Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Vax Vobiscum


tech / sci.math / Re: 2.2-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to math percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Shawn-Yu Lin,Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang

SubjectAuthor
* Re: 2.2-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to mathArchimedes Plutonium
+- Re: 2.2-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to mathArchimedes Plutonium
`* Re: 2.2-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to mathArchimedes Plutonium
 `* Re: 2.2-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to mathArchimedes Plutonium
  `- Re: 2.2-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to mathArchimedes Plutonium

1
Re: 2.2-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to math percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Shawn-Yu Lin,Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang

<a3ce2f96-4ddb-433d-ac9d-693c883a368dn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=100082&group=sci.math#100082

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.math
X-Received: by 2002:a37:2f04:0:b0:663:397d:7051 with SMTP id v4-20020a372f04000000b00663397d7051mr8094876qkh.333.1652577878120;
Sat, 14 May 2022 18:24:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a81:5085:0:b0:2f4:d6fb:f76f with SMTP id
e127-20020a815085000000b002f4d6fbf76fmr13911367ywb.190.1652577877966; Sat, 14
May 2022 18:24:37 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 18:24:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <qlljek$u3p$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2600:387:f:e17:0:0:0:4;
posting-account=fsC03QkAAAAwkSNcSEKmlcR-W_HNitEd
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2600:387:f:e17:0:0:0:4
References: <d903350d-5042-46eb-9a00-600021b5a415@googlegroups.com> <qlljek$u3p$1@gioia.aioe.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <a3ce2f96-4ddb-433d-ac9d-693c883a368dn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: 2.2-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to math
percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot
confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why
Drs.Shawn-Yu Lin,Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang
From: plutoniu...@gmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 May 2022 01:24:38 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 10900
 by: Archimedes Plutonium - Sun, 15 May 2022 01:24 UTC

Charles Martin, Joseph Darryl Michael, Heidi Jo Newberg,
Rensselaer Polytech, why not admit the truth Oval is the slant cut in single cone, never the ellipse. Rensselaer -- __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 of hatred, only shows that Rensselaer Polytech 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 Rensselaer with their mindless big lie of ellipse a conic section.

No point in asking any Rensselaer 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)

Rensselaer-- 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?

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Physics dept
Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek, Julian S. Georg, Joel T. Giedt, Yong Sung Kim, Gyorgy Korniss, Toh-Ming Lu, Charles Martin, Joseph Darryl Michael, Heidi Jo Newberg, Moussa N'Gom, Peter Persans, John Schroeder, Michael Shur, Shawn-Yu Lin, Humberto Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang, Morris A Washington, Esther A. Wertz, Christian M. Wetzel, Ingrid Wilke, Shengbai Zhang

Rensselaer math department
Donald Schwendeman, Jeffrey Banks, Kristin Bennett, Mohamed Boudjelkha, Joseph Ecker, William Henshaw, Isom Herron, Mark H Holmes, David Isaacson, Elizabeth Kam, Ashwani Kapila, Maya Kiehl, Gregor Kovacic, Peter Kramer, Gina Kucinski, Rongjie Lai, Fengyan Li, Chjan Lim, Yuri V Lvov, Harry McLaughlin, John E. Mitchell, Bruce Piper, David A Schmidt, Daniel Stevenson, Yangyang Xu, Bulent Yener, Donald Drew, William Siegmann

Re: 2.2-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to math percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Shawn-Yu Lin,Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang

<d1fa05f2-0606-46a7-92ea-574a2b93af0en@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=100099&group=sci.math#100099

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.math
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:54d:b0:2f3:ce29:234a with SMTP id m13-20020a05622a054d00b002f3ce29234amr10664146qtx.559.1652595774439;
Sat, 14 May 2022 23:22:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a81:2185:0:b0:2f1:de50:5ecb with SMTP id
h127-20020a812185000000b002f1de505ecbmr14010633ywh.40.1652595774285; Sat, 14
May 2022 23:22:54 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 23:22:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <a3ce2f96-4ddb-433d-ac9d-693c883a368dn@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2600:387:c:6f18:0:0:0:7;
posting-account=fsC03QkAAAAwkSNcSEKmlcR-W_HNitEd
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2600:387:c:6f18:0:0:0:7
References: <d903350d-5042-46eb-9a00-600021b5a415@googlegroups.com>
<qlljek$u3p$1@gioia.aioe.org> <a3ce2f96-4ddb-433d-ac9d-693c883a368dn@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <d1fa05f2-0606-46a7-92ea-574a2b93af0en@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: 2.2-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to math
percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot
confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why
Drs.Shawn-Yu Lin,Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang
From: plutoniu...@gmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 May 2022 06:22:54 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 11294
 by: Archimedes Plutonium - Sun, 15 May 2022 06:22 UTC

Bruce Piper, David A Schmidt, Daniel Stevenson,
2> Rensselaer Polytech, why not admit the truth Oval is the slant cut in single cone, never the ellipse. Rensselaer -- __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 of hatred, only shows that Rensselaer Polytech 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 Rensselaer with their mindless big lie of ellipse a conic section.
>
>
2> No point in asking any Rensselaer 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)
>
>
2> Rensselaer-- 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?
>
>
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Physics dept
> Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek, Julian S. Georg, Joel T. Giedt, Yong Sung Kim, Gyorgy Korniss, Toh-Ming Lu, Charles Martin, Joseph Darryl Michael, Heidi Jo Newberg, Moussa N'Gom, Peter Persans, John Schroeder, Michael Shur, Shawn-Yu Lin, Humberto Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang, Morris A Washington, Esther A. Wertz, Christian M. Wetzel, Ingrid Wilke, Shengbai Zhang
>
> Rensselaer math department
> Donald Schwendeman, Jeffrey Banks, Kristin Bennett, Mohamed Boudjelkha, Joseph Ecker, William Henshaw, Isom Herron, Mark H Holmes, David Isaacson, Elizabeth Kam, Ashwani Kapila, Maya Kiehl, Gregor Kovacic, Peter Kramer, Gina Kucinski, Rongjie Lai, Fengyan Li, Chjan Lim, Yuri V Lvov, Harry McLaughlin, John E. Mitchell, Bruce Piper, David A Schmidt, Daniel Stevenson, Yangyang Xu, Bulent Yener, Donald Drew, William Siegmann

Re: 2.2-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to math percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Shawn-Yu Lin,Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang

<803116b3-436d-48c9-9d3a-2d08e9145fcan@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=100195&group=sci.math#100195

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.math
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:58d6:0:b0:2f3:d35c:4ef8 with SMTP id u22-20020ac858d6000000b002f3d35c4ef8mr14000199qta.265.1652677700575;
Sun, 15 May 2022 22:08:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a0d:c0c6:0:b0:2ff:bb2:1065 with SMTP id
b189-20020a0dc0c6000000b002ff0bb21065mr856657ywd.512.1652677700359; Sun, 15
May 2022 22:08:20 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fdn.fr!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 15 May 2022 22:08:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <a3ce2f96-4ddb-433d-ac9d-693c883a368dn@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2600:387:f:5518:0:0:0:8;
posting-account=fsC03QkAAAAwkSNcSEKmlcR-W_HNitEd
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2600:387:f:5518:0:0:0:8
References: <d903350d-5042-46eb-9a00-600021b5a415@googlegroups.com>
<qlljek$u3p$1@gioia.aioe.org> <a3ce2f96-4ddb-433d-ac9d-693c883a368dn@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <803116b3-436d-48c9-9d3a-2d08e9145fcan@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: 2.2-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to math
percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot
confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why
Drs.Shawn-Yu Lin,Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang
From: plutoniu...@gmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Injection-Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 05:08:20 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 by: Archimedes Plutonium - Mon, 16 May 2022 05:08 UTC

Rongjie Lai, Fengyan Li,Peter Kramer, Gina Kucinski
_Rensselaer Polytech, why not admit the truth Oval is the slant cut in single cone, never the ellipse. Rensselaer -- __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 of hatred, only shows that Rensselaer is no longer in the business of science and truth but has gone corrupt.

On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 10:56:36 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"physics hater"
>"not one single marble of commonsense in my entire brain"


Not much difference between the corrupt Donald Trump and his mindless "big lie" and Rensselaer with their mindless big lie of ellipse a conic section.
>
>
> No point in asking any Rensselaer 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)
>
>
> Rensselaer Polytech-- 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?
> 
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Physics dept
> Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek, Julian S. Georg, Joel T. Giedt, Yong Sung Kim, Gyorgy Korniss, Toh-Ming Lu, Charles Martin, Joseph Darryl Michael, Heidi Jo Newberg, Moussa N'Gom, Peter Persans, John Schroeder, Michael Shur, Shawn-Yu Lin, Humberto Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang, Morris A Washington, Esther A. Wertz, Christian M. Wetzel, Ingrid Wilke, Shengbai Zhang
>
> Rensselaer math department
> Donald Schwendeman, Jeffrey Banks, Kristin Bennett, Mohamed Boudjelkha, Joseph Ecker, William Henshaw, Isom Herron, Mark H Holmes, David Isaacson, Elizabeth Kam, Ashwani Kapila, Maya Kiehl, Gregor Kovacic, Peter Kramer, Gina Kucinski, Rongjie Lai, Fengyan Li, Chjan Lim, Yuri V Lvov, Harry McLaughlin, John E. Mitchell, Bruce Piper, David A Schmidt, Daniel Stevenson, Yangyang Xu, Bulent Yener, Donald Drew, William Siegmann

Re: 2.2-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to math percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Shawn-Yu Lin,Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang

<859a6409-0008-4d65-a4d3-b292625807e6n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=100268&group=sci.math#100268

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.math
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5b8c:0:b0:45a:9340:ef92 with SMTP id 12-20020ad45b8c000000b0045a9340ef92mr17397300qvp.85.1652743390553;
Mon, 16 May 2022 16:23:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a81:18a:0:b0:2fe:d9d8:7a2f with SMTP id
132-20020a81018a000000b002fed9d87a2fmr12366772ywb.434.1652743390368; Mon, 16
May 2022 16:23:10 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fdn.fr!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 16:23:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <803116b3-436d-48c9-9d3a-2d08e9145fcan@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2600:387:f:5519:0:0:0:4;
posting-account=fsC03QkAAAAwkSNcSEKmlcR-W_HNitEd
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2600:387:f:5519:0:0:0:4
References: <d903350d-5042-46eb-9a00-600021b5a415@googlegroups.com>
<qlljek$u3p$1@gioia.aioe.org> <a3ce2f96-4ddb-433d-ac9d-693c883a368dn@googlegroups.com>
<803116b3-436d-48c9-9d3a-2d08e9145fcan@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <859a6409-0008-4d65-a4d3-b292625807e6n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: 2.2-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to math
percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot
confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why
Drs.Shawn-Yu Lin,Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang
From: plutoniu...@gmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Injection-Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 23:23:10 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 by: Archimedes Plutonium - Mon, 16 May 2022 23:23 UTC

Bruce Piper, David A Schmidt, Daniel Stevenson, John E. Mitchell
16May> _Rensselaer Polytech, why not admit the truth Oval is the slant cut in single cone, never the ellipse. Rensselaer -- __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 of hatred, only shows that Rensselaer is no longer in the business of science and truth but has gone corrupt.
>
> On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 10:56:36 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >"physics hater"
> >"not one single marble of commonsense in my entire brain"
> Not much difference between the corrupt Donald Trump and his mindless "big lie" and Rensselaer with their mindless big lie of ellipse a conic section.
> >
> >
> > No point in asking any Rensselaer 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)
> >
> >
> > Rensselaer Polytech-- 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?
> > 
> > Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Physics dept
> > Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek, Julian S. Georg, Joel T. Giedt, Yong Sung Kim, Gyorgy Korniss, Toh-Ming Lu, Charles Martin, Joseph Darryl Michael, Heidi Jo Newberg, Moussa N'Gom, Peter Persans, John Schroeder, Michael Shur, Shawn-Yu Lin, Humberto Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang, Morris A Washington, Esther A. Wertz, Christian M. Wetzel, Ingrid Wilke, Shengbai Zhang
> >
> > Rensselaer math department
> > Donald Schwendeman, Jeffrey Banks, Kristin Bennett, Mohamed Boudjelkha, Joseph Ecker, William Henshaw, Isom Herron, Mark H Holmes, David Isaacson, Elizabeth Kam, Ashwani Kapila, Maya Kiehl, Gregor Kovacic, Peter Kramer, Gina Kucinski, Rongjie Lai, Fengyan Li, Chjan Lim, Yuri V Lvov, Harry McLaughlin, John E. Mitchell, Bruce Piper, David A Schmidt, Daniel Stevenson, Yangyang Xu, Bulent Yener, Donald Drew, William Siegmann


Click here to read the complete article
Re: 2.2-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to math percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Shawn-Yu Lin,Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang

<642bd7f0-eb73-4406-a50f-e944128b476fn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=141286&group=sci.math#141286

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.math
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1a84:b0:763:9dbd:8b13 with SMTP id bl4-20020a05620a1a8400b007639dbd8b13mr8494qkb.14.1689740308280;
Tue, 18 Jul 2023 21:18:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:1a96:b0:1ba:a5d1:a56f with SMTP id
ef22-20020a0568701a9600b001baa5d1a56fmr5607876oab.4.1689740307855; Tue, 18
Jul 2023 21:18:27 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 21:18:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <859a6409-0008-4d65-a4d3-b292625807e6n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2600:387:15:1f19:0:0:0:3;
posting-account=fsC03QkAAAAwkSNcSEKmlcR-W_HNitEd
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2600:387:15:1f19:0:0:0:3
References: <d903350d-5042-46eb-9a00-600021b5a415@googlegroups.com>
<qlljek$u3p$1@gioia.aioe.org> <a3ce2f96-4ddb-433d-ac9d-693c883a368dn@googlegroups.com>
<803116b3-436d-48c9-9d3a-2d08e9145fcan@googlegroups.com> <859a6409-0008-4d65-a4d3-b292625807e6n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <642bd7f0-eb73-4406-a50f-e944128b476fn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: 2.2-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to math
percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot
confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why
Drs.Shawn-Yu Lin,Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang
From: plutoniu...@gmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Injection-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2023 04:18:28 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 35626
 by: Archimedes Plutonium - Wed, 19 Jul 2023 04:18 UTC

Kibo on mental illness

Rensselaer Glenn Ciolek, Julian S. Georg, Joel T. Giedt,Harvard's Sheldon Glashow, Peter Higgs, Harry Cliff ever 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.

Kibo Parry Moron-ey-Volney, 30 year paid nonstop stalker, defiler and demonizer
On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 10:03:19 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>Re: Showing the flaws in Stewart,Fisher & Ziebur, Ellis & Gulick, Strang, Apostol of their fake proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus in AP's new book // Overhaul & Revitalization of Calculus// Math-psychology-sociology (Amazon's Kindle)
> Botfly of Math and Blowfly of Physics
>"mentally ill"
> I Pound His Male Rectum
> The Delicious Rump Man

On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 4:20:59 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>"mentally ill"
>Re: "imp of math"

On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 4:20:59 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>"mentally ill"

Wikipedia on Rensselaer --- (??was it kibo's breeding stalking grounds to sustain him with 30 years nonstop stalking???)

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Tools
Coordinates: 42.7300°N 73.6775°W
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Coat of arms designed by Richard Clipston Sturgis in 1904.
Former names Rensselaer School (1824–1834)
Rensselaer Institute (1834–1861)
Motto "Knowledge and Thoroughness"
Type Private research university
Established November 5, 1824; 198 years ago
Accreditation MSCHE
Academic affiliations
NAICUAITUSpace-grant
Endowment $1.06 billion (2021)
President Martin A. Schmidt
Provost Prabhat Hajela
Academic staff 488 (2019)
Administrative staff 1,291 (2019)
Students 8,142 (2019)
Undergraduates 6,203 (2019)
Postgraduates 1,366 (2019)
Other students 573 (2019)
Location Troy, New York, United States
42.7300°N 73.6775°W
Campus Small city, 265 acres (107 ha)
Other campuses
Bolton LandingHartfordNew YorkNorth Berwick
Newspaper The Rensselaer Polytechnic
Colors Cherry and white

Nickname Engineers
Sporting affiliations
NCAA Division III – Liberty LeagueECAC Hockey
Mascot
Website www.rpi.edu
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute is located in New YorkTroyTroy
class=notpageimage|
Location of the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York.
I have established a school at the north end of Troy, in Rensselaer county, in the building usually called the Old Bank Place, for the purpose of instructing persons, who may choose to apply themselves, in the application of science to the common purposes of life...
— Stephen van Rensselaer of Albany to Samuel Blatchford of Lansingburgh.

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (/rɛnsəˈlɪər/; RPI) is a private research university in Troy, New York, with an additional campus in Hartford, Connecticut. A third campus in Groton, Connecticut, closed in 2018. RPI was established in 1824 by Stephen Van Rensselaer and Amos Eaton for the "application of science to the common purposes of life" and is the oldest technological university in the English-speaking world and the Western Hemisphere.

Built on a hillside, RPI's 265-acre (107 ha) campus overlooks the city of Troy and the Hudson River, and is a blend of traditional and modern architecture. The institute operates an on‑campus business incubator and the 1,250-acre (510 ha) Rensselaer Technology Park.

Please, President Joe Biden, please do not take Kibo Parry's website tear it down, for young people can learn a lot of big loud mouth know nothing fools who trespass into science and make themselves the village idiot.

President Joseph Biden's profile photo
President Joseph Biden
8:39 AM March 11,2023



to
On 3/10/2023 8:44 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 8:39:51 AM UTC-6, President Joseph Biden wrote:
> On 3/10/2023 8:44 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Google lets Republican MitchR post new, not Democrats
> > Pres.Biden, is Google allowing only Republicans to make new threads, and not allowing a Democrat like AP make new threads, for 3 weeks now, AP cannot make a new thread, but spamming fools like MitchR makes 20 spams from breakfast to noon. Why, the fool MitchR spreads hate spew about Democrats and none of us can make a new thread.
> Mr. Plutonium, did you not receive the message from Google? Google has
> received too many complaints of your spamming sci.physics and sci.math.
> You spam several posts of the same thing every day, and you spam much
> more than anyone else.
>
> Google has restricted your account. You are no longer able to create new
> threads for now. If you mend your ways, eventually your posting
> restriction will be removed. If you continue to spam, your account will
> be further restricted and you will no longer be allowed to post replies
> to existing threads and your Plutonium Atom Universe group will be deleted.
>
> Please see the error of your ways and quit spamming. I can no longer
> intervene on your behalf.
>
> Joe

Please President Biden, keep Kibo's website as it teaches young people what a moron of science is like-- the bigger the mouth, the pea sized brain of Kibo.

Joe Biden

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Joseph Biden" and "Biden" redirect here.
Joe Biden
Official portrait of Joe Biden as president of the United States
Official portrait, 2021
46th President of the United States
Incumbent
Assumed office
January 20, 2021
Vice President Kamala Harris
Preceded by Donald Trump
47th Vice President of the United States
In office
January 20, 2009 – January 20, 2017
President Barack Obama
Preceded by Dick Cheney
Succeeded by Mike Pence
United States Senator
from Delaware
In office
January 3, 1973 – January 15, 2009
Preceded by J. Caleb Boggs
Succeeded by Ted Kaufman
Member of the New Castle County Council
from the 4th district
In office
January 5, 1971 – January 3, 1973
Preceded by Lawrence T. Messick
Succeeded by Francis R. Swift
Personal details
Born Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.
November 20, 1942 (age 80)
Scranton, Pennsylvania, U.S.
Political party Democratic (since 1969)

Relatives Biden family
Residence White House
Alma mater
University of Delaware (BA)
Syracuse University (JD)
Occupation
Politicianlawyerauthor
Awards List of awards and honors
Signature Cursive signature in ink
Website
Campaign website
White House website
Joe Biden's voice
0:22
Announcing his positive test for COVID-19
Recorded July 2022
show
Other offices
Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (/ˈbaɪdən/ (listen) BY-dən; born November 20, 1942) is an American politician who is the 46th and current president of the United States. A member of the Democratic Party, he previously served as the 47th vice president from 2009 to 2017 under President Barack Obama and represented Delaware in the United States Senate from 1973 to 2009.

Born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, Biden moved with his family to Delaware in 1953. He studied at the University of Delaware before earning his law degree from Syracuse University. He was elected to the New Castle County Council in 1970 and to the U.S. Senate in 1972. As a senator, Biden drafted and led the effort to pass the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act and the Violence Against Women Act; and oversaw six U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearings, including the contentious hearings for Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. Biden ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1988 and 2008. In 2008, Barack Obama chose Biden as his running mate, and Biden was a close counselor to Obama during his two terms as vice president. In the 2020 presidential election, Biden and his running mate, Kamala Harris, defeated incumbents...

Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek,Harvard's Sheldon Glashow, Peter Higgs, Harry Cliff ever 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, something a cylinder at slant cut can provide, not a cone at slant cut. 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.

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


Click here to read the complete article
1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor