Bela Bollobas, Darwin Smith,1 out of 5 stars rating, Cambridge Uni teaching math at Cambridge Univ-- is that what you are saying Pete Olcott and Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney in your hate spam and stalk posts going on 30 years?

Olcott picture profile
Olcott
Richard Damon
43
11:04
Simulating (partial) Halt....

> Yes well I can understand that poor rating of Alan Baker,Bela Bollobas, Darwin Smith too stupid to admit slant cut of cone is Oval , not ellipse for a slant cut of cylinder is surely a ellipse, and never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus out of the fuddy duddy Alan Baker. See proofs below by AP
>
> Cambridge Uni math a waste of brain cells-Alan Baker??
> > Mason Yearian Stanford Uni physics textbook--Kibo Parry M-V is Jason correct by saying it is a waste of brain cells?? You indicate in your dissertion below this is a fact, can you elaborate?? How about Stanford Uni Robert Wagoner, does he have two marbles of a physics brain to rub together or is he also Bathynomus? Can even Earle Jones understand Mason Yearian and can Earle finally learn Ohm's law??
> > On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 1:18:28 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > > Wood louse of Math and Bathynomus giganteus of Physics
> > >"not one single marble of commonsense in my entire brain"
> >
> > Kibo Parry--did JDB critic copy his review from Jason Herrmann, Reno Nevada review. Both of those scathing reviews have the same vitriol, did they copy one another's review, Kibo???
> >
> > On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 11:03:10 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > tarded:
> >
> > Jason Herrmann the antiscience runt and spamtard cannot tell the difference from science fiction and real science. He is looking for science fiction and unfortunately stumbled into the real science section and picked a AP book of real true science. This only shows that AP books are attractive to not only scientists but runts of science
> >
> > Top review from the United States
> >
> > Jason Herrmann -- Reno Nevada
> > 1.0 out of 5 stars Waste of money and brain cells
> > Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on November 17, 2019
> > A complete and utter load of BS.
> > 2 people found this helpful
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 6:00:58 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > of Math and of Physics Archimedes "spamtard" Plutonium
> > > <plutonium....@gmail.com> tarded:
> > > > Jason Herrmann,Stanford Univ Mason Yearian,Stanley Wojcicki, Robert Wagoner get a 1 star out of 5 for never asking which is the Atom's true electron
> > > > Jason Herrmann,Stanford Univ Mason Yearian,Stanley Wojcicki, Robert Wagoner get a 1 star out of 5 for never asking which is the Atom's true electron
> > > > Jason Herrmann,Stanford Univ Mason Yearian,Stanley Wojcicki, Robert Wagoner get a 1 star out of 5 for never asking which is the Atom's true electron
> > > > Jason Herrmann,Stanford Univ Mason Yearian,Stanley Wojcicki, Robert Wagoner get a 1 star out of 5 for never asking which is the Atom's true electron
> > > > Jason Herrmann,Stanford Univ Mason Yearian,Stanley Wojcicki, Robert Wagoner get a 1 star out of 5 for never asking which is the Atom's true electron
> > >
> > > Oh no! It looks like Plutonium is mad that McTard is out-spamming him,
> > > so Pluto increases his own spam output. In just this topic Pluto spams
> > > at least 10 times.
> > >
>
>
> > Stanford Uni physics a waste of brain cells-Robert Wagoner??
> > 
> > JDB on Univ South Florida too scared to DNA test Smilodon as walrus tusks for fear of proving AP correct.
> >
> >
> > JDB never studied logic, hopefully Dr.Carney at least tried to study logic.
> > >
> > > Top review from the United States
> > >
> > > J.D.B
> > > 1.0 out of 5 stars Mindless, pointless, and useless
> > > Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on November 6, 2022
> > > This 'book' is a rambling series of email exchanges by someone who never even studied the material they are laying claim to. The alternate hypotheses are never supported nor is there any work to show the works opposing the author are incorrect. If hundreds of specimens of various cats are found with fangs literally growing out of the skull, it's not because someone misplaced a piece of a walrus onto a cat. This work is a pretentious joke, and I made the mistake borrowing it to read.
> > > One person found this helpful
> > >
> > > AP writes: So anyone can make up a sentence "If hundreds of specimens...." That is not the point you moron JDB, for there is not one case example of a skull with fangs attached. If the Moon was made of Limburger cheese..... JDB is a moron of science.
> > > > JDB and Dr.Ryan Carney University of South Florida, Tampa-- Scleromonchlus was a water animal, just like Pterosaurs, but Univ South Florida, Tampa has no logical brains to see this// And does USF have brains to DNA test the sabers of Saber tooth tiger as walrus.
> > > > 1>
> > > > Not a single Saber toothed tiger skull intact with sabres ever found in fossils, yet Tampa's University of South Florida with JDB hate spews and Dr. Ryan Carney work on Archaeopteryx is probably all wrong. Not a single saber of the tiber DNA tested-- yes, Potsdam Germany tested DNA of lower mandible but not the saber.
> > > >
> > > > Does Univ South Florida Tampa, have the brains to DNA test Smilodon sabers to make sure they are __not__ walrus tusks, or is everything from USF illogical loudmouth criticism coming out of JDB, a science moron.
> > > > 2>
> > > > Does University of South Florida, Tampa require Logic abilities before it gives degrees in science to students, or better yet, has professors like Dr. Ryan Carney build a Archaeopteryx to fly when no aerodynamic engineer can make the heavy animal fly. Why is Dr. Carney too dumb to make a commonsense guess-- the Bird used its false-wings as a paddle to oar and row in the shallow seas. No wonder you have hate spew fools like JDB, spewing hate on books of science that correct fools like Dr. Carney.
> > > >
> > > > Now we have reports of the Scleromonchlus taylori fossil that was a ancestor of the Pterosaur. The Scleromonchlus fossil has a huge head for body size--- MEANING, that the animal swam in water and lived in water-- and putting a logical brain to work-- Dr. Carney, can you see that your flying Pterosaurs has got to be a most awful joke in all of science history. The animal used its appendages to paddle oar on water.
> > > > 3>
> > > > For example JDB understanding of how logic even works-- for when you make a If--> then argument, science is not about hypotheticals but about genuine facts. Yes, AP is working on facts--- facts that never a full intact Sabre tooth tiger skull. Every one in is wired together in museums.
> > > >
> > > > University of South Florida's Ryan Carney's work on Archaeopteryx-- could it fly, fails to convince physicists, especially AP since he wrote a book that the Archaeopteryx in fact did not fly but used its bone structure to paddle in water. For Earth from Precambrian to about 90 to 66 mya had 1/2 of Earth constantly facing the Sun and the other 1/2 of Earth in constant darkness and in this landscape the seas were shallow. So life in the seas was met with reptile-birds that could use their so called wings to paddle around in water, much like some water birds. But the Archaeopteryx never flew in the air.
> > > > 4>
> > > > My 65th published book
> > > >
> > > > PTEROSAURS; Paleontology mistake for it never flew, it sailed and oar-rowed with their Sail (not a wing for flying); paleontology series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> > > >
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > >
> > > > Last revision was 22Dec2021. And this is AP's 65th published book, mostly on science.
> > > >
> > > > Preface: I was reading a Scientific American article of October, 2019 on Pterosaurs, giant animals, some the size of giraffes flying. This upset my logical mind and knew there was a big mistake in this. Thus, I wrote this book to put some logical commonsense into the field of paleontology.
> > > >
> > > > Cover Picture is my picture of that magazine article.
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------
> > > > Table of Contents
> > > > --------------------------
> > > >
> > > > 1) Why the increasing number of Paleontology Mistakes, due to the rise of the Internet as worldwide forum to argue with a cloistered science.
> > > >
> > > > 2) The AP Conjecture on Pterosaurs.
> > > >
> > > > 3) Sails, or rowing-oars, not wings.
> > > >
> > > > 4) A logical and physiological difference between a Sail and a Wing..
> > > >
> > > > 5) Mechanism to evolve Sails, not wings.
> > > >
> > > > 6) Pteroid bone and flexor tendon for rowing oar.
> > > >
> > > > 7) What the Pterosaurs ate is revealing.
> > > >
> > > > 8) The huge widespread prevalence of Shallow Seas in geological time.
> > > >
> > > > 6>Product details
> > > > 6>ASIN : B07YDL2412
> > > > 6>Publication date : September 25, 2019
> > > > 6>Language : English
> > > > 
> > > > 101>◦ #61 in Paleontology (Books)
> >
>
>
> SLAC: Chi-Chung Kao
> CERN: Eliezer Rabinovici, Fabiola Gianotti
> Fermi Lab: Lia Merminga
>
>
>
> David Sainsbury Cambridge chancellor
> Cambridge Physics Dept
>
> Ahnert, Alai, Alexander, Allison, Ansorge, Atature, Barker, Barnes, Bartlett, Batley, Baumberg, Bohndiek, Bowman, Brown, Buscher, Butler, Campbell Carilli, Carter, Castelnovo, Challis, Chalut, Chaudhri, Chin, Ciccarelli, Cicuta, Cole, Cooper, Cowburn, Credgington, Cross, Croze, Deschler, Donald, Duffett-Smith, Dutton, Eiser, Ellis, Euser, Field, Flynn, Ford, Friend, Gibson, Green, Greenham, Gripaios, Grosche, Guck, Gull, Haniff, Heavens-Ward, Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, Hughes, Irvine, Jardine, Jenkins, Jones, Josephson, Keyser, Khmeinitskii, King, Kotlyar, Lamacraft, Lasenby, Lester, Longair, Lonzarich, Maiolino, Marshall, Martin, Mitov, Morris, Mortimer, Moller, Needs, Norman, Nunnenkamp, Padman,Parker, Patel, Payne, Pepper, Phillips, Pramauro, Queloz, Rao, Richer, Riley, Ritchie, Sargent, Saunders, Saxena, Schneider, Scott, Scrivener, Sebastian, Simmons, Simons, Sirringhaus, Smith, Sutherland, Taylor, Teichmann, Terentjev, Thomson, Verrechia, Walker, Ward, Warner, Weale, Webber, Whyles, Withington.
>
> Cambridge Math Dept
> Alan Baker, Bela Bollobas, Darwin Smith, John Coates, Timothy Gowers, Peter Johnstone, Imre Leader, Gabriel Paternain
> My 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.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> •
> •
>
> Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
>
> Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
>
> In the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence proof. Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 827 KB
> • Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 51 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> #12-2, My 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 15Dec2021. 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".. And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.
>
> 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.
>
>
> Product details
> ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
> Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
> Language ‏ : ‎ English
> File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
> Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 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)