Wikipedia editors ask a question of AP, and AP answers only to have it deleted by DMacks a split second later
plutonium....@gmail.com
And the edit channel was open. So I answered the question. Only
to find my work and effort cancelled by DMacks (another editor of
Wikipedia) a split second after I had saved the answer to the
discussion
page. I cannot say how many times I have been wasted of my time
and effort by Wikipedia, and the obvious reason as to my desire
to not be included in Wikipedia for all the bickering that goes on
there.
Here is my answer in full to Wikipedia--- and why Usenet is actually
the best platform of all the Internet--- better than Google, better
than the social networks of Twitter, MySpace, Facebook, YouTube,
Blogs, and even better than Wikipedia.
Only Usenet newsgroups are as "true blue freedom of speech"
as one can get, where you do not have a half-mind punk reverting
what you just wrote.
So here is my writings to Wikipedia tonight:
--- Quoting in full ---
Hello Archimedes Plutonium I hope that you are doing well. I would
like to ask you what exactly you think that this wikipedia article
should say about you? Thanks, --[[User:194x144x90x118|194x144x90x118]]
([[User talk:194x144x90x118|talk]]) 00:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello Archimedes Plutonium I hope that you are doing well. I would
like to ask you what exactly you think that this wikipedia article
should say about you? Thanks, --[[User:194x144x90x118|194x144x90x118]]
([[User talk:194x144x90x118|talk]]) 00:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
-
-
Hello,-- I have nothing against the present entry, except maybe those
-
flagged citations removed and keep everything there as at present
shown.
-
-
I have no objections to this entry:
-
--- quoting entry with flaggs removed ---
-
-
* Archimedes Plutonium (born Ludwig Poehlmann in 1950, raised as
Ludwig Hansen, legally changed his name to Ludwig van Ludvig, then
Ludwig Plutonium, then later changed it to Archimedes Plutonium) --
noted for his many posts about his own theories of physics,
mathematics, and stock market investing, and in particular his
"Plutonium Atom Totality" theory, which posits that the universe is a
giant plutonium atom and that galaxies are "dots" in the electron dot
cloud of this atom.[3][4] He states that the cosmic atom must be
plutonium in order to explain the values of the mathematical constants
e and π, and certain physical constants such as the fine structure
constant and proton-to-electron mass ratio. He also claimed to have
invented a new decimal number notation that leads to proofs/disproofs
of the Prime number theorem, Poincare Conjecture, Goldbach Conjecture,
Fermat's Last Theorem, and the Riemann Hypothesis, and which will
render current methods of mathematics obsolete. As of 2009, Plutonium
has authored over 20,000 unique postings to dozens of science
newsgroups such as "sci.physics", "sci.math", "sci.chem", and
"sci.bio.misc".
-
-
--- end quoting ---
-
-
I removed the flags of "citation needed" for I sense that they are
there
-
only to cut back on the entry by a hatemonger.
-
-
The above is actually well written, concise and compact. It is a good
job.
-
But the trouble is that as time goes on, there is this desire by
hatemongers to surround the page with the words-- kook, crackpot,
insane,
-
paranoid. And that is probably the motivation of this entry in the
first place, as a hatemongers idea of a "crackpot list" in Wikipedia.
To dress it
-
up as Celebrity or eccentric or other such words is only a disguise
for the
-
real intent of a "ugly list".
-
-
So it takes up too much of my time in monitoring it.
-
-
So, I accept Paine Ellsworth's challenge-- remove me from this list,
for
-
I do not need Wikipedia, especially since it causes me to waste too
much of
-
my time.
-
-
What I do have objections is that there is a
-
gang of editors at Wikipedia who have a humungus hatred of AP and this
-
hatred oozes out in all sorts of corners of this article such as
-
sneeking in a "kook list" sneeking in alt.kooks newsgroups.
Sandwiching
-
in murders and criminals. Sandwiching in negative entries. So this
list
-
is "subjective" from the get go. And it has a gang of hatemongers that
-
keep making this list a "ugly list". I do not have the time to have
-
to check on this list, and then to have to "fight over removal" of the
-
constant urge to include ugly overtones.
-
-
It causes me to have to take too much time out of my life to keep it
-
somewhat "honest" and quite frankly it is not worth my time. There
should
-
be a rule of any encyclopedia editor-- that if they hate the subject
-
they are writing about, they should defer the writing to someone else.
-
And that rule is not abided by any of the editors I have seen so far
on this article except for perhaps the person who initiated the last
Deletion.
-
-
So if it is a question of what I find wrong with AP's entry is that it
takes too much of my time, and it was written by noone who is
objective
-
enough but written by too many subjective hatemongers. Likebox has a
-
entry written on Archimedes Plutonium that is the first objectively
written
-
article and which should be the only article visible in Wikipedia.
Likebox
-
is the first Wikipedia article on AP that is wonderful, and all other
-
Wikipedia articles written on AP were originated by hatemongers.
-
[[Special:Contributions/216.16.57.193|216.16.57.193]] ([[User talk:
216.16.57.193|talk]]) 04:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Archimedes Plutonium
--- end quoting ---
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
plutonium....@gmail.com
only objective
entry of Archimedes Plutonium, and written by someone of purely
objectivity.
Objectivity is a rare commodity of a editor, as amazing as that is.
--- quoting the Likebox/Archimedes_Plutonium entry in Wikipedia ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Likebox/Archimedes_Plutonium
User:Likebox/Archimedes Plutonium
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User:Likebox
Jump to: navigation, search
Archimedes Plutonium (born July 5, 1950), also known as Ludwig
Plutonium, wrote extensively about science and mathematics on Usenet.
In 1990 he became convinced that the universe could be thought of as
an atom of plutonium, and changed his name to reflect this idea. He is
notable for his offbeat theories about Plutonium Atom totality,
physical constants, and nonstandard infinite arithmetic. [1] [2]
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Biographical Sketch
* 2 Writing
o 2.1 Plutonium Atom Totality
o 2.2 Infinite Integers
o 2.3 Other ideas
* 3 Quotes
* 4 References
[edit] Biographical Sketch
Plutonium was born under the name Ludwig Poehlmann in Arzberg,
Germany. His family moved to the United States and settled near
Cincinnati, Ohio, where Plutonium was adopted into the Hansen family
and brought up under the name Ludwig Hansen. Plutonium has a BA in
mathematics from the University of Cincinnati and taught High School
in Melbourne Australia. He returned to the US in the mid 1970s and
went on to Utah State University for a Masters degree. Under the name
Ludwig Plutonium, he began posting to usenet in 1993, and his prolific
posts quickly made him a well known usenet figure.
[edit] Writing
Plutonium is the author of over 20,000 unique postings to dozens of
science newsgroups such as sci.physics, sci.math, sci.chem,
sci.bio.misc. Plutonium used the time stamp on his postings to gather
the posts into collections which he calls his internet books. He has
written approximately 30 of these.
[edit] Plutonium Atom Totality
Plutonium Atom Totality is the idea that the universe should be
thought of as a gigantic atom of the element plutonium, Pu 231.
Plutonium believes that the galaxies in the night sky are the electron
cloud of the atom. The cosmic atom, often written ATOM, is a
manifestation of God, or the totality of all things, but the physical
universe in Plutonium's philosophy only obeys natural laws and has no
room for anything supernatural.[3]
[edit] Infinite Integers
An integer in Plutonium's philosophical view includes objects which
have a decimal expansion which never ends, for example, the following
number is an integer:
x = 111...333 \,
which starts with an infinite repeating list of 1s, and ends with an
infinite repeating list of 3s. The 1's are the frontview of the
number, while the 3's are the backview. To multiply these numbers,
multiply finite approximations until the repeating pattern front and
back becomes clear. For example,
111...333 * 888...444 = 0987654320987654320...1851851852 \,
and the leading 0 is important to Plutonium. Plutonium believes that
Fermat's last theorem is false, because he believes it fails for these
infinite integers. He also believes that the set of all real numbers
is countable, since both the Reals and Infinite Integers are "All
Possible Digit Arrangements". By this statement he usually means that
there is a direct one-to-one map from the real numbers to the
integers, which consists of taking all the digits behind the decimal
point and putting them in front. To allow this, his real numbers have
a frontview and a backview too.[4] [5]
[edit] Other ideas
Plutonium believes in a "fusion barrier principle", which limits the
energy output in a fusion reactor to 2/3 of input. He believes that
all forces emerge from a unified Coulomb's law. He also believes that
the mainspring of human evolution was throwing rocks and stones, and
that this led to bipedalism. He is the author of countless other ideas
and speculations, all of which claim to displace scientific consensus,
and none of which are accepted by mainstream science.
Archimedes Plutonium, in his Usenet posts, was the first to describe
the practice of biasing search-engine results by planting references,
and coined the phrase search-engine bombing to describe it. This later
became well-known as google bombing[6] [7].
[edit] Quotes
* "The whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of
the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies."
* "God is Science, and Science is god."
* "God is this one big atom that comprises all the Universe, much
like what Spinoza discovered some centuries past, called pantheism.
Where we are a tiny part of God itself. And where there is a heaven
and hell in part of the atom structure. And where we will be judged by
God when we die and our photon and neutrino souls will reincarnate
once again in a future life somewhere in the Cosmos."
* "The world's finest Bibles are current physics textbooks or
biology or chemistry textbooks"
* "When you have a foggy notion of what you are working with, it
is impossible to prove much about them."
[edit] References
1. ^ Joseph C. Scott. "Sometime-scientist Plutonium says science is
'gobbledygook'", The Dartmouth, September 25, 1997.
2. ^ Jennifer Kahn. "Notes from Another Universe", Discover, April
2002.
3. ^ http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
4. ^ http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/, for further information, see
http://mathforum.org/kb/forum.jspa?forumID=13 , Archimedes Plutonium ,
article: 10/16/07 11 #104 In fact the definition of Reals as *all
possible digit arrangements* bars or precludes Cantor ever applying a
diagonal method ; new textbook: "Mathematical-Physics (p-adic primer)
for students of age 6 onwards"
5. ^ http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ , see also
http://forum.lowcarber.org/archive/index.php/t-80681.html
6. ^ http://www.ifergan.org/google-bombing.html
7. ^ Law and Order on Net and Web (September 17, 1997)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Likebox/
Archimedes_Plutonium"
Categories: American writers | 1950 births
--- end quoting the Likebox/Archimedes_Plutonium entry in Wikipedia
Musatov
> like what Spinoza discovered some centuries past, called pantheism.
> and hell in part of the atom structure. And where we will be judged byGodwhen we die and our photon and neutrino souls will reincarnate
> once again in a future life somewhere in the Cosmos."
> biology or chemistry textbooks"
> * "When you have a foggy notion of what you are working with, it
> is impossible to prove much about them."
>
> [edit] References
>
> 1. ^ Joseph C. Scott. "Sometime-scientist Plutonium says science is
> 'gobbledygook'", The Dartmouth, September 25, 1997.
> 2. ^ Jennifer Kahn. "Notes from Another Universe", Discover, April
> 2002.
> 3. ^http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
> article: 10/16/07 11 #104 In fact the definition of Reals as *all
> possible digit arrangements* bars or precludes Cantor ever applying a
> for students of age 6 onwards"
> 5. ^http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/, see alsohttp://forum.lowcarber.org/archive/index.php/t-80681.html
> 7. ^ Law and Order on Net and Web (September 17, 1997)
>
> Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Likebox/
> Archimedes_Plutonium"
> Categories: American writers | 1950 births
>
> --- end quoting the Likebox/Archimedes_Plutonium entry in Wikipedia
> ---
>
> Archimedes Plutoniumwww.iw.net/~a_plutonium
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
On Jun 13, 9:37 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 12:12:15 -0400, Seamus MacRae
>
>
>
>
>
> <smacrae...@live.ca.invalid> wrote:
> >The Starmaker wrote:
> >[snip]
>
> >SHUT UP!!
>
> >>>>> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 13:02:47 -0400, Seamus MacRae
> >>>>> <smacrae...@live.ca.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 09:21:03 -0400, Seamus MacRae
> >>>>>>> <smacrae...@live.ca.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Does your physics books mentioned the word "audience" refering
> >>>>>>>>> [sic] to stars?
> >>>>>>>> No, which is precisely my point.
> >>>>>>> If your people physics books doesn't[sic] mentioned[sic] the word
> >>>>>>> "audience", it doesn't[sic] understand how stars are made.
> >>>>>> Books, of course, don't understand anything; they are just inert
> >>>>>> chunks of paper. So this statement of yours is meaningless.
>
> >>>>>> Although I'm curious to know why you think I have "people physics
> >>>>>> books", a sub-genre I've never heard of.
> >>>>> You never heard of the "tree people"? There are people who cut down
> >>>>> trees in Brazil, the natives call them "the tree people". You are the
> >>>>> "physics book people". You got the "math people"...wait I see this is
> >>>>> going to the "science fiction people"...
> >>> And meanwhile, you are one of the "incoherent people".
>
> >> Much larger population than the "coherent people", a dying breed...
>
> >Due to fucknozzles like you.
>
> >>>>> Children should not be reading sf books...
> >>> You're welcome to your opinion. May you never breed.
>
> >> Not my opinion, ...Albert Einstein's opinion, he believed that people
> >> should not read science fiction--that it distorts science, and gives
> >> people the illusion of understanding.
>
> >Even Einstein was occasionally wrong.
>
> You got kids out there believing in flying saucers, that's science
> fiction, that's a distortion of science.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> May he never breed? Or maybe, You?... "The Bomb Maker"??
>
> >Hey. My bombs kept the peace for decades, until the SU eventually
> >collapsed under its own weight. Don't knock 'em.
>
> >>>>>>> It is the audience that created the universe, ...the audience
> >>>>>>> exist[sic] in the future.
> >>>>>> Right. The universe was made by time travelers.
> >>>>> I'm traveling through time right now!
> >>> Don't forget your lightning rod. You know, just in case you run out of
> >>> plutonium for juicing up that flux capacitor.
>
> >> I can always buy plutonium from the Koreans!
>
> >*shudder*
>
> >>>>>>> People describe the universe with mathematics, but that is just an
> >>>>>>> illusion...
> >>>>>> No, it is not. I can use calculus and the laws of motion to
> >>>>>> describe the trajectory of a baseball bat conking you on the head.
> >>>>>> Your ensuing headache and goose-egg will confirm handily for you
> >>>>>> for several days that it was no illusion.
> >>>>> You should work for the department of defense! They need guys like
> >>>>> you!
> >>> I already do, you ninny. Didn't I mention earlier my profession?
>
> >> You mention it, but you didn't say what country....
>
> >I thought it was obvious.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Mathematics does not describe the universe. Nor does physics.
> >>>>>>>> Sure they do.
> >>>>>>> Scientism[sic].
> >>>>> I spelled it right! Scientism.
> >>> Oops, nope, and you cocked it up again. It's "science". With an "e".
>
> >> There's no "c".
>
> >There certainly is.
>
> >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science
>
> >Note spelling.
>
> Scientism, note the difference..http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:Scientism&ei=u3c0...
> the belief that there is one and only one method of science and that
> it alone confers legitimacy upon the conduct of research.
>
> Just a belief, just a religion..religion of the nerds...Scientism.
>
>
>
> >>>>> You have limited intelligence...
> >>> My intelligence greatly exceeds yours.
>
> >> It is still, limited.
>
> >A meaningless statement.
>
> It means your intelligence is "small in range".
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> My stupidity greatly exceeds yours, and it has no limits.
>
> >That much has been obvious for quite some time now.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> A dead universe is a universe
> >>>>>>>>>>> without an audience. No stars
> >>>>>>>>>>> will be born.
> >>>>>>>>>> There is no evidence to support this contention.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> You fail astrophysics forever.
> >>>>>>>>> I never heard of that word "astrophysics"...where did you get it from
> >>>>>>>> An actual fucking education.
> >>>>>>> Was it the 13th grade?
> >>>>>> University, you jackass. Perhaps you didn't read the other thread,
> >>>>>> but I'm a fucking nuclear physicist. I know a lot more about a lot of
> >>>>>> this shit than you do, as must be becoming quite obvious by now.
> >>>>> A nuclear physicist? You guys created an atom bomb to kill Germans and
> >>>>> you end up killing Japanese people with it. That was very smart.
> >>> Yeah, imagine if the war of the Pacific had dragged on another five years.
>
> >> I don't live in a "if" world...
>
> >Oh, yeah, of course, you're too stupid to understand hypotheticals.
> >Silly me.
>
> >>> Are you threatening me?
>
> >> Do you have anything against Iranian Nuclear Physics being
> >> assassinated?
>
> >I'm not Iranian, nutjob.
>
> Do you have anything against any Nuclear Physicist from any country
> being assassinated?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Observers, the audience..makes the stars.
> >>>>>>>>>> Not the celestial ones.
> >>>>>>>>> As long as you confined yourself to physics and math, you can
> >>>>>>>>> never understand...The Real World.
> >>>>>>>> Wake up and smell the muons: the "Real World" is made of ...
> >>>>>>>> physics and math. Go to university and get a bachelor of science
> >>>>>>>> degree if you don't believe me. I know I did.
> >>>>>>> I never went to college...and I don't want to enter those
> >>>>>>> 'slave to corporations' you call "university".
> >>>>>> Well, that explains your utter failure to grasp astrophysics or
> >>>>>> even some basic concepts of logic and reason. Although not your
> >>>>>> near-illiteracy. Did you forget to mention that you dropped out of
> >>>>>> school in sixth grade, or something like that?
> >>>>> I'll explain why you're able to grasp astrophysics, ....it's was an
> >>>>> accident.
> >>> You are not making sense once again. Grammatically, or semantically.
>
> >> Accident! A mistake, or by chance..
>
> >There has been no mistake by me. I understand it by intelligence and
> >reason, not by sheer dumb luck.
>
> I bet your parents thought they were lucky.
>
>
>
> >> The truth is, the majority of people do *not* understand or have any
> >> real grasp of science or arithmetic...
>
> >Including you.
>
> >Fortunately, I'm not in that majority.
>
> >> if you do, it's a freak of nature, a mistake..and accident.
>
> >No, it is not. It is called "having had an education". You ought to try
> >it sometime.
>
> Anybody can walk into a college bookstore and buy a textbook.
>
> Or a class onlinehttp://www.mininova.org/search/ttc%2Bvideo/seeds
>
>
>
> >> here is what an accident looks like:
> >>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00441/news-gr...
>
> >That's the result of disease, not an accident, fuckwit.
>
> I was discussing 'smart people' are a freak of nature, it's a picture
> of a "smart person". It's no accident he got a disease, it comes with
> 'the smarts'.
>
>
>
> >>>>> There is no Big Bang without observers in the dark. You want proof, go
> >>>>> see a movie!
> >>> This is completely irrational.
>
> >> Have you tried learning without a textbook?
>
> >I learn via all kinds of media, including but not limited to books.
>
> You mean like , watching a movie?
>
> Do you know how stars are made¿
>
>
>
> >>>> To that fish
> >>>> in his tank
> >>>> that's his universe..
> >>> He can see out through the glass, you know.
>
> >> Does he understands what he sees?
>
> >Probably not. He's a fish, doofus.
>
> Doofus? You're suppose to call nerds "doofus", not nitwits like me!
> Doofus refers to nerds only, not nitwits. Get this stuff right, I'm
> testing you later...
>
>
>
> >>>> Or go back to school
> >>>> make that atom bomb
> >>>> and kill those Germans!
> >>> Are you stuck in a time-warp or something? WWII is over, six decades
> >>> ago. We won.
>
> >> I've been watching too many Woody Allen movies...
>
> >I'm more worried about the inhalants you use than the movies you watch,
> >to be honest.
>
> You mean like glue sniffing? You put glue in a paper bag and you
> inhale it...do you got kids? They are probably glue sniffing right
> now..
>
>
>
> >>>> The Starmaker...coming soon to a theater near you! "Revenge Of The
> >>>> Nitwits 2"
> >>> We've already had Terminator 4 bomb. We don't need another box-office
> >>> bomb this month.
>
> >> You like "bombs" don't you?
>
> >Not the box-office ones.
>
> Just the ones that kill people...and I guess you're going to breed
> babies that grow up to be.. Weapons of Mass Destruction.
>
> And they teach this stuff in school?
>
> "Daddy, I want to take a "How To Build A Nuclear Bomb" class at the
> university!!!" "I want to kill millions of people!"
>
> (\__.-. |
> == ===_]+
> |
> ` - .
> ` - >->
>
> .... .... .... ....
> || || || ||
> /"""l|\ /"""l|\ /"""l|\ /"""l|\
> /_______\ /_______\ /_______\ /_______\
> | .-. |------| .-. |------| .-. |------| .-. |------
> __|L|__| .--. |__|L|__| .--. |__|L|__| .--. |__|L|__| .--.
> _\ \\p__`o-o'__\ \\p__`o-o'__\ \\p__`o-o'__\ \\p__`o-o'_
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The Starmaker- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted test*
*ok
Here it is:
1) Something cannot come from nothing.
2) We exist.
4) Something is eternal.
5) To me this eternal is God.
6) To you, it is what it is to you.
*ok
Ken Quirici
Ah! So the word 'paranoid' can be put back in the Wikipedia
entry.
Also, I'm sure if you add to the entry the fact that, besides the
20,000
posts to Usenet, there are 0 peer- (I use the term to mean peers of
mathematicians, not peers of AP) reviewed papers printed, we can
put back the 'quack' in the entry too.
Hmmm. What else? Kook? Must be some justification for that
one.
Ken Quirici
'printed' should surely be 'published'
Ken Quirici
Anybody who uses the term 'fakery' to tar every
mathematical theory he can think of is surely guilty
of hate-mongery, isn't he?
I'm not sure someone who has this sort of hate-
mongery in I would estimate at least 5-10% of those
20k posts - i.e. 500-1000, can object to being the
object (heteronyms, right?) of derisive criticism
(content-ful, not like his own content-less) of his
own theories?
Does Usenet, or Wikipedia, have a term to refer
to AP's hatemongering that can be used in his
entry in Wikipedia?
Further, his brand of hate-mongering is clearly a
form of trolling - attracting attention and response
by provocation.
So we should add 'trolling' to his Wikipedia entry.
Michael Press
<1586b6dd-7467-4ca5...@u9g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Ken Quirici <kqui...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 16, 1:07 am, plutonium.archime...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Earlier tonight I saw a question asked of me by a editor of Wikipedia.
> > And the edit channel was open. So I answered the question. Only
> > to find my work and effort cancelled by DMacks (another editor of
> > Wikipedia) a split second after I had saved the answer to the
> > discussion
Do you want know what I think? No, of course not.
I think there is a robot that detects your
contributions to Wikipedia and overwrites them.
--
Michael Press