--- Quoting SCIENCE, 16Jul2021 page 265 titled "Large survey finds questionable research practices are common" ---

Dutch survey finds 8% of scientists have committed fraud.

More than half of Dutch scientists regularly engage in questionable research practices, according to new study results that are likely to apply to other countries. And one in 12 admitted to committing a more serious form of research misconduct within the past 3 years: fabrication or falsification of research results. At 8% that is more than double the rate reported in previous studies.

--- end quote ---

On Andrew Wiles, I am not talking about his con-artist fake proof of FLT as a deliberate attempt by Andrew Wiles to screw the world public, but rather as a deluded crank fraud. Andrew is deluded and cannot stand to reason or analyze in the manner of a "rational person".

So for instance, him being the editor in chief of a math journal publishing his fake proof is likely to be considered as the above 8% fraud of science..

Or Andrew's announced failure in this post thread that he found a gaping hole, but then went ahead with a Princeton graduate student to claim they patched the hole, a Richard Taylor, which in the 1990s it was seen as a Wiles-Taylor proof but Andrew wants none of that sharing and has since then deleted Taylor from any accounts of his con-art fake proof. Is that misconduct on the part of Wiles? Probably. For the Taylor patch of Wiles gaping hole never really remedied the hole. For the gigantic hole of Wiles's FLT for which there is no patch, is the fact that his proof method of Reductio Ad Absurdum is an invalid proof method in mathematics.

Construction proofs are valid proofs in math, not indirect by contradiction..

And Andrew Wiles uses the Taniyama-Shimura modularity theorem.

So, previously I asked which of these modern times math proofs were Reductio Ad Absurdum? Which?

1) Wiles's FLT, yes, RAA
2) Appel & Haken 4 Color Mapping, yes RAA
3) Hales Kepler Packing, yes, RAA
4) Green & Tao theorem on prime intervals, yes, RAA
5) Poincare conjecture by Perelman, yes, RAA
6) Ribet theorem, is it RAA?
7) Taniyama-Shimura theorem, is it RAA?

So that if we can list all the theorems proven in modern times in math and find that 8% of them are RAA, would heavily indicate that that recent study of Fraud in science extends over to mathematics. Not that Wiles, Appel&Haken, Hales, Green& Tao were deliberately trying to foist a fraud onto the general public. But that they just could not help themselves in trying to become famous and rich with a math fraud. Sort of Delusion sets the path for self denial that they are committing science fraud.

But I suspect if a list of modern day math proofs accepted in the past 200 years, and all the RAA proofs counted, that the fraud in math is well over 8%, perhaps even as high as 50%. For true proofs in mathematics are construction proofs such as AP's FLT of 2+2=2x2=4 is a proof of FLT and finding such construction proofs can be extremely difficult. So the few marbles of most mathematicians seek a RAA because they just cannot navigate mathematics in a construction proof endeavor.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics

On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 8:17:22 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> --- Quoting SCIENCE, 16Jul2021 page 265 titled "Large survey finds questionable research practices are common" ---
>
> Dutch survey finds 8% of scientists have committed fraud.
>
> More than half of Dutch scientists regularly engage in questionable research practices, according to new study results that are likely to apply to other countries. And one in 12 admitted to committing a more serious form of research misconduct within the past 3 years: fabrication or falsification of research results. At 8% that is more than double the rate reported in previous studies.
>
> --- end quote ---

Andrew Wiles alleged proof of Fermat's Last Theorem does not make him a fraud, for then every deluded crank individual would be a fraud. It is not their intent on being a fraud, that is just their make-up and personality.

However, if Andrew Wiles keeps ignoring serious issues about his alleged proof, such as ignoring this thread started by Andrew Wiles, and never wants to engage in questions over his proof-- such as why he missed the gap of Euler's FLT in exp3 or why he cannot understand that Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a valid math proof method, then, Andrew Wiles is a fraudster. For he simply cannot ignore errors pointed out to him.

>
> On Andrew Wiles, I am not talking about his con-artist fake proof of FLT as a deliberate attempt by Andrew Wiles to screw the world public, but rather as a deluded crank fraud. Andrew is deluded and cannot stand to reason or analyze in the manner of a "rational person".
>
> So for instance, him being the editor in chief of a math journal publishing his fake proof is likely to be considered as the above 8% fraud of science.
>
> Or Andrew's announced failure in this post thread that he found a gaping hole, but then went ahead with a Princeton graduate student to claim they patched the hole, a Richard Taylor, which in the 1990s it was seen as a Wiles-Taylor proof but Andrew wants none of that sharing and has since then deleted Taylor from any accounts of his con-art fake proof. Is that misconduct on the part of Wiles? Probably. For the Taylor patch of Wiles gaping hole never really remedied the hole. For the gigantic hole of Wiles's FLT for which there is no patch, is the fact that his proof method of Reductio Ad Absurdum is an invalid proof method in mathematics.
>
> Construction proofs are valid proofs in math, not indirect by contradiction.
>
> And Andrew Wiles uses the Taniyama-Shimura modularity theorem.
>
> So, previously I asked which of these modern times math proofs were Reductio Ad Absurdum? Which?
>
> 1) Wiles's FLT, yes, RAA
> 2) Appel & Haken 4 Color Mapping, yes RAA
> 3) Hales Kepler Packing, yes, RAA
> 4) Green & Tao theorem on prime intervals, yes, RAA
> 5) Poincare conjecture by Perelman, yes, RAA
> 6) Ribet theorem, is it RAA?
> 7) Taniyama-Shimura theorem, is it RAA?
>
> So that if we can list all the theorems proven in modern times in math and find that 8% of them are RAA, would heavily indicate that that recent study of Fraud in science extends over to mathematics. Not that Wiles, Appel&Haken, Hales, Green& Tao were deliberately trying to foist a fraud onto the general public. But that they just could not help themselves in trying to become famous and rich with a math fraud. Sort of Delusion sets the path for self denial that they are committing science fraud.
>
> But I suspect if a list of modern day math proofs accepted in the past 200 years, and all the RAA proofs counted, that the fraud in math is well over 8%, perhaps even as high as 50%. For true proofs in mathematics are construction proofs such as AP's FLT of 2+2=2x2=4 is a proof of FLT and finding such construction proofs can be extremely difficult. So the few marbles of most mathematicians seek a RAA because they just cannot navigate mathematics in a construction proof endeavor.

A scientist is a fraud, if he hides and ignores discussion of serious issues of his work, and so far, Andrew Wiles has run and hided, making him a fraud.

AP

On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 12:02:06 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 8:17:22 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > --- Quoting SCIENCE, 16Jul2021 page 265 titled "Large survey finds questionable research practices are common" ---
> >
> > Dutch survey finds 8% of scientists have committed fraud.
> >
> > More than half of Dutch scientists regularly engage in questionable research practices, according to new study results that are likely to apply to other countries. And one in 12 admitted to committing a more serious form of research misconduct within the past 3 years: fabrication or falsification of research results. At 8% that is more than double the rate reported in previous studies.
> >
> > --- end quote ---
> Andrew Wiles alleged proof of Fermat's Last Theorem does not make him a fraud, for then every deluded crank individual would be a fraud. It is not their intent on being a fraud, that is just their make-up and personality.
>
> However, if Andrew Wiles keeps ignoring serious issues about his alleged proof, such as ignoring this thread started by Andrew Wiles, and never wants to engage in questions over his proof-- such as why he missed the gap of Euler's FLT in exp3 or why he cannot understand that Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a valid math proof method, then, Andrew Wiles is a fraudster. For he simply cannot ignore errors pointed out to him.
> >
> > On Andrew Wiles, I am not talking about his con-artist fake proof of FLT as a deliberate attempt by Andrew Wiles to screw the world public, but rather as a deluded crank fraud. Andrew is deluded and cannot stand to reason or analyze in the manner of a "rational person".
> >
> > So for instance, him being the editor in chief of a math journal publishing his fake proof is likely to be considered as the above 8% fraud of science.
> >
> > Or Andrew's announced failure in this post thread that he found a gaping hole, but then went ahead with a Princeton graduate student to claim they patched the hole, a Richard Taylor, which in the 1990s it was seen as a Wiles-Taylor proof but Andrew wants none of that sharing and has since then deleted Taylor from any accounts of his con-art fake proof. Is that misconduct on the part of Wiles? Probably. For the Taylor patch of Wiles gaping hole never really remedied the hole. For the gigantic hole of Wiles's FLT for which there is no patch, is the fact that his proof method of Reductio Ad Absurdum is an invalid proof method in mathematics.
> >
> > Construction proofs are valid proofs in math, not indirect by contradiction.
> >
> > And Andrew Wiles uses the Taniyama-Shimura modularity theorem.
> >
> > So, previously I asked which of these modern times math proofs were Reductio Ad Absurdum? Which?
> >
> > 1) Wiles's FLT, yes, RAA
> > 2) Appel & Haken 4 Color Mapping, yes RAA
> > 3) Hales Kepler Packing, yes, RAA
> > 4) Green & Tao theorem on prime intervals, yes, RAA
> > 5) Poincare conjecture by Perelman, yes, RAA
> > 6) Ribet theorem, is it RAA?
> > 7) Taniyama-Shimura theorem, is it RAA?

Sad that mathematicians cannot even write their proofs clear and logical order. For they should always state at the beginning what their Proof Method is going to be. In the 20th and 21st century, they thought the Reductio Ad Absurdum (proof by contradiction) was a valid proof method along with Construction proofs. So at the beginning of their proof, much fanfare should be stated as to what sort of proof method they are using-- is it geometrical proof, is it construction proof, is it RAA?

Well searching the Web we see the Taniyama-Shimura or Modular theorem is RAA.

--- quoting the web on this proof from redalyc.org ---
with a mathematical object called a modular. If the UTF is false, then there would be an elliptic curve such that can’t be associated with any modular form, and therefore the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture would be false.. I.e., Taniyama-Shimura conjecture solution would demonstrate the UTF.
--- end quote ---

AP

🪱 of Math and 🪰 of Physics Archimedes "Drag Queen of Science"
Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> tarded:
> On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 8:17:22 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>> --- Quoting SCIENCE, 16Jul2021 page 265 titled "Large survey finds questionable research practices are common" ---
>>
>> Dutch survey finds 8% of scientists have committed fraud.
>>
>> More than half of Dutch scientists regularly engage in questionable research practices, according to new study results that are likely to apply to other countries. And one in 12 admitted to committing a more serious form of research misconduct within the past 3 years: fabrication or falsification of research results. At 8% that is more than double the rate reported in previous studies.
>>
>> --- end quote ---

I wonder if this explains StupidPlutonium.

On the one hand, he's definitely not a scientist, which would simply
mean 'Not applicable'. On the other hand, he tries to pass himself off
as a scientist and mathematician, despite being unable to perform any
science and math, and that is most definitely a fraud.

> Andrew Wiles alleged proof of Fermat's Last Theorem does not make him a fraud, for then every deluded crank individual would be a fraud. It is not their intent on being a fraud, that is just their make-up and personality.

Since Plutonium is a crank individual who pretends to be a scientist
does that make him not a fraud since he's just deluded and not
deliberately a fraud? I say no, since he's been told his 'science' is
bogus yet he persists. He has started a Cult of Failure which is evil,
especially since he tries to recruit children as young as five into his
evil cult. He apparently gets assistance from Russia since he appealed
to Russian Robots to help him destroy math education. That is deliberate
fraud.
>
> However, if Andrew Wiles keeps ignoring serious issues about his alleged proof, such as ignoring this thread started by Andrew Wiles, and never wants to engage in questions over his proof-- such as why he missed the gap of Euler's FLT in exp3 or why he cannot understand that Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a valid math proof method, then, Andrew Wiles is a fraudster. For he simply cannot ignore errors pointed out to him.

As StupidPlutonium keeps ignoring serious issues about his alleged
'proofs', and never wants to engage in questions over his 'proofs', then
Archimedes Plutonium, is a fraud since he simply cannot ignore errors
pointed out to him.

> A scientist is a fraud, if he hides and ignores discussion of serious issues of his work, and so far, Archimedes Plutonium has run and hid, making him a fraud.
But Plutonium is no scientist and he doesn't hide, but instead attacks
anyone pointing out his many, many flaws.

Since Plutonium has started an evil Cult of Failure and apparently gets
assistance from Russia, I'd say 'definitely Fraud'.

On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 12:33:21 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 12:02:06 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 8:17:22 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > --- Quoting SCIENCE, 16Jul2021 page 265 titled "Large survey finds questionable research practices are common" ---
> > >
> > > Dutch survey finds 8% of scientists have committed fraud.
> > >
> > > More than half of Dutch scientists regularly engage in questionable research practices, according to new study results that are likely to apply to other countries. And one in 12 admitted to committing a more serious form of research misconduct within the past 3 years: fabrication or falsification of research results. At 8% that is more than double the rate reported in previous studies.
> > >
> > > --- end quote ---
> > Andrew Wiles alleged proof of Fermat's Last Theorem does not make him a fraud, for then every deluded crank individual would be a fraud. It is not their intent on being a fraud, that is just their make-up and personality.
> >
> > However, if Andrew Wiles keeps ignoring serious issues about his alleged proof, such as ignoring this thread started by Andrew Wiles, and never wants to engage in questions over his proof-- such as why he missed the gap of Euler's FLT in exp3 or why he cannot understand that Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a valid math proof method, then, Andrew Wiles is a fraudster. For he simply cannot ignore errors pointed out to him.
> > >
> > > On Andrew Wiles, I am not talking about his con-artist fake proof of FLT as a deliberate attempt by Andrew Wiles to screw the world public, but rather as a deluded crank fraud. Andrew is deluded and cannot stand to reason or analyze in the manner of a "rational person".
> > >
> > > So for instance, him being the editor in chief of a math journal publishing his fake proof is likely to be considered as the above 8% fraud of science.
> > >
> > > Or Andrew's announced failure in this post thread that he found a gaping hole, but then went ahead with a Princeton graduate student to claim they patched the hole, a Richard Taylor, which in the 1990s it was seen as a Wiles-Taylor proof but Andrew wants none of that sharing and has since then deleted Taylor from any accounts of his con-art fake proof. Is that misconduct on the part of Wiles? Probably. For the Taylor patch of Wiles gaping hole never really remedied the hole. For the gigantic hole of Wiles's FLT for which there is no patch, is the fact that his proof method of Reductio Ad Absurdum is an invalid proof method in mathematics.
> > >
> > > Construction proofs are valid proofs in math, not indirect by contradiction.
> > >
> > > And Andrew Wiles uses the Taniyama-Shimura modularity theorem.
> > >
> > > So, previously I asked which of these modern times math proofs were Reductio Ad Absurdum? Which?
> > >
> > > 1) Wiles's FLT, yes, RAA
> > > 2) Appel & Haken 4 Color Mapping, yes RAA
> > > 3) Hales Kepler Packing, yes, RAA
> > > 4) Green & Tao theorem on prime intervals, yes, RAA
> > > 5) Poincare conjecture by Perelman, yes, RAA
> > > 6) Ribet theorem, is it RAA?
> > > 7) Taniyama-Shimura theorem, is it RAA?
> Sad that mathematicians cannot even write their proofs clear and logical order. For they should always state at the beginning what their Proof Method is going to be. In the 20th and 21st century, they thought the Reductio Ad Absurdum (proof by contradiction) was a valid proof method along with Construction proofs. So at the beginning of their proof, much fanfare should be stated as to what sort of proof method they are using-- is it geometrical proof, is it construction proof, is it RAA?
>
> Well searching the Web we see the Taniyama-Shimura or Modular theorem is RAA.
>
> --- quoting the web on this proof from redalyc.org ---
> with a mathematical object called a modular. If the UTF is false, then there would be an elliptic curve such that can’t be associated with any modular form, and therefore the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture would be false. I.e., Taniyama-Shimura conjecture solution would demonstrate the UTF.
> --- end quote ---

The Fallacy of Ribet's Theorem.

I been checking on Ribet's Theorem-- very complex and very, how should I say it hypothetical on cloud 9.

I have not spotted a Reductio Ad Absurdum in Ribets phony proof.

But listening to a lecture on YouTube by Benedict Gross on Serre conjecture and Ribet theorem, I am convinced that what went wrong here is typified by another phony proof, but of the 1800s, whereas Ribet is late 1900s. The phony proof I speak of is Dandelin 1822 spheres inside a cone and assumed ellipse.

Turns out that there is no Dandelin proof, because the slant cut of the cone is a Oval and a Oval has no two symmetrical focal points that one can rest two spheres upon.

So the mistake of Dandelin is a "false assumption". And in logic, when you assume a falsehood as true, it has been said that you can prove 1+1 = 1, if you assume a falsehood.

Did Dandelin use Reductio Ad Absurdum? Did they use RAA on top of a false assumption? Checking to see, well, no, they needed no RAA, and that a false assumption was plenty enough to make a false proof.

And I am convinced that in the Serre-- Ribet theorem, that false assumptions are pervasive. Not just one false assumption as in Dandelin, but many many false assumptions, for we are dealing in geometry that is not tangible. We are dealing in geometry of elliptic curves that cannot even be drawn. Although Benedict Gross mentioned the torus in his blackboard lecture.

AP

🪲 of Math and 🪳 of Physics Archimedes "Village Idiot of Meckling SD"
Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

> And in logic, when you assume a falsehood as true, it has been said that you can prove 1+1 = 1, if you assume a falsehood.

And here is an excellent example of a false "proof" by Plutonium by
assuming a falsehood, using the 1822 Dandelin Spheres proof.

> Turns out that there is no Dandelin proof, because the slant cut of the cone is a Oval and a Oval has no two symmetrical focal points that one can rest two spheres upon.
>
Plutonium assumes the slant cut of the cone is an Oval and an Oval has
no two symmetrical focal points that one can rest two spheres upon. So
Plutonium "concludes" the Dandelin Spheres doesn't produce an ellipse
because he assumes the initial curve is an "oval" and not an ellipse.

Logicians call Plutonium's mistake "assuming your conclusion", a major
logical fallacy.

🪲 of Math and 🪳 of Physics Archimedes "Village Idiot of Meckling SD"
Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

> And in logic, when you assume a falsehood as true, it has been said that you can prove 1+1 = 1, if you assume a falsehood.

And here is an excellent example of a false proof by Plutonium by
assuming a falsehood, using the 1822 Dandelin Spheres proof.

> Turns out that there is no Dandelin proof, because the slant cut of the cone is a Oval and a Oval has no two symmetrical focal points that one can rest two spheres upon.
>
Plutonium assumes the slant cut of the cone is an Oval and an Oval has
no two symmetrical focal points that one can rest two spheres upon. So
Plutonium "concludes" the Dandelin Spheres doesn't produce an ellipse
because he assumes the initial curve is an "oval" and not an ellipse.

Logicians call Plutonium's mistake "assuming your conclusion", a major
logical fallacy.

> So the mistake of Dandelin is a "false assumption". And in logic, when you assume a falsehood as true, it has been said that you can prove 1+1 = 1, if you assume a falsehood.

Actually watching Benedict Gross on blackboard on Ribet Theorem on YouTube, we can easily see how modern day math professors have descended into a Twilight Zone of memorized insanity.

Let me model that lecture of Gross's lecture on Ribet Theorem, and not pick on Gross too much for if Ribet was at the blackboard or Wiles at the blackboard, we have the same "realization of math in the weeds of the twilight zone of craziness"

Math Professor: So if we had Bigfoot in France and crossed the channel on a raft to look for Loch Ness monster rho eigenvalue Galois group.

Then Puff the Magic Dragon on pink eyes white scales, fire breathing, helmet or no helmet.

And a weight of level qN, ramified finite flat. Then Bigfoot with conductor of Fourier coefficients sells elliptic curve to Loch Ness for higher dimension leveling conductor at mod 7 lower level to meet up with Puff the Magic Dragon and Loch Nessy.

However if newform is level lower mod p Galois then newform is duke, duke, duke, duke of Earl.

This is of course the stupid ridiculousness of someone thinking that elliptic equations can masquerade for the Counting Numbers. So jerks of mathematics can never figure out the solution to FLT is 2+2=2x2=4, so they run on insane crazy ideas of dressing up elliptic curves that reach into cloud 9 stratosphere of goofball crazy,--- when, when all they needed to do was have a Logical brain and look at 2+2= 2x2 as a basis vector for all solutions in A^x + B^y = C^z.

No, Andrew Wiles at the blackboard, or Ken Ribet at the blackboard doing elliptic curves is not a sign of brilliance in mathematics but a asylum crazyhouse at the blackboard.

As I said earlier in a post, there are two competing axioms involved in solutions to A^x + B^y = C^z. There is the axiom of arithmetic that two odds make a even and the axiom of arithmetic algebra that to maintain a equation of equality, you must multiply or divide factors in common. So the smallest of these solutions is not 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2, for we cannot divide out and still retain counting numbers. The smallest solution is 2^2 + 2^2 = 2^3 which can divide out as 2^1 + 2^1 = 2^2 which can divide out as 1+1 = 2.

That is the SMALLEST SOLUTIONS in Counting Numbers of A^x + B^y = C^z. And if you look at those last two solutions of 2+2 = 2^2 is that of 2+2 = 2x2 as the basis vector, and the smaller solution of 1+1= 2.

So, that is where FLT teaching should begin. We have the equation we want solved in Counting Numbers A^x + B^y = C^z. We look for the Absolute Smallest Solution and it is 1+1=2, next smallest is 2+2=2^2. We use 2+2=2x2 as Basis Vector and build all the other solution sets of A^x + B^y = C^z. When we reach exponent 3 or higher, we cease having solutions to where all the exponents are of the same number. This is because there is no N+N+N = NxNxN in exp3 or analogously higher.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics

So what the world of mathematics needs now, is not a Benedict Gross or Andrew Wiles or Ken Ribet tooting their horns on how fantastic are elliptic curves in modeling the Counting Numbers {1, 2, 3, 4, ...}. But rather what we really need is the math community to come forth and tell how pathetically stupid it all was to think that elliptic curves have much of anything at all to say about the counting numbers.

This is as mindless as thinking the Circle equation says much if anything about the Counting Numbers.

Because both the circle and ellipse are steeped full of the number pi and not counting numbers. So it must have been a sort of goonclod of the past math history to ever think that a adventure into ellipses would reveal anything about Counting Numbers.

What really does say something about the Counting Numbers are right-triangles, and then in Generalized FLT, those right triangles are replaced by rectangles.

So one can form a conjecture here about Dull Stupid Mindless Lacking in Logic math professors who think that a Elliptic Curve can say anything about Counting Numbers, deserves to be booted out of math rather than have thousands others follow their mindless trek into the twilight zone of math.

Conjecture: when old and in math and not famous in math-- watch out-- these clowns and bozos will carve a path into the twilight zone of mathematics.

Now in the Dandelin fake proof of two spheres resting on foci of ellipse inside a cone. There was 1 False Assumption, and it only take one false assumption to have a math catastrophe. The false assumption is the slant cut in cone is not the ellipse but a oval.

So how many False Assumptions were in Serre and Ribet modeling of elliptic curves as integers?

Having listened to Benedict Gross blackboard lecture on YouTube, I think I spotted the Big False Assumption. And there are likely many other false assumptions in Serre and Ribet elliptic curves.

The big one is that you can even assign counting numbers to elliptic curves.. I say that is the big false assumption. I say every elliptic curve as every circle curve, every number point is irrational based on pi. There are only two rational numbers for trig values, not counting 0. And those two are 1 and 1/2, which reduces to 1 and 2 as Counting Numbers.

So the Big False Assumption of Serre, Ribet, Taniyama-Shimura, Wiles, the big false assumption is that you can even model the Counting Numbers with elliptical curves.

If you can never model the counting numbers with circles, hells bells, you cannot model the counting numbers with ellipse.

So, what Serre, Ribet, Taniyama-Shimura, Wiles built was nothing but a mountain of fakery mathematics.

Would anyone build a elliptic curve or a circle curve for Pythagorean theorem? Of course not for it is the right triangle that directly relates to Counting Numbers.

Would anyone build a elliptic curve for A^n+B^n=C^n? Only if you are crazy. Because the FLT is begot as a corollary of A^x+B^y=C^z where x,y,z are 3 or larger. And in this Generalized FLT the geometry that solves it is never the elliptic curve but rather the Rectangle, as I called them in my proof-- Condensed Rectangles.

So, the fools that were desperate for fame and fortune in math, those fools could not think logically and being old fools went and sought for elliptic curves when in reality, it was rectangles that matches the Geometry proof, not ellipses.

But when you are old and desperate for fame and fortune and lack a logical mind, well, you stoop to that stupidity of elliptic curves for FLT.

So, Wiles used a RAA, on top of a Ribet fake proof of False Assumption. But there are likely several false assumptions, perhaps more than 3 false assumptions from Serre to Ribet. And so Wiles has a RAA on invalid proofs of Ribet full of 3 or more false assumptions. Shame on the rest of the math community that they are so quiet while they are being pandered to by such con-artist fakery.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics

Look at this autistic meltdown by poor Arky. He's still upset over being
25 years too late for the FLT solution party and it being plain that
Wiles' proof is widely accepted. He goes on a nice long rant lashing
out with ad hominem after ad hominem against mathematicians. No actual
math, of course, just attack after attack.

It didn't help that I pointed out his attack on the Dandelin Spheres
ellipse proof was a typical "assume the conclusion" fallacy.

> math professors have descended into a Twilight Zone of memorized insanity.
>
> we have the same "realization of math in the weeds of the twilight zone of craziness"
>
> Then Puff the Magic Dragon on pink eyes white scales, fire breathing, helmet or no helmet.
>
> Then Bigfoot with conductor

> Loch Ness

> Puff the Magic Dragon and Loch Nessy.
>
> newform is duke, duke, duke, duke of Earl.
>
> jerks of mathematics

> they run on insane crazy ideas of dressing up elliptic curves that reach into cloud 9 stratosphere of goofball crazy,
>
> a asylum crazyhouse at the blackboard.
>
> how pathetically stupid it all was
>
> This is as mindless
>
> goonclod of the past math history
>
> Dull Stupid Mindless Lacking in Logic math professors

> their mindless trek into the twilight zone of math.
>
> these clowns and bozos will carve a path into the twilight zone of mathematics.
>
> the fools that were desperate

> those fools could not think logically

> and lack a logical mind, well, you stoop to that stupidity

Kibo ParryM. how do you clean your dick after it has been up Barry Shein's arsehole, or does it improve your stalking
> 285 views
> by Richard Cranium May 10, 2020, 8:30:43 PM
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 1:28:29 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"AnalButtfuckManure"

Are you a proud insane stalker Kibo that you invented that word? And will you now make a emoji of "analbuttfuckmanure"-- a self portrait Kibo to be included in Nick Thompson's Wired magazine cover picture.

On Tuesday, August 31, 2021 at 11:53:00 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> "physics hater"

1-Kibo Parry Moroney, how do you clean your dick after it has been up Barry Shein's arsehole, or does it improve your stalking
> 285 views
> by Richard Cranium May 10, 2020, 8:30:43 PM
imp of physics John Baez, Brian Greene, Lisa Randall, Alan H. Guth, Michael E. Brown, Ben Bullock
, Larry Harson says Kibo Parry M. probably because none can even ask the question which is the atom's true electron? Is it muon or 0.5MeV particle.
On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 4:49:02 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> "imp of physics"

math hater Peter Shor, Isadore Singer, Michael Sipser, Jared Speck, Richard Stanley, Harold Stark, Gilbert Strang, says Kibo Parry M. Maybe because none can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 4:18:34 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> "math hater"

imp of physics and goonclod failure Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,
Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish says Kibo Parry M
On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 4:44:48 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"imp of physics"

Kibo Parry M why is Rensselaer David Isaacson, Elizabeth Kam, Ashwani Kapila, Maya Kiehl, CCP Stooge and "spamming shithead" as your title says?
On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 12:36:19 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> "The CCP's Stooge"

Insane Kibo Parry M leashing out at Kristin Bennett, Joseph Ecker, William Henshaw and Rensselaer Polytech for failing math and science with kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945. Kibo, is it insanity that makes you fail, kibo?

On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 8:27:14 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> "math hater"
On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 8:11:32 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"antiscience"

Kibo Parry M. opinion of Rensselaer Polytech where Kibo learned 938 is 12% short of 945 Re: "spamming shithead" flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test

On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 8:22:09 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"physics hater"

Kibo Parry M fails math Jeffrey Banks, Kristin Bennett, Joseph Ecker, William Henshaw as witness, and Kibo invents "analbuttfuckmanure" leashing out at Rensselaer Polytech for his science failureship of kibo Parry M.

On Saturday, October 23, 2021 at 8:21:33 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> fails at math and science:

Psst, Kibo Parry you insane stalker, 938 is short of 945 by less than 1%, not your 12% short.

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

On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 8:40:35 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Math Minnow

Moroney and Rensselaer Polytech Institute fail at High School Math, High School Logic// both teach Ellipse is a conic when it never was// teach 10 OR 4 = 14 when even the village idiot knows 10 AND 4=14 // never have a geometry proof of Calculus

kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_Joel T. Giedt, Yong Sung Kim, Gyorgy Korniss, Toh-Ming Lu, Charles Martin,, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic and real proton is 840MeV not 938

kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_Peter Persans, Moussa N'Gom, John Schroeder, Michael Shur, Shawn-Yu Lin, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938

kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_Humberto Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang, Morris A Washington, Esther A. Wertz, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938

kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_Christian M. Wetzel, Ingrid Wilke, Shengbai Zhang, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938

kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_David A Schmidt, Daniel Stevenson, Yangyang Xu, Bulent Yener, Donald Drew, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938

kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_William Siegmann,Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek, Julian S. Georg, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938

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

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

On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 12:13:14 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Physics minnow
> WARNING TO ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING STUDENTS:

> Kibo Parry M on Rensselaer failures Drs.Shawn-Yu Lin,Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang
> Re: 2.2-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to math percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Shawn-Yu Lin,Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang
> On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 11:34:20 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >Failure
>
>
> Is Kibo Parry M. the largest taxpayer fraud waste and abuse in Usenet history, paid $100 per stalker post by NSF and dept Educ Dr. Panchanathan??????????
>
> On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 6:15:27 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 6:24:20 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> >blithered:
> On Sunday, June 13, 2021 at 12:55:53 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > "FireD your ass"
>
> snip the threats of violence kibo so many times posted
>
> AP writes: Kibo Parry M. is NSF Dr. Panchanathan and USA dept Educ going to pay you $100. for that post?? If so, then Barry Shein's World std must be a goldmine of USA taxpayer fraud waste and abuse. Just posting abusive stalker defaming spam for 28 years now. No wonder Kibo keeps defaming and stalking; many people would gladly defame and stalk at $100. a post.
>
> Re: The Gabriel Polynomial- an advanced stealing and stolen item from Archimedes Plutonium and his book//
> by Michael Moroney Sep 27, 2021, 1:16 AM
>
> Re: 1-Did Kibo-Parry-Maroney fail Rensselaer or was kicked out due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton is 840MeV not 938, the .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole
> by Roy Masters Sep 13, 2019, 3:24:07 PM
>
> Re: 1.2-Did Kibo-Parry-Maroney fail Rensselaer or was kicked out due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton is 840MeV not 938, the .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole
> by Patricio J. Whackmember Sep 13, 2019, 5:43:28 PM
>
> Re: 1.9-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Korniss,Toh-Ming Lu,Martin
> By Dingus Dirtbag McGee Sep 15, 2019, 9:57:15 AM
>

Kibo Parry Moroney stalking attacks on

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

🐒 of Math and 🦍 of Physics Archimedes "AnalButtfuckManure" Plutonium
<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
> On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 1:28:29 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> "AnalButtfuckManure"
>
> Are you a proud insane stalker Kibo that you invented that word?

GayPlutonium, be proud of YOUR invention, the word "analbuttfuckmanure"
which YOU invented!

We know you're gay, Plutonium, everybody is OK with that. Just keep your
gay fetishes, including your "analbuttfuckmanure" fetish, out of this
group, and quit trying to make it a gay pickup bar.

> And will you now make a emoji of "analbuttfuckmanure"

Here are some emojis for you to have PRIDE in, Plutonium!
🏳️‍🌈 👨‍❤️‍💋‍👨 👬 👨‍❤️‍👨
Get your other nut cut off and maybe you can use these, too!
🏳️‍⚧️ ⚧️
Have PRIDE in who you are, GayPlutonium!

p.s. Good luck in your search for a bedwarmer!

Kibo why cannot Jenny Hoffman, Gerald Holton help Dr.Hau & Sylvia turn the light off in Slow Light experiment and prove AP is correct that Light Waves are closed loop circuits, and not what physics textbooks preach falsely that their light is a arrow-ray with head and tail. Kibo are they just as stupid in science as kibo; slant cut in Cone is ellipse when AP proved it was an Oval. Or the fact that no-one at Harvard or Berkeley Univ can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Just plain stupid people in science??

12--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

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.

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.
Kibo's 2017-2018 invented word since kibo failed math with his 938 is 12% short of 945 and kibo insists geothermal is recycled Sunshine when AP tried to teach the kibo dolt that it is radioactive decay.
On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 10:48:29 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"AnalButtfuckManure"

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.

You delight in sending in Kibo Parry M. to defame and character mock AP nonstop stalking. A insane nutcase of Kibo who cannot even do math with his 938 is 12% short of 945. Perhaps you teach Kibo b.s. in your Berkeley classrooms along with his endless idiocy of ellipse a conic joke here.

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 and Berkeley physics? 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.

Dumb and ignorant Harvard Dr. Hau and dumb and ignorant Berkeley Sylvia Else think Light Waves are arrow like single rays with a head and tail on a arrow ray. But that is only because they are ignorant in physics. They cannot turn off the light for it proves AP correct-- that the Light Wave is a closed loop circuit with the source of the light always in the closed loop circuit. So if and when those two incompetents Dr. Hau and Sylvia Else turn off the light source, all the light the fast light the Slow Light, the fast light exiting the BEC medium, all the Light vanishes simultaneously.

The ignorant Hau and Else think that the SLOW LIGHT will still be visible, still be crawling slow in the BEC. But no, it vanishes instantly as all the other light from that source. But Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Sylvia Else do not want to report that truth, no, they want to never report any true science that is connected with Archimedes Plutonium, because Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Sylvia Else are not scientists at all-- but suppression jerks.

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

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

Harvard Math dept

Noam Elkies (FP)

Dennis Gaitsgory (FP)

Robin Gottlieb (PP)

Benedict Gross (FP)

Joseph Harris (FP)

Heisuke Hironaka (EM)

Michael Hopkins (FP)

Arthur Jaffe (FP)

David Kazhdan (EM)

Mark Kisin (FP)

Peter Kronheimer (FP)

Jacob Lurie (FP)

Eric Maskin (FP)

Barry Mazur (FP)

Curtis McMullen (FP)

David Mumford (EM)

Martin Nowak (FP)

Gerald Sacks (EM)

Wilfried Schmid (FP)

Yum-Tong Siu (FP)

Shlomo Sternberg (EM)

John Tate (EM)

Cliff Taubes (FP)

Hugh Woodin (FP)

Horng-Tzer Yau (FP)

Shing-Tung Yau (FP)

Why can no-one at Harvard help Dr. Hau turn the light switch off and prove that the Light wave is a circuit pencil ellipse not a arrow ray of head and tail which everyone except AP believes.


Kibo can Heidi Jo Newberg, Ingrid Wilke help Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Sylvia Else turn the light switch off in Slow Light rather than play ad hominem games.

Instead of doing Physics where AP proves that Light Waves are pencil ellipse closed loop circuits not straightline arrow rays, 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.

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 and Berkeley physics? 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.

Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley Sylvia Else think Light Waves are arrow like single rays with a head and tail on a arrow ray. But that is only because they are ignorant in physics. They cannot turn off the light for it proves AP correct-- that the Light Wave is a closed loop circuit with the source of the light always in the closed loop circuit. So if and when those two incompetents Dr. Hau and Sylvia Else turn off the light source, all the light the fast light the Slow Light, the fast light exiting the BEC medium, all the Light vanishes simultaneously.

Hau and Else think that the SLOW LIGHT will still be visible, still be crawling slow in the BEC. But no, it vanishes instantly as all the other light from that source. But Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Sylvia Else do not want to report that truth, no, they want to never report any true science that is connected with Archimedes Plutonium, because Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Sylvia Else are not scientists at all-- but suppression jerks.

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 ways 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 ways 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

Frenchman Lacassagne 1885 (in recent times, some have mistaken this quote by attributing it to one of the Kennedy politicians in the USA, but it goes way back to France) : "Every society has the criminals it deserves"
AP 2021: "Every University is responsible for the filthy stalker who attended that school and is now a insane nonstop stalker on Usenet"

> Is Kibo Parry M. the largest taxpayer fraud waste and abuse in Usenet history, paid $100 per stalker post by NSF and dept Educ Dr. Panchanathan??????????
>
> On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 6:15:27 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 6:24:20 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> >blithered:
> On Sunday, June 13, 2021 at 12:55:53 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > "FireD your ass"
>
> snip the threats of violence kibo so many times posted
>
> AP writes: Kibo Parry M. is NSF Dr. Panchanathan and USA dept Educ going to pay you $100. for that post?? If so, then Barry Shein's World std must be a goldmine of USA taxpayer fraud waste and abuse. Just posting abusive stalker defaming spam for 28 years now. No wonder Kibo keeps defaming and stalking; many people would gladly defame and stalk at $100. a post.
>
> Re: The Gabriel Polynomial- an advanced stealing and stolen item from Archimedes Plutonium and his book//
> by Michael Moroney Sep 27, 2021, 1:16 AM
>
> Re: 1-Did Kibo-Parry-Maroney fail Rensselaer or was kicked out due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton is 840MeV not 938, the .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole
> by Roy Masters Sep 13, 2019, 3:24:07 PM
>
> Re: 1.2-Did Kibo-Parry-Maroney fail Rensselaer or was kicked out due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton is 840MeV not 938, the .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole
> by Patricio J. Whackmember Sep 13, 2019, 5:43:28 PM
>
> Re: 1.9-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Korniss,Toh-Ming Lu,Martin
> By Dingus Dirtbag McGee Sep 15, 2019, 9:57:15 AM
>
> Re: 2.0-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton is 840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Michael,Newberg,N'Gom
> By Dingus Dirtbag McGee Sep 15, 2019, 9:56:57 AM
>
> Re: 2.1-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton is 840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Persans,Schroeder,Shur
> By Dingus Dirtbag McGee Sep 15, 2019, 9:56:39 AM
>
> Re: 2.2-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to math percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Shawn-Yu Lin,Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang
> By Dingus Dirtbag McGee Sep 15, 2019, 9:56:28 AM
>
>
>
>
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Physics dept
> Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek, Julian S. Georg, Joel T. Giedt, Yong Sung Kim, Gyorgy Korniss, Toh-Ming Lu, Charles Martin, Joseph Darryl Michael, Heidi Jo Newberg, Moussa N'Gom, Peter Persans, John Schroeder, Michael Shur, Shawn-Yu Lin, Humberto Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang, Morris A Washington, Esther A. Wertz, Christian M. Wetzel, Ingrid Wilke, Shengbai Zhang

> Rensselaer math department
> Donald Schwendeman, Jeffrey Banks, Kristin Bennett, Mohamed Boudjelkha, Joseph Ecker, William Henshaw, Isom Herron, Mark H Holmes, David Isaacson, Elizabeth Kam, Ashwani Kapila, Maya Kiehl, Gregor Kovacic, Peter Kramer, Gina Kucinski, Rongjie Lai, Fengyan Li, Chjan Lim, Yuri V Lvov, Harry McLaughlin, John E. Mitchell, Bruce Piper, David A Schmidt, Daniel Stevenson, Yangyang Xu, Bulent Yener, Donald Drew, William Siegmann
>
> Re: A newsgroup like sci.math is a pile of shit when you have paid stalkers like Kibo Parry M. or Dan Christensen lording over sci.math as if he owns the place-- stalking and attacking posters 7-24-365. This is why I now post a roadmap to AP's newsgr
> by Alan Mackenzie Jun 29, 2021, 2:36:04 PM
>
> Re: 30) AP's 174th book// Mathopedia-- Listing of 70 fakes and mistakes of Old Math. Last revision was 28JUN2021. Preface: I suppose, going forward, mathematics should always have a mathopedia, where major parts of mathematics as a science are held
> by Michael Moroney Jul 3, 2021, 12:55:10 PM
>
> Re: 5) AP's 174th book// Mathopedia-- Listing of 67 fakes and mistakes of Old Math. Last revision was 8JUN2021. Under-Construction: AP recently is reinventing Multivariable Calculus, and will end up throwing out Old Math's Gradient theorem, Green's
> by
> Michael Moroney
> Jun 17, 2021, 11:57 AM
>
> 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: Kibo Parry Moroney threatening the life of AP with his incited hatred of 28 years stalking
> 148th published book Plutonium Atom Totality Universe, 9th edition 2021, Atom Totality Series, book 1
> Jun 16, 2021, 12:09 AM
> by
> Graham Cooper
>
>
> Re: 1- Kibo Parry Moroney threatening the life of AP, with his inciting hatred of 28 years stalking leading to Violence
> Mutt Buncher Re: 3- Kibo Parry Moroney says Dr. Tao, Hales, Stillwell, Wiles, educators
> Jun 16, 2021
> by
> Efftard K. Donglemeier
>
>
> Re: l) AP's 175th book//Physicsopedia-- Listing of 125 fakes and mistakes of Old Physics. New entrees under construction: AP is reinventing Multivariable Calculus so that AP throws on the trash pile the Green's theorem, Gradient theorem, Stokes
> by Michael Moroney Jun 13, 2021, 4:47:35 PM
>
> Re: 1-Kibo Parry Moroney on failed physicist Steven Weinberg who cannot entertain the question of which is the real electron of atoms-- is it the muon or the 0.5MeV particle?
> by Mina Arvuti lähedal May 30, 2021, 7:54 AM
>
> Re: Erik sickfuck Eastside says>oil & vinegar// UCLA Physics with their imbecile electron--Gene D. Block, Ernest Abers, Elihu Abrahams, too stupid to understand Real Proton = 840 MeV with electron= muon and 0.5MeV was Dirac magnetic monopole
> by Michael Moroney Mar 3, 2019, 6:38:18 PM
>
>
> Re: 77,233 Student victims of Lawrence Bacow's Harvard from stalker Kibo Parry Moroney with his 938 is 12% short 945, his 10 OR 4 = 14 with AND as subtraction, and his mindless belief real electron = 0.5MeV when true electron is muon
> 11:57 AM 10Apr2021
> by Wayne Decarlo
>
> Re: 135,566 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron o
> May 10, 2021
> by Michael Moroney
>
> Re: 6Der_FartMouth Births-comics for Eric FartFrancis, with snickering by George FartWitte published by ST FARTMARTINS
> By Michael Moroney 28 posts 292 views updated 12:31 PM
>
> Re: L. Reif, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker, Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins-- Moroney-- Boston's antiscience stalker fool//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole
> By Michael Moroney 19 posts 120 views updated 12:28 PM
>
> Re: If Marissa Mayer were still at Google-- probably take her 15 minutes to engineer a better newsgroup
> By Michael Moroney 20 posts 156 views updated 12:26 PM
>
> Re: 8Der_FartMouth Births-comics for Eric FartFrancis, with snickering by George FartWitte published by ST FARTMARTINS
> By Michael Moroney 29 posts 422 views updated 12:25 PM
>
> Re: Erik sickfuck Eastside says>oil & vinegar// UCLA Physics with their imbecile electron--Gene D. Block,Ernest Abers,Elihu Abrahams, too stupid to understand Real Proton = 840 MeV with electron= muon and .5MeV was Dirac magnetic monopole
> By Michael Moroney 34 posts 244 views updated 12:23 PM
>
> 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 44 posts 461 views updated 12:17 PM
>
> 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: TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS series by Archimedes Plutonium, only math books to teach correct calculus with a geometry proof of Fundamental theorem of Calculus. Old Math cannot even fix its mistake of ellipse is a cylinder section, never a conic.
> by Michael Moroney
>
> Re: 5-AP's 150th book// TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Freshperson College// Physics textbook series, book 4 by Archimedes Plutonium// Using as template Halliday& Resnick & AP's Senior year High School to AP's 150th book// TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//
> by Michael Moroney
>
> Re: Zelos asks why Harvard's Dr. Hau wants to fail in physics, by not turning off the light to see if light wave is a closed loop pencil ellipse that AP predicts. Is Dr.Hau stubborn and too ignorant to finish her experiment??
> by Michael Moroney
>
> Re: Kibo Parry Moroney on Dr. Thorp stealing AP's dog theory connected to why he is a failure on Lewis 8 Structure because CO and N2 dissociation energy says it is Lewis 6 Structure. Yes, Kibo, what is your psychoanalysis of Dr. Thorp stealing? Is steal
> Ebenezer Splooge
>
> Re: Kibo Parry Moroney asks Trump to give South Korea to North Korea, for who wants to protect barbarians that torture Moon Bears in cages
> by Roger Davis
>
> Re: Kibo Parry Moroney says of Dr. Tao "ant of Math" and a pandemic shit mule// Perhaps because Dr. Tao is such a failure of math, he believed primes are real when Naturals have no division-- and failures of math overlook even the most obvious
> by Professor Wordsmith Jul 25, 2020, 8:23:21 PM
>
> Re: 8-Kibo Parry Moroney says boycott Samsung & Hyundai until South Korea stops torturing to death caged Moon Bears // SOUTH KOREA, MOON BEARS Moon Bears of South Korea need the world's helping hand from evil//SCIENCE COUNCIL RULE EARTH
> by Betsy Kibo Moroney Perry DeVos Anal Manure Buttfuck Jul 28, 2020, 5:35:52 PM
>
> Re: 1- Kibo Parry Moroney says of math failure Dan Christensen Univ. Western Ontario with his ellipse a conic when it never was//And his insane Boole logic of 10 OR 2 = 12// pandemic shit mule
> by Hank Hill Jul 26, 2020, 7:26:18 PM
>
> 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: 1-Kibo Parry Moroney, how do you clean your dick after it has been up Barry Shein's arsehole, or does it improve your stalking
> 285 views
> by Richard Cranium May 10, 2020, 8:30:43 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.
>
>
>
> ..
> .- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
> , . `.' ' `.
> .' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
> . ; .' . `. ;
> ; . ' `. . '
> . ' ` `. |
> . '. '
> . 0 0 ' `.
> ' `
> ; `
> .' `
> ; U `
> ; '; `
> : | ;.. :` `
> : `;. ```. .-; | '
> '. ` ``.., .' :' '
> ; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' Hi, I am Kibo Parry Moroney, the grand failure of science with my 938 is 12% short of 945, and my ellipse is a conic when it never was, and my idiocy of thinking geothermal is not radioactivity but is recycled solar fossil. I stalk on Internet because NSF pays a million dollars and is 5 times the salary of those professors stuck with actually teaching science and all I do is attack dog style in sci.math, sci.physics.
> ` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
> ` ` ; ; ' '
> ` ` ; ; ' '
> ` `. ````'''''' ' '
> ` . ' '
> / ` `. ' ' .
> / ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
> / .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
> / .'' ; ` .' `
> ...'.' ; .' ` .' `
> "" .' .' | ` .; \ `
> ; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
> :' | ' ` , `. `
> | ' ` ' `. `
> ` ' ` ; `. |
> `.' ` ; `-'
> `...'
>
>
>
>
/ Why can no-one at Rensselaer help Dr. Hau turn the light switch off and prove that the Light wave is a circuit pencil ellipse not a arrow ray of head and tail which everyone except AP believes.


Kibo Parry M on Andrew Wiles & Oxford Univ are psychoceramic & analbuttfuckmanure, but then Kibo was insane starting way back in 1990s anyway. And for some reason, the USA govt encourages and probably pays him to spam sci.math and sci.physics with hate tripe.

On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 1:37:56 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"analbuttfuckmanure"
> fails at math and science:
>psychoceramic

On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 10:48:29 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"AnalButtfuckManure"
> fails at math and science:
> > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 1:28:29 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> "AnalButtfuckManure"
> >

Why cannot Andrew Wiles nor Oxford Univ correct their error that a slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. Nor can any of them ever give a geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, meaning that they are complete failures of science, math, and common sense reasoning.

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)

#8-3, 24th published book

World's First Proof of Kepler Packing Problem KPP // Math proof series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

There has been a alleged proof of KPP by Thomas Hales, but his is a fakery because he does not define what infinity actually means, for it means a borderline between finite and infinite numbers. Thus, KPP was never going to be proven until a well-defined infinity borderline was addressed within the proof. And because infinity has a borderline means that in free space with no borderlines to tackle and contend with, the 12 kissing point density that is the hexagonal close packed is the maximum density. But the truth and reality of Kepler Packing is asking for maximum packing out to infinity. That means you have to contend and fight with the packing of identical spheres up against a wall or border. And so, in tackling that wall, we can shift the hexagonal closed pack to another type of packing, a hybrid type of packing in order to get "maximum packing". So no proof ever of KPP is going to happen unless the proof tackles a infinity border wall. In free-space, a far distance away from a wall barrier of infinity border, then, hexagonal closed pack reigns and is the packing in all of free space-- but, the moment the packing gets nearby the walls of infinity border, then, we re-arrange the hexagonal closed pack to fit in more spheres. Not unlike us packing a suitcase and then rearranging to fit in more.

Cover picture: is a container and so the closed packing must be modified once the border is nearly reached to maximize the number of spheres.
Length: 61 pages

File Size: 1241 KB
Print Length: 61 pages
Publication Date: March 20, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07NMV8NQQ
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 

#8-4, 28th published book

World's First Valid Proof of 4 Color Mapping Problem// Math proof series, book 4 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Now in the math literature it is alleged that Appel & Haken proved this conjecture that 4 colors are sufficient to color all planar maps such that no two adjacent countries have the same color. Appel & Haken's fake proof was a computer proof and it is fake because their method is Indirect Nonexistence method. Unfortunately in the time of Appel & Haken few in mathematics had a firm grip on true Logic, where they did not even know that Boole's logic is fakery with his 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 depending on which is subtracted. But the grave error in logic of Appel & Haken is their use of a utterly fake method of proof-- indirect nonexistence (see my textbook on Reductio Ad Absurdum). Wiles with his alleged proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is another indirect nonexistence as well as Hales's fake proof of Kepler Packing is indirect nonexistence.
Appel & Haken were in a time period when computers used in mathematics was a novelty, and instead of focusing on whether their proof was sound, everyone was dazzled not with the logic argument but the fact of using computers to generate a proof. And of course big big money was attached to this event and so, math is stuck with a fake proof of 4-Color-Mapping. And so, AP starting in around 1993, eventually gives the World's first valid proof of 4-Color-Mapping. Sorry, no computer fanfare, but just strict logical and sound argument.

Cover picture: Shows four countries colored yellow, red, green, purple and all four are mutually adjacent. And where the Purple colored country is landlocked, so that if it were considered that a 5th color is needed, that 5th color should be purple, hence, 4 colors are sufficient.
Length: 29 pages

File Size: 1183 KB
Print Length: 29 pages
Publication Date: March 23, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PZ2Y5RV
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 



#8-5, 6th published book

World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 29Apr2021. This is AP's 6th published book.

Preface:
Real proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem// including the fake Euler proof in exp3 and Wiles fake proof.

Recap summary: In 1993 I proved Fermat's Last Theorem with a pure algebra proof, arguing that because of the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4 that this special feature of a unique number 4, allows for there to exist solutions to A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That the number 4 is a basis vector allowing more solutions to exist in exponent 2. But since there is no number with N+N+N = N*N*N that exists, there cannot be a solution in exp3 and the same argument for higher exponents. In 2014, I went and proved Generalized FLT by using "condensed rectangles". Once I had proven Generalized, then Regular FLT comes out of that proof as a simple corollary. So I had two proofs of Regular FLT, pure algebra and a corollary from Generalized FLT. Then recently in 2019, I sought to find a pure algebra proof of Generalized FLT, and I believe I accomplished that also by showing solutions to Generalized FLT also come from the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4. Amazing how so much math comes from the specialness of 4, where I argue that a Vector Space of multiplication provides the Generalized FLT of A^x + B^y = C^z.

2Kibo Parry M can Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall, Lene Hau ask the question, which is the atom's real electron, the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law or the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. Or is Kibo Parry M too worried about his newly invented word of "analbuttfuckmanure" that Kibo invented in 2017-18 and has continued to use right through 2021 calling AP that word since AP does science while Kibo never does science, only stalker hate spew.
On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 6:12:36 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> fails at math and science:
> On Thursday, August 26, 2021 at 1:25:03 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >"AnalButtfuckManure
>
> Kibo fails at even a correct percentage.
> 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.
> 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
>
> President Larry Summers
> President now Lawrence Bacow
>
> 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
>
>
> MIT math dept.
>
> Michael Artin, Martin Bazant, Bonnie Berger, Roman Bezrukavnikov, Alexei Borodin, John Bush, Herman Chernoff, Henry Cohn, Laurent Demanet, Richard Dudley, Jörn Dunkel, Alan Edelman, Pavel Etingof, Daniel Freedman, Michel Goemans, Vadim Gorin, Harvey Greenspan, Victor Guillemin, Larry Guth, Sigurdur Helgason, Anette Hosoi, David Jerison, Steven Johnson, Victor Kac, Steven Kleiman, Daniel Kleitman,
> Andrew Lawrie, Tom Leighton, George Lusztig, Arthur Mattuck, Davesh Maulik, Richard Melrose, Haynes Miller, William Minicozzi, Ankur Moitra, Elchanan Mossel, Tomasz Mrowka, James Munkres, Andrei Negut, Aaron Pixton, Bjorn Poonen, Alexander Postnikov, Philippe Rigollet, Rodolfo Rosales, Giulia Saccà, Gerald Sacks, Paul Seidel, Scott Sheffield, Peter Shor, Isadore Singer, Michael Sipser, Jared Speck, Gigliola Staffilani, Richard Stanley, Harold Stark, Gilbert Strang, Daniel Stroock, Goncalo Tabuada, Alar Toomre, David Vogan
> Chancellor Cynthia Barnhart
> President: L. Reif (electrical engineer)
>
> MIT physics dept
> William Bertozzi, Robert Birgeneau, Hale Bradt, Bernard Burke, George Clark , Jeffrey Goldstone, Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins , Paul Joss, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon, Irwin Pless, Paul Schechter, James Young
> Why can no-one at Harvard or MIT ever ask the question which is the atom's true electron the muon or the 0.5MeV particle
> 
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1033 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 386 pages
> 
> 

🐸 of Math and 🐢 of Physics Archimedes "Meckling Village Idiot"
Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

> 2Kibo Parry M can Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall, Lene Hau ask the questi

Oh dear, Autistic Plutonium is having another autism meltdown. Perhaps
he just received a bill from his attorney, Mr. Shyster?

2Kibo Parry M can Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall, Lene Hau ask the question, which is the atom's real electron, the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law or the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. Or is Kibo Parry M too worried about his newly invented word of "analbuttfuckmanure" that Kibo invented in 2017-18 and has continued to use right through 2021 calling AP that word since AP does science while Kibo never does science, only stalker hate spew.
On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 6:12:36 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> fails at math and science:

Kibo Parry M can Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall, Lene Hau ask the question, which is the atom's real electron, the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law or the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. Or is Kibo Parry M too worried about his newly invented word of "analbuttfuckmanure" that Kibo invented in 2017-18 and has continued to use right through 2021 calling AP that word since AP does science while Kibo never does science, only stalker hate spew. Kibo you called MIT your invented word of 2017, are you going to call Harvard that also. And you called Dartmouth and Stanford your invented new word. I guess Harvard is special for you Kibo Parry, nonstop stalker, insane kook of 28 years.

On Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 10:48:29 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"AnalButtfuckManure"

On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 9:40:52 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"AnalButtfuckManure"

On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 7:38:34 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"Court Jester of Physics"
> fails at math and science:

Kibo, why did you invent that word in 2017-18 and why do you still use it today in 2021, is it because you failed science and now you want to curse those that succeed???

Kibo fails at even a correct percentage.
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.

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

President Larry Summers
President now Lawrence Bacow

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

MIT math dept.

Michael Artin, Martin Bazant, Bonnie Berger, Roman Bezrukavnikov, Alexei Borodin, John Bush, Herman Chernoff, Henry Cohn, Laurent Demanet, Richard Dudley, Jörn Dunkel, Alan Edelman, Pavel Etingof, Daniel Freedman, Michel Goemans, Vadim Gorin, Harvey Greenspan, Victor Guillemin, Larry Guth, Sigurdur Helgason, Anette Hosoi, David Jerison, Steven Johnson, Victor Kac, Steven Kleiman, Daniel Kleitman,
Andrew Lawrie, Tom Leighton, George Lusztig, Arthur Mattuck, Davesh Maulik, Richard Melrose, Haynes Miller, William Minicozzi, Ankur Moitra, Elchanan Mossel, Tomasz Mrowka, James Munkres, Andrei Negut, Aaron Pixton, Bjorn Poonen, Alexander Postnikov, Philippe Rigollet, Rodolfo Rosales, Giulia Saccà, Gerald Sacks, Paul Seidel, Scott Sheffield, Peter Shor, Isadore Singer, Michael Sipser, Jared Speck, Gigliola Staffilani, Richard Stanley, Harold Stark, Gilbert Strang, Daniel Stroock, Goncalo Tabuada, Alar Toomre, David Vogan

Chancellor Cynthia Barnhart
President: L. Reif (electrical engineer)

MIT physics dept
William Bertozzi, Robert Birgeneau, Hale Bradt, Bernard Burke, George Clark , Jeffrey Goldstone, Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins , Paul Joss, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon, Irwin Pless, Paul Schechter, James Young  

Why can no-one at Harvard or MIT ever ask the question which is the atom's true electron the muon or the 0.5MeV particle

Kibo Parry Moroney stalking attacks on

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
..
..
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
Edward Witten

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.

Cover Picture: I assembled two atoms in this picture where the proton torus with a band of muons inside traveling around and around the proton torus producing electricity. And the pie-plates represent neutrons as parallel-plate capacitors.
Length: 39 pages

Product details
• Publication Date : March 24, 2020
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• ASIN : B086BGSNXN
• Print Length : 39 pages
• File Size : 935 KB
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,656,820 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#6413 in Mathematics (Kindle Store)
#315 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
#4953 in Physics (Kindle Store)



AP looking for law firm to sue CIA of Kibo Parry M. stalking American citizens

CIA attacking American citizens

Does not the CIA examine its own employees. For this insane stalker Kibo Parry Moroney has attacked AP for 28 years nonstop.

Which only leads me to have to conclude the rest of the CIA is as insane as Kibo Parry Moroney.

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."

AP no longer tolerates bully stalkers like Kibo Parry M. for 29 years nonstop attack posts with no math or physics content just sheer insane hatred. And AP asks why does the CIA employ such insane misfits for I had always thought the CIA and FBI were looking out after the general welfare of the American people, not sit there in Washington and for 28 years attack American citizens.

Is there a good lawyer out there, a good law firm for the CIA should be put back into its proper place-- protect the general welfare of American citizens, not attack them 24-- 7 for 28 years.


William J. Burns "AnalButtfuckManure"
David S. Cohen "shitwit" flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test

Kibo Parry M. wrote which AP redacted, for AP no longer can stomach the insane Kibo
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 1:49:36 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>William J. Burns "AnalButtfuckManure"
> fails at math and science:
>

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."

On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 1:22:32 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> "barking fuckdog" David S. Cohen flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
> William J. Burns "Putin's Stooge"
> tarded:

AP no longer tolerates bully stalkers like Kibo Parry M. for 29 years nonstop attack posts with no math or physics content just sheer insane hatred and redacts them and spits back at the Kibo stalker. And AP asks why does the CIA employ such insane misfits for I had always thought the CIA and FBI were looking out after the general welfare of the American people, not sit there in Washington and for 29 years attack American citizens.

AP is looking for a law firm to take on the CIA with its miscreant employees attacking American citizens for 29 years.

William J. Burns "AnalButtfuckManure"
David S. Cohen "shitwit" flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test

On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 2:21:46 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> David S. Cohen "physics hater" Melissa Nobles
> tarded: William J. Burns
>"barking fuckdog" William J. Burns

William J. Burns psychoceramic David S. Cohen flunked the math test of a lifetime
On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 12:40:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> David S. Cohen "Putin's Stooge"
> blithered: William J. Burns
> > Does the science of psychology have a word for this "insane behavior by insane persons" ?
> How about the phrase "acting like William J. Burns" ?

Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
>> In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes:
> >

AP no longer tolerates permanent hate spew stalkers like Kibo Parry M. of 30 years stalking. Unacceptable that a govt agent stalks a USA citizen for almost 30 years of hate attack spew like kibo Parry Moroney and AP redacts the spew and throws it back into their lap.

William J. Burns "AnalButtfuckManure"
David S. Cohen "shitwit" flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test

Kibo Parry M. wrote which AP redacted, for AP no longer can stomach the insane Kibo
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 1:49:36 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>William J. Burns "AnalButtfuckManure"
> fails at math and science:
>

Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
>> In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes:
> >

AP no longer tolerates permanent hate spew stalkers like Kibo Parry M. of 30 years stalking Unacceptable that a govt agent stalks a USA citizen for almost 30 years of hate attack spew like kibo Parry Moroney and AP redacts the spew and throws it back into their lap.

Fermat status-- analbuttfuckmanure?
Kibo Parry M. your famous invented word 2017 analbuttfuckmanure is that more than a noun, to describe a "status".

And have you learned to fix your mistake that 938 is not 12% short of 945.

Kibo fails at even a correct percentage.
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 Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 2:21:46 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> David S. Cohen "physics hater"
> tarded: William J. Burns
>"barking fuckdog" William J. Burns

William J. Burns psychoceramic David S. Cohen flunked the math test of a lifetime
On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 12:40:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> David S. Cohen "Putin's Stooge"
> blithered: William J. Burns
> > Does the science of psychology have a word for this "insane behavior by insane persons" ?
> How about the phrase "acting like William J. Burns" ?

Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
>> In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes:
> >

AP no longer tolerates permanent hate spew stalkers like Kibo Parry M. of 30 years stalking. Unacceptable that a govt agent stalks a USA citizen for almost 30 years of hate attack spew like kibo Parry Moroney and AP redacts the spew and throws it back into their lap.

William J. Burns "AnalButtfuckManure"
David S. Cohen "shitwit" flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test

Kibo Parry M. wrote which AP redacted, for AP no longer can stomach the insane Kibo
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 1:49:36 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>William J. Burns "AnalButtfuckManure"
> fails at math and science:
>

Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
>> In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes:
> >

AP no longer tolerates permanent hate spew stalkers like Kibo Parry M. of 30 years stalking Unacceptable that a govt agent stalks a USA citizen for almost 30 years of hate attack spew like kibo Parry Moroney and AP redacts the spew and throws it back into their lap.