>Sheldon Glashow 🤡 of Math and Harry Cliff 🃏 of Physics "Court Jester of Math"
On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 12:40:30 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> fails at math and science:

Kibo Parry M. why can none of these math-physics failures see or admit slant cut of cone is oval, never the ellipse? Do they have some brain lesion that they cannot see that???

Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Beal, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Gerald Edgar, AMS, no-one there can do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, all they can offer is a limit analysis, so shoddy in logic they never realized that "analyzing" is not the same as "proving" for analyzing is much in the same as "measuring but not proving". And yet, none can do a geometry proof and the reason is quite clear for none can even see that the slant cut in single right-circular cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So they could never do a geometry proof of FTC even if they wanted to. For they have no logical geometry brain to begin to do anything geometrical. Is it that Andrew Wiles and Terence Tao cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Not having a Logical brain to do math, for any rational person would be upset by Wiles, Tao saying truth table of AND is TFFF when it actually is TTTF. Is that why neither Terence Tao or Andrew Wiles can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?

Why are these people failures of Math, Kibo Parry M?? For none can even contemplate these 4 questions. Is it because they never studied Logic to think properly? To think straight and clear, and end up being clowns of math and science???

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

Is Jim Holt, Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason, more of propagandists and belong in "Abnormal Psychology" dept than in the department of logic, like Dan Christensen a laugh a minute logician? Probably because none can admit slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, due to axes of symmetry for cone and oval have 1 while ellipse has 2. Why they cannot even count beyond 1. Yet their minds were never good enough to see the error nor admit to their mistakes. They failed logic so badly they accept Boole's insane AND truth table of TFFF when it is TTTF avoiding the painful 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Or is it because none of these logicians has a single marble of logic in their entire brain to realize calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not a "limit analysis" for analysis is like a measurement, not a proving exercise. Analysis does not prove, only adds data and facts, but never is a proof of itself. I analyze things daily, and none of which is a proof. So are all these logicians like what Clutterfreak the propaganda stooge says they are.

> On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 9:47:42 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > You may be giving him too much credit here. Judging by his bizarre antics here, he has given up obtaining any kind of positive recognition.
> >
> > Dan
>
> Partial List of the World's Crackpot Logicians-- should be in a college Abnormal-Psychology department, not Logic//
>
> Peter Bruce Andrews, Lennart Aqvist, Henk Barendregt, John Lane Bell, Nuel Belnap,
> Paul Benacerraf, Jean Paul Van Bendegem, Johan van Benthem, Jean-Yves Beziau,
> Andrea Bonomi, Nicolas Bourbaki (a group of logic fumblers), Alan Richard Bundy, Gregory Chaitin,
> Jack Copeland, John Corcoran, Dirk van Dalen, Martin Davis, Michael A.E. Dummett, John Etchemendy, Hartry Field, Kit Fine, Melvin Fitting, Matthew Foreman, Michael Fourman,
> Harvey Friedman, Dov Gabbay, L.T.F. Gamut (group of logic fumblers), Sol Garfunkel, Jean-Yves Girard, Siegfried Gottwald, Jeroen Groenendijk, Susan Haack, Leo Harrington, William Alvin Howard,
> Ronald Jensen, Dick de Jongh, David Kaplan, Alexander S. Kechris, Howard Jerome Keisler,
> Robert Kowalski, Georg Kreisel, Saul Kripke, Kenneth Kunen, Karel Lambert, Penelope Maddy,
> David Makinson, Isaac Malitz, Gary R. Mar, Donald A. Martin, Per Martin-Lof,Yiannis N. Moschovakis, Jeff Paris, Charles Parsons, Solomon Passy, Lorenzo Pena, Dag Prawitz,
> Graham Priest, Michael O. Rabin, Gerald Sacks, Dana Scott, Stewart Shapiro, Theodore Slaman,
> Robert M. Solovay, John R. Steel, Martin Stokhof, Anne Sjerp Troelstra, Alasdair Urquhart,
> Moshe Y. Vardi, W. Hugh Woodin, John Woods
>
> Now I should include the authors of Logic textbooks for they, more than most, perpetuate and crank the error filled logic, the Horrible Error of 2 OR 1 = 3 with 2 AND 1 = 1, that is forced down the throats of young students, making them cripples of ever thinking straight and clearly.
>
> Many of these authors have passed away but their error filled books are a scourge to modern education
>
> George Boole, William Jevons, Bertrand Russell, Kurt Godel, Rudolf Carnap,
> Ludwig Wittgenstein, Willard Quine, Alfred North Whitehead, Irving Copi, Michael Withey,
> Patrick Hurley, Harry J Gensler, David Kelley, Jesse Bollinger, Theodore Sider,
> David Barker-Plummer, I. C. Robledo, John Nolt, Peter Smith, Stan Baronett, Jim Holt,
> Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
> John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason,

> > #5-1, 134th published book
> >
> > > > > Introduction to TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 1 for ages 5 through 26, math textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > The 134th book of AP, and belatedly late, for I had already written the series of TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS in a 7 volume, 8 book set. This would be the first book in that 8 book set (one of the books is a companion book to 1st year college). But I suppose that I needed to write the full series before I could write the Introduction and know what I had to talk about and talk about in a logical progression order. Sounds paradoxical in a sense, that I needed to write the full series first and then go back and write the Introduction. But in another sense, hard to write an introduction on something you have not really fully done and completed. For example to know what is error filled Old Math and to list those errors in a logical order requires me to write the full 7 volumes in order to list in order the mistakes.
> >
> > Cover Picture: Mathematics begins with counting, with numbers, with quantity. But counting numbers needs geometry for something to count in the first place. So here in this picture of the generalized Hydrogen atom of chemistry and physics is a torus geometry of 8 rings of a proton torus and one ring where my fingers are, is a equator ring that is the muon and thrusting through the proton torus at the equator of the torus. So we count 9 rings in all. So math is created by atoms and math numbers exist because atoms have many geometry figures to count. And geometry exists because atoms have shapes and different figures.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08K2XQB4M
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ September 24, 2020
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 576 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 23 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #224,974 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #3 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> > ◦ #23 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #182 in Calculus (Books)
> >
> >
> >
> > #5-2, 45th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 2 for ages 5 to 18, math textbook series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > #1 New Releasein General Geometry
> >
> >
> > Last revision was 2NOV2020. And this is AP's 45th published book of science.
> > Preface: Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education.
> >
> > This is a textbook series in several volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education starting age 5 up to age 26. Volume 2 is for age 5 year old to that of senior in High School, that is needed to do both science and math. Every other math book is incidental to this series of Teaching True Mathematics.
> >
> > It is a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost on a daily basis. A unique first in education textbooks-- almost a continual overnight editing. Adding new text, correcting text. Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education. Volume 3 carries the Freshperson in College for their math calculus education.
> >
> > Cover Picture: The Numbers as Integers from 0 to 100, and 10 Grid when dividing by 10, and part of the 100 Grid when dividing by 100. Decimal Grid Numbers are the true numbers of mathematics. The Reals, the rationals & irrationals, the algebraic & transcendentals, the imaginary & Complex, and the negative-numbers are all fake numbers. For, to be a true number, you have to "be counted" by mathematical induction. The smallest Grid system is the Decimal 10 Grid.
> >
> > Length: 399 pages
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Product details
> > ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07RG7BVZW
> > Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 2, 2019
> > Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > File size ‏ : ‎ 2023 KB
> > Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > Print length ‏ : ‎ 399 pages
> > Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Best Sellers Rank: #235,426 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > #15 in General Geometry
> > #223 in Geometry & Topology (Books)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > #5-3, 55th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 18-19, 1st year College Calculus, math textbook series, book 3 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Last revision was 25Jun2021. And this is AP's 55th published book of science.
> >
> > Teaching True Mathematics, by Archimedes Plutonium 2019
> >
> > Preface: This is volume 3, book 3 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Freshperson students, 1st year college students of age 18-19. It is the continuation of volume 2 for ages 5 through 18 years old.
> >
> > The main major topic is the AP-EM equations of electricity and magnetism, the mathematics for the laws of electricity and magnetism; what used to be called the Maxwell Equations of Physics. The 1st Year College Math has to prepare all students with the math for all the sciences. So 1st year college Math is like a huge intersection station that has to prepare students with the math they need to do the hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etc. What this means is, 1st year college is calculus that allows the student to work with electricity and magnetism. All the math that is needed to enable students to do electricity and magnetism.. In Old Math before this textbook, those Old Math textbooks would end in 1/3 of the text about Arclength, vector space, div, curl, Line Integral, Green's, Stokes, Divergence theorem trying to reach and be able to teach Maxwell Equations. But sadly, barely any Old Math classroom reached that 1/3 ending of the textbook, and left all those college students without any math to tackle electricity and magnetism. And most of Old Math was just muddle headed wrong even if they covered the last 1/3 of the textbook. And that is totally unacceptable in science. This textbook fixes that huge hole and gap in Old Math education.
> >
> > And there is no way around it, that a course in 1st year College Calculus is going to do a lot of hands on experiment with electricity and magnetism, and is required of the students to buy a list of physics apparatus-- multimeter, galvanometer, coil, bar magnet, alligator clip wires, electromagnet, iron filing case, and possibly even a 12 volt transformer, all shown in the cover picture. The beginning of this textbook and the middle section all leads into the ending of this textbook-- we learn the AP-EM Equations and how to use those equations. And there is no escaping the fact that it has to be hands on physics experiments in the classroom of mathematics.
> >
> > But, do not be scared, for this is all easy easy easy. For if you passed and enjoyed Volume 2 TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, then I promise you, you will not be stressed with Volume 3, for I go out of my way to make it clear and understandable.
> >
> > Warning: this is a Journal Textbook, meaning that I am constantly adding new material, constantly revising, constantly fixing mistakes or making things more clear. So if you read this book in August of 2019, chances are it is different when you read it in September 2019. Ebooks allow authors the freedom to improve their textbooks on a ongoing basis.
> >
> > The 1st year college math should be about the math that prepares any and all students for science, whether they branch out into physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, or math, they should have all the math in 1st year college that will carry them through those science studies. I make every attempt possible to make math easy to understand, easy to learn and hopefully fun.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07WN9RVXD
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ August 16, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1390 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 ‏ : ‎ 236 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #1,377,070 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #411 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #2,480 in Calculus (Books)
> >
> >
> > 

> >
> > #5-4, 56th published book
> >
> > COLLEGE CALCULUS GUIDE to help students recognize math professor spam from math truth & reality// math textbook series, book 4 Kindle Edition
> >
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> >
> > #1 New Releasein 15-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> >
> >
> > This textbook is the companion guide book to AP's Teaching True Mathematics, 1st year College. It is realized that Old Math will take a long time in removing their fake math, so in the interim period, this Guide book is designed to speed up the process of removing fake Calculus out of the education system, the fewer students we punish with forcing them with fake Calculus, the better we are.
> > Cover Picture: This book is part comedy, for when you cannot reason with math professors that they have many errors to fix, that 90% of their Calculus is in error, you end up resorting to comedy, making fun of them, to prod them to fix their errors. To prod them to "do right by the students of the world" not their entrenched propaganda.
> > Length: 54 pages
> >
> >
> > Product details
> > File Size: 1035 KB
> > Print Length: 64 pages
> > Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
> > Publication Date: August 18, 2019
> > Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
> > Language: English
> > ASIN: B07WNGLQ85
> > Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> > X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 

> > Word Wise: Not Enabled
> > Lending: Enabled
> > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
> > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #253,425 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> > #38 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> > #318 in Calculus (Books)
> > #48 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
> > 

> > #5-5, 72nd published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 4 for age 19-20 Sophomore-year College, math textbook series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Preface: This is volume 4, book 5 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Sophomore-year students, students of age 19-20. It is the continuation of volume 3 in the end-goal of learning how to do the mathematics of electricity and magnetism, because everything in physics is nothing but atoms and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. To know math, you have to know physics. We learned the Calculus of 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. But we did not learn the calculus of those equations for 3rd dimension. So, you can say that Sophomore year College math is devoted to 3D Calculus. This sophomore year college we fill in all the calculus, and we start over on all of Geometry, for geometry needs a modern day revision. And pardon me for this book is mostly reading, and the students doing less calculations. The classroom of this textbook has the teacher go through page by page to get the students comprehending and understanding of what is being taught. There are many hands on experiments also.
> >
> > Cover Picture shows some toruses, some round some square, torus of rings, thin strips of rings or squares and shows them laid flat. That is Calculus of 3rd dimension that lays a ring in a torus to be flat in 2nd dimension..
> > Length: 105 pages
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0828M34VL
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 2, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 952 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 105 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #242,037 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #36 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #219 in Calculus (Books)
> >
> >
> > #5-6, 75th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 5 for age 20-21 Junior-year of College, math textbook series, book 6 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium 2019
> >
> > This is volume 5, book 6 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Junior-year students, students of age 20-21. In first year college Calculus we learned calculus of the 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. And in sophomore year we learned calculus of 3rd dimension to complete our study of the mathematics needed to do the physics of electricity and magnetism. Now, junior year college, we move onto something different, for we focus mostly on logic now and especially the logic of what is called the "mathematical proof". Much of what the student has learned about mathematics so far has been given to her or him as stated knowledge, accept it as true because I say so. But now we are going to do math proofs. Oh, yes, we did prove a few items here and there, such as why the Decimal Grid Number system is so special, such as the Pythagorean Theorem, such as the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus with its right-triangle hinged up or down. But many ideas we did not prove, we just stated them and expected all students to believe them true. And you are now juniors in college and we are going to start to prove many of those ideas and teach you "what is a math proof". Personally, I myself feel that the math proof is overrated, over hyped. But the math proof is important for one reason-- it makes you better scientists of knowing what is true and what is a shaky idea. A math proof is the same as "thinking straight and thinking clearly". And all scientists need to think straight and think clearly. But before we get to the Mathematics Proof, we have to do Probability and Statistics.. What you learned in Grade School, then High School, then College, called Sigma Error, now becomes Probability and Statistics. It is important because all sciences including mathematics needs and uses Probability and Statistics. So, our job for junior-year of college mathematics is all cut out and ahead for us, no time to waste, let us get going.
> >
> > Cover Picture: is a sample of the Array Proof, a proof the ellipse is not a conic but rather a cylinder cut wherein the oval is the slant cut of a cone, not the ellipse.
> >
> > Length: 175 pages
> >
> >
> > Product details
> > ASIN : B0836F1YF6
> > Publication date : December 26, 2019
> > Language : English
> > File size : 741 KB
> > Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> > Screen Reader : Supported
> > Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > Word Wise : Not Enabled
> > Print length : 175 pages
> > Lending : Enabled
> > Best Sellers Rank: #3,768,255 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #3,591 in Probability & Statistics (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #19,091 in Probability & Statistics (Books)
> >
> >
> >
> > #5-7, 89th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 6 for age 21-22 Senior-year of College, math textbook series, book 7 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium 2020
> >
> > Last revision was 6Feb2021.
> > Preface: This is the last year of College for mathematics and we have to mostly summarize all of mathematics as best we can. And set a new pattern to prepare students going on to math graduate school. A new pattern of work habits, because graduate school is more of research and explore on your own. So in this final year, I am going to eliminate tests, and have it mostly done as homework assignments.
> >
> > Cover Picture: Again and again, many times in math, the mind is not good enough alone to think straight and clear, and you need tools to hands-on see how it works. Here is a collection of tools for this senior year college classes. There is a pencil, clipboard, graph paper, compass, divider, protractor, slide-ruler. And for this year we spend a lot of time on the parallelepiped, showing my wood model, and showing my erector set model held together by wire loops in the corners. The plastic square is there only to hold up the erector set model.
> >
> > Length: 110 pages
> >
> > Product details
> > ASIN ‏ : ‎ B084V11BGY
> > Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 15, 2020
> > Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > File size ‏ : ‎ 826 KB
> > Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Print length ‏ : ‎ 110 pages
> > Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Best Sellers Rank: #224,965 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #345 in Mathematics (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #373 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #2,256 in Physics (Books)
> >
> > #5-8, 90th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 7 for age 22-26 Graduate school, math textbook series, book 8 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium 2020
> >
> > Last revised 1NOV2020. This was AP's 90th published book of science.
> >
> > Preface: This is College Graduate School mathematics. Congratulations, you made it this far. To me, graduate school is mostly research, research mathematics and that means also physics. So it is going to be difficult to do math without physics. Of course, we focus on the mathematics of these research projects.
> >
> > My textbook for Graduate school is just a template and the professors teaching the graduate students are free of course to follow their own projects, but in terms of being physics and math combined. What I list below is a template for possible projects.
> >
> > So, in the below projects, I list 36 possible research projects that a graduate student my like to undertake, or partake. I list those 36 projects with a set of parentheses like this (1), (2), (3), etc. Not to be confused with the chapters listing as 1), 2), 3), etc. I list 36 projects but the professor can offer his/her own list, and I expect students with their professor, to pick a project and to monitor the student as to his/her progresses through the research. I have listed each project then cited some of my own research into these projects, below each project is an entry. Those entries are just a help or helper in getting started or acquainted with the project. The entry has a date time group and a newsgroup that I posted to such as sci.math or plutonium-atom-universe Google newsgroups. Again the entry is just a help or helper in getting started.
> >
> > Now instead of picking one or two projects for your Graduate years of study, some may select all 36 projects where you write a short paper on each project. Some may be bored with just one or two projects and opt for all 36.
> >
> > Cover Picture: A photo by my iphone of a page on Permutations of the Jacobs book Mathematics: A Human Endeavor, 1970. One of the best textbooks ever written in Old Math, not for its contents because there are many errors, but for its teaching style. It is extremely rare to find a math textbook written for the student to learn. Probably because math professors rarely learned how to teach in the first place; only learned how to unintentionally obfuscate. The page I photographed is important because it is the interface between geometry's perimeter or surface area versus geometry's area or volume, respectively. Or, an interface of pure numbers with that of geometry. But I have more to say on this below.
> > Length: 296 pages
> >
> > Product details
> > ASIN ‏ : ‎ B085DF8R7V
> > Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 1, 2020
> > Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > File size ‏ : ‎ 828 KB
> > Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > Print length ‏ : ‎ 296 pages
> > Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Best Sellers Rank: #224,981 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #13 in General Geometry
> > ◦ #213 in Geometry & Topology (Books)
> >
> >
> >
> > #5-8, 160th published book
> >
> > MATHOPEDIA-- List of 80 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// Student teaches professor Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Last revision was 28Apr2022. And this is AP's 160th book of Science.
> > Preface:
> > A Mathopedia is like a special type of encyclopedia on the subject of mathematics. It is about the assessment of the worth of mathematics and the subject material of mathematics. It is a overall examination and a evaluation of mathematics and its topics.
> > The ordering of Mathopedia is not a alphabetic ordering, nor does it have a index. The ordering is purely that of importance at beginning and importance at end.
> > The greatest use of Mathopedia is a guide to students of what not to waste your time on and what to focus most of your time. I know so many college classes in mathematics are just a total waste of time, waste of valuable time for the class is math fakery. I know because I have been there.
> > Now I am going to cite various reference sources of AP books if anyone wants more details and can be seen in the Appendix at the end of the book.
> > I suppose, going forward, mathematics should always have a mathopedia, where major parts of mathematics as a science are held under scrutiny and question as to correctness. In past history we have called these incidents as "doubters of the mainstream". Yet math, like physics, can have no permanent mainstream, since there is always question of correctness in physics, there then corresponds questions of correctness in mathematics (because math is a subset of physics). What I mean is that each future generation corrects some mistakes of past mathematics. If anyone is unsure of what I am saying here, both math and physics need constant correcting, of that which never belonged in science. This then converges with the logic-philosophy of Pragmatism (see AP's book of logic on Pragmatism).
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09MZTLRL5
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 2, 2021
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1149 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 65 pages
101> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

>Roger Penrose 🤡 of Math and Michael Brooks 🃏 of Physics "Court Jester of Math"
On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 12:40:30 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney (Kibo Parry M) wrote:
> fails at math and science:

Earle Jones, is Toby Howard at Univ Manchester scrambling not to be outdone by New Scientist and is Univ Manchester making Roger Penrose a Hall of Fame Psychoceramic with his slant cut of cone a ellipse when in reality that is a oval. Toby will you have to listen to one of Roger's obnoxious new crackpot theory of how the universe originated?

Both Penrose and Brooks are failures of math and failures as scientists for they are both too dumb and too lazy to experiment-- check it out in a paper cone and Kerr lid and see for yourself-- slant cut is Oval, never ellipse.. And how mindless foolish wretches of science like Roger Penrose get news coverage, when Roger should be in the circus act of a clown running around.

Nobel physics prize to Roger Penrose is like giving V.Putin the Nobel prize in Peace and Penrose imp is on cover of New Scientist 19Nov2022-- why he cannot tell a oval from a ellipse, and the idiot yaks about origin of Universe. Roger, you belong in the circus not in magazines or Oxford classrooms. Why Roger is a deep failure of math, cannot even admit slant cut of cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, and I wonder if there was some bribery going on to get this failure of science a Nobel Prize.

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

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

Cambridge Physics Dept

Ahnert, Alai, Alexander, Allison, Ansorge, Atature, Barker, Barnes, Bartlett, Batley, Baumberg, Bohndiek, Bowman, Brown, Buscher, Butler, Campbell Carilli, Carter, Castelnovo, Challis, Chalut, Chaudhri, Chin, Ciccarelli, Cicuta, Harry Cliff, Cole, Cooper, Cowburn, Credgington, Cross, Croze, Deschler, Donald, Duffett-Smith, Dutton, Eiser, Ellis, Euser, Field, Flynn, Ford, Friend, Gibson, Green, Greenham, Gripaios, Grosche, Guck, Gull, Haniff, Heavens-Ward, Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, Hughes, Irvine, Jardine, Jenkins, Jones, Josephson, Keyser, Khmeinitskii, King, Kotlyar, Lamacraft, Lasenby, Lester, Longair, Lonzarich, Maiolino, Marshall, Martin, Mitov, Morris, Mortimer, Moller, Needs, Norman, Nunnenkamp, Padman,Parker, Patel, Payne, Pepper, Phillips, Pramauro, Queloz, Rao, Richer, Riley, Ritchie, Sargent, Saunders, Saxena, Schneider, Scott, Scrivener, Sebastian, Simmons, Simons, Sirringhaus, Smith, Sutherland, Taylor, Teichmann, Terentjev, Thomson, Verrechia, Walker, Ward, Warner, Weale, Webber, Whyles, Withington.

Cambridge Math Dept

Alan Baker
Bela Bollobas
Darwin Smith
John Coates
Timothy Gowers
Peter Johnstone
Imre Leader
Gabriel Paternain

> > Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,
> > Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish
> > David J. Thouless_, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita
> > Arthur B. McDonald
> > Francois Englert
> > Saul Perlmutter
> > Brian P. Schmidt
> > Adam G. Riess
> > Makoto Kobayashi
> > Toshihide Maskawa_
> > Yoichiro Nambu_
> > John C. Mather
> > George F. Smoot
> > Roy J. Glauber_
> > David J. Gross
> > Hugh David Politzer
> > Frank Wilczek
> > Raymond Davis Jr. _
> > Masatoshi Koshiba_
> > Riccardo Giacconi_
> > Gerardus 't Hooft
> > Martinus J.G. Veltman_
> > Jerome I. Friedman
> > Henry W. Kendall_
> > Richard E. Taylor_
> > Carlo Rubbia
> > Simon van der Meer_
> > William Alfred Fowler_
> > Kenneth G. Wilson_
> > James Watson Cronin_
> > Val Logsdon Fitch_
> > Sheldon Lee Glashow
> > Steven Weinberg_
> > .
> > .
> > little fishes
> > .
> > .
> > Layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = subtraction of either 3 or 2, while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV
> >
> > Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass
> > Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu
> > more and more layers of error thinking physics
> > .
> > .
> > Edward Witten
> > John Baez
> > Brian Greene
> > Lisa Randall
> > Alan H. Guth
> > Michael E. Brown
> > Konstantin Batygin
> > Ben Bullock
> > Larry Harson
> > Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
> > Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
> > None at all - he was a raving nutter.
> > Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley
> > Jennifer Kahn, Discover, science hater
> > Eric Francis Coppolino, newsreporter hatred of science, George Witte, St.Martin's Press science hater
> > Toby Howard, The Guardian, science hater
> >
> >
> > #2-1, 137th published book
> >
> > Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> >
> >
> > #1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory
> >
> > This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so I can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me.
> >
> > Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics community updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast, as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to.
> >
> > Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory.
> > And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
> > Length: 64 pages
> >
> > Product details
> > • File Size : 790 KB
> > • Publication Date : October 5, 2020
> > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > • Print Length : 64 pages
> > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > • Language: : English
> > • ASIN : B08KS4YGWY
> > • Lending : Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory
> > ◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> >
> > #2-2, 145th published book
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
> > Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and errors and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the halls and corridors of education.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN : B08PC99JJB
> > • Publication date : November 29, 2020
> > • Language: : English
> > • File size : 682 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > • Print length : 78 pages
> > • Lending : Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
> > ◦ #344 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books)
> >
> > #2-3, 146th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3
> > Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science, you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the science. I further believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later years of physics courses, we can always pick up on details. So I devote this senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this textbook. Now Asimov's book is full of error and mistakes, and that is disappointing but all of Old Physics is full of error. On errors and mistakes of Old Physics, the best I can do is warn the students, and the largest warning of all is that whenever someone in Old Physics says "electron" what they are talking about is really the Dirac magnetic monopole. And whenever they talk about the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, they are talking about huge huge grave mistakes, for the true atom is protons as 8 ringed toruses with a muon stuck inside of a proton doing the Faraday law and producing those magnetic monopoles as electricity. I use Asimov's book as a template but in the future, I hope to rewrite this textbook using no template at all, that is if I have time in the future.
> > Cover Picture: Is the book The History of Physics, by Isaac Asimov, 1966 and on top of the book are 4 cut-outs of bent circles representing magnetic monopoles which revolutionizes modern physics, especially the ElectroMagnetic theory.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08RK33T8V
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 28, 2020
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 794 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 123 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #4,167,235 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #15,099 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #91,163 in Physics (Books)
> >
> >
> > #2-4, 151st published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4
> > Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Preface: This is AP's 151st book of science published. It is one of my most important books of science because 1st year college physics is so impressionable on students, if they should continue with physics, or look elsewhere for a career. And also, physics is a crossroad to all the other hard core sciences, where physics course is mandatory such as in chemistry or even biology. I have endeavored to make physics 1st year college to be as easy and simple to learn. In this endeavor to make physics super easy, I have made the writing such that you will see core ideas in all capital letters as single sentences as a educational tool. And I have made this textbook chapter writing follow a logical pattern of both algebra and geometry concepts, throughout. The utmost importance of logic in physics needs to be seen and understood. For I have never seen a physics book, prior to this one that is logical. Every Old Physics textbook I have seen is scatter-brained in topics and in writing. I use as template book of Halliday & Resnick because a edition of H&R was one I was taught physics at University of Cincinnati in 1969. And in 1969, I had a choice of majors, do I major in geology, or mathematics, or in physics, for I will graduate from UC in 1972. For me, geology was too easy, but physics was too tough, so I ended up majoring in mathematics. If I had been taught in 1969 using this textbook that I have written, I would have ended up majoring in physics, my first love. For physics is not hard, not hard at all, once you clear out the mistakes and the obnoxious worthless mathematics that clutters up Old Physics, and the illogic that smothers much of Old Physics.
> >
> > Maybe it was good that I had those impressions of physics education of poor education, which still exists throughout physics today. Because maybe I am forced to write this book, because of that awful experience of learning physics in 1969. Without that awful experience, maybe this textbook would have never been written by me.
> >
> > Cover picture is the template book of Halliday & Resnick, 1988, 3rd edition Fundamentals of Physics and sitting on top are cut outs of "half bent circles, bent at 90 degrees" to imitate magnetic monopoles. Magnetic Monopoles revolutionizes physics education, and separates-out, what is Old Physics from what is New Physics.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09JW5DVYM
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 19, 2021
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1035 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 386 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #4,874,333 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #526 in Electromagnetic Theory
> > ◦ #1,321 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #9,546 in Electromagnetism (Books)
> >
> >
> >
> > #2-5, 174th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 2nd year College
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition
> >
> > Preface: At the moment this is a physics book for 2nd year College. But as the months and years go by I intend to convert it into a textbook of about 200 to 300 pages. It is mostly about thermodynamics for in my own college education 1968-1972 at University of Cincinnati, I took physics thermodynamics in the 2nd year (if memory has not failed me).
> > Cover-Picture: Is a iphone photograph of the Chemistry textbook I used at UC 1968-1972 with my own paper cut-outs of magnetic monopoles. Pictured are 4 bent circles, bent at 90degrees from diameter and each bent circle is a individual magnetic monopole.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09TKL4HMC
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 27, 2022
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 675 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 41 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> >
> >
> >
> > #2-6, 177th published book
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Atoms, 3rd year College
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition
> >
> > Preface: I come to teaching physics for 3rd year College as the Architecture of Atoms. My writing style will be prose-narrative, until I add on exercise problems and convert it into a textbook. The 1st year College, has to be the equations and laws of electricity and magnetism. For the primal-axiom over all of physics is-- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. The 2nd year College is thermodynamics. And now the 3rd year College physics has to teach the Architecture, the geometry of the inside and exterior surface of the atom. One of the greatest faults, misery, and anti-science teaching of Old Physics is their denial that subatomic particles have to be something more than tiny balls tiny spheres that do-nothing, perform nothing, function as nothing. That the proton and neutron and true electron=muon, has to be matter with a function and purpose and design and task and job. This is a year of physics teaching of the architecture of the atom.
> > Cover Picture: A iphone photograph of my book chemistry book, a long time favorite of mine of CHEM ONE, 2nd edition, Waser, Trueblood, Knobler, 1980, and page 307 of that book. Why this page? Because it was instrumental in my discovery of the true Architecture of Atoms. Not many professors of chemistry or physics dive into the Shrodinger Equation that results in a meaningful teaching of "matter waves". Matter waves are the heart of understanding the geometry of Atomic Architecture.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09VFH9QST
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2022
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 823 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 74 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> >
> >
> >
> > #2-7, 178th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Light Waves & Energy, 4th year College
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Kindle edition)
> >
> >
> > Preface: This is 4th year College Physics and the important ideas of physics to learn as last year undergraduate school is the architecture and geometry of the Light Wave & Energy in physics. This is New Physics and not Old Physics. New Physics is defined as physics that knows and uses the true electron of atoms is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus and doing the Faraday law, creating new electrical energy that is storaged in the neutrons of atoms until they grow from 1eV into 945MeV and then create a new higher atomic numbered atom or emitted as radioactivity. Old Physics mistakenly identified the electron of atoms as the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. In 3rd year College we studied the architecture of the interior of atoms. In 4th year College we study the architecture of Light Waves & Energy.
> >
> > The template book for 4th year College is Feynman's 1985 book of QED.
> >
> > Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of the template book for this book. Feynman's 1985 QED, quantum electrodynamics, showing my plastic toy model of DNA and my cut-outs of 4 bent circles that each bent circle represents one magnetic monopole. I arranged the monopoles into a single strand of a cycloid wave.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09W58XGDW
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 21, 2022
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 824 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 66 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > #2-9, 161st published book
> >
> > PHYSICSOPEDIA -- List of 137 fakes and mistakes of Old Physics// Student teaches professor Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Last revision was 24Apr2022. This is AP's 161st published book of science.
> >
> > Preface:
> > A Physicsopedia is a book of the overall assessment and evaluation of the state of the art of Physics. It is like a report card. It is a total view of the science and a judgement of the science, both of the past, present and the direction forward into the future. Its greatest use is to alert readers and people in science of what is wrong with their subject, and as a ancillary use, to alert students what to avoid in college as a waste of time.
> >
> > It is not in alphabetical order but mostly, rather, has a ordering of what is most important at the start and only at the very very end. For there is no index.
> >
> > Physics is the most important hard science for every other science is a specialized part of physics. And Old Physics has three key huge mistakes that this book addresses. The true theory of the Universe is the Atom Totality, not the Big Bang which is a ridiculous theory. The true electron of atoms is not the particle of 0.5MeV which turns out to be Dirac's magnetic monopole, while the true real electron of atoms is the muon of 105MeV which is stuck inside a proton torus of 8 rings of 840MeV. This causes another huge mistake, for a mistake in physics usually has a cascade effect of more and more mistakes. When we take the true electron of atoms is the muon, means the Sun and stars shine not from fusion, but from that muon thrusting through the proton torus in a Faraday law of electricity and magnetism producing electrical energy. So our Sun shines from the Faraday law, not fusion. And this implies the Sun has gone into Red Giant phase with a solar radiation increase of 0.005% yearly increase. That implies all life on Earth is in danger of going extinct as the Sun becomes more and more Red Giant, and unless humanity moves out to Europa, humanity goes extinct.
> >
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09N18QPP1
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 3, 2021
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1139 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 82 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > y z
> > | /
> > | /
> > |/______ x
> >
> > More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.
> >
> > In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.
> >
> > I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.
> >
> > There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.
> >
> > Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > Archimedes Plutonium

>David Brooks🤡of Math and Michael Roston 🃏 of Physics "Court Jester of Math"
On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 12:40:30 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney (Kibo Parry M) wrote:
> fails at math and science:

Kibo Parry M, why you hate the NYT with David Brooks and Michael Roston, is it because everyone there cannot ask the simple question of AP-- which is the Atom's true electron-- Muon or 0.5MeV particle, is that why you hate the NYT newspaper--so so dumb in science.

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

David Brooks, Michael Roston is it not childish to have a curse on AP, to never print his name in your newspaper, when the mature grown up act is to publish the fact in your Science section-- slant cut of cone is Oval, and is never ellipse. So that all the residents of New York state realize the truth, and intelligent people like Mr. Marshall Lett need not ask the question.. People in New York state and around the world asking which is the slant cut in cone-- is it ellipse or oval??? Yet the Science section of The New York Times refusing to publish the truth because it means printing the name Archimedes Plutonium for which NYT vows to never do. For to publish the truth on conics means having to print the name Archimedes Plutonium as discoverer of the truth. And nothing worse in all the world for Mr. Sulzberger is to have to print the name Archimedes Plutonium in his newspaper. Hatred rules the The New York Times, not the truth of the world.
> On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 7:21:51 AM UTC-5, Marshall Lett wrote:
> > I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
> >
> > Who am I supposed to believe?
> Look, the NYT cannot even cover the truth of math or science, and thus, cannot tell the truth of social life in America of politics, of history. If you cannot tell the truth of a Oval versus Ellipse, anything else you say is likely to be the truth.
>
> The New York Times cannot cover the truth of math or science-- Slant cut of Cone is Oval, never ellipse. Means the The New York Times is a garbage newsprint that cannot cover the truth of history, politics or the daily news..
>
> The New York Times, certainly cannot tell the truth about math or science, certainly then, cannot tell the truth about history or politics. As soon as David Brooks opens his mouth on politics, is as soon as- turn the TV off.. For The New York Times is not about the "truth of the world" but about their own childish games. A sort of Fascism of News.
> 
> 
>
> David Brooks, is the NYT as dumb and stupid in politics as it is dumb and stupid in math-science-- NYT cannot tell the difference between oval and ellipse. Does Michael Roston even know what a oval is??? Is any of the Science printed in the New York Times, is any of your science truthful or is it all a bunch of garbage prattle like your ellipse is a conic section when that is false. Are there any logical brains at the NYT, or is the NYT empty of logical brains???
>
>
> > Mr. Sulzberger, you have a Science section in your newspaper, you have residents of New York State such as Mr. Lett. What the hell good is your Science section, Mr. Sulzberger if you cannot even answer the question-- Slant cut of Cone is Oval, never the ellipse. All because you hate the guts of AP, that your Science section refuses to tell the truth.
> >
> > Mr. Marshall Lett started a thread over in sci.math, asking the question of what the slant cut in cone truly is?
> > > > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 7:21:51 AM UTC-5, Marshall Lett wrote:
> > > > > I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
> > > > >
> > > > > Who am I supposed to believe?
> >
> > Mr. Kahn, is it not awfully childish of the The New York Times to hold a curse on AP, and you ignore the science truth and reality. Your motto at the Times-- "all the news fit to print" maybe should become "all the news except Archimedes Plutonium for the NYT hates his guts".
> > 
> >
> >
> > > Joseph Kahn, why even bother having a Science section at The New York Times, when your newspaper cannot even inform and teach readers the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse. Even your New York residents are asking question. Even your New York High School students have more geometry brains than the staff at the The New York Times.
> >
> > > > > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 7:21:51 AM UTC-5, Marshall Lett wrote:
> > > > > > I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Who am I supposed to believe?
> >
> >


> My 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)
11> #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

David Brooks🤡Toby Howard🃏Nancy Rothwell🤡Michael Roston🃏Physics "Court Jester of Math"
On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 12:40:30 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney (Kibo Parry M) wrote:
> fails at math and science:

Well, Kibo, fire them all and be done with it, if they cannot admit the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse.

> Kibo Parry M, why you hate the NYT with David Brooks and Michael Roston, is it because everyone there cannot ask the simple question of AP-- which is the Atom's true electron-- Muon or 0.5MeV particle, is that why you hate the NYT newspaper--so so dumb in science.
>
> The AP mantra of current science where most people fail:
> > > 1) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
> > > 2) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
> > > 3) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
> > > 4) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sapheads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.
> David Brooks, Michael Roston is it not childish to have a curse on AP, to never print his name in your newspaper, when the mature grown up act is to publish the fact in your Science section-- slant cut of cone is Oval, and is never ellipse. So that all the residents of New York state realize the truth, and intelligent people like Mr. Marshall Lett need not ask the question. People in New York state and around the world asking which is the slant cut in cone-- is it ellipse or oval??? Yet the Science section of The New York Times refusing to publish the truth because it means printing the name Archimedes Plutonium for which NYT vows to never do. For to publish the truth on conics means having to print the name Archimedes Plutonium as discoverer of the truth. And nothing worse in all the world for Mr. Sulzberger is to have to print the name Archimedes Plutonium in his newspaper. Hatred rules the The New York Times, not the truth of the world.
> > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 7:21:51 AM UTC-5, Marshall Lett wrote:
> > > I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
> > >
> > > Who am I supposed to believe?
> > Look, the NYT cannot even cover the truth of math or science, and thus, cannot tell the truth of social life in America of politics, of history. If you cannot tell the truth of a Oval versus Ellipse, anything else you say is likely to be the truth.
> >
> > The New York Times cannot cover the truth of math or science-- Slant cut of Cone is Oval, never ellipse. Means the The New York Times is a garbage newsprint that cannot cover the truth of history, politics or the daily news.
> >
> > The New York Times, certainly cannot tell the truth about math or science, certainly then, cannot tell the truth about history or politics. As soon as David Brooks opens his mouth on politics, is as soon as- turn the TV off. For The New York Times is not about the "truth of the world" but about their own childish games. A sort of Fascism of News.
> > 
> > 
> >
> > David Brooks, is the NYT as dumb and stupid in politics as it is dumb and stupid in math-science-- NYT cannot tell the difference between oval and ellipse. Does Michael Roston even know what a oval is??? Is any of the Science printed in the New York Times, is any of your science truthful or is it all a bunch of garbage prattle like your ellipse is a conic section when that is false. Are there any logical brains at the NYT, or is the NYT empty of logical brains???
> >
> >
> > > Mr. Sulzberger, you have a Science section in your newspaper, you have residents of New York State such as Mr. Lett. What the hell good is your Science section, Mr. Sulzberger if you cannot even answer the question-- Slant cut of Cone is Oval, never the ellipse. All because you hate the guts of AP, that your Science section refuses to tell the truth.
> > >
> > > Mr. Marshall Lett started a thread over in sci.math, asking the question of what the slant cut in cone truly is?
> > > > > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 7:21:51 AM UTC-5, Marshall Lett wrote:
> > > > > > I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Who am I supposed to believe?
> > >
> > > Mr. Kahn, is it not awfully childish of the The New York Times to hold a curse on AP, and you ignore the science truth and reality. Your motto at the Times-- "all the news fit to print" maybe should become "all the news except Archimedes Plutonium for the NYT hates his guts".
> > > 
> > >
> > >
> > > > Joseph Kahn, why even bother having a Science section at The New York Times, when your newspaper cannot even inform and teach readers the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse. Even your New York residents are asking question. Even your New York High School students have more geometry brains than the staff at the The New York Times.
> > >
> > > > > > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 7:21:51 AM UTC-5, Marshall Lett wrote:
> > > > > > > I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Who am I supposed to believe?
> > >
> > >
> 
> 
> > My 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)
> 11> #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

David Brooks🤡Toby Howard🃏Nancy Rothwell🤡Michael Roston🃏Physics "Court Jester of Math"
On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 12:40:30 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney (Kibo Parry M) wrote:
> fails at math and science:

Well, Kibo, fire them all and be done with it, if they cannot admit the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse.


> Kibo Parry M, why you hate the NYT with David Brooks and Michael Roston, is it because everyone there cannot ask the simple question of AP-- which is the Atom's true electron-- Muon or 0.5MeV particle, is that why you hate the NYT newspaper--so so dumb in science.
>
> The AP mantra of current science where most people fail:
> > > 1) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
> > > 2) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
> > > 3) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
> > > 4) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sapheads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.
> David Brooks, Michael Roston is it not childish to have a curse on AP, to never print his name in your newspaper, when the mature grown up act is to publish the fact in your Science section-- slant cut of cone is Oval, and is never ellipse. So that all the residents of New York state realize the truth, and intelligent people like Mr. Marshall Lett need not ask the question. People in New York state and around the world asking which is the slant cut in cone-- is it ellipse or oval??? Yet the Science section of The New York Times refusing to publish the truth because it means printing the name Archimedes Plutonium for which NYT vows to never do. For to publish the truth on conics means having to print the name Archimedes Plutonium as discoverer of the truth. And nothing worse in all the world for Mr. Sulzberger is to have to print the name Archimedes Plutonium in his newspaper. Hatred rules the The New York Times, not the truth of the world.
> > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 7:21:51 AM UTC-5, Marshall Lett wrote:
> > > I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
> > >
> > > Who am I supposed to believe?
> > Look, the NYT cannot even cover the truth of math or science, and thus, cannot tell the truth of social life in America of politics, of history. If you cannot tell the truth of a Oval versus Ellipse, anything else you say is likely to be the truth.
> >
> > The New York Times cannot cover the truth of math or science-- Slant cut of Cone is Oval, never ellipse. Means the The New York Times is a garbage newsprint that cannot cover the truth of history, politics or the daily news.
> >
> > The New York Times, certainly cannot tell the truth about math or science, certainly then, cannot tell the truth about history or politics. As soon as David Brooks opens his mouth on politics, is as soon as- turn the TV off. For The New York Times is not about the "truth of the world" but about their own childish games. A sort of Fascism of News.
> > 
> > 
> >
> > David Brooks, is the NYT as dumb and stupid in politics as it is dumb and stupid in math-science-- NYT cannot tell the difference between oval and ellipse. Does Michael Roston even know what a oval is??? Is any of the Science printed in the New York Times, is any of your science truthful or is it all a bunch of garbage prattle like your ellipse is a conic section when that is false. Are there any logical brains at the NYT, or is the NYT empty of logical brains???
> >
> >
> > > Mr. Sulzberger, you have a Science section in your newspaper, you have residents of New York State such as Mr. Lett. What the hell good is your Science section, Mr. Sulzberger if you cannot even answer the question-- Slant cut of Cone is Oval, never the ellipse. All because you hate the guts of AP, that your Science section refuses to tell the truth.
> > >
> > > Mr. Marshall Lett started a thread over in sci.math, asking the question of what the slant cut in cone truly is?
> > > > > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 7:21:51 AM UTC-5, Marshall Lett wrote:
> > > > > > I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Who am I supposed to believe?
> > >
> > > Mr. Kahn, is it not awfully childish of the The New York Times to hold a curse on AP, and you ignore the science truth and reality. Your motto at the Times-- "all the news fit to print" maybe should become "all the news except Archimedes Plutonium for the NYT hates his guts".
> > > 
> > >
> > >
> > > > Joseph Kahn, why even bother having a Science section at The New York Times, when your newspaper cannot even inform and teach readers the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse. Even your New York residents are asking question. Even your New York High School students have more geometry brains than the staff at the The New York Times.
> > >
> > > > > > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 7:21:51 AM UTC-5, Marshall Lett wrote:
> > > > > > > I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Who am I supposed to believe?
> > >
> > >
> 
> 
> > My 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)
> 11> #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

Andrew Wiles & Roger Penrose, imbecilic arseholes in math history with their slant cut of cone a ellipse, their fetid Boole logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction and these two imbeciles never able to give a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

These two do more to ruin math than offer math truth.

Andrew Wiles, since you failed math with your slant cut of cone a ellipse and too stupid to admit your mistake, for a ellipse has 2 axes of symmetry, a cone and oval have but 1 axis of symmetry. Since Andrew is too proud and dumb to admit he screwed up on such simple geometry, that perhaps Earle Jones the physics failure of Ohm's law will give you a dishwasher job that he so eagerly offers.

Why Andrew Wiles, you are so bad in mathematics, in your entire career in math you never recognized Calculus was geometry, and therefore needed a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Why not pack it up, Andrew, before you brainwash any more of the students at Oxford and elsewhere with you b.s. math.





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 14May2022. 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 the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence proof. Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse..

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 827 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 ‏ : ‎ 51 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#12-2, 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)

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

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

Stanford Univ,Gregory Brumfiel, Daniel Bump any scientists there at Stanford Univ? Or are they all mindless idiots like Earle Jones???

I have three things connected in series (in a loop.) One resistor, one battery, and one current meter. The battery is a ten-volt battery. The TOTAL resistance in the loop is five ohms. What is the reading on the current meter.. Hint: Use Ohm's law and show your work.

earle
*
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 4, 2022, 8:38:37 PM (19 hours ago)



to

AP, King of Science took time away from his 221st book to answer Jones.

A test for the Stanford Univ failure of electrical engineering Earle Jones, who to this day cannot understand how Ohm's law is really V = i*B*E, and not V= iR. Earle is that why you went into Business, for you failed science??

Anyway, your test, since you failed with slant cut of Cone is Oval, never ellipse-- maybe you need glasses Earle.

Your test Earle, is you have 2 meters of copper wire, and only 2 meters in all, a battery and unlimited light bulbs whose terminals are 4 centimeters separated. What is the maximum number of these light bulbs and 2 meters of wire to string together that work in a Series. And what is the maximum number of bulbs hooked up for Parallel circuit that works? Hint: use the wire.

AP's 221st book of science// Test to see if you are mathematician material & the Education Ladder in Mathematics for curriculum reform
10 views
Subscribe

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Dec 1, 2022, 2:22:15 AM (3 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
AP's 221st book of science// Test to see if you are mathematician material & the Education Ladder in Mathematics for curriculum reform
1m views
Subscribe

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo, King of Science diploma and portfolio
Archimedes Plutonium
12:47 AM (2 hours ago)



to
AP's 221st book of science// Test to see if you are mathematician material & the Education Ladder in Mathematics for curriculum reform.

Ordered Sequence of Mathematical Knowledge

1) slant cut of Cone

2) Numbers are decimal Grid

An Education Ladder in Mathematics add to my TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbook series 55th published book TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 18-19, 1st year College Calculus, math textbook series, book 3 Kindle Edition by Archimedes P...
6 views
Subscribe

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Oct 16, 2022, 5:07:44 PM



to Plutonium Atom Universe
An Education Ladder in Mathematics add to my TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbook series 55th published book TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 18-19, 1st year College Calculus, math textbook series, book 3 Kindle Edition by Archimedes P...

So, we have an education ladder of mathematical abilities. So far as I know every professor in mathematics in colleges around the world fail on the first rung of the ladder.

1) Cannot understand slant cut of cone is Oval never ellipse.

2) Cannot understand Boole logic is all wrong and corrupt of its 4 operators --- AND, OR, Equal+Not, If->Then

3) Cannot understand Rationals as a division of two integers cannot form a valid number for valid numbers are not derived numbers but primitive numbers without a operator involved.

4) Cannot understand zero is not a number but a place value for the meaning of "nothing".

5) Cannot envision nor comprehend nor do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
2:18 AM (1 minute ago)



to
Alright, this is my 221st book of science to be published quickly. For I want to move onto the subject of moving the Moon to collide with Earth that pushes both Moon and Earth out to a Mars orbit, because our Sun has gone Red Giant Phase.

And to do the calculations, I am going to be assisted by the recent "move of the orbit" of Dimorphos about Didymos, the two asteroids. I want NASA and European Space agency to go back to Dimorphos and give it a nuclear missile impact to make it collide with Didymos and push Didymos into Mars orbit. All the mathematical data collected and utilized for a day in about 2,000 years in the future where we attempt to save Moon and Earth by pushing them into a Mars orbit.

So as I write my 221st book of science, my greater appeal is writing my 222nd book of science.

This book 221st is both a TEST and a Curriculum Guide.

And surprisingly, most every professor of mathematics will fail this book, fail it on the very first question. The first question being-- is slant cut of Cone a ellipse or oval. I would estimate that 99.9% of mathematics professors will say it is a ellipse and only goes to show that a math professor is memorized knowledge, not innate intrinsic reasoned and logical knowledge.

And I start the first question with geometry, for I sense that geometry is the far more important side of mathematics than is numbers, quantity and algebra. Math has two sides to it-- geometry and algebra-numbers. Same as physics has two sides to it-- electricity and magnetism. In physics this is called duality, and duality is the existence function. Things exist only when both electricity and magnetism are present. In physics there are other dualities such as particle and wave, or energy and time, but the most important duality of all is electricity and magnetism.

And it is known by now, with the Atom Totality theory that Physics is the top science and mathematics is a small subset of physics. The Primal Axiom of all sciences is -- All is Atoms, and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism.

I bring this up because in the most part of the 20th century, there were many many fools of mathematics that thought the Universe is going to be explained by some simple elegant mathematical formula. In other words, in their dumb minds, they elevated mathematics above physics.

In the Plutonium Atom Totality theory where the entire Universe is a giant plutonium 231Pu Atom containing smaller atoms inside itself, that we begin to see that the special numbers of mathematics come directly out of the layout of the 231Pu Atom Totality. For instance pi is what it is because plutonium has 22 subshells in 7 shells in collapsed rational waveform 22/7 = 3..14... And the special number "e" 2.71..... the equiangular number in the logarithmic spiral is because the 231Pu Atom Totality has only 19 of those 22 subshells in 7 shells filled at any specific moment in time, and hence 19/7 = 2.71.... I bring this to your attention only to show that Physics is the top science and all other sciences are minor details and aspects of physics.

So let me get started with the 1st question or 1st curriculum guidance, and it is the slant cut of a cone, what Apollonius studied in Ancient Greek times, yet got the answer wrong.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
2:51 AM (13 hours ago)



to
Question way way to hard for you Earle? Easy to understand for about every one of your posts have shown a corner of ignorance, as if you are some AI dummy, posting as if you are pretending to come from a human with a average intelligence. But you are a dummy in science, Earle.

My question could easily be answered with a real electrical engineer. Not you Earle.

For my question asks, how much more electric copper line is needed to make say 10 light bulbs connected in Parallel rather than those 10 connected in Series. How much more copper wiring do electricians need to connect in Parrallel than connect in Series. But I am sure someone at Stanford Univ can give a decent research answer to that question, just not you Earle Jones the pathetic 25 year stalking imbecile of Stanford.

And I need actually a research answer to that question, someone who can make "all things being equal", for I have the feeling that the length of copper wiring needed for Parallel is a special number related to the Maxwell Equations. Is it that 4 times the copper wire needed for Parallel than Series? Is it 3.14??? Is it 2 times??? Is it 1.6 times?? All of this, is vastly over your stupid head, Earle Jones, the 25 year long pathetic stalker of Stanford University.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
3:15 AM (12 hours ago)



to
Now this question on my mind relates to my recent work in Psychology as to nerve cells, are they engineered in Parallel or in Series. I would have to guess Parallel for Series has few benefits compared to Parallel. For in Series if one nerve gets malfunction a whole line of nerves stop working.

So I know Earle is too much of a dimwit to do any problem solving, but I think I already know the answer, even though I am not a electrical engineer.

The answer likely comes straight from geometry as we can picture a series circuit as this

___
| |
| |
| |
___

And can picture the Parallel circuit geometrically as this.

___
| |
----
| |
----
| |
___

We picture the Series circuit as a pencil ellipse

We picture the Parallel circuit as another pencil ellipse but with rungs in it like the rungs in a ladder.

David Ritson, H. Alan Schwettman fails the geometry of slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse, but do they fail on how much copper wire is needed????

And more questions-- how much wire do you need for a specific battery so as you apply a circuit, that it is not a "short circuit"???

Asking your electrical engineer Earle Jones who is still back on 10/5 = 2, will be of no use.
On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 6:26:37 PM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:
> I have three things connected in series (in a loop.) One resistor, one battery, and one current meter. The battery is a ten-volt battery. The TOTAL resistance in the loop is five ohms. What is the reading on the current meter. Hint: Use Ohm's law and show your work.
>
> earle
> *

And Stanford, while you are at it, what is the equation for length of copper wire needed for 3 light bulbs connected in Series versus 3 light bulbs connected in Parallel??? I am wanting some math relationship of how much more copper wire is needed to connect Parallel rather than Series. Here again, the bozo Earle Jones is of no mind for such.

Sourav Chatterjee, Tom Church, Ralph Cohen,Stanford Univ, are they all fools like Earle Jones, Alexander Fetter, John Lipa failures in electricity and magnetism?? Do they only have stalker idiots at Stanford Univ, too dumb to even recognize slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse, too stupid to ask if the true electron of Atoms is the muon and the 0.5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. Is every professor at Stanford a mindless jackarse in Logic with Boole's 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction because Boole and Jevons mistakenly switched the AND truth table with OR???
> > > >
> > > > Are the professors of science at Stanford mindless idiots that Earle Jones is a mindless idiot???
> > > >
> > > > Now, Earle Jones who stalks from Stanford Univ, and claims he has a degree in electrical engineering but fails in science and math, we ask another question.
> > > >
> > > > Using Youtube "FuseSchool-- Global Education" "Series and Parallel Circuits 4:55 minutes"
> > > >
> > > > Earle & Stanford Univ, we quiz you on length of copper wire needed and used. Earlier we asked you the maximum amount of light bulbs attached in series and then parallel given only 2 meters length of copper wire.
> > > >
> > > > Now we ask you the opposite question of the shortest length of copper wire to connect two light bulbs in series and in parallel. Use any size battery and copper wire and idealize the connectors-- alligator or otherwise.
> > > >
> > > > Say you are a company making a headlamp with two light bulbs and you want to design the headlamp with using the least length of copper wire. So, how much copper wire for the series and how much for the parallel circuits???
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Stanford University, math dept.
> > > >
> > > > Gregory Brumfiel, Daniel Bump, Emmanuel Candès, Gunnar Carlsson, Moses Charikar, Sourav Chatterjee, Tom Church, Ralph Cohen, Brian Conrad, Brian Conrey, Amir Dembo, Persi Diaconis, Yakov Eliashberg, Robert Finn, Jacob Fox, Laura Fredrickson, Søren Galatius, George Schaeffer, Or Hershkovits, David Hoffman, Eleny Ionel, Renata Kallosh, Yitzhak Katznelson, Vladimir Kazeev, Michael Kemeny, Steven Kerckhoff, Susie Kimport, Jun Li, Tai-Ping Liu, Mark Lucianovic, Jonathan Luk, Frederick Manners, Rafe Mazzeo, James R. Milgram, Maryam Mirzakhani, Stefan Mueller, Christopher Ohrt, Donald Ornstein, George Papanicolaou, Lenya Ryzhik, Richard Schoen, Leon Simon, Rick Sommer, Kannan Soundararajan, Tadashi Tokieda, Cheng-Chiang Tsai, Ravi Vakil, András Vasy, Akshay Venkatesh, Jan Vondrák, Brian White, Wojciech Wieczorek, Jennifer Wilson, Alex Wright, Lexing Ying, Xuwen Zhu
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > President: Marc Tessier-Lavigne (neuroscience)
> > > > Provost: Persis Drell (physics)
> > > >
> > > > Stanford physics dept.
> > > >
> > > > Alexander Fetter, John Lipa, William Little, Douglas Osheroff, David Ritson, H. Alan Schwettman, John Turneaure, Robert Wagoner, Stanley Wojcicki, Mason Yearian

Fastest way rid Putin
███۞███████ knock out Moscow, Volgograd, St.Petersburg electric lines and towers-- rolling black outs. Send Ukraine long range drones to destroy Russia electric Grid.

Send Ukraine thousands and thousands of drones to make this winter a blackout winter for Russian cities.

On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 4:49:27 PM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:
> I have found a one-digit error in line 53.
>
> earle
> *

Thanks Earle of Stanford Univ failures of electrical engineering, so the Moscow line is line 53, but what is the St. Petersburg line to have rolling blackouts??? Should I ask Nancy Rothwell and Toby Howard of Manchester Univ psychoceramics, for Manchester is closer to St. Petersburg? Nancy and Toby what is the electrical line into St.Petersburg, and can a drone from Manchester fly there and knock it out????

> On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 2:04:00 PM UTC-6, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >
> > Don't you mean 3 14159 ...
> >
> > ;^)
>
> Yes, that is a nice number Chris, does new PM Rishi Sunak have that many drones to knock out Moscow electric power lines and towers? To give Moscow nice nice rolling black outs???? Better stock up on vodka with Putin in charge.
>
> > Economic sanctions work far too slow, slow, while hundreds of missiles bomb Ukraine every day. At this rate, Ukraine will not win.
>
> Do unto your enemy what your enemy does unto you -- Lenin in St,Petersburg, make St.Petersburg a blackout electric city
>
> >
> > To win, the Russian people need to wake up and rid themselves of the insane Putin.
> >
> > China will not help Putin for if that insane idiot presses nuclear, China and Russia will be a ash pile, both.
> >
> > Putin will not push nuclear, because already, most Russians realize he is a insane fool, but they need that extra add verification-- Rolling blackouts in Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok, even Vladivostok.
> >
> > Javelin is the antitank missile, now we need the Javelin version that knocks out the Moscow grid, the Tehran grid, the Pyongyang grid. When petty dictators face rolling blackouts, then the people get rid of the petty dictator.
> >
> >
> > Protesting, peaceful demonstration is the first sign of unrest in a society, as we see in Tehran, Iran.
> >
> > Next stage if the dictator kills protestors is to knock out the Electric Grid of Tehran so there is rolling blackouts until the dictator departs.
> >
> > The people of Russia just do not know how bad Putin is, and they must be taught by rolling blackouts of electric power to Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, even Vladivostok.
> >
> > North Korea with its illegal missile launches is taught to be civil by knocking out its electric power grid and experiencing rolling blackouts in Pyongyang, until the petty dictator is gone.
> > 
> > 
> >
> > > Xi invades Russia to take back Outer Manchuria with 1,000 divisions to Putin's 1 platoon.
> > > Not waiting for Putin to gift wrap Outer Manchuria and hand the stolen land back to China
> > >
> > > And where the baby Xi Jinping was nestled cuddled and tightly caressed and fed by Chairman Mao concubines in the stillness of the waters of the Amur River in the Rice Reeds and Paddies, where panda bears were playfully playing in yonder oak and beech and rock elm trees. The musical of Rock of Ages was played and sung by Chairman Mao's concubines as the rich nutritious protein syrup of fresh rice cultivated by the Ussuri and Amur Rivers flowed their bountiful water over the lush fields of rice and cinnamon and sugar cane. The baby Xi was given dessert of fresh mulberry and peaches and cream from the 3 Farmers visiting.
> > >
> > > Everytime Russia bombs Ukraine, China fells another GLONASS satellite.. This makes it easier for China to regain its stolen lands of OUTER MANCHURIA which is 28 times larger than Taiwan. Taiwan can wait, it is not going anywhere, but while Russia has an insane dictator, China may as well recover its beautiful lands of Outer Manchuria.
> > >
> > > Xi masses troops on Russian border to take back Outer Manchuria. If you do not know the history, Russia stole Outer Manchuria and Vladivostok from China.
> > >
> > > While Putin is too busy with his personal war, Xi thinks time is ripe to get back what belongs to China in the first place. OUTER MANCHURIA and especially Vladivostok.
> > >
> > > Xi gives the Chinese people a Christmas gift--- Outer Manchuria-- the beloved Old China
> > > I am not positive we can take out GLONASS and BeiDou from ground based radio and microwaves and laser waves, even jamming.
> > >
> > > But I am certain that we can put a satellite in orbit that is a wrecking ramming satellite that does take out GLONASS and BeiDou. I am certain of this because several countries have robotic satellites that maintenance their fleet of satellites. And to this end, we need such a wrecking ball satellite immediately up there.
> > >
> > > [Note, graphics found in sci.physics when Nomen Nescio used to spam sci.physics with a fake FAQ.]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > ▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂
> > > > I███████████████████].
> > > > ◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤...
> > > Satellite RIFLE to shoot down GLONASS, Iran,and BeiDou satellites.
> > > Hooray
> > >
> > > Hooray!! End the Ukraine war
> > >
> > > Easiest way to end the Ukraine invasion by Russia, start felling GLONASS satellites, fell them directly with radar laser pulses or jam them to fall.
> > >
> > > Now I thought GLONASS Russian satellites numbered in the thousands, for the Internet is lousy on this question of how many satellites, for recently BBC was vague with a estimate of 600 satellites, yet another web site said 42,000. But apparently only 24 are operational for GLONASS. And my take on this is that satellites are precarious vessels and easily for something to go wrong and be inoperative. All the better to look for flaws in engineering to down all 24 GLONASS Russian satellites.
> > >
> > > So, easy easy Achilles tendon in all of the Russian ICBM military strategy, for knock out the 24 and you in a sense, knock out the entire Russian ICBM arsenal, for they no longer have any navigation.
> > >
> > > And if the West is on its top shape and form in technology, we want the West Scientists to figure out how to intercept the Russian ICBM and cause it to fall upon Russia and explode upon Russia.
> > >
> > > Get the best electronics and electrical engineers of the West to figure out how to cause all Russian launched and Chinese launched ICBMs to explode on home territory.
> > >
> > > Caveat: if the West can do it, mind you, the Chinese and Russians will want to steal those secrets from the West and that should never be allowed--Ultimate Top Secret classification that not even a punk weirdo president like Trump cannot see, nor mention to him for he would likely sell it for a golf course in some foreign enemy country.
> > >
> > > Google search reveals
> > > 24+
> > > GLONASS (Globalnaya Navigazionnaya Sputnikovaya Sistema, or Global Navigation Satellite System) is a global GNSS owned and operated by the Russian Federation. The fully operational system consists of 24+ satellites.Oct 19, 2021
> > >
> > > Other Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) - GPS.govhttps://www..gps.gov › systems › gnss
> > > About featured snippets
> > > •
> > > Feedback
> > > People also ask
> > > How many satellites are in the GLONASS?
> > > As of 15 October 2022, 143 GLONASS navigation satellites have been launched, of which 131 reached the correct orbit and 24 are currently operational.
> > >
> > > List of GLONASS satellites - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › List_of_GLONASS_sa...
> > > Search for: How many satellites are in the GLONASS?
> > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > Nov 5, 2022, 11:02:21 PM
> > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > ███۞███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▃
> > > Radio Wave--Laser Rifle felling BeiDou satellites
> > >
> > > From what I gather on internet, Russia has 24 satellites in operation while BeiDou China has 35.
> > > > ▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂
> > > > I███████████████████].
> > > > ◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤...
> > > Radio Wave-- LASER RIFLE to shoot down the premier BeiDou satellite.
> > > Ending the dumb and stupid petty dictators launching rockets from North Korea.
> > >
> > > It is respectfully request help from engineers in Japan to help fell the BeiDou satellites that navigate the illegal North Korea launches.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- quoting Wikipedia ---
> > > The BeiDou Navigation Satellite System (BDS; Chinese: 北斗卫星导航系统; pinyin: Běidǒu Wèixīng Dǎoháng Xìtǒng) is a Chinese satellite navigation system. It consists of two separate satellite constellations. The first BeiDou system, officially called the BeiDou Satellite Navigation Experimental System and also known as BeiDou-1, consisted of three satellites which, beginning in 2000, offered limited coverage and navigation services, mainly for users in China and neighboring regions. BeiDou-1 was decommissioned at the end of 2012. The second generation of the system, officially called the BeiDou Navigation Satellite System (BDS) and also known as COMPASS or BeiDou-2, became operational in China in December 2011 with a partial constellation of 10 satellites in orbit. Since December 2012, it has been offering services to customers in the Asia-Pacific region.
> > >
> > > In 2015, China launched the third generation BeiDou system (BeiDou-3) for global coverage. The first BDS-3 satellite was launched on 30 March 2015. On 27 December 2018, BeiDou Navigation Satellite System started providing global services. The 35th and the final satellite of BDS-3 was launched into orbit on 23 June 2020. It was said in 2016 that BeiDou-3 will reach millimeter-level accuracy (with post-processing). On 23 June 2020, the final BeiDou satellite was successfully launched, the launch of the 55th satellite in the Beidou family. The third iteration of the Beidou Navigation Satellite System provides full global coverage for timing and navigation, offering an alternative to Russia's GLONASS, the European Galileo positioning system, and the US's GPS.
> > >
> > > According to China Daily, in 2015, fifteen years after the satellite system was launched, it was generating a turnover of $31.5 billion per annum for major companies such as China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation, AutoNavi Holdings Ltd., and China North Industries Group Corp. The industry has grown an average of over 20% in value annually to reach $64 billion in 2020 according to Xinhua citing data.
> > >
> > > Domestic industry reports forecast the satellite navigation service market output value, directly generated and driven by the Beidou system, will be worth 1 trillion yuan ($156.22 billion) by 2025, and $467 billion by 2035.
> > >
> > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > Nov 5, 2022, 11:20:20 PM
> > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > ███۞███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▃
> > > Radio Wave--Laser Rifle felling Iran satellites
> > > >
> > > > From what I gather on internet, Russia has 24 satellites in operation while BeiDou China has 35, that would indicate Iran has but a few satellites.
> > > > > ▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂
> > > > > I███████████████████].
> > > > > ◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤...
> > > > Radio Wave-- LASER RIFLE to shoot down the premier BeiDou satellite..
> > > > Ending the dumb and stupid petty dictator sending drones to Russia to down Ukraine power utility electric lines.
> > >
> > > How many of the Iran satellites are used in drones destroying Ukraine electric grid. We should immediately fell those satellites.
> > >
> > > --- quoting Wikipedia on Iran satellites ---
> > > On 22 April 2020, Iran successfully launched "Noor" (Farsi for "Light"), a military satellite, into a 426 x 444 km / 59.8° orbit.
> > >
> > > On 8 March 2022, Iran reportedly sent its second “Nour-2” military satellite into 500 km orbit.[55][56]
> > > The Khayyam, a high resolution imaging satellite, was successfully launched into orbit by a Russian Soyuz rocket on 9 August 2022
> > > Unlaunched satellites
> > > Nahid (1), satellite with folding solar panels.
> > > Toloo, is the first of a new generation of reconnaissance satellites being built by Iran Electronics Industries with SIGINT capabilities. It will be launched by a Simorgh.
> > > Nasir 1, Iran's indigenously designed satellite navigation system (SAT NAV) has been manufactured to find the precise locations of satellites moving in orbit.
> > >
> > > Zohreh, is a geosynchronous communication satellite which was originally proposed before the Revolution in the 1970s as part of a joint Indian-Iranian project of four Iranian satellites to be launched by the then upcoming NASA Space Shuttles. Iran had also negotiated with France to build and launch the satellites but the project never materialized. In 2005, Iran negotiated with Russia to build and launch the first Zohreh satellite under an agreement worth $132 million with the satellite launch date stipulated as 2007–2008. The new agreement had followed the earlier failed negotiations with Russia in 2003 when Russia cancelled the project under US pressures.
> > > Ekvator, a geosynchronous communications satellite built by ISS Reshetnev for Iran in a continuation of previous Russia-Iran space cooperation efforts. As of October 2022, Ekvator is expected to be launched on a Proton-M rocket in early 2024.
> > >
> > >
> > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > Nov 5, 2022, 11:38:31 PM
> > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > ███۞███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▃
> > > Radio Wave--Laser Rifle felling North Korean satellites
> > > >
> > > > From what I gather on internet, Russia has 24 satellites in operation while BeiDou China has 35, that would indicate Iran has but a few satellites. And North Korea fewer yet.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > ▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂
> > > > > I███████████████████].
> > > > > ◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤...
> > >
> > > Radio Wave-- LASER RIFLE to shoot down the 3 North Korean satellites.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ending the dumb and stupid petty dictator with his endless illegal missile launches. Launches that do nothing of good for anyone. Not even the idiot petty dictator.
> > >
> > > Internet search reveals 3 satellites for North Korea. I suspect though, that North Korea launches Chinese missiles and uses BeiDou satellites.
> > >
> > > Kwangmyongsong -4
> > >
> > > Kwangmyongsong -3
> > >
> > > Kwangmyongsong -2
> > >
> > > Knock all 3 satellites out with the radio-Laser Wave gun. And that will put an end to the petty dictators toys.
> > >
> > > Asking for help from Japan in assistance.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Pennino, I am sending Chris Thomasson to your aid, for we are running out of time on ruining GLONASS, and Chris needs the money since Elon Musk is sending their best to possibly ruin BeiDou.
> > >
> > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > Nov 18, 2022, 1:22:42 AM
> > > to sci.math, sci.physics
> > >
> > > Just hold onto your seats Jim Pennino, something you learned as air force pilot, for I am sending Chris to your aid. The hours are approaching rapidly and we need GLONASS either in the dark or best of all-- misfiring their missiles from Russia and striking Russian and Chinese cities. We want Kim Jong-un to see a Russian missile intended for Ukraine to level Pyongyang, all by a hacking into the Intel chips of GLONASS.
> > >
> > > The mass exodus at Twitter is that they wanted GLONASS to hack, not BeiDou.
> > >
> > > Andy Grove on the Charlie Rose show often pointed out the flaws of the Intel chips installed in GLONASS, but unfortunately I was not interested in that messaging, and apt to eat cookies and sip hot tea while Andy was going over the specifications. Besides I had no satellite manuals in the house at that time.
> > >
> > > > On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 11:35:47 PM UTC-6, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > > > On 11/17/2022 12:44 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > > > A few mistakes in the zero part of the discussion-- zero is not the flip side of the coin with infinity. Zero is described as a appended number that really is different from the counting numbers-- as one guest said-- more of a concept than a number like the others.
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > The border of the Mandelbrot set has a finite fractal dimension of 2.
> > > > > Yet the border is infinity complex. There are infinite points inside of
> > > > > the set, and an infinity of points that are outside of the set. There is
> > > > > a border.
> > > > Hi, Chris, no I am not going to fire you like Elon Musk style.
> > > >
> > > > Instead, I want you to make a fractal of Intel chip that Jim Pennino and his pet psychiatrist Kibo Parry are working on. A fractal Intel chip that causes Russian missiles to land on Russian or Chinese territory, when fired.
> > > 
> > > Nov 19, 2022, 3:11:46 AM
> > > to sci.physics
> > > Jim boy Pennino may accidentally save the entire world from nuclear war, caused by the insane Putin. Provided Jim can crack the code of Andy Grove's Intel chipset aboard GLONASS satellites.
> > >
> > > Jim, question, will you work on BeiDou next? We really need to send North Korea packing by ruining the 3 NK satellites along with all 36 BeiDou satellites.
> > >
> > > What is the secret to jamming those Intel chips? We can easily lock onto their communications signal. But can a laser scramble and thus fry the Intel chip processor, thus, a ruined satellite?
> > >
> > > And is this the reason Musk bought Twitter? He turns Twitter into a satellite toaster oven of enemies of NATO??
> > >
> > > No one cares what airhead 1 posted to airhead 2 on Twitter. But behind the scenes, Twitter just felled 4 GLONASS satellites and 5 BeiDou and 1 North Korean satellite. Hooray, Jim, time to break out the champagne.
> > >
> > > Skoal!!!
> > >
> > > AP

Fastest way rid Putin
███۞███████ knock out Moscow, Volgograd, St.Petersburg electric lines and towers-- rolling black outs. Send Ukraine long range drones to destroy Russia electric Grid.

Send Ukraine thousands and thousands of drones to make this winter a blackout winter for Russian cities.

On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 4:49:27 PM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:
> I have found a one-digit error in line 53.
>
> earle
> *

Thanks Earle of Stanford Univ failures of electrical engineering, so the Moscow line is line 53, but what is the St. Petersburg line to have rolling blackouts??? Should I ask Nancy Rothwell and Toby Howard of Manchester Univ psychoceramics, for Manchester is closer to St. Petersburg? Nancy and Toby what is the electrical line into St.Petersburg, and can a drone from Manchester fly there and knock it out????

> On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 2:04:00 PM UTC-6, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >
> > Don't you mean 3 14159 ...
> >
> > ;^)
>
> Yes, that is a nice number Chris, does new PM Rishi Sunak have that many drones to knock out Moscow electric power lines and towers? To give Moscow nice nice rolling black outs???? Better stock up on vodka with Putin in charge.
>
> > Economic sanctions work far too slow, slow, while hundreds of missiles bomb Ukraine every day. At this rate, Ukraine will not win.
>
> Do unto your enemy what your enemy does unto you -- Lenin in St,Petersburg, make St.Petersburg a blackout electric city
>
> >
> > To win, the Russian people need to wake up and rid themselves of the insane Putin.
> >
> > China will not help Putin for if that insane idiot presses nuclear, China and Russia will be a ash pile, both.
> >
> > Putin will not push nuclear, because already, most Russians realize he is a insane fool, but they need that extra add verification-- Rolling blackouts in Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok, even Vladivostok.
> >
> > Javelin is the antitank missile, now we need the Javelin version that knocks out the Moscow grid, the Tehran grid, the Pyongyang grid. When petty dictators face rolling blackouts, then the people get rid of the petty dictator.
> >
> >
> > Protesting, peaceful demonstration is the first sign of unrest in a society, as we see in Tehran, Iran.
> >
> > Next stage if the dictator kills protestors is to knock out the Electric Grid of Tehran so there is rolling blackouts until the dictator departs.
> >
> > The people of Russia just do not know how bad Putin is, and they must be taught by rolling blackouts of electric power to Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, even Vladivostok.
> >
> > North Korea with its illegal missile launches is taught to be civil by knocking out its electric power grid and experiencing rolling blackouts in Pyongyang, until the petty dictator is gone.
> > 
> > 
> >
> > > Xi invades Russia to take back Outer Manchuria with 1,000 divisions to Putin's 1 platoon.
> > > Not waiting for Putin to gift wrap Outer Manchuria and hand the stolen land back to China
> > >
> > > And where the baby Xi Jinping was nestled cuddled and tightly caressed and fed by Chairman Mao concubines in the stillness of the waters of the Amur River in the Rice Reeds and Paddies, where panda bears were playfully playing in yonder oak and beech and rock elm trees. The musical of Rock of Ages was played and sung by Chairman Mao's concubines as the rich nutritious protein syrup of fresh rice cultivated by the Ussuri and Amur Rivers flowed their bountiful water over the lush fields of rice and cinnamon and sugar cane. The baby Xi was given dessert of fresh mulberry and peaches and cream from the 3 Farmers visiting.
> > >
> > > Everytime Russia bombs Ukraine, China fells another GLONASS satellite.. This makes it easier for China to regain its stolen lands of OUTER MANCHURIA which is 28 times larger than Taiwan. Taiwan can wait, it is not going anywhere, but while Russia has an insane dictator, China may as well recover its beautiful lands of Outer Manchuria.
> > >
> > > Xi masses troops on Russian border to take back Outer Manchuria. If you do not know the history, Russia stole Outer Manchuria and Vladivostok from China.
> > >
> > > While Putin is too busy with his personal war, Xi thinks time is ripe to get back what belongs to China in the first place. OUTER MANCHURIA and especially Vladivostok.
> > >
> > > Xi gives the Chinese people a Christmas gift--- Outer Manchuria-- the beloved Old China
> > > I am not positive we can take out GLONASS and BeiDou from ground based radio and microwaves and laser waves, even jamming.
> > >
> > > But I am certain that we can put a satellite in orbit that is a wrecking ramming satellite that does take out GLONASS and BeiDou. I am certain of this because several countries have robotic satellites that maintenance their fleet of satellites. And to this end, we need such a wrecking ball satellite immediately up there.
> > >
> > > [Note, graphics found in sci.physics when Nomen Nescio used to spam sci.physics with a fake FAQ.]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > ▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂
> > > > I███████████████████].
> > > > ◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤...
> > > Satellite RIFLE to shoot down GLONASS, Iran,and BeiDou satellites.
> > > Hooray
> > >
> > > Hooray!! End the Ukraine war
> > >
> > > Easiest way to end the Ukraine invasion by Russia, start felling GLONASS satellites, fell them directly with radar laser pulses or jam them to fall.
> > >
> > > Now I thought GLONASS Russian satellites numbered in the thousands, for the Internet is lousy on this question of how many satellites, for recently BBC was vague with a estimate of 600 satellites, yet another web site said 42,000. But apparently only 24 are operational for GLONASS. And my take on this is that satellites are precarious vessels and easily for something to go wrong and be inoperative. All the better to look for flaws in engineering to down all 24 GLONASS Russian satellites.
> > >
> > > So, easy easy Achilles tendon in all of the Russian ICBM military strategy, for knock out the 24 and you in a sense, knock out the entire Russian ICBM arsenal, for they no longer have any navigation.
> > >
> > > And if the West is on its top shape and form in technology, we want the West Scientists to figure out how to intercept the Russian ICBM and cause it to fall upon Russia and explode upon Russia.
> > >
> > > Get the best electronics and electrical engineers of the West to figure out how to cause all Russian launched and Chinese launched ICBMs to explode on home territory.
> > >
> > > Caveat: if the West can do it, mind you, the Chinese and Russians will want to steal those secrets from the West and that should never be allowed--Ultimate Top Secret classification that not even a punk weirdo president like Trump cannot see, nor mention to him for he would likely sell it for a golf course in some foreign enemy country.
> > >
> > > Google search reveals
> > > 24+
> > > GLONASS (Globalnaya Navigazionnaya Sputnikovaya Sistema, or Global Navigation Satellite System) is a global GNSS owned and operated by the Russian Federation. The fully operational system consists of 24+ satellites.Oct 19, 2021
> > >
> > > Other Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) - GPS.govhttps://www..gps.gov › systems › gnss
> > > About featured snippets
> > > •
> > > Feedback
> > > People also ask
> > > How many satellites are in the GLONASS?
> > > As of 15 October 2022, 143 GLONASS navigation satellites have been launched, of which 131 reached the correct orbit and 24 are currently operational.
> > >
> > > List of GLONASS satellites - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › List_of_GLONASS_sa...
> > > Search for: How many satellites are in the GLONASS?
> > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > Nov 5, 2022, 11:02:21 PM
> > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > ███۞███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▃
> > > Radio Wave--Laser Rifle felling BeiDou satellites
> > >
> > > From what I gather on internet, Russia has 24 satellites in operation while BeiDou China has 35.
> > > > ▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂
> > > > I███████████████████].
> > > > ◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤...
> > > Radio Wave-- LASER RIFLE to shoot down the premier BeiDou satellite.
> > > Ending the dumb and stupid petty dictators launching rockets from North Korea.
> > >
> > > It is respectfully request help from engineers in Japan to help fell the BeiDou satellites that navigate the illegal North Korea launches.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- quoting Wikipedia ---
> > > The BeiDou Navigation Satellite System (BDS; Chinese: 北斗卫星导航系统; pinyin: Běidǒu Wèixīng Dǎoháng Xìtǒng) is a Chinese satellite navigation system. It consists of two separate satellite constellations. The first BeiDou system, officially called the BeiDou Satellite Navigation Experimental System and also known as BeiDou-1, consisted of three satellites which, beginning in 2000, offered limited coverage and navigation services, mainly for users in China and neighboring regions. BeiDou-1 was decommissioned at the end of 2012. The second generation of the system, officially called the BeiDou Navigation Satellite System (BDS) and also known as COMPASS or BeiDou-2, became operational in China in December 2011 with a partial constellation of 10 satellites in orbit. Since December 2012, it has been offering services to customers in the Asia-Pacific region.
> > >
> > > In 2015, China launched the third generation BeiDou system (BeiDou-3) for global coverage. The first BDS-3 satellite was launched on 30 March 2015. On 27 December 2018, BeiDou Navigation Satellite System started providing global services. The 35th and the final satellite of BDS-3 was launched into orbit on 23 June 2020. It was said in 2016 that BeiDou-3 will reach millimeter-level accuracy (with post-processing). On 23 June 2020, the final BeiDou satellite was successfully launched, the launch of the 55th satellite in the Beidou family. The third iteration of the Beidou Navigation Satellite System provides full global coverage for timing and navigation, offering an alternative to Russia's GLONASS, the European Galileo positioning system, and the US's GPS.
> > >
> > > According to China Daily, in 2015, fifteen years after the satellite system was launched, it was generating a turnover of $31.5 billion per annum for major companies such as China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation, AutoNavi Holdings Ltd., and China North Industries Group Corp. The industry has grown an average of over 20% in value annually to reach $64 billion in 2020 according to Xinhua citing data.
> > >
> > > Domestic industry reports forecast the satellite navigation service market output value, directly generated and driven by the Beidou system, will be worth 1 trillion yuan ($156.22 billion) by 2025, and $467 billion by 2035.
> > >
> > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > Nov 5, 2022, 11:20:20 PM
> > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > ███۞███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▃
> > > Radio Wave--Laser Rifle felling Iran satellites
> > > >
> > > > From what I gather on internet, Russia has 24 satellites in operation while BeiDou China has 35, that would indicate Iran has but a few satellites.
> > > > > ▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂
> > > > > I███████████████████].
> > > > > ◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤...
> > > > Radio Wave-- LASER RIFLE to shoot down the premier BeiDou satellite..
> > > > Ending the dumb and stupid petty dictator sending drones to Russia to down Ukraine power utility electric lines.
> > >
> > > How many of the Iran satellites are used in drones destroying Ukraine electric grid. We should immediately fell those satellites.
> > >
> > > --- quoting Wikipedia on Iran satellites ---
> > > On 22 April 2020, Iran successfully launched "Noor" (Farsi for "Light"), a military satellite, into a 426 x 444 km / 59.8° orbit.
> > >
> > > On 8 March 2022, Iran reportedly sent its second “Nour-2” military satellite into 500 km orbit.[55][56]
> > > The Khayyam, a high resolution imaging satellite, was successfully launched into orbit by a Russian Soyuz rocket on 9 August 2022
> > > Unlaunched satellites
> > > Nahid (1), satellite with folding solar panels.
> > > Toloo, is the first of a new generation of reconnaissance satellites being built by Iran Electronics Industries with SIGINT capabilities. It will be launched by a Simorgh.
> > > Nasir 1, Iran's indigenously designed satellite navigation system (SAT NAV) has been manufactured to find the precise locations of satellites moving in orbit.
> > >
> > > Zohreh, is a geosynchronous communication satellite which was originally proposed before the Revolution in the 1970s as part of a joint Indian-Iranian project of four Iranian satellites to be launched by the then upcoming NASA Space Shuttles. Iran had also negotiated with France to build and launch the satellites but the project never materialized. In 2005, Iran negotiated with Russia to build and launch the first Zohreh satellite under an agreement worth $132 million with the satellite launch date stipulated as 2007–2008. The new agreement had followed the earlier failed negotiations with Russia in 2003 when Russia cancelled the project under US pressures.
> > > Ekvator, a geosynchronous communications satellite built by ISS Reshetnev for Iran in a continuation of previous Russia-Iran space cooperation efforts. As of October 2022, Ekvator is expected to be launched on a Proton-M rocket in early 2024.
> > >
> > >
> > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > Nov 5, 2022, 11:38:31 PM
> > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > ███۞███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▃
> > > Radio Wave--Laser Rifle felling North Korean satellites
> > > >
> > > > From what I gather on internet, Russia has 24 satellites in operation while BeiDou China has 35, that would indicate Iran has but a few satellites. And North Korea fewer yet.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > ▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂
> > > > > I███████████████████].
> > > > > ◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤...
> > >
> > > Radio Wave-- LASER RIFLE to shoot down the 3 North Korean satellites.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ending the dumb and stupid petty dictator with his endless illegal missile launches. Launches that do nothing of good for anyone. Not even the idiot petty dictator.
> > >
> > > Internet search reveals 3 satellites for North Korea. I suspect though, that North Korea launches Chinese missiles and uses BeiDou satellites.
> > >
> > > Kwangmyongsong -4
> > >
> > > Kwangmyongsong -3
> > >
> > > Kwangmyongsong -2
> > >
> > > Knock all 3 satellites out with the radio-Laser Wave gun. And that will put an end to the petty dictators toys.
> > >
> > > Asking for help from Japan in assistance.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Pennino, I am sending Chris Thomasson to your aid, for we are running out of time on ruining GLONASS, and Chris needs the money since Elon Musk is sending their best to possibly ruin BeiDou.
> > >
> > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > Nov 18, 2022, 1:22:42 AM
> > > to sci.math, sci.physics
> > >
> > > Just hold onto your seats Jim Pennino, something you learned as air force pilot, for I am sending Chris to your aid. The hours are approaching rapidly and we need GLONASS either in the dark or best of all-- misfiring their missiles from Russia and striking Russian and Chinese cities. We want Kim Jong-un to see a Russian missile intended for Ukraine to level Pyongyang, all by a hacking into the Intel chips of GLONASS.
> > >
> > > The mass exodus at Twitter is that they wanted GLONASS to hack, not BeiDou.
> > >
> > > Andy Grove on the Charlie Rose show often pointed out the flaws of the Intel chips installed in GLONASS, but unfortunately I was not interested in that messaging, and apt to eat cookies and sip hot tea while Andy was going over the specifications. Besides I had no satellite manuals in the house at that time.
> > >
> > > > On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 11:35:47 PM UTC-6, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > > > On 11/17/2022 12:44 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > > > A few mistakes in the zero part of the discussion-- zero is not the flip side of the coin with infinity. Zero is described as a appended number that really is different from the counting numbers-- as one guest said-- more of a concept than a number like the others.
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > The border of the Mandelbrot set has a finite fractal dimension of 2.
> > > > > Yet the border is infinity complex. There are infinite points inside of
> > > > > the set, and an infinity of points that are outside of the set. There is
> > > > > a border.
> > > > Hi, Chris, no I am not going to fire you like Elon Musk style.
> > > >
> > > > Instead, I want you to make a fractal of Intel chip that Jim Pennino and his pet psychiatrist Kibo Parry are working on. A fractal Intel chip that causes Russian missiles to land on Russian or Chinese territory, when fired.
> > > 
> > > Nov 19, 2022, 3:11:46 AM
> > > to sci.physics
> > > Jim boy Pennino may accidentally save the entire world from nuclear war, caused by the insane Putin. Provided Jim can crack the code of Andy Grove's Intel chipset aboard GLONASS satellites.
> > >
> > > Jim, question, will you work on BeiDou next? We really need to send North Korea packing by ruining the 3 NK satellites along with all 36 BeiDou satellites.
> > >
> > > What is the secret to jamming those Intel chips? We can easily lock onto their communications signal. But can a laser scramble and thus fry the Intel chip processor, thus, a ruined satellite?
> > >
> > > And is this the reason Musk bought Twitter? He turns Twitter into a satellite toaster oven of enemies of NATO??
> > >
> > > No one cares what airhead 1 posted to airhead 2 on Twitter. But behind the scenes, Twitter just felled 4 GLONASS satellites and 5 BeiDou and 1 North Korean satellite. Hooray, Jim, time to break out the champagne.
> > >
> > > Skoal!!!
> > >
> > > AP

Stanford Univ analbuttfuckmanure and sickfuck prize to Earle Jones and James Kibo Parry and John Baez.

Host of Ceremony is Univ Western Ontario Dan Christensen:

Re: 1.1Dr. John Baez is a failed mathematician-physicist with his proton of 938MeV when it is 840MeV, electron= muon //his ellipse is a conic when it never was// as phony in math and physics as kibo Parry Moroney's ellipse and Christensen 10 OR 4 by Dan Christensen Sep 22, 2019, 9:54:06 AM

Question from audience: Is Earle Jones nominated for Best Photo Logo-- showing him sucking on a large cock???

Updated crackpot index?
9 views
Skip to first unread message
Subscribe

Volney's profile photo
Volney
unread,
1:46 PM (2 hours ago)



to
Many people score crank posts according to John Baez's Crackpot Index
(https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html). But it's almost a
quarter century old. I've been thinking of updating it, since cranks
have come up with many novel techniques since 1998 that are not listed.
For example, using crackpot-only words and phrases, for example
"Einsteinian" and "relativist", usually intended to insult scientists.

Is this worth doing?
Should I take the existing crackpot index and simply add to it?
Should any of its original entries be changed, even if only the points?
Should I redo this in a completely different format? If so, suggestions?
Should point scores apply to individual posts or the poster overall?

In any case, full credit will be given to Baez for the original.

Do you have suggestions for added entries, plus point scores for each?

Example additions, exact phrasing and points not yet determined:

People who agree with an argument promoted by an expert are "worshiping"
him, are brainwashed, indoctrinated, or are parrots.

Silence is consent: "I notice that there are no comments on my
manifesto. That means that you all agree with it!"

"Physics is a religion/cult!"

References to things like "Old Biology" (textbook standard biology) and
"New Biology" (the crank's version of biology including bizarre changes,
the crank believes his version is or will be accepted)

Expand Baez's Item #21: "I won a Nobel Prize for my discovery" when they
didn't.
Less delusional: "I should have won a Nobel Prize for my discovery."
Sour grapes: "The Nobel Prize is worthless"/"the committee awarding it
is corrupt", etc. because they didn't win a Nobel.
"I was offered the Nobel Prize but I turned it down because it's worthless."

I want to keep this generic, otherwise it may become relativity/Einstein
specific or creationism specific. Also certain behavior unique to only
one crank probably shouldn't be included.

I set followups to sci.physics.
Earle Jones's profile photo
Earle Jones
unread,
2:18 PM (1 hour ago)



to
On Thu Dec 8 14:46:02 2022 Volney wrote:
> Many people score crank posts according to John Baez's Crackpot Index
> (https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html). But it's almost a
> quarter century old. I've been thinking of updating it, since cranks
> have come up with many novel techniques since 1998 that are not listed.
> For example, using crackpot-only words and phrases, for example
> "Einsteinian" and "relativist", usually intended to insult scientists.
>
> Is this worth doing?

*
Volney: Go for it! It needs doing. By the way, your link to the Baez original index is broken.

Cheers and good luck!

earle
*

Stanford Univ on _Analbuttfuckmanure and Sickfuck Prize__ to Earle Jones and James Kibo Parry and John Baez.

Marc Tessier-Lavigne-- Dr.Lavigne, many times Earle Jones professed in newsgroups that he is a graduate of Stanford Univ in electrical engineering, but his name does not appear on a graduation roster list. His posts to math and physics are infantile in nature. So is Earle some inflated joke a liaring joke in sci.math and sci.physics???

Host of Ceremony is Univ Western Ontario Dan Christensen:

Re: 1.1Dr. John Baez is a failed mathematician-physicist with his proton of 938MeV when it is 840MeV, electron= muon //his ellipse is a conic when it never was// as phony in math and physics as kibo Parry Moroney's ellipse and Christensen 10 OR 4 =
by Dan Christensen Sep 22, 2019, 9:54:06 AM

Question from audience: Is Earle Jones nominated for Best Photo Logo-- showing him sucking on a large cock???

Updated crackpot index?
9 views
Skip to first unread message
Subscribe

Volney's profile photo
Volney
unread,
1:46 PM (2 hours ago)



to
Many people score crank posts according to John Baez's Crackpot Index
(https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html). But it's almost a
quarter century old. I've been thinking of updating it, since cranks
have come up with many novel techniques since 1998 that are not listed.
For example, using crackpot-only words and phrases, for example
"Einsteinian" and "relativist", usually intended to insult scientists.

Is this worth doing?
Should I take the existing crackpot index and simply add to it?
Should any of its original entries be changed, even if only the points?
Should I redo this in a completely different format? If so, suggestions?
Should point scores apply to individual posts or the poster overall?

In any case, full credit will be given to Baez for the original.

Do you have suggestions for added entries, plus point scores for each?

Example additions, exact phrasing and points not yet determined:

People who agree with an argument promoted by an expert are "worshiping"
him, are brainwashed, indoctrinated, or are parrots.

Silence is consent: "I notice that there are no comments on my
manifesto. That means that you all agree with it!"

"Physics is a religion/cult!"

References to things like "Old Biology" (textbook standard biology) and
"New Biology" (the crank's version of biology including bizarre changes,
the crank believes his version is or will be accepted)

Expand Baez's Item #21: "I won a Nobel Prize for my discovery" when they
didn't.
Less delusional: "I should have won a Nobel Prize for my discovery."
Sour grapes: "The Nobel Prize is worthless"/"the committee awarding it
is corrupt", etc. because they didn't win a Nobel.
"I was offered the Nobel Prize but I turned it down because it's worthless."

I want to keep this generic, otherwise it may become relativity/Einstein
specific or creationism specific. Also certain behavior unique to only
one crank probably shouldn't be included.

I set followups to sci.physics.
Earle Jones's profile photo
Earle Jones
unread,
2:18 PM (1 hour ago)



to
On Thu Dec 8 14:46:02 2022 Volney wrote:
> Many people score crank posts according to John Baez's Crackpot Index
> (https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html). But it's almost a
> quarter century old. I've been thinking of updating it, since cranks
> have come up with many novel techniques since 1998 that are not listed.
> For example, using crackpot-only words and phrases, for example
> "Einsteinian" and "relativist", usually intended to insult scientists.
>
> Is this worth doing?

*
Volney: Go for it! It needs doing. By the way, your link to the Baez original index is broken.

Cheers and good luck!

earle
*

Nancy Rothwell please be careful around Chris Thomasson and his necrophilia talk
Nancy Rothwell, Univ.Manchester

On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 2:58:49 PM UTC-5, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
Re: My fucking of her corpse
> On 9/29/2022 10:19 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > "antiscience"
> fails at math and science:
> >
> >>> I want to fuck her corpse
> >
> > Once again, it looks like I triggered another autism meltdown by
> >Is it because I pointed out stuff about colors that he didn't
> > know, but every little kid who has ever played with paints knows? Is he
> > upset that he cannot gain access to the corpse of the Queen?
> I did not know that
> is into necrophilia... Wow! Talk about learning
> something new everyday! ;^o

Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez failures of Physics with their proton 938MeV and electron 0.5MeV flying around outside of Proton at near speed of light-- idiots, why does it not fly away// Would they fail AP's test???

Surely Sheldon Glashow and Peter Higgs would fail the first question for they are so stupid in geometry that they cannot envision the upper portion of a slant cut in cone is asymmetrical to the lower portion of the slant cut. But are they so stupid in logic also, as to fail the question where Dr. Feynman says -- All things are made up of atoms. And so to complete that statement we say-- the Universe is a "thing" hence to be logically complete, the Universe is an atom also. I found the Cosmic Atom to be 231Pu for it fits all the special numbers of physics and math.

AP's 221st published book

An Education Ladder Guideline for teaching mathematics and a Test to see if you are cut out to be a mathematician//Teaching True Mathematics
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Preface: This book is written to improve math education in school and at home. Trouble is, you cannot improve math education if the professors of mathematics have much of their teachings in error. So I write this book mostly as a test for math professors because to shine a light on math professor failure is the best way to improve math teaching, and thereby improve school curriculums especially colleges and universities. But others, such as laypersons are welcomed to join in. And it is the laypersons and students that will make the greatest amount of use of this book because math professors are usually stubborn and idiotic and hard to change for the better. And so when students and laypersons keep asking questions of their math professors, their brainwashing and thus poor teaching, they eventually come around to the truth and then change their bad behavior and bad misunderstanding; to proper true mathematics.

Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of a rubber washer inside a plastic cone. The washer is at a steep slant angle to the cone perpendicular. Notice the washer near the apex is fully touching the side of the cone, but the washer directed towards the base has not yet cut through the side of the cone, and you can see a rainbow or a crescent shape of area where the washer will intersect the side of the cone, (where my two finger are), making a total figure of a Oval, never the ellipse. I was taking this picture as one person, so I had the iphone camera in one hand and the cone in another hand, and had to use a rubber washer to stay in place. The same green plastic cone used in this picture appears in both of my published books of the proof slant cut of cone is oval, never the ellipse.

My 3rd published book with the same green cone on cover.
AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

My 68th published book with the same green cone on cover.
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)

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0BQDYMYKQ
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 16, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 551 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 65 pages

1) Slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse.

2) Decimal Grid Numbers as true numbers of mathematics.

3) Logic: 2 AND 1 = 3 with OR as subtraction. Boole and Jevons got AND mixed up with OR, for the truth table of AND is TTTF, not TFFF.

4) Logic: -- multiplication is the combined Equal with Not in Logic connectors, while If--> Then forms division.

5) Multiply is rapid add, and divide is rapid subtract.

6) Logic: Reductio Ad Absurdum, proof by contradiction is not a math proof at all.

7) Zero is a special number. It is the only number that ruins a operator of math-- the division.

8) More geometry with infinity borderline reckoned by the Tractrix.

9) Logic: All matter is made up of atoms, hence the Universe itself is an atom.

10) Rationals do not exist, Irrationals do not exist, Reals do not exist but a figment of the imagination.

11) Negative numbers are the worst nonsense in human math history.

12) Pythagorean Theorem explained via Decimal Grid Number Systems and how they avoid the need of the phony irrationals of Old Math.

13) Sigma-Error in mathematics, for it pervades Physics and since math is a subset of physics,
Sigma Error is pervasive also in mathematics.

14) Define equation properly, where you never can have a 0 all alone on the rightside of equation.

15) Back to geometry, our coordinate system can only be 1st Quadrant Only, where there are no negative numbers and that zero is at the bottom as point vertex of x and y axes.

16) Back to geometry with sine and cosine truly semicircle curves, not the ignorant sinusoid which is a hallucination.

17) Define a function, so that it is a function, if, and only if, it is polynomial function.

18) Polynomial Transformation (Lagrange) of a non-polynomial over a specific interval.

19) Geometry Proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC.

20) The two great math proofs in human history-- Pythagorean theorem and FTC.

21) Atoms have shape and figure, giving rise to geometry, and atoms have quantity, giving rise to numbers and algebra, for pi = 3.14... because there are 22 subshells in 7 shells.

22) Primal Axiom over all Sciences-- All is Atom, and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism.

David Brooks🤡of Math and Michael Roston 🃏 of Physics "Court Jester of Math"
On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 12:40:30 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney (Kibo Parry M) wrote:
> fails at math and science:

Kibo Parry M, why you hate the NYT with David Brooks and Michael Roston, is it because everyone there cannot ask the simple question of AP-- which is the Atom's true electron-- Muon or 0.5MeV particle, is that why you hate the NYT newspaper--so so dumb in science.

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

David Brooks, Michael Roston is it not childish to have a curse on AP, to never print his name in your newspaper, when the mature grown up act is to publish the fact in your Science section-- slant cut of cone is Oval, and is never ellipse. So that all the residents of New York state realize the truth, and intelligent people like Mr. Marshall Lett need not ask the question.. People in New York state and around the world asking which is the slant cut in cone-- is it ellipse or oval??? Yet the Science section of The New York Times refusing to publish the truth because it means printing the name Archimedes Plutonium for which NYT vows to never do. For to publish the truth on conics means having to print the name Archimedes Plutonium as discoverer of the truth. And nothing worse in all the world for Mr. Sulzberger is to have to print the name Archimedes Plutonium in his newspaper. Hatred rules the The New York Times, not the truth of the world.
> On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 7:21:51 AM UTC-5, Marshall Lett wrote:
> > I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
> >
> > Who am I supposed to believe?
> Look, the NYT cannot even cover the truth of math or science, and thus, cannot tell the truth of social life in America of politics, of history. If you cannot tell the truth of a Oval versus Ellipse, anything else you say is likely to be the truth.
>
> The New York Times cannot cover the truth of math or science-- Slant cut of Cone is Oval, never ellipse. Means the The New York Times is a garbage newsprint that cannot cover the truth of history, politics or the daily news..
>
> The New York Times, certainly cannot tell the truth about math or science, certainly then, cannot tell the truth about history or politics. As soon as David Brooks opens his mouth on politics, is as soon as- turn the TV off.. For The New York Times is not about the "truth of the world" but about their own childish games. A sort of Fascism of News.
> 
> 
>
> David Brooks, is the NYT as dumb and stupid in politics as it is dumb and stupid in math-science-- NYT cannot tell the difference between oval and ellipse. Does Michael Roston even know what a oval is??? Is any of the Science printed in the New York Times, is any of your science truthful or is it all a bunch of garbage prattle like your ellipse is a conic section when that is false. Are there any logical brains at the NYT, or is the NYT empty of logical brains???
>
>
> > Mr. Sulzberger, you have a Science section in your newspaper, you have residents of New York State such as Mr. Lett. What the hell good is your Science section, Mr. Sulzberger if you cannot even answer the question-- Slant cut of Cone is Oval, never the ellipse. All because you hate the guts of AP, that your Science section refuses to tell the truth.
> >
> > Mr. Marshall Lett started a thread over in sci.math, asking the question of what the slant cut in cone truly is?
> > > > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 7:21:51 AM UTC-5, Marshall Lett wrote:
> > > > > I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
> > > > >
> > > > > Who am I supposed to believe?
> >
> > Mr. Kahn, is it not awfully childish of the The New York Times to hold a curse on AP, and you ignore the science truth and reality. Your motto at the Times-- "all the news fit to print" maybe should become "all the news except Archimedes Plutonium for the NYT hates his guts".
> > 
> >
> >
> > > Joseph Kahn, why even bother having a Science section at The New York Times, when your newspaper cannot even inform and teach readers the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse. Even your New York residents are asking question. Even your New York High School students have more geometry brains than the staff at the The New York Times.
> >
> > > > > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 7:21:51 AM UTC-5, Marshall Lett wrote:
> > > > > > I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Who am I supposed to believe?
> >
> >


> My 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)
11> #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

David Brooks🤡of Math and Michael Roston 🃏 of Physics "Court Jester of Math"
On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 12:40:30 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney (Kibo Parry M) wrote:
> fails at math and science:

Kibo Parry M, why you hate the NYT with David Brooks and Michael Roston, is it because everyone there cannot ask the simple question of AP-- which is the Atom's true electron-- Muon or 0.5MeV particle, is that why you hate the NYT newspaper--so so dumb in science.

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

David Brooks, Michael Roston is it not childish to have a curse on AP, to never print his name in your newspaper, when the mature grown up act is to publish the fact in your Science section-- slant cut of cone is Oval, and is never ellipse. So that all the residents of New York state realize the truth, and intelligent people like Mr. Marshall Lett need not ask the question.. People in New York state and around the world asking which is the slant cut in cone-- is it ellipse or oval??? Yet the Science section of The New York Times refusing to publish the truth because it means printing the name Archimedes Plutonium for which NYT vows to never do. For to publish the truth on conics means having to print the name Archimedes Plutonium as discoverer of the truth. And nothing worse in all the world for Mr. Sulzberger is to have to print the name Archimedes Plutonium in his newspaper. Hatred rules the The New York Times, not the truth of the world.
> On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 7:21:51 AM UTC-5, Marshall Lett wrote:
> > I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
> >
> > Who am I supposed to believe?
> Look, the NYT cannot even cover the truth of math or science, and thus, cannot tell the truth of social life in America of politics, of history. If you cannot tell the truth of a Oval versus Ellipse, anything else you say is likely to be the truth.
>
> The New York Times cannot cover the truth of math or science-- Slant cut of Cone is Oval, never ellipse. Means the The New York Times is a garbage newsprint that cannot cover the truth of history, politics or the daily news..
>
> The New York Times, certainly cannot tell the truth about math or science, certainly then, cannot tell the truth about history or politics. As soon as David Brooks opens his mouth on politics, is as soon as- turn the TV off.. For The New York Times is not about the "truth of the world" but about their own childish games. A sort of Fascism of News.
> 
> 
>
> David Brooks, is the NYT as dumb and stupid in politics as it is dumb and stupid in math-science-- NYT cannot tell the difference between oval and ellipse. Does Michael Roston even know what a oval is??? Is any of the Science printed in the New York Times, is any of your science truthful or is it all a bunch of garbage prattle like your ellipse is a conic section when that is false. Are there any logical brains at the NYT, or is the NYT empty of logical brains???
>
>
> > Mr. Sulzberger, you have a Science section in your newspaper, you have residents of New York State such as Mr. Lett. What the hell good is your Science section, Mr. Sulzberger if you cannot even answer the question-- Slant cut of Cone is Oval, never the ellipse. All because you hate the guts of AP, that your Science section refuses to tell the truth.
> >
> > Mr. Marshall Lett started a thread over in sci.math, asking the question of what the slant cut in cone truly is?
> > > > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 7:21:51 AM UTC-5, Marshall Lett wrote:
> > > > > I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
> > > > >
> > > > > Who am I supposed to believe?
> >
> > Mr. Kahn, is it not awfully childish of the The New York Times to hold a curse on AP, and you ignore the science truth and reality. Your motto at the Times-- "all the news fit to print" maybe should become "all the news except Archimedes Plutonium for the NYT hates his guts".
> > 
> >
> >
> > > Joseph Kahn, why even bother having a Science section at The New York Times, when your newspaper cannot even inform and teach readers the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse. Even your New York residents are asking question. Even your New York High School students have more geometry brains than the staff at the The New York Times.
> >
> > > > > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 7:21:51 AM UTC-5, Marshall Lett wrote:
> > > > > > I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Who am I supposed to believe?
> >
> >


> My 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)
11> #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

Details of Earle Jones logo picture and what he thinks of Harry Cliff's shortcomings in physics. Earle, at least Harry knows Ohm's law, which your failed in. Is that why you went into Business and out of engineering. You should partner up with Kibo and make emoji-s, for you failed science Earle and nothing but a silly nuisance in sci.math or sci.physics. Why not help your president at Stanford Univ Mr. Tessier-Lavigne who is at the moment embroiled in science corruption charges of using fake photographs in research reports, another episode of picture details.

On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 12:15:31 AM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:
> You have a tremendous range of thinking that could, with a bit of discipline, be very useful. But you lack that very nature of learning and logic and therefore, your range of wide applications is useless. That is sad. Can you constrain your great imagination to the well-established discipline of those who came before you, build on their knowledge, and make advances? I would hope you can do that. You seem to be captive to those theories that you have developed, which are incorrect, and are incapable of changing your thinking.
>
> earle
> *

Earle is that why Cambridge Univ and Harry Cliff cannot ask the question which is the Atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle, too lacking in discipline.

Thanks to Angel, and there maybe some credit due to Chris Thomasson's fractal camera???? in capturing this close up of what Earle Jones is sucking on in his logo picture.
> > Angel writes:
> > Dec 27, 2022, 8:36:22 PM
> > to sci.math
> > ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⠛⢉⢉⠉⠉⠻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> > ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⠠⡰⣕⣗⣷⣧⣀⣅⠘⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> > ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠃⣠⣳⣟⣿⣿⣷⣿⡿⣜⠄⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> > ⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠁⠄⣳⢷⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⣝⠖⠄⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> > ⣿⣿⣿⣿⠃⠄⢢⡹⣿⢷⣯⢿⢷⡫⣗⠍⢰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> > ⣿⣿⣿⡏⢀⢄⠤⣁⠋⠿⣗⣟⡯⡏⢎⠁⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> > ⣿⣿⣿⠄⢔⢕⣯⣿⣿⡲⡤⡄⡤⠄⡀⢠⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> > ⣿⣿⠇⠠⡳⣯⣿⣿⣾⢵⣫⢎⢎⠆⢀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> > ⣿⣿⠄⢨⣫⣿⣿⡿⣿⣻⢎⡗⡕⡅⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> > ⣿⣿⠄⢜⢾⣾⣿⣿⣟⣗⢯⡪⡳⡀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> > ⣿⣿⠄⢸⢽⣿⣷⣿⣻⡮⡧⡳⡱⡁⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> > ⣿⣿⡄⢨⣻⣽⣿⣟⣿⣞⣗⡽⡸⡐⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> > ⣿⣿⡇⢀⢗⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⣞⡵⡣⣊⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> > ⣿⣿⣿⡀⡣⣗⣿⣿⣿⣿⣯⡯⡺⣼⠎⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> > ⣿⣿⣿⣧⠐⡵⣻⣟⣯⣿⣷⣟⣝⢞⡿⢹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> > ⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⢘⡺⣽⢿⣻⣿⣗⡷⣹⢩⢃⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> > ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⠄⠪⣯⣟⣿⢯⣿⣻⣜⢎⢆⠜⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> > ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠄⢣⣻⣽⣿⣿⣟⣾⡮⡺⡸⠸⣿⣿⣿⣿
> > ⣿⣿⡿⠛⠉⠁⠄⢕⡳⣽⡾⣿⢽⣯⡿⣮⢚⣅⠹⣿⣿⣿
> > ⡿⠋⠄⠄⠄⠄⢀⠒⠝⣞⢿⡿⣿⣽⢿⡽⣧⣳⡅⠌⠻⣿
> > ⠁⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠐⡐⠱⡱⣻⡻⣝⣮⣟⣿⣻⣟⣻⡺⣊

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

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

Stanford physics dept.

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

Cambridge Physics Dept

Ahnert, Alai, Alexander, Allison, Ansorge, Atature, Barker, Barnes, Bartlett, Batley, Baumberg, Bohndiek, Bowman, Brown, Buscher, Butler, Campbell Carilli, Carter, Castelnovo, Challis, Chalut, Chaudhri, Chin, Ciccarelli, Cicuta, Harry Cliff, Cole, Cooper, Cowburn, Credgington, Cross, Croze, Deschler, Donald, Duffett-Smith, Dutton, Eiser, Ellis, Euser, Field, Flynn, Ford, Friend, Gibson, Green, Greenham, Gripaios, Grosche, Guck, Gull, Haniff, Heavens-Ward, Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, Hughes, Irvine, Jardine, Jenkins, Jones, Josephson, Keyser, Khmeinitskii, King, Kotlyar, Lamacraft, Lasenby, Lester, Longair, Lonzarich, Maiolino, Marshall, Martin, Mitov, Morris, Mortimer, Moller, Needs, Norman, Nunnenkamp, Padman,Parker, Patel, Payne, Pepper, Phillips, Pramauro, Queloz, Rao, Richer, Riley, Ritchie, Sargent, Saunders, Saxena, Schneider, Scott, Scrivener, Sebastian, Simmons, Simons, Sirringhaus, Smith, Sutherland, Taylor, Teichmann, Terentjev, Thomson, Verrechia, Walker, Ward, Warner, Weale, Webber, Whyles, Withington.

Cambridge Math Dept

Alan Baker
Bela Bollobas
Darwin Smith
John Coates
Timothy Gowers
Peter Johnstone
Imre Leader
Gabriel Paternain

Caltech Physics Dept

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

UCLA chancellor: Gene D. Block (biology)

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

UCSD, Univ Calif San Diego, physics dept

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

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

Harvard Physics dept
Jacob Barandes, Howard Berg, Michael Brenner, Adam Cohen, Eugene Demler, Michael Desai
Louis Deslauriers, John Doyle, Cora Dvorkin, Gary Feldman, Douglas Finkbeiner, Melissa Franklin, Gerald Gabrielse, Howard Georgi, Sheldon Glashow, Roy Glauber, Jene Golovchenko, Markus Greiner, Roxanne Guenette, Girma Hailu, Bertrand Halperin, Lene Hau
Thomas Hayes, Eric Heller, Jason Hoffman, Jenny Hoffman, Gerald Holton, Paul Horowitz, John Huth, Arthur Jaffe, Daniel Jafferis, Efthimios Kaxiras, Philip Kim, John Kovac, Erel Levine
Mikhail Lukin, Logan McCarty, L. Mahadevan, Vinothan Manoharan, Eric Mazur, Masahiro Morii
David Morin, Julia Mundy, Cherry Murray, David Nelson, Kang Ni, Hongkun Park, William Paul
Peter Pershan, Mara Prentiss, Lisa Randall, Matthew Reece, Subir Sachdev, Aravinthan Samuel, Matthew Schwartz, Irwin Shapiro, Isaac Silvera, Andrew Strominger, Christopher Stubbs, Cumrun Vafa, Ronald Walsworth, David Weitz, Robert Westervelt, Richard Wilson
Tai Wu, Amir Yacoby, Susanne Yelin, Xi Yin

Earle Jones, the 25 year stalker, what hand are you holding that cock in your logo picture if it is a cock???

Because there was a study done of 6182 homosexual men and found a significantly higher number of lefthanded. (Source Wikipedia)

Chris Thomasson
██۞██ Moscow electric blackouts██۞██ Ben Bacarisse are the scopes Oval or Ellipse??

Chris Thomasson 484 "Questions on Hilbert's Hotel" was that hotel not blown up by Iran drones????

> Ben Bacarisse 292, "Three proofs of dark numbers..."
> Can Ben Bacarisse, Fritz Feldhase & WM & Gottingen Uni build drones better than they can do math, for clearly they failed math.
>
> ██۞██ Moscow electric blackouts██۞██
> Kibo Parry M. is he using bola or javelin short circuit weapons???
> Kibo, why not just use drones, I was reading that France makes the worlds best drones.
> Kibo, does bow and arrow with aluminum foil streamers tied to arrow, work better than javelin or bola???
>
> Fritz Feldhase 477 "Question on Hilbert's Hotel"
>
> Kibo was the Hotel hit by Iranian drone????
> Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert,Metin Tolin,BenBacarisse,Anja Karliczek,Sabine Doering-Manteuffel,Prof. Dr. Angela Rizzi, are they forever going to be mindless idiots of math especially geometry. And is Ben B and WM keep spamming sci.math as a Gay pick up bar, is that what they want for Germany, Gottingen Univ, no math but gay pick up bar????
> > > > > And here you can plainly see the side EC is smaller than CF, while a ellipse requires them to be equal
> > > > > ......./\E
> > > > > ...../ c.\
> > > > > F / .......\
> > > > >
> > > > > entrance E of planar cut, and "c" the center axis, and F the exit of planar cut, cF is far larger than Ec.
>
> Is WM and his spam gang trying to turn sci.math into a gay pick up bar, using math to pick up??????
>
> Chris Thomasson 166 "Question on..."
> Chris Thomasson 238 " Two similar...."
> Ben Bacarisse 292, "Three proofs of dark numbers..."
> WM 39 "Die 7 Erklarungen..."
>
> Ben Bacarisse 287 "Three proofs of dark numbers..."
> > > > FromTheRafters 160"Two similar..." spamming jackarses who cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse
> > > > Sergi_o 150 "Two similar..."
> > > > Ben Bacarisse 285 "Three proofs of dark numbers..."
> > > > Ben Bacarisse 135, "Two similar properties..."
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > WM turning Gottingen Germany into geometry failures.
> > > > > Kibo chasing corpses in WM gay pick up bar, for Kibo sure does not know the difference between Oval and ellipse as seen in his latest stupidity-- a revolving axis as Kibo the moron and BWR describes it--
> > > > >
> > > > > Let's try again with your little diagram, fixed.
> > > > > > > >>> .......A
> > > > > > > >>> ....../.\E
> > > > > > > >>> ...../.C.\
> > > > > > > >>> ..../B....\
> > > > > > > >>> .../.......\
> > > > > > > >>> .F/....G....\
> > > > > > >
> ██۞██ Moscow electric blackouts██۞██
> Kibo Parry M. is he using bola or javelin short circuit weapons???
> Kibo, why not just use drones, I was reading that France makes the worlds best drones.
> Kibo, does bow and arrow with aluminum foil streamers tied to arrow, work better than javelin or bola???
> Kibo Parry CIA undercover
> On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 10:26:03 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> Kibo Parry Moroney in 1997 blows his CIA cover-- to the entire world, mind you---
> Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
> >> In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes:
> > >
>
> > Moscow electric Blackouts██۞██
>
> James Parry dunce in sci.math & sci,physics
> On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 11:49:40 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > Pluto, so you finally tracked down James Parry in Moscow?
> >
> > But once again, that sentence no verb.
> >
> > Kibo WAS short circuiting Moscow electricity?
> > Kibo WILL BE short circuiting Moscow electricity?
> > Kibo PLANS ON short circuiting Moscow electricity?
> > Kibo THINKS ABOUT short circuiting Moscow electricity?
> >
> > ..?
> >
> > Now that you found Kibo, will you stop pretending that I am Kibo?
> > Hopefully he won't be using your aluminum pole idea, otherwise there
> > will be an ex-Kibo. As in:
> >
> > Kibo WAS VAPORIZED WHILE short circuiting Moscow electricity.
>
> Kibo, is Xi aware of the fact that Outer Manchuria is 28 times bigger than Taiwan????
> >
> >
> >
> > > And as the Baby Xi grew up from the rice paddies and reeds of Outer Manchuria, stolen by the Naxi and Zani Dictator Putin in Moscow, Xi learned in school in chemical engineering that Taiwan was 1/28 the size of Outer Manchuria, as Putin bombs Ukraine. And the nascent Xi orders 1,000 divisions to the Outer Manchuria border to regain back the stolen Old China.
>
> > > > > > > Kibo in a javelin throw to knock out Moscow high voltage lines
> > > > > > >> ........///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////|
> > > > > > >> ......///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////..|
> > > > > > >> ....///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////....| Moscow
> > > > > > >> ..///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////......| Electric
> > > > > > >> ///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////........| Tower
> > > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|......../
> > > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|....../
> > > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|..../
> > > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|../
> > > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|/
>
>
> > Vitaly a freedom fighter in Russia
> ..............................^
> ..............................||
> ..............................||
> .....................//////// ||
> .....................|:---[.] ||
> ......................|( _J ||
> ....................| ^ ( _| ||
> ................../ \_____)|| Kibo Parry with fake wig
> ................. / _____ \|| Long Aluminum **javelin** to throw to short circuit
> ..................... | / \ |...||
> ..................... | | | |...||
> ................. \ /\ /\__ | ||
> ..................... | | \/--- ||
> ...................... \ \ )....||
> ................... | >____||/_____)
> ................... \______||____/
> ......................... / \
> ...................... | | ~~
> ..................... \ \\
> .................... \ |\
> ...................., \ | \
> .................... \ | |
> .................... | | |
> .................... | | |
> ..................... | / |
> .................... |___/____|
> .................... (____)____)
> ==============================
> freedom fighter from the tiresome dictator
> Yea, the dictator has no power and no hot water, no heat, no electricity for his house, offices.

On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 5:40:01 AM UTC-5, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

Chris Thomasson
██۞██ Moscow electric blackouts██۞██ Ben Bacarisse are the scopes Oval or Ellipse??

Chris Thomasson 484 "Questions on Hilbert's Hotel" was that hotel not blown up by Iran drones????

> Ben Bacarisse 292, "Three proofs of dark numbers..."
> Can Ben Bacarisse, Fritz Feldhase & WM & Gottingen Uni build drones better than they can do math, for clearly they failed math.
>
> ██۞██ Moscow electric blackouts██۞██
> Kibo Parry M. is he using bola or javelin short circuit weapons???
> Kibo, why not just use drones, I was reading that France makes the worlds best drones.
> Kibo, does bow and arrow with aluminum foil streamers tied to arrow, work better than javelin or bola???
>
> Fritz Feldhase 477 "Question on Hilbert's Hotel"
>
> Kibo was the Hotel hit by Iranian drone????
> Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert,Metin Tolin,BenBacarisse,Anja Karliczek,Sabine Doering-Manteuffel,Prof. Dr. Angela Rizzi, are they forever going to be mindless idiots of math especially geometry. And is Ben B and WM keep spamming sci.math as a Gay pick up bar, is that what they want for Germany, Gottingen Univ, no math but gay pick up bar????
> > > > > And here you can plainly see the side EC is smaller than CF, while a ellipse requires them to be equal
> > > > > ......./\E
> > > > > ...../ c.\
> > > > > F / .......\
> > > > >
> > > > > entrance E of planar cut, and "c" the center axis, and F the exit of planar cut, cF is far larger than Ec.
>
> Is WM and his spam gang trying to turn sci.math into a gay pick up bar, using math to pick up??????
>
> Chris Thomasson 166 "Question on..."
> Chris Thomasson 238 " Two similar...."
> Ben Bacarisse 292, "Three proofs of dark numbers..."
> WM 39 "Die 7 Erklarungen..."
>
> Ben Bacarisse 287 "Three proofs of dark numbers..."
> > > > FromTheRafters 160"Two similar..." spamming jackarses who cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse
> > > > Sergi_o 150 "Two similar..."
> > > > Ben Bacarisse 285 "Three proofs of dark numbers..."
> > > > Ben Bacarisse 135, "Two similar properties..."
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > WM turning Gottingen Germany into geometry failures.
> > > > > Kibo chasing corpses in WM gay pick up bar, for Kibo sure does not know the difference between Oval and ellipse as seen in his latest stupidity-- a revolving axis as Kibo the moron and BWR describes it--
> > > > >
> > > > > Let's try again with your little diagram, fixed.
> > > > > > > >>> .......A
> > > > > > > >>> ....../.\E
> > > > > > > >>> ...../.C.\
> > > > > > > >>> ..../B....\
> > > > > > > >>> .../.......\
> > > > > > > >>> .F/....G....\
> > > > > > >
> ██۞██ Moscow electric blackouts██۞██
> Kibo Parry M. is he using bola or javelin short circuit weapons???
> Kibo, why not just use drones, I was reading that France makes the worlds best drones.
> Kibo, does bow and arrow with aluminum foil streamers tied to arrow, work better than javelin or bola???
> Kibo Parry CIA undercover
> On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 10:26:03 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> Kibo Parry Moroney in 1997 blows his CIA cover-- to the entire world, mind you---
> Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
> >> In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes:
> > >
>
> > Moscow electric Blackouts██۞██
>
> James Parry dunce in sci.math & sci,physics
> On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 11:49:40 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > Pluto, so you finally tracked down James Parry in Moscow?
> >
> > But once again, that sentence no verb.
> >
> > Kibo WAS short circuiting Moscow electricity?
> > Kibo WILL BE short circuiting Moscow electricity?
> > Kibo PLANS ON short circuiting Moscow electricity?
> > Kibo THINKS ABOUT short circuiting Moscow electricity?
> >
> > ..?
> >
> > Now that you found Kibo, will you stop pretending that I am Kibo?
> > Hopefully he won't be using your aluminum pole idea, otherwise there
> > will be an ex-Kibo. As in:
> >
> > Kibo WAS VAPORIZED WHILE short circuiting Moscow electricity.
>
> Kibo, is Xi aware of the fact that Outer Manchuria is 28 times bigger than Taiwan????
> >
> >
> >
> > > And as the Baby Xi grew up from the rice paddies and reeds of Outer Manchuria, stolen by the Naxi and Zani Dictator Putin in Moscow, Xi learned in school in chemical engineering that Taiwan was 1/28 the size of Outer Manchuria, as Putin bombs Ukraine. And the nascent Xi orders 1,000 divisions to the Outer Manchuria border to regain back the stolen Old China.
>
> > > > > > > Kibo in a javelin throw to knock out Moscow high voltage lines
> > > > > > >> ........///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////|
> > > > > > >> ......///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////..|
> > > > > > >> ....///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////....| Moscow
> > > > > > >> ..///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////......| Electric
> > > > > > >> ///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////........| Tower
> > > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|......../
> > > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|....../
> > > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|..../
> > > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|../
> > > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|/
>
>
> > Vitaly a freedom fighter in Russia
> ..............................^
> ..............................||
> ..............................||
> .....................//////// ||
> .....................|:---[.] ||
> ......................|( _J ||
> ....................| ^ ( _| ||
> ................../ \_____)|| Kibo Parry with fake wig
> ................. / _____ \|| Long Aluminum **javelin** to throw to short circuit
> ..................... | / \ |...||
> ..................... | | | |...||
> ................. \ /\ /\__ | ||
> ..................... | | \/--- ||
> ...................... \ \ )....||
> ................... | >____||/_____)
> ................... \______||____/
> ......................... / \
> ...................... | | ~~
> ..................... \ \\
> .................... \ |\
> ...................., \ | \
> .................... \ | |
> .................... | | |
> .................... | | |
> ..................... | / |
> .................... |___/____|
> .................... (____)____)
> ==============================
> freedom fighter from the tiresome dictator
> Yea, the dictator has no power and no hot water, no heat, no electricity for his house, offices.

You seem to be quite intelligent guy.

On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 8:13:52 AM UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 6/11/2021 1:00 AM, Earle Jones wrote:
> > *
> > Here is an old (July, 1997) copy of "Psychoceramics: the on-oline crackpots" by Toby Howard (Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester.)
> >
> > Our friend Archie (AP) has been famous for more years than we imagined! He is the first-mentioned example psychoceramicist -- see paragraph two.
> >
> > http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~toby/writing/Guardian/ceramics.htm
> >
> > Enjoy!
> >
> > earle
> > *
> ArchiePoo is the first "psychoceramic" I encountered on Usenet way back
> when. Back then Usenet was a very different place, with access limited
> to universities, certain large (mostly computer) corporations and
> government agencies. That's how ArchiePoo got access - he worked for
> Dartmouth College who had the advanced foresight to grant internet
> access to all of their students, faculty and staff, and Archie started
> spewing from there. After years of warnings ignored by Archie,
> Dartmouth finally fired his ass for dragging their reputation through
> the mud.

On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 8:23:17 PM UTC-4, Earle Jones wrote:
> On Fri Jun 11 03:31:54 2021 Quantum Bubbles wrote:
> > On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 7:13:52 AM UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > On 6/11/2021 1:00 AM, Earle Jones wrote:
> > > > *
> > > > Here is an old (July, 1997) copy of "Psychoceramics: the on-oline crackpots" by Toby Howard (Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester.)
> > > >
> > > > Our friend Archie (AP) has been famous for more years than we imagined! He is the first-mentioned example psychoceramicist -- see paragraph two.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~toby/writing/Guardian/ceramics.htm
> > > >
> > > > Enjoy!
> > > >
> > > > earle
> > > > *
> > > ArchiePoo is the first "psychoceramic" I encountered on Usenet way back
> > > when. Back then Usenet was a very different place, with access limited
> > > to universities, certain large (mostly computer) corporations and
> > > government agencies. That's how ArchiePoo got access - he worked for
> > > Dartmouth College who had the advanced foresight to grant internet
> > > access to all of their students, faculty and staff, and Archie started
> > > spewing from there. After years of warnings ignored by Archie,
> > > Dartmouth finally fired his ass for dragging their reputation through
> > > the mud.
> >
> >
> > Is it known what his role was at the college?
> >
> > Kind Regards
> *
> QB:
>
> Yes, it is well known what his role was at Dartmouth.
> He worked at Hanover Inn, a residence house at the college. He was a pot-washer. (I once referred to him as a dishwasher and I was immediately corrected. Evidently there is some social status difference.)
> He took this job to get an email address with "@Dartmouth.edu" which was available for all staff. With an email address like that, one might begin to believe that you know what you are talking about!
>
>
>
> Cheers!
>
> earle
> *

I feel like (I feel as if) l should know you. Do I?

https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=j7U46kS4kmA&feature=share
https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=j7U46kS4kmA&feature=share

David Brooks🤡of Math and Michael Roston 🃏 of Physics "Court Jester of Math"
On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 12:40:30 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney (Kibo Parry M) wrote:
> fails at math and science:

Kibo Parry M, why you hate the NYT with David Brooks and Michael Roston, is it because everyone there cannot ask the simple question of AP-- which is the Atom's true electron-- Muon or 0.5MeV particle, is that why you hate the NYT newspaper--so so dumb in science.

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

David Brooks, Michael Roston is it not childish to have a curse on AP, to never print his name in your newspaper, when the mature grown up act is to publish the fact in your Science section-- slant cut of cone is Oval, and is never ellipse. So that all the residents of New York state realize the truth, and intelligent people like Mr. Marshall Lett need not ask the question.. People in New York state and around the world asking which is the slant cut in cone-- is it ellipse or oval??? Yet the Science section of The New York Times refusing to publish the truth because it means printing the name Archimedes Plutonium for which NYT vows to never do. For to publish the truth on conics means having to print the name Archimedes Plutonium as discoverer of the truth. And nothing worse in all the world for Mr. Sulzberger is to have to print the name Archimedes Plutonium in his newspaper. Hatred rules the The New York Times, not the truth of the world.
> On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 7:21:51 AM UTC-5, Marshall Lett wrote:
> > I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
> >
> > Who am I supposed to believe?
> Look, the NYT cannot even cover the truth of math or science, and thus, cannot tell the truth of social life in America of politics, of history. If you cannot tell the truth of a Oval versus Ellipse, anything else you say is likely to be the truth.
>
> The New York Times cannot cover the truth of math or science-- Slant cut of Cone is Oval, never ellipse. Means the The New York Times is a garbage newsprint that cannot cover the truth of history, politics or the daily news..
>
> The New York Times, certainly cannot tell the truth about math or science, certainly then, cannot tell the truth about history or politics. As soon as David Brooks opens his mouth on politics, is as soon as- turn the TV off.. For The New York Times is not about the "truth of the world" but about their own childish games. A sort of Fascism of News.
> 
> 
>
> David Brooks, is the NYT as dumb and stupid in politics as it is dumb and stupid in math-science-- NYT cannot tell the difference between oval and ellipse. Does Michael Roston even know what a oval is??? Is any of the Science printed in the New York Times, is any of your science truthful or is it all a bunch of garbage prattle like your ellipse is a conic section when that is false. Are there any logical brains at the NYT, or is the NYT empty of logical brains???
>
>
> > Mr. Sulzberger, you have a Science section in your newspaper, you have residents of New York State such as Mr. Lett. What the hell good is your Science section, Mr. Sulzberger if you cannot even answer the question-- Slant cut of Cone is Oval, never the ellipse. All because you hate the guts of AP, that your Science section refuses to tell the truth.
> >
> > Mr. Marshall Lett started a thread over in sci.math, asking the question of what the slant cut in cone truly is?
> > > > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 7:21:51 AM UTC-5, Marshall Lett wrote:
> > > > > I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
> > > > >
> > > > > Who am I supposed to believe?
> >
> > Mr. Kahn, is it not awfully childish of the The New York Times to hold a curse on AP, and you ignore the science truth and reality. Your motto at the Times-- "all the news fit to print" maybe should become "all the news except Archimedes Plutonium for the NYT hates his guts".
> > 
> >
> >
> > > Joseph Kahn, why even bother having a Science section at The New York Times, when your newspaper cannot even inform and teach readers the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse. Even your New York residents are asking question. Even your New York High School students have more geometry brains than the staff at the The New York Times.
> >
> > > > > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 7:21:51 AM UTC-5, Marshall Lett wrote:
> > > > > > I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Who am I supposed to believe?
> >
> >


> My 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)
11> #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

Kibo Parry M. on Necrophile> I want to fuck her corpse > I want to fuck her corpse

Kibo Parry M. why is Harvard's Dr. Hau a exatard?? Because she refuses to prove AP correct, that both slow light and fast light disappear simultaneously once the switch is turned off, proving AP correct-- Light Waves are closed loop circuits, not straightline arrows with a front and tail-end.
On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 1:00:52 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"CCP's Stooge"
>"exatard"

Kibo Parry M. on Harvard's Dr. Hau, and Kibo claims a degree from Rensselaer Polytech yet he cannot even do percentages correctly.

> On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 12:14:29 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >"certifiably insane"
> > Necrophile
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> >
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> >
> > You already said that.
> >
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> >
> > You sicko! Why do you keep saying that?
> >
> > wanting to fuck her corpse
> >
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> >
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> >
> > Can't you leave the poor dead queen alone???
>
> Why Kibo Parry Moron-ey, because you are a pathetic loser in life...

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.

On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 2:35:44 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"barking fuckdog"
>highly illogical
> tarded:
> > Kibo Parry, is it insane for Dr.Hau to not turn out the lights in her slow light experiment and watch both the slow light and fast light vanish simultaneously and prove AP correct--- Light is a closed loop circuit, _not_ a straightline arrow with a head and tail end.
> Kibo Parry M on CIA Kate Heinzelman,Harvard's Dr. Hau.
> Kibo on > I want to fuck her corpse
> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> Why Kibo??? Because she refuses to finish her experiment and see all the light vanishes simultaneously both fast and slow light, or is it because she can not admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse???

Other insane posts by Kibo Parry M., for the world has not yet found a straightjacket to fit the Kibo as his mouth gushes forth with more spam

Kibo Parry M on CIA Kate Heinzelman,Harvard's Dr. Hau.
Kibo on > I want to fuck her corpse
On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> I want to fuck her corpse
Why Kibo??? Because she refuses to finish her experiment and see all the light vanishes simultaneously, or is it because she can not admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse???

On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 12:21:30 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"Imp of Math"
On Monday, January 18, 2021 at 2:06:24 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> fails at math and science:

Re: Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly??-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole (1)
By Michael Moroney 1/23/18, 44 posts 461 views

Kibo on Kate Heinzelman
On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> I want to fuck her corpse
Kibo Parry Moroney in 1997 blows his CIA cover-- to the entire world, mind you---
Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
>> In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes:
> >

On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 9:13:14 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"Court Jester of Math"

Kibo,is Ruth Charney of AMS the model in your book, for she cannot admit the slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse as proven by AP in 2016? I know it falls on deaf ears of Kibo with his 938 is 12% short of 945. And Ruth, would the AMS publish Kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945, because the AMS certainly will not publish AP's conic proof? Maybe that is all the AMS publishes-- fake math.

Kibo on wanting to fuck her corpse/Kate Heinzelman, question, do you not think CIA is going overboard on stalking-- I mean 30 years for the insane Kibo Parry M??

On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> I want to fuck her corpse
On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 3:21:37 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> fails at math and science:

Kibo Parry M.30 year stalker--> I want to fuck her corpse//Kate Heinzelman question-- is it legal for the CIA to pay for stalkers like Kibo to stalk private USA citizens, and 30 years on... nonstop for 30 years. Should not Kibo be in Guantanamo, not in a desk-job spamming and stalking Usenet.

Kibo Parry Moron-ey almost 60 years old, yet never grew up into adulthood (when he was a baby, did his head bounce on the wood floors too many times??? Did his mother use his head as a basketball when still a toddler???)
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:12:23 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"psychoceramic"
>"math hater"
> fails at math and science:
>These groups are self-policing, and
> that's why I punish you when you attack me (which is constantly).

Re: Kibo on > I want to fuck her corpse > AMS Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Harvard's Dr.Lisa Randall, Dr.Hau,CIA Kate Heinzelman, MIT's Anette Hosoi,Cynthia Barnhart
by Augǝl Jan 1, 2023, 7:41 AM

Re: Kibo Parry M sickfuck stalker along with his Dunning Kruger sickfuck psychologists who guide Kibo// Kibo claims that Ruth Charney, Dr. Panchanathan, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Sheldon Glashow never had a single truth in their entire life, says Kibo
by Herp Derpington Dec 31, 2022, 8:51 PM

Re: Kibo says "has always been wrong," Kibo, you mean Dr.Panchanathan, Ruth Charney, Sheldon Glashow, Peter Higgs, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao never had anything correct in their entire life???
by Greta Baine Dec 31, 2022, 8:46 PM

Re: Kibo Parry Moroney stalks "AnalButtfuckManure Attacks" Dartmouth's Philip J. Hanlon, Stanford's Marc Tessier-Lavigne with his 10 OR 6 = 16; his ellipse a conic when it never was; his proton to electron at 938 to 0.5 MeV when in truth..
1481 views
by Professor Wordsmith Aug 14, 2020, 11:07:05 AM

Re: Cambridge, Harvard, Stanford, MIT, CalTech never does correct Logic, why an unpaid Archimedes Plutonium is doing their work
By Michael Moroney 20 posts 165 views updated 12:22 PM

Re: Racist-math at Reed College-- ellipse is never a conic, David Perkinson, Lyudmila Korobenko, John Lind, Dylan McNamee, Kyle Ormsby, Angelica Osorno
By Michael Moroney 50 posts 405 views updated 12:21 PM

Re: Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly??-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole (1)
By Michael Moroney 1/23/18, 44 posts 461 views

Re: 1Moroney barks at math failures Baez, Bullock, Witten. But I see the three as having failed Angular Momentum with their 938 proton and .5MeV electron
12/30/18
by j4n bur53

Re: Kibo Parry Moroney stalks "AnalButtfuckManure Attacks" Betsy DeVos, NSF Dr. Panchanathan Caltech Thomas F Rosenbaum, Harvard's Lawrence Bacow with his 10 OR 6 = 16; his ellipse a conic when it never was; his proton to electron at 938 to 0.5 MeV .
by Oscar Alcheri Oct 22, 2022, 5:50 PM

Re: _CIA Kate Heinzelman why Kibo Parry call Dr.Hanlon,Dartmouth& Dr.Lavigne Stanford as Analbuttfuckmanure?? Is it Kibo's stalking or is it because they cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse. What is the answer Kate???? Or should I
by Chris M. Thomasson Oct 15, 2022, 5:38:32 PM

Re: bwr fml & Kibo Parry M on Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, failures of Natural Logarithm with their disconnect of Natural Log defined as integral area of Y=1/t in interval 1 to x
by
Michael Moroney Sep 21, 2021, 12:08:40 AM

Re: Psychoceramic NSF Dr. Panchanathan,F. Fleming Crim, kibo Parry M says will corrupt the minds of your children! Why kibo? Because they still teach 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction and ellipse a conic when it never was.
by Mostowski Collapse (Jan Burse) Feb 4 , 2022, 1:33 AM

Re: 7:03:02 insane stalker Moroney wrote: > Math Failure..//Raymond Davis Jr.,Masatoshi Koshiba,Riccardo Giacconi,Gerardus 't Hooft,Martinus J.G. Veltman, never learned what Angular Momentum was
by
Mostowski Collapse (Jan Burse) Dec 30, 2018, 7:59:02 PM

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.

Han Duck-soo, Yoon Suk-yeol Please free your Moon bears.
Boycott Samsung & Hyundai until they free their moon bears.
South Korea free your tortured Moon bears

Save moon-bears, sure no-one cares to save spam from FBI, CIA, Mi6, police drag net garbage that floods sci.math and sci.physics everyday. I have kindly asked President Biden to kindly remove this drag net spam from all of sci.math and sci.physics and leave them as __spam free zones__.

FBI, CIA, police drag net, Russian disinformation b.s. spam spam spam oil masterpiece painting of freeing Moon Bears.
No wonder sci.math, sci.physics only survived 1993-1997, 4 brief years, then the b.s. and drag net spam took over

\\ ("`****/").
\\ `0_ 0 ) `-.
\\ (_&_.)' ._ )
\\ `--' / /
\\ ==1(li)===========
\\
\\
two caged Moon Bears caged all their life and bile extracted

\\ ("`****//'").
\\ `0_ 0 ) `-.
\\ (_&_.)' ._ )
\\ `--' / /
\\ ==1(li)===========
\\
\\


Short History of Usenet, sci.physics, sci.math from 1993-2020, and its 90% decline// Sociology series, book 9 Kindle Edition

by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 6Jan2022. This is AP's 129th published book on science.

Preface: This book started out as a book on "stalking" but when Google revised its Google Newsgroup platform, with altogether different formatting, this book morphed into becoming a "90% demise of Usenet and sci.physics and sci.math in particular". In one of my posts on this book I said the title was going to change often until I actually write the book. And that is what happened. For in late December 2021, It was revealed to me that a persistent stalker under the name Michael Moroney (who stated in one of his stalking posts to be kibo, as in Kibo Parry) was posting from a CIA line in 1997. So that completes this history of Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics, as the demise is nearly all due to the fact that the constant and persistent police drag net spam chased most everyone else away, and most importantly the dot-edu address posters out of sci.math and sci.physics. Educated people just do not want to bother discussing physics or math while everywhere around is criss-crossed with vulgar police drag net spam.

Cover Picture: Is the newsgroup Plutonium-Atom-Universe that is fully controlled by the King of Science AP, Archimedes Plutonium. Every post in that newsgroup is about pure science, no ad hominem. And that is what the sci.physics and sci.math should be. Discussions on pure science, nothing else, and especially no ad hominem, no stalking, no spam, no off-topic junk, no solution manual selling, no drug selling, no police drag-net spam.

Product details
• Publication Date : August 31, 2020
• ASIN : B08H5B71M4
• File Size : 1045 KB
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print Length : 78 pages
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Language: : English
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled

#1-1, 148th published book

Plutonium Atom Totality Universe, 9th edition 2021, Atom Totality Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 30Nov2021. And this is AP's 148th published science book.

Preface:
Physics book that explains what the universe is, and how it works. This is a continuation of the Atomic Theory by Democritus in Ancient Greek times. It adds one more fact to the Atomic Theory picture. That the Universe itself is one gigantic big atom. The picture is that of the Universe, in total, is one big atom that contains more atoms, inside itself. It completes the logic of science that Dr. Feynman wrote-- all things are made up of atoms -- and so, to complete that idea -- all things and the universe itself is an atom.

In this edition of year 2021, AP actually proves the Atom Totality theory, and therefore, a simultaneously _disproof_ of the Big Bang theory. The proof is simple, in that the Sun and stars shine not from fusion, but rather, instead, shine from the Faraday law going on inside each and every proton in the Sun or star, or, in the Universe. The muon is the true electron of atoms and is the bar magnet in Faraday's law while the proton is a 840MeV particle in the geometry shape of 8 ring coil torus that is the closed loop coil in Faraday's Law. NASA scientists have discovered the Sun is a yearly increase in radiation of 0.005% yearly, and is why 25% of all insects have perished in the last decade 2010-2020. Stars and Sun shine from Faraday law, not from fusion and that is how the Universe itself grows. So, we cannot logically have two different mechanisms for the creation of the Universe. We cannot have electricity magnetism of Faraday law and then some silly "explosion of Big Bang" to create and grow the universe.

Also, in the course of providing supporting evidence of the Atom Totality theory, my research had to revise and correct the entire Maxwell Equations, and revise and correct the theory, the quantum electrodynamics theory.

Cover Picture: Again I used 8 rings from plumbing hardware to represent the 8 rings of a proton torus, and visualize each ring as a dot cloud pattern instead of a continuous ring, and the holes in some of those rings helps facilitate that image. Notice the muon ring is inside the proton torus rings, and perpendicular, and situated at the equator, going around and around the proton torus at nearly the speed of light in the Faraday law; producing electricity. Atoms are designed to produce maximum electricity, given their masses.
Length: 329 pages

Product details
• ASIN : B08T82M2LP
• Publication date : January 16, 2021
• Language: : English
• File size : 872 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 329 pages
• Lending : Enabled

#1-2, 48th published book

Plutonium Atom Totality Universe, Atom Totality Series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

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

1) A visual image of a Atom Totality

2) Simply multiply 9 times 105MeV and there you get the rest mass of proton and neutron.

3) The tau-electron 1777MeV is merely 105MeV multiply by 17 is 1785 with Sigma Error of 0.4%.

4) Particle in the 840MeV range so that we can say we discovered the proton particle isolated of its internal muon.

5) Found a 840MeV particle in experimental physics, but, is it the proton torus without its interior occupied by a muon?

6) The theory of 9s, as help in physics.

7) How we picture the interior of Atoms, and the Atom Totality.

8) The Principle of Scooting-Over, applied.

9) An ongoing commentary of the geometry of atoms, both interior and exterior.

10) Galaxies form Rings in Faraday Coil, and Faraday bar-magnet // Cosmic Proton, Cosmic Muon.

11) Is there a Cosmic Faraday Law going on?
Length: 148 pages

Product details
File Size: 2370 KB
Print Length: 148 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publication Date: June 10, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07SW87BF5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #285,417 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#826 in Astronomy (Books)
#166 in Astronomy (Kindle Store)
#671 in Physics (Kindle Store)

#1-3, 74th published book

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

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

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

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

#1-4, 105th published book

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

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