Kibo Parry M on > John Baez "AnalButtfuckManure" Dr. Panchanathan

Kibo Parry M on>Terence Tao "Putin's Stooge" Andrew Wiles
On Wednesday, October 6, 2021 at 10:54:22 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 🤮 of Math and 💩 of Physics Terence Tao "Putin's Stooge" Andrew Wiles
> Thomas Hales> fails at math and science:
> > The obnoxious Amine spam in sci.math.
> >
> > Is it a psychologist nitwit working for FBI or CIA.
> >
> > True or False
> > A) John Stillwell is a dipshit in sci.math
>
> True.
>
> > B) Terence Tao is the cock displayed in Earle Jones's logo picture
>
> I don't know about that, but Andrew Wiles sure is a dick.
> >
> > Multiple Choice
> >
> > C) Chose the worst spammer in sci.math history
> > a) Amine
> > b) Jeff Relf
> > c) whodat
> > d) John Gabriel
> > e) Kibo Parry M
>
> E. By FAR.


AP writes: AP no longer tolerates criminal stalkers like Kibo Parry M and shreds his posts in a shredder and spits them back at him and his paid for stalks-- NSF Dr Panchanathan ???---quoting Wikipedia ---
Controversy

Kibo Parry M on > John Baez "AnalButtfuckManure" Dr. Panchanathan
Kibo Parry M on>🦍 of Physics NSF Dr. Panchanathan "AnalButtfuckManure"
> Andrew Wiles> fails at math and science:
On Saturday, May 8, 2021 at 5:52:45 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 👎🏼 of Math and 🖕🏼 of Physics Andrew Wiles "Drag Queen of Physics"
>Thomas Hales in robbing math dept of computer time> fails at math and science:
>
On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 10:35:09 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 🐒 of Math and 🦍 of Physics Terence Tao "AnalButtfuckManure"
> John Stillwell> fails at math and science:

On Monday, June 14, 2010 at 9:45:58 PM UTC-5, John Baez wrote:
> Also available at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week299.html

Kibo Parry M on>John Baez "Village Idiot of UCR
> Marcela Carena> fails completely at physics:
On Thursday, September 30, 2021 at 1:26:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 🪲 of Math and 🪳 of Physics John Baez "Village Idiot of UCR
> Marcela Carena> fails completely at physics:

AP writes: AP no longer tolerates criminal stalkers like Kibo Parry M and shreds his posts in a shredder and spits them back at him and his paid for stalks-- NSF Dr Panchanathan ???---quoting Wikipedia ---
Controversy
Many government and university installations blocked, threatened to block, or attempted to shut-down The World's Internet connection until Software Tool & Die was eventually granted permission by the National Science Foundation to provide public Internet access on "an experimental basis."
--- end quote ---

Why is UCR John Baez a failure in math and physics, cannot even take 9 times 105 and see that it is 945? I mean, well, why ever bother with the mindless Weinberg-Glashow-Gell-Mann Standard Model nonsense of physics, as some sort of Algebra, when you cannot do 9x105=945 and interpret it correctly of what you have done in physics.

Much the same problem with Marcela Carena of Fermi Natl. Lab with the excessive muon spin as reported in Scientific American, Oct2021. Not able to ask the most simple and basic question of physics, which is the atom's true real electron is it the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus or is it the 0.5MeV particle that AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole. No, Marcela Carena and John Baez rather listen to a herd community, rather than practice and do physics with a logical mind-- ask the simple questions and do the logical experiments from those logical questions.

Physics, left up to Baez and his buddies of Weinberg, Glashow, Gell-Mann, Peter Higgs, Ed Witten those buddies are comfortable with a electron at 0.5MeV, proton at 938MeV, neutron at 940MeV and all three of them as "do nothing particles" with the amazing audacity of saying the 0.5MeV particle flys around the outside of a 938MeV proton at nearly the speed of light 99.99% speed of light, yet never flys off. For Baez, and his buddies never understood Angular Momentum. Never could interpret 9 x 105 = 938 or 940 within Sigma Error.

But then along comes AP, and says-- sigma error is important in physics and use it.

AP says-- you cannot have "do nothing particles in physics".

AP says-- the true electron of atoms is the muon and stuck inside a 840MeV proton doing the Faraday law by producing Dirac magnetic monopoles such as the 0.5MeV dipole as electricity.

Is John Baez or Sheldon Glashow or Peter Higgs or Ed Witten still able to learn in science, or are they just complete washed up and washed out. Are they complete wash out failures of physics? Probably complete failures because they cannot even muster the intelligence of dropping a Kerr or Mason lid inside a folded up paper cone and acknowledge something as simple as what a High School student can prove, that a slant cut in cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, (see AP books below). Yet that is what the "pack of fools Baez, Glashow, Higgs, Witten" still teach their electron is 0.5MeV, their ellipse is slant cut in cone, but probably worst of all, these bozos still teach the Boole logic of 2 OR 1= 3 with AND as subtraction. Imagine that, physics professors who cannot even think logically correct, no wonder they are incapable of 9 x 105.

...
..- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
, . `.' ' `.
..' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
.. ; .' . `. ;
; . ' `. . '
.. ' ` `. |
.. '. '
.. 0 0 ' `.
' `
; `
..' `
; U `
; '; `
: | ;.. :` `
: `;. ```. .-; | '
'. ` ``.., .' :' '
; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' Hi, I am John Baez, who when hearing of AP's proof that slant cut in cone is truly a Oval, never the ellipse, I did the biggest no, no you can ever do in science, for I attacked the man, rather than do the experiment. I bent over backwards to redefine the ellipse in order to deny AP credit of a discovery. For I, John Baez feels it more important to suppress the truth in science than to acknowledge the truth, and my brethren Terence Tao, Andrew Wiles, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell seem to all feel the same way-- suppress truth of science and run and hide, hide and run.
` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` `. ````'''''' ' '
` . ' '
/ ` `. ' ' .
/ ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
/ .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
/ .'' ; ` .' `
....'.' ; .' ` .' `
"" .' .' | ` .; \ `
; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
:' | ' ` , `. `
| ' ` ' `. `
` ' ` ; `. |
`.' ` ; `-'
`...'

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.

Length: 21 pages

File Size: 1620 KB
Print Length: 21 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

#8-2, 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 19May2021. 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". 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?