A King of Science comedy production by "I love my dog
       o-:^>___?
       `~~c--^c'
Tootsie Productions. LTD, Greensleeves, England

Although, Kibo, I really find any science math or physics content in your invention of the word "analbuttfuckmanure". But then maybe your invention was spurred by your insistence that 938 is 12% short of 945.

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.

Kibo can you tell us how you earned a degree in engineering from Rensselaer Polytech yet still cannot do a percentage problem correctly? I mean, if you were the engineer of a skyscraper and had a 12% tilt in the building, you would be rivalling the Leaning Tower of Pisa.

Or will Nick Thompson's Wired Magazine explain how you can earn a engineering degree from Rensselaer and still not do a correct percentage problem?

Kibo, why cannot Philip Hanlon at Dartmouth College take the time of 5 minutes like every student in the world and roll up a paper cone, drop a Kerr or Mason lid inside and tilt it and prove to himself that the slant cut in cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. Kibo, why is Dr. Hanlon and Stanford's Dr.. Marc Tessier-Lavigne running and hiding from the truth of mathematics, are they scared of the truth. Just like Andrew Wiles never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, only his "limit analysis hornswaggle". Does Dr.Hanlon and Stanford Univ still believe Calculus is "not geometry" not geometry as the excuse and reason that Dartmouth and Stanford has professor there to teach a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. See AP's proofs below.

Kibo, why do you resort to swearing instead of doing math in sci.math? Is that what Dr. Panchanathan at the National Science Foundation, NSF, pays you and instructs you to do in sci.math-- swear instead of doing math. Of course, Kibo, your 938 is 12% short of 945, does not endear you to any college or math professor.
On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 5:42:43 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> "AnalButtfuckManure"
> fails at math and science:

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?

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.

Length: 137 pages

Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1307 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 137 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)

Was Kibo let down, saddened that he did not win the Nobel prize for invention of the word "analbuttfuckmanure" a term he uses often when doing science?? Was he saddened that only another cover picture in Wired magazine by Nick Thompson is all that Kibo's new word amounted to?

Will Nick Thompson award Kibo Parry a 2nd cover picture in "Wired magazine" for Kibo's invention of the word "analbuttfuckmanure"

Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 10, 2021, 5:01 PM
to sci.physics

Will Nick Thompson award Kibo Parry a 2nd cover picture in "Wired magazine" for Kibo's invention of the word "analbuttfuckmanure"

A King of Science comedy production by "I love my dog
       o-:^>___?
       `~~c--^c'

Tootsie Productions. LTD, Greensleeves, England

Although, Kibo, I really cannot find any science math or physics content in your invention of the word "analbuttfuckmanure", and yet you spend so so much time in sci.math and sci.physics. A reasonably sane person knowing that they cannot do a correct percentage would stay away from science newsgroups. But then maybe your invention was spurred by your insistence that 938 is 12% short of 945.

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: 102-Kibo Parry Moroney (Barry Shein's world std) stalking analbuttfuckmanure shithead of 27 years nonstop-- needs a emergency straightjacket size XXsmall
By Eduardo Remington 2 posts 3 views updated 12:15 AM

Re: 4-Kibo Parry Moroney (std World) NSF-France Anne Cordova, Barry Shein,Jim Frost, Joe "Spike" Ilacqua, The 27 year long nonstop STALKING machine-- analbuttfuckmanure shithead stalking on sci.math, sci.physics
By Tom Hodges 2 posts 18 views updated 8:22 PM

Re: 1-Kibo Parry Moroney (std World) NSF-France Anne Cordova, Barry Shein,Jim Frost, Joe "Spike" Ilacqua, The 27 year long nonstop STALKING machine-- analbuttfuckmanure shithead stalking on sci.math, sci.physics
By Igor Peterson Freely 2 posts 26 views updated 8:17 PM

And Kibo Parry's M. invention of analbuttfuckmanure is becoming a home staple in Canadian society, with Dan Christensen leading the charge.

Re: 1.2Analbuttfuckmanure Justin Trudeau,Sophie Gregoire, says Dan Christensen or Kibo//Stephen Lecce, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon
by Hoofington P. McSnort Aug 26, 2020, 7:01:28 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.

Kibo can you tell us how you earned a degree in engineering from Rensselaer Polytech yet still cannot do a percentage problem correctly? I mean, if you were the engineer of a skyscraper and had a 12% tilt in the building, you would be rivalling the Leaning Tower of Pisa.

Or will Nick Thompson's Wired Magazine explain how you can earn a engineering degree from Rensselaer and still not do a correct percentage problem?

Kibo, why cannot Philip Hanlon at Dartmouth College take the time of 5 minutes like every student in the world and roll up a paper cone, drop a Kerr or Mason lid inside and tilt it and prove to himself that the slant cut in cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. Kibo, why is Dr. Hanlon and Stanford's Dr.. Marc Tessier-Lavigne running and hiding from the truth of mathematics, are they scared of the truth. Just like Andrew Wiles never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, only his "limit analysis hornswaggle". Does Dr.Hanlon and Stanford Univ still believe Calculus is "not geometry" not geometry as the excuse and reason that Dartmouth and Stanford has professor there to teach a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. See AP's proofs below.

Kibo, why do you resort to swearing instead of doing math in sci.math? Is that what Dr. Panchanathan at the National Science Foundation, NSF, pays you and instructs you to do in sci.math-- swear instead of doing math. Of course, Kibo, your 938 is 12% short of 945, does not endear you to any college or math professor.
On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 5:42:43 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> "AnalButtfuckManure"
> fails at math and science:

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?

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.

Length: 137 pages

Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1307 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 137 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)

🐒 of Math and 🦍 of Physics Archimedes "AnalButtfuckManure" Plutonium
<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

> Although, Kibo, I really find any science math or physics content in your invention of the word "analbuttfuckmanure". But then maybe your invention was spurred by your insistence that 938 is 12% short of 945.

Quit lying, LiarPlutonium. YOU invented that word, probably because
you're gay with some sort of animal poop fetish. The first place YOU
used that was here:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/HBsxUDQU94c/m/UJyuO6eCAAAJ, on
January 27 2018. It was a reference to me, so I guess you've had the
hots for me from the start. Sorry, Plutonium, I'm not that type.
Forget it!

You don't use it again until May 30 2019, where you apparently are
trying to blame it on me already.

Next time you use it was in the subject of a post on Jan 25 2020, again
referring to me.

Next time another post January 25 2020, again referring to me.

Jan 27, 2020, twice in one topic, referring to me AGAIN. Another post
Jan 27, 2020, three times in one post (once in the Subject:). I quoted
it when replying to your post, telling you AGAIN to stop attacking me.
(but you were too dumb and stoopid to listen then, and remain just as
dumb and stoopid now)

Shall I go on?

Nowadays I use it to mock you and your usage of it, and as continued
punishment for attacking me, for 28 years already.

Of course you always delete your post from Google's Usenet mirror. Maybe
I will look on one of the long retention date Usenet servers to see how
many times you REALLY used it before 2020. As you (should) know,
deletes from Google don't work on non-Google Usenet servers...
>
> 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.

You are still upset that you can't do percentages? Maybe a high school
or community college near you has an adult education program where you
can take remedial mathematics? Maybe a middle school remedial geometry
course where they'll prove the ellipse is a conic section?
>
> Kibo can you tell us how you earned a degree in engineering from Rensselaer Polytech

I guess James Kibo Perry went to Rensselaer Polytechnic but I never did.
Very good engineering school however.

> Or will Nick Thompson's Wired Magazine explain how you can earn a engineering degree from Rensselaer and still not do a correct percentage problem?

James Kibo Parry cannot do percentages even after attending Rensselaer?
Obviously talking about him since he appeared in Wired but I never did.
>
> Kibo, why cannot Philip Hanlon at Dartmouth College take the time of 5 minutes like every student in the world and roll up a paper cone, drop a Kerr or Mason lid inside and tilt it and prove to himself that the slant cut in cone is a Oval, never the ellipse.

Because he's smart enough to understand math proofs. He is also smart
enough that he'd never use something as error-prone as a paper cone,
he'd use one of those plastic or wooden teaching models which
demonstrate that a slant cut of a cone is really an ellipse.

<snip rest of blithering>

On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 7:18:01 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"AnalButtfuckManure"
>
> Nowadays I use it to mock you

AP writes: well kibo Parry M is trying to get his newly invented word into National Spelling Champion contests.

Kibo, do they get stuck with the two t's.

Actually, Kibo I think your invented word, since you use it so often is easier to spell than is.

1) Pharaoh
2) rym
3) tragedy (so many shift the g for the d)
4) pronunciation
5) interfere
6) logorrhea
7) rythm
8) arthritis (medicine has many hard words)

Kibo at what age group in High School is your word going to be taught in the Core Curriculum??

On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 7:18:01 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>Archimedes "AnalButtfuckManure" Plutonium
>
> > Although, Kibo, I really cannot find any science math or physics content in your invention of the word "analbuttfuckmanure". But then maybe your invention was spurred by your insistence that 938 is 12% short of 945.
>
> Quit lying, LiarPlutonium. YOU invented that word, probably because
> you're gay with some sort of animal poop fetish. The first place YOU
> used that was here:
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/HBsxUDQU94c/m/UJyuO6eCAAAJ, on
> January 27 2018. It was a reference to me, so I guess you've had the
> hots for me from the start. Sorry, Plutonium, I'm not that type.
> Forget it!

AP writes: No, I invented the term "emailbombing" back in the 1990s and was duly given credit for my word invention, that word "emailbombing" and even Wikipedia cited me for the invention. But it was you, the epitome of analbuttfuckmanure who invented analbuttfuckmanure, and I suppose because you could not do any math in sci.math, nor any physics in sci.physics that the stars struck and gave you an invention you can be remembered by. Will the calendar year have a week of analbuttfuckmanuring, Kibo?

>
> You don't use it again until May 30 2019, where you apparently are
> trying to blame it on me already.
>
AP writes: No, I was not blaming it on you, for I was always careful of being credited with only my own inventions and cared nothing about other people's invention or stealing and their inventions, unlike Porat at that time who was swooping down, swooping in to steal whatever he could. So do some more checking Kibo before you try to saddle me with your inventions. Or give it away to Dan Christensen or Jan Burse, or even Earle Jones who seems extremely lonely out there at Stanford University, as his logo picture depicts.

> Next time you use it was in the subject of a post on Jan 25 2020, again
> referring to me.
>

AP writes: this rings a bell, in that you probably had not yet seen Earle Jones logo picture, for I think logo pictures came out in that time period you invented "analbuttfuckmanure". Remember Kibo when you kept calling Google the Giggle tech company, and saying that they put their worst engineers into a dungeon basement who work on the newsgroups, does that ring a bell for you Kibo? And not seeing Earle Jones logo picture of him sucking on a raw ballooned cock dick, imitating a Rodin bronze statue of the "thinking man", is, when you, Kibo Parry invented the concept of "analbuttfuckmanure".

By the way Kibo, do the French and German have a nice translation of your concept "analbuttfuckmanure". Perhaps Jan Burse can help us out, for my German is not up to par, it would go something like this "Arshlochefolgen..." Jan, can your ResearchGate fill it out. Perhaps even in French?

So, Kibo, why so generous with your inventions? For I am never generous with any of my own inventions. And I can imagine any invention by you, Kibo Parry is going to be far and inbetween. And who knows, someday, you Kibo Parry will apply to Giggle corp hoping to work in their dungeon on improving sci.math and sci.physics.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics

🐒 of Math and 🦍 of Physics Archimedes "AnalButtfuckManure" Plutonium
<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
> On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 7:18:01 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Archimedes "AnalButtfuckManure" Plutonium
>
>>> Although, Kibo, I really cannot find any science math or physics
>>> content in your invention of the word "analbuttfuckmanure". But then
>>> maybe your invention was spurred by your insistence that 938 is 12%
>>> short of 945.
>
>> Quit lying, LiarPlutonium. YOU invented that word, probably because
>> you're gay with some sort of animal poop fetish. The first place YOU
>> used that was here:
>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/HBsxUDQU94c/m/UJyuO6eCAAAJ,
>> on January 27 2018. It was a reference to me, so I guess you've had >> the hots for me from the start. Sorry, Plutonium, I'm not that type.
>> Forget it!

> AP writes: No, I invented the term "emailbombing" back in the 1990s
> and was duly given credit for my word invention, that word
> "emailbombing" and even Wikipedia cited me for the invention.

Don't be shy, ArchiePoo. You deserve full credit (blame) for damaging
Usenet by creating "analbuttfuckmanure" as well as all the other damage
you cause.

Everyone knows you invented "analbuttfuckmanure" because you're gay and
have certain barnyard fetishes. But please don't involve me with your
sick fetishes.

>
> AP, Drag Queen of Science, especially Physics
>

Kibo & NSF Dr. Panchanathan why is UCR John Baez, and Marcela Carena failures 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 even do simple simple Algebra of 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.

Dr. Panchanathan of National Science Foundation, are you paying Kibo Parry M. to defame and stalk for 28 years nonstop, and the few moments that Kibo actually ever does any math in sci.math, sci.physics, he pops up and says 938 is 12% short of 945. Is this what the USA NSF represents-- defaming stalkers that care nothing about science or truth.

On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 7:18:01 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 🐒 of Math and 🦍 of Physics Archimedes "AnalButtfuckManure" Plutonium

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?

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.

Length: 137 pages

Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1307 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 137 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)

William J. Burns stupid insane David S. Cohen Analbuttfuckmanure

On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 8:54:36 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 🐒 of Math and 🦍 of Physics Archimedes "AnalButtfuckManure" Plutonium
> <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
> > On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 7:18:01 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> Archimedes "AnalButtfuckManure" Plutonium
Re: Archimedes "stupid insane imp of math" Plutonium flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 5:11:59 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 🧟‍♂️ of Math and 👻 of Physics Archimedes "Putin's Stooge" Plutonium
> <plutonium....@gmail.com> blithered:
Re: Archimedes "shitwit" Plutonium flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test

On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 8:51:49 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 🐒 of Math and 🦍 of Physics Archimedes "AnalButtfuckManure" Plutonium
> <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
> > On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 7:18:01 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> Archimedes "AnalButtfuckManure" Plutonium

Why has the CIA become a vicious govt. department, a rogue department that attacks private citizens for 30 years stalking nonstop? Is this how they train people in the CIA to hate fellow Americans?? Apparently so.

Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
On Sunday, June 8, 1997 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes:
> >
> >http://www.netscum.net/fieldsm0.html
> What the hell is this? As if it's not bad enough that we have a fake
> Mao Zhedong here, now we have a fake kibo too?
> Is there a fake xibo and a ~ibo to round out the trinity?
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

---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 ---

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Dr. Panchanathan , present day
France Anne Cordova
Subra Suresh
Arden Lee Bement Jr.
Rita R. Colwell
Neal Francis Lane
John Howard Gibbons 1993

Barry Shein, kibo parry std world
Jim Frost, Joe "Spike" Ilacqua

#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.