4--Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Sylvia Else do not do physics but just play ad hominem games

Whodat says neither Dr.Hau nor Sylvia Else did any physics of slow light, acknowledging that they are impotent in "turning off the light" proving AP's light is not a arrow ray but a closed loop pencil ellipse
On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 9:59:33 AM UTC-5, whodat wrote:
> Neither of you has
> produced anything worthwhile.

3--Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Sylvia Else do not do physics but just play ad hominem games

Instead of doing Physics, both Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Else want to play games of ad hominem. Whenever physics proves AP is correct, neither Harvard's Dr. Hau nor Berkeley's Sylvia Else want to complete or perform the experiment because they do not want to credit AP. They want physics such that it gives credit to those people they like. Just the opposite of what Feynman warned of-- physics does not care who the person is that discovers the truth. But in modern times, physics at Harvard, MIT, Berkeley is first concern is who gets credit and the actual physics involved-- be damned.

So, Dr. Hau and Sylvia-- why not learn to do the physics rather than your utter hatred of AP.

Time for Harvard's Dr. Hau to finish her experiment, or have UC Berkeley Sylvia Else finish the experiment.
7k views
Subscribe

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Nov 2, 2021, 7:24:09 PM (19 hours ago)



to sci.math and sci.physics
Time for Harvard's Dr. Hau to finish her experiment, or have UC Berkeley Sylvia Else finish the experiment.

Archimedes Plutonium
Nov 2, 2021, 7:14 PM
to sci.physics
On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 5:36:42 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
> Back to your abuse approach I see.
>
> That didn't take long.
>
> Sylvia.

AP, King of Science has been patient too long with Sylvia and Dr. Hau.


Sylvia, no abuse at all, the King of Science is 100% serious on science, but you seem to want to waste time on chit chat b.s. that amounts to nothing overall.

The Internet indicates a Sylvia Else is a physics graduate of Berkeley.

So then, Berkeley has to stand up to the challenge that AP throws into their court yard. I throw into your court yard that if Harvard's Dr. Hau set up her slow light experiment. And sees a column of slow light in BEC medium with entrance light at normal speed and exit light at normal speed, only the BEC cold region with slow light. Now, now Dr. Hau, now Sylvia Else, turn the source light off. And to your fascination and the fascination of the entire world, watch and see that the slow light vanishes instantly along with the normal fast light. The entire column of light vanishes simultaneously.

Why does it vanish all at once simultaneously Sylvia? Why does it vanish all at once Dr. Hau? Why does it vanish all at once Harvard Univ? Why does it vanish all at once simultaneously Berkeley UC?

It vanishes all at once because light waves are closed loop circuits around a source and no matter how fast those closed loop circuits in a region of the circuit, the moment the source is gone -- the entire light is gone.

What have we proven here Sylvia? What have we proven here Harvard's Dr. Hau.. You have proven that light waves, like electricity are closed loop circuits, like a hoola hoop. And this is the reason you can have light as a constant maximum speed, yet slow light down in a region of the circuit of light.

So, Harvard's Dr. Hau, get off your lazy butt and complete your experiment, throw the switch off-- and see for yourself that light all vanishes simultaneously. And report your experiment to the world-- that light is a closed loop circuit, not what you believed all along before-- light is a single ray with head and tail. No, light was never a single ray of head of tail, like a arrow. Light is like a closed loop circuit, a pencil ellipse.

So get off your lazy butt and finish the experiment.

Or have Sylia Else in Berkeley California set up the slow light experiment and have Sylvia finish and complete the experiment.

Times a wasting, with your chit chat Sylvia, time you roll up your sleeves and burn the midnight oil.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics

> Village idiot William Frazer, Mary K. Gaillard, Martin Halpern, Allan Kaufman, says Kibo Parry M. Why Kibo? Is it because they lack the brains to ask which is the atom's real electron-- the muon or 0.5MeV particle, or is it because, like you Kibo who thinks 938 is 12% short of 945?
>
> On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 1:20:29 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >"Village Idiot"
> >"psychoceramic"
> >people (like Sylvia or Dr. Hau) to perform your
> > experiment for you. Sorry, but that's not physics. That's crackpottery.
> Univ California Berkeley math department
>
> Carolyn Abbot-- geometry group theory
> Ian Agol -- low dimensional topology
> Alexander Alldridge -- Supergeometry (never heard of such a thing, let's hope he can super solve Jan's error of never understanding that a entry cut near the cone apex has a asymmetrical arclength compared to exit cut)
> Denis Auroux-- symplectic topology and mirror symmetry (this expertise in symmetry is called for-- so many think a cut of a cone is a ellipse when anyone with a experiment can see it is a oval)
> Richard Bamler-- geometric analysis, differential geometry (sounds like a heavy weight in geometry and this cone problem should be easy for Richard)
> Robert Bryant-- many geometry expertises
> Zhiqi Chen -- differential geometry and although a visiting scholar, we should never play bias to whomever can answer the question of no ellipse is a conic but only a cylinder section
> James Conway-- contact and symplectic geometry (what in the world is symplectic-- better not ask)
> Heinz Cordes-- classical analysis (hope that does not mean classical Old Math)
> Ved Datar-- differential geometry
> David Eisenbud-- algebraic geometry
> Mark Haiman-- algebraic geometry
> Jenny Harrison-- geometric measure (perhaps measuring the arclength of cone sections is what is needed)
> Robin Hartshorne-- history of geometry (well, well, why does it take till 2016, for any mathematician to realize the ellipse was never a conic section, rather, it was the oval)
> Wu-Yi Hsiang-- differential geometry (and a long long time ago Dr. Hsiang sent me his manuscript of a alleged proof of Kepler Packing, thanks)
> Michael Hutchings-- geometry
> Marina Iliopoulou-- incidence geometry
> Brian Krummel -- geometric analysis
> Tim Laux -- geometric analysis
> David Li-Bland-- differential geometry
> John Lott-- differential geometry
> Kathryn Mann-- geometry
> David Nadler-- geometric representation
> Martin Olsson-- arithmetic geometry
> Kenneth Ribet-- algebraic geometry
> Alan Schoenfeld-- math education
> Vivek Shende-- geometry
> Isadore Singer-- geometry
> Zvezdelina Stankova-- algebraic geometry
> Bernd Sturmfels-- algebraic geometry
> Hongbin Sun-- hyperbolic geometry (the hyperbolic geometry may come in handy in showing that the cone section cannot be an ellipse)
> Peter Teichner-- geometric topology
> Dmitry Tonkonog-- geometry
> Michael Viscardi-- geometric representation
> Alan Weinstein-- geometry
> Lauren Williams-- geometry
> Mariusz Wodzicki-- geometry
> Joseph Wolf-- geometry
> Hung-Hsi Wu-- geometry
>
> UC Berkeley Physics dept emeritus
> THEORISTS
>
> Jonathan Arons (E)
>
> Korkut Bardakci (E)
>
> Geoffrey Chew (E)
>
> Marvin Cohen (E)
>
> William Frazer (E)
>
> Mary K. Gaillard (E)
>
> Martin Halpern (E)
>
> Allan Kaufman (E)
>
> Charles Kittel (E)
>
> Christopher McKee (E)
>
> Rainer Sachs (E)
>
> Charles Schwartz (E)
>
> Mahiko Suzuki (E)
>
> Eyvind Wichmann (E)
> EXPERIMENTALISTS
>
> Dmitry Budker (E)
>
> William Chinowsky (E)
>
> John Clarke (E)
>
> Marc Davis (E)
>
> Robert Ely (E)
>
> Reinhard Genzel (E)
>
> Richard Marrus (E)
>
> Forrest Mozer (E)
>
> Richard Muller (E)
>
> Richard Packard (E)
>
> P. Buford Price (E)
>
> Paul Richards (E)
>
> Charles Shank (E)
>
> Yuen-Ron Shen (E)
>
> James Siegrist (E)
>
> George Smoot III (E)
>
> Herbert Steiner (E)
>
> M. Lynn Stevenson (E)
>
> Mark Strovink (E)
>
> George Trilling (E)
>
> Robert Tripp (E)
>
> Peter Yu (E)
> True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere.
>
> Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule.
>
> Length: 1150 pages
>
>
> Product details
> • File Size : 2167 KB
> • ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ
> • Publication Date : March 11, 2019
> • Word Wise : Enabled
> • Print Length : 1150 pages
> • Language: : English
> • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Lending : Enabled
> Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> #181 in General Chemistry & Reference
> #1324 in General Chemistry
> #1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)

🦴👤 of Math and 💩👤 of Physics Archimedes "Kim Jong Un's minion"
Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

> Whodat on Richard Muller, Richard Packard neither of you has produced anything worthwhile

> Whodat on Richard Muller, Richard Packard neither of you has produced anything worthwhile.

But it's more than you've produced. An evil Atom Cult of Failure is
hardly worthwhile.

> On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 9:59:33 AM UTC-5, whodat wrote:
>> Neither of you has
>> produced anything worthwhile.
>
> On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 5:36:42 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> Back to your abuse approach I see.
>>
>> That didn't take long.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Sylvia, no abuse at all, the King of Science is 100% serious on science, but you seem to want to waste time on chit chat b.s. that amounts to nothing overall.

StupidPlutonium, why are you calling Mitch the King of Science? He's
even stupider than you are, if that's possible! Do you believe Mitch's
claims of being awarded 72 1/2 Nobel Prizes or something?

Here's Sylvia telling Mitch he's back to his abusive ways!

On 03-Nov-21 4:14 am, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, November 1, 2021 at 7:35:20 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 17-Mar-21 11:44 am, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Spin is supposed to be angular momentum and that is rotation.
>>> So why does quantum particle spin not have that speed?
>>> Why is it integers and halves when it should be a defined QM speed?
>>>
>> The universe does not have to follow your notions of how things should be.
>>
>> If a particle has angular momentum, but no size, and therefore no
>> rotational speed, then that's how it is.
>
> Then you can't say they spin you moron sylvia..
> If they are not spinning what are they doing?
>
> Mitchell Raemsch
>>
>> Sylvia.

Back to your abuse approach I see.

That didn't take long.

Sylvia.
>> #1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)

Kibo Parry M says Sylvia Else & Dr. Hau are CCP lackeys, psychoceramics. Why Kibo? Because they cannot turn a light switch off and prove AP is correct that the light wave is a pencil ellipse, not a arrow ray of a head and tail. Or, Kibo, is it because they fail to ask which is the atom's real electron-- muon or 0.5MeV Particle.
On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 12:24:13 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> "CCP lackey"
> fails at math and science:

6--Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Sylvia Else do not do physics but just play ad hominem games

Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Sylvia Else do not do physics but just play ad hominem games.

Instead of doing Physics, both Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Else want to play games of ad hominem. Whenever physics proves AP is correct, neither Harvard's Dr. Hau nor Berkeley's Sylvia Else want to complete or perform the experiment because they do not want to credit AP. They want physics such that it gives credit to those people they like. Just the opposite of what Feynman warned of-- physics does not care who the person is that discovers the truth. But in modern times, physics at Harvard, MIT, Berkeley is first concern is who gets credit and the actual physics involved-- be damned.

So, Dr. Hau and Sylvia-- why not learn to do the physics rather than your utter hatred of AP.

Time for Harvard's Dr. Hau to finish her experiment, or have UC Berkeley Sylvia Else finish the experiment.

Archimedes Plutonium
Nov 2, 2021, 7:14 PM
to sci.physics
On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 5:36:42 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
> Back to your abuse approach I see.
>
> That didn't take long.
>
> Sylvia.

AP, King of Science has been patient too long with Sylvia and Dr. Hau.


Sylvia, no abuse at all, the King of Science is 100% serious on science, but you seem to want to waste time on chit chat b.s. that amounts to nothing overall.


The Internet indicates a Sylvia Else is a physics graduate of Berkeley.

So then, Berkeley has to stand up to the challenge that AP throws into their court yard. I throw into your court yard that if Harvard's Dr. Hau set up her slow light experiment. And sees a column of slow light in BEC medium with entrance light at normal speed and exit light at normal speed, only the BEC cold region with slow light. Now, now Dr. Hau, now Sylvia Else, turn the source light off. And to your fascination and the fascination of the entire world, watch and see that the slow light vanishes instantly along with the normal fast light. The entire column of light vanishes simultaneously.

Why does it vanish all at once simultaneously Sylvia? Why does it vanish all at once Dr. Hau? Why does it vanish all at once Harvard Univ? Why does it vanish all at once simultaneously Berkeley UC?

It vanishes all at once because light waves are closed loop circuits around a source and no matter how fast those closed loop circuits in a region of the circuit, the moment the source is gone -- the entire light is gone.

What have we proven here Sylvia? What have we proven here Harvard's Dr. Hau.. You have proven that light waves, like electricity are closed loop circuits, like a hoola hoop. And this is the reason you can have light as a constant maximum speed, yet slow light down in a region of the circuit of light.

So, Harvard's Dr. Hau, get off your lazy butt and complete your experiment, throw the switch off-- and see for yourself that light all vanishes simultaneously. And report your experiment to the world-- that light is a closed loop circuit, not what you believed all along before-- light is a single ray with head and tail. No, light was never a single ray of head of tail, like a arrow. Light is like a closed loop circuit, a pencil ellipse.

So get off your lazy butt and finish the experiment.

Or have Sylia Else in Berkeley California set up the slow light experiment and have Sylvia finish and complete the experiment.

Times a wasting, with your chit chat Sylvia, time you roll up your sleeves and burn the midnight oil.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics