19 - News from Mars helicopter today-THE NOBEL PRIZE IN PHYSICS FOR ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM 62k views Subscribe  Earle Jones's profile photo Earle Jones Jan 6, 2022, 12:27:27 AM    to * Some of us are thinking: When will our friend and colleague, Archimedes Plutonium,

THE NOBEL PRIZE IN PHYSICS FOR ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM
62k views


Earle Jones's profile photo
Earle Jones
Jan 6, 2022, 12:27:27 AM



to
*
Some of us are thinking: When will our friend and colleague, Archimedes Plutonium, win a Nobel Proze for all of his contributions to our field of Physics? There is no doubt that he has completely turned the entire field of Physics and brought it into the new way of thinking. We owe him some great thing.

At the same time, we need to think about the Fields Medal for Mathematical achievements. This is the Nobel Prize of Mathematiscs. Plutonium had completely re-writteen conventional mathematics into the new format and has offered many proofs of his new findings. His proof of slant cut of conic sections (the oval) is sufficiently advanced to warrant this award.

He is widely publiched and widely quoted. He has some 150 + books now attributed to his intellect.

Can we somehow get behind him and promote his wise genius? He needs to be recognized and awarded.

Earle Jones, Georgia Tech, Stanford.
*
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 6, 2022, 2:52:30 AM (6 days ago)



to
Earle Jones, a new man? Jones first upbeat post?

Thanks for the nomination. But, Earle, I think I would be better off with such a prize, being able to get a lot more science accomplished.

When you win the Nobel-- I have never seen anyone who won that prize and able to do "good science" afterwards. As if all their remaining time is in a state of publicity rather than being in a state of research. Thousands of nosey reporters knocking on your door, wanting your appearance, trespassing all over your property, kids camped out on your lawn wanting autographs. No, I rather be content doing science, not going out in mindless publicity.

But recently I see that a huge science neglected was RNA editing.

And I see that rightfully Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna won the chemistry Nobel in 2020 for CRISPR. But see little chemistry involved and should have gone for Physiology.

Thanks Earle, I am content as is. The only benefit a award like that for AP would be that it gets more people on my side, and perhaps increases my chances of conquering the science of Reincarnation, which I hope to conquer before I die.

Awards often do the opposite that a scientist needs-- peace and quiet away from other people.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 6, 2022, 2:57:36 AM (6 days ago)



to
I should have proofread this post, but I seldom do proofreading.

On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 2:52:30 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Earle Jones, a new man? Jones first upbeat post?
>
> Thanks for the nomination. But, Earle, I think I would be better off with such a prize, being able to get a lot more science accomplished.
>

better off without such a prize/s

> When you win the Nobel-- I have never seen anyone who won that prize and able to do "good science" afterwards. As if all their remaining time is in a state of publicity rather than being in a state of research. Thousands of nosey reporters knocking on your door, wanting your appearance, trespassing all over your property, kids camped out on your lawn wanting autographs. No, I rather be content doing science, not going out in mindless publicity.
>
> But recently I see that a huge science neglected was RNA editing.
>
> And I see that rightfully Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna won the chemistry Nobel in 2020 for CRISPR. But see little chemistry involved and should have gone for Physiology.
>
> Thanks Earle, I am content as is. The only benefit a award like that for AP would be that it gets more people on my side, and perhaps increases my chances of conquering the science of Reincarnation, which I hope to conquer before I die.
>

To fasttrack the evolution of drone airflight, and to fasttrack humanity colonizing Europa before Earth gets swallowed by the Sun as the Sun has gone Red Giant Phase.

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 7, 2022, 12:59:10 PM (4 days ago)



to
The very moment one of my worst critics sees the light of day is the very moment ( as a sign to me, from God for the Ancients were always looking for signs from God, but in our terribly athiest view of the world in modern times we no longer look for signs from God) is the very moment that I must act upon the other crackpot crank fools of mathematics and of physics especially.

Today, on my list is Jill Pipher, John Baez, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Terence Tao, Andrew Wiles, Ken Ribet--- all need to go to their current University newspaper or magazine and acknowledge the Slant cut in Single Cone is a Oval, never the Ellipse. State it clear that Old Math was wrong and the slant cut of single cone is Oval never ellipse and have it published.

Time is of the essence.

No longer are people in academics able to play a Fools Game of teaching obnoxious garbage simply because they "refuse to do proper correct true mathematics".

Time is of the essence.

The above list of math fools reminds me of the moron tennis player Djokovic, the moron who refuses vaccination, simply because he is a moron of science, just as Jill Pipher, John Baez, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Terence Tao, Andrew Wiles, Ken Ribet are morons of mathematics.

As for Physics, far more important than mathematics, on this side of science-- I require every one of these failed physicists who are alive still to do the same thing -- go to your nearest University newspaper or magazine and have published that -- True electron of Atoms is the muon and the 0.5MeV particle is the Dirac magnetic monopole. Do it in Godspeed. Because Earth and humanity has not the time to fool around as you are fools of physics.

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

AP, King of Science, especially Physics

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 7, 2022, 10:47:01 PM (4 days ago)



to
AP will probably accept a Chemistry or Physiology or Medicine Nobel Prize, as those prizes are less than than 1/4 wrong. However the Physics Nobel prizes has become a list of 80% wrong. For AP to go on a Physics Nobel prize list is like asking a physicist to go on a list of banal comics and airhead comics list, those who think I love Lucy is funny.

Chemistry has less of a chance of awarding to fake and con-artist chemists. For it is strongly experimental, not so much the silly dumbminds of theoretical physicists.

Of course, chemistry had the wrong electron ever since JJ Thomson. And Thomson won the physics Nobel.

Probably Physiology and Medicine have low rate of errors, as well as chemistry.

But Nobel Physics prize is a garbage dump cesspool. In fact, so bad is the Physics Nobel, that is more of a dishonor to be on that list, than ever any honor, but then there are some blokes who see the money as valuable.

If I do win a Nobel Chemistry or Physiology or Medicine prize, I should go through and accurately cull out the fake junk in those awards, but pretty sure the Physics Noble is about 80% fake physics, perhaps the only true physics in the Physics Nobel are the raw experiments-- superconductivity. But even here, the experiment of Bohr to determine a atom has a nucleus is sheer nonsense, so even experiments in physics are often bogus. My 80% of physics Nobels as fake, maybe too low, for it maybe that 95% of physics Nobels are poppycock.


Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 7, 2022, 11:34:23 PM (4 days ago)



to
The discovery of the JJ Thomson particle was actually Dirac's magnetic monopole after Dirac started to pursue that particle in theory after 1930. And the awards for the muon especially is a solid award, as well as the neutron (was the neutron to Chadwick awarded?? my memory slips me). Many of the principles of physics are well founded. For a principle of physics is often where we simply do not know or understand the underlying electromagnetism creating that phenomenon.