ...with Archie's response posted in the wrong topic...
☐ ...and to the wrong newsgroup...
☑ ...multiple times...
☑ ...enough times to be classified as spam...
☑ ...in a topic/topics explicitly created by him for doing so...
☐ ...and Archie even whines about (other) spammers in his spam...
☑ ...with a subject about flunking a nonexistent test no one ever took...
☑ ...and the subject mentions totally uninvolved people...
☑ ...who are university math or physics professors...
☐ ...at a university supposedly near the person criticizing Archie...
☐ ...but Archie got the location (and university) completely wrong...
☐ ...and Archie demands they resign for not teaching his broken math...
☐ ...and he includes a stalker list of physics and/or math professors...
☑ ...and STILL can't answer 'why stalker lists of uninvolved profs'...
☑ ...and Archie's actual response is completely unrelated to the topic...
☑ ...and the critic's comment has embarrassing (to AP) portion removed...
☑ ...to the extent the comment is no longer recognizable...
☐ ...includes random snippets by other critics, spammers or babblers...
☐ ...which are attributed to yet other critics, spammers or babblers...
☐ ...followed by yet another repost of the "12 Failures of Plutonium"...
☐ ...or the "you gotta draw pictures of calculus" repost...
☐ ...and includes the dumb ascii art cat/owl thing...
☐ ...as well as ascii art of Archie's butthole...
☑ ...and Archie doesn't realize ascii art is so 1980s...
☑ ...and Archie brings up a "mistake" (in his view) from months ago...
☑ ...which, of course, is not actually a mistake...
☐ ...and Archie invents yet more "mistakes" (that are not mistakes)...
☐ ...and Archie really wears out the "a beer short of a 6 pack" joke...
☑ ...but he still doesn't realize he's about 5 beers short...
☑ ...and Archie can't get over the shame of messing up percentages...
☑ ...he even still thinks 8.88 is "exactly" 9...
☐ ...and he thinks 16.81 is "spot on" 17...
☐ ...and Archie is envious that I weighed the electron and he didn't...
☐ ...Archie asks Google Groups to do something they can't do...
☑ ...Google Groups poster. 'Nuf said.

Archimedes Plutonium Failure score: 21!

[pora...@gmail.com]

On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 11:50:27 PM UTC+2, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Dan Christensen writes:
> Feb 8 (17 hours ago)
>
> Archie Pu's Greatest Discoveries
>
> Just a few of Archie's greatest discoveries:
>
> “The totality, everything that there is [the universe], is only 1 atom of plutonium [Pu]. There is nothing outside or beyond this one atom of plutonium.”
> --April 4, 1994
>
> “The last and largest finite number is 10^604.”
> --June 3, 2015
>
> AP writes:: Dan in his exuberant excitement forgot to list my recent discovery that the Real Electron is 105 MeV and the .5MeV particle is the Dirac's magnetic monopole

>
>
> > Physics lifelong-generation Test & Murray Gell-Mann flunked it
> >
> > Now in each generation of about 50 years, there is a big question in science which the general population participates in-- for example Continental Drift from about 1930 to 1970. And from 1980 to present the question is Climate Change. Big science questions where the general public participates in.
> >
> > Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test. It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist, never.
> >
> > Now, Physics has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.
> >
> > PHYSICS TEST::
> >
> > 1) You studied momentum in physics, especially angular momentum, and, can you have Chemistry and the Chemical Bond, the ionic, covalent, metallic bonding, if the Proton was 938MeV while electron is .5MeV. Or, can this bonding exist only when the Proton is 840 MeV, electron = muon = 105 MeV, and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. So, which is it. Chemistry exists only if 840 to 105 MeV for angular momentum sake or 938 to .5?
> >
> > So, all physicists who studied and thought they mastered physics, turns out, they are so pitiful, so pathetic in physics understanding of just about anything, that they believe you can have Chemistry with a 938 MeV proton with a .5 MeV electron.

======================
idiot parrot !!

the electron is about 5 mev
3 electrons are about 15 mev
ELECTRONS NAD EVEN MANY BASIC PARTICLES
CAN COMBINE AS A ''CHAINOF ORBITALS==
LIKE
A
ELECTRON POSITRON ELECTRON

or positron electron positron etc etc
see '' THE CHAIN OF ORBITALS SYSTEM''
old copyright by y Porat

http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract
===========================

> >
> > Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test.

==========================
surprisingly enough I agree with Archi
about Gellman and his wrong physics
================
TIA
Y.P
============================

[Michael Moroney]

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> writes:

>On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 1:42:08 AM UTC-5, pora...@gmail.com wrote:

>AP writes: Porat-- you are a total failure in science, physics, you have
>only baby-talk. And no matter what the shortcomings of Murray Gell-Mann
>in never realizing proton=840 MeV, .5MeV was Dirac magnetic monopole,
>no matter what shortcomings Gell-Mann had in physics, at least he was in
>the game. Porat-- you are a total outsider and should address Mr.
>Gell-Mann as Sir Gell-Mann

Archie, you science failure, you need to address Porat as Sir Porat or
Your Greatness. Before he was reduced to babbling babytalk, at least he
was designing bridges while you were learning better ways on how to fail.

[Michael Moroney]

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> writes:

>On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 7:17:40 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>snip the insane stalkers post for it is only hatred never science

>Volney writes:
>1:25 PM (15 minutes ago)

>>Who is "we"??


Archie, do you really have to _deliberately_ fail like that?

[Earle Jones]

*
To: AP
From: Earle Jones

I am having with some of your notation. Could you please help me?
I do not understand this notation:

>         B         /|       /  |  A /----|   /      | |
>        | |____|

Please explain.

Thanks,

earle
*


On 2018-06-21 04:47:28 +0000, Archimedes Plutonium said:

> In fact, call the picture, theFUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS,
> PictureTrapezoid for derivative as the roof-top of the trapezoid, which
> must be a straight-line segment. If it is curved, you cannot fold it
> down to form a integral rectangle. And the rectangle for integral as
> area.From this:         B         /|       /  |  A /----|
>   /      | |        | |____|
> The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
> so that it can be hinged at A, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
> integral.To this:______ |         | |         | |         |

[Michael Moroney]

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

>On Thursday, 30 August 2018
>Michael Moroney writes:
>8:27 AM (7 hours ago)

>,,,,, "Total Failure" ,,,,,


>Mark Kisin, Peter Kronheimer, Jacob Lurie of Harvard--total failures says

What, you still can't respond without multiple stalker lists or your
cubbyhole pet? Are you autistic or something?

You said you had a proof the ellipse is not a conic section. Let's see it,
without the stalkerlists, and also leave your pet in its cubbyhole.

[Michael Moroney]

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 3:08:42 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> page11
>
> Newsgroups: sci.physics
> Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 22:35:29 -0800 (PST)
>
> Subject: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic
> Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 06:35:29 +0000
>
>
> On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 9:55:41 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
> is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
>
>
> how water is like fluorine isotope Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
>
> Now way way back in sci.physics history, i believe it was sometime in the 1990s i spoke of a concept of hydrogen atom systems that composes all atoms. The idea basically was there are no neutrons and each proton is linked to a muon (of course back then i thought the electron was .5 MeV).
>
> In Hydrogen Atom Systems theory i called it HYASYS, the hydrogen atom would have number and mass of 1, helium would be 4. Oxygen would be atomic mass and number 16, and Fluorine (i keep mixing the spelling with the food flour) is 19F, but, there is a isotope of Fluorine as 18F.
>
> We can see how the AP Element Table accommodates isotopes for each isotope is a specific number of HYASYS. In HYASYS theory, every atom is composed not of protons, electrons=105MeV but only a proton + muon.
>
> But a curious feature appears in that water, H2O would have 18 HYASYS matching fluorine hyasys of 18F. Only realize the 2 H are bonded to oxygen while the 18F is a single atom.
>
> But no escaping the fact that in both you have a Faraday Law acting on 9 x 18 muons in total, where 1 proton = 8muons. In HYASYS, all atoms are just a specific number of MUONS, so for Water molecule, H2O is 162 Muons. And for isotope 18F, is 162 Muons that compose 18F. Now 19F, the most common atom of fluorine is in total 171 Muons.
>
> So, can any chemist today-- make a case that water behaves like fluorine isotope 18F? We all know water has some unique properties but so does fluorine.
>
> AP
>
>
>
> Newsgroups: sci.physics
> Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 22:48:22 -0800 (PST)
>
> Subject: Re: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic
> Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 06:48:23 +0000
>
>
> Re: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
>
> On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 12:35:32 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > how water is like fluorine isotope Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
> >
> > Now way way back in sci.physics history, i believe it was sometime in the 1990s i spoke of a concept of hydrogen atom systems that composes all atoms. The idea basically was there are no neutrons and each proton is linked to a muon (of course back then i thought the electron was .5 MeV).
> >
> > In Hydrogen Atom Systems theory i called it HYASYS, the hydrogen atom would have number and mass of 1, helium would be 4. Oxygen would be atomic mass and number 16, and Fluorine (i keep mixing the spelling with the food flour) is 19F, but, there is a isotope of Fluorine as 18F.
> >
> > We can see how the AP Element Table accommodates isotopes for each isotope is a specific number of HYASYS. In HYASYS theory, every atom is composed not of protons, electrons=105MeV but only a proton + muon.
> >
> > But a curious feature appears in that water, H2O would have 18 HYASYS matching fluorine hyasys of 18F. Only realize the 2 H are bonded to oxygen while the 18F is a single atom.
> >
>
> Now, looking up that of 18F, says (Wikipedia) it has a half-life of 109.8 minutes which is oodles and oodles of time to study it. But more important, it says it turns into 18Oxygen. In other words, 18F is H2O in a transitory, phase state.
>
> AP

Our physics is a junk pile that doesn't need to be learned.
It is the absolute opposite. It doesn't qualify. But the new
is objective instead. That is the only empowering knowledge.
Who needs to take a test? Some people don't need an education
to do better than everyone else producing new objective science.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Odd Bodkin]

<mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Our physics is a junk pile that doesn't need to be learned.
> It is the absolute opposite. It doesn't qualify. But the new
> is objective instead. That is the only empowering knowledge.
> Who needs to take a test? Some people don't need an education
> to do better than everyone else producing new objective science.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch
>

Mitch, that’s just crazy talking.



--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

You are part of the junk pile Roy Masters.

[Michael Moroney]

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

>Moroney's Gay B&B near Boston loves AP's theory that Real Proton = 840
>MeV with electron= muon and .5MeV was Dirac magnetic monopole. Does

Archie, I am so glad that you finally asked me to discuss all your posts
with you! We can start with discuss your sudden projections, where you
accuse others of your own issues. Like in this very sentence, you accuse
me of liking your stoopid proton=840 MeV/electron=muon nonsense because
you like your own nonsense, you accuse me of being gay because you are
gay. You also accuse Konyberg of being depressed and a math failure
because you're depressed math failure.

So let's talk about all your issues. First, you are projecting much more
than you did before. Projection is a symptom of various forms of insanity.
Secondly, what you project is quite relevant. So apparently you are a
depressed gay math failure who likes your own false proofs. I do hope
you see a professional who can help you with all your issues.

>AP writes:: no, what I want is for you to be "banned from sci.math,
>sci.physics" as an insane stalker--

This is something else we can discuss. For some strange reason you always
thought discussing things in a discussion group was 'stalking' somehow.
I am glad you finally asked me to discuss stuff with you!

>Drs.L. Reif, Victor Kac, Irwin Pless of MIT, teach percentages correctly--

>MIT math dept.

>Michael Artin, Martin Bazant, Bonnie Berger, Roman Bezrukavnikov, Alexei

We can also discuss your stalker lists, in particular why you always post
stalker lists. Is it really autism at work? It sure is stoopid and
retarded!

[Michael Moroney]

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

>Subject: Re: why Malum loves AP
>Subject: Re: 2-Futter loves AP
>Does Sven Hansson, Arne Kaijser, Sigbritt Karlsson, Carl XVI Gustaf, also
>love AP
>Futter loves AP
>Malum loves, loves AP

Wow, Plutonium is really projecting his gayness onto Zelos and others. I
guess Archie Pu is madly in love with them (Archie's gayness again) but he
proects it so they are all in love with him. Archie just cannot deal with
his own gayness, apparently, so he projects.

[Michael Moroney]

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

>Because Google does not allow original authors to develop threads without
>eing pestered and harrassed by stalking nitwits, I am forced to repost.

FAIL.

Regardless, thanks again for inviting me to discuss this in this
discussion group. We can discuss whether this leads to discovery of
primes. We can also discuss why it is so retarded to post multiple stalker
lists. Do you know of any retarded people who are dumb and stoopid enough
to post stalker lists?

[Michael Moroney]

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

> Subject: 1,4-Chapter 2// 8 year olds// division then decimals TEACHING TRUE

WARNING TO PARENTS: Beware of mathematics by Archimedes Plutonium. For
some unknown reason he is attempting to sabotage math in our youngest
students. For example, he is trying to teach there are no negative numbers
and has conflicting (but wrong) definitions of what a sine wave is.
In the unlikely event he actually produces the textbook he is threatening
to produce, DO NOT ACCEPT IT. It will certainly corrupt the mind of a
child, although it is likely most children will realize how dumb and
stoopid it is and reject it. But still beware!!!