4-Betsie Jonck,Margaret Archibald,Witwatersrand, why John Gabriel a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Witwatersrand cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither John Gabriel nor Witwatersrand can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Gabriel?? You spammer crank.

John Gabriel spamming sci.math
Eram semper recta wrote
unread,
2 May 2023: New visitors to sci.math: Mainstream math professors and teachers are incorrigible morons - even ChatGPT is smarter than them.
10:19 AM


> Eram semper recta (John Gabriel)
> , …
> Bubba Pagano
> 3
> unread,
> 24 February 2023: New visitors to sci.math: What they taught you at school and university is a bunch of rubbish.
> 3:32 PM
> 
>
> > > > >
> > > > 2> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > >
> > > > 2> 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 26Jan2022. 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 November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop.
> > > > >
> > > > > Product details
> > > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
> > > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
> > > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 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 ‏ : ‎ 50 pages
> > > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > >
> > > > > #11-2, 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 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)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > >
> > > > > Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
> > > > > Preface:
> > > > > First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
> > > > >
> > > > > The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
> > > > >
> > > > > My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
> > > > >
> > > > > Product details
> > > > > File Size: 773 KB
> > > > > Print Length: 72 pages
> > > > > Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> > > > > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > > > > Language: English
> > > > > ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> > > > > Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
> > > > > X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

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

> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
> > > > > Physics dept
> > > > > Joao Rodrigues
> > > > > Somnath Bhattacharyya
> > > > > John Carter
> > > > > Andrew Chen
> > > > > Darell Comins
> > > > > Robert De Mello Koch
> > > > > Arthur Every
> > > > > Andrew Forbes
> > > > > Kelvin Goldstein
> > > > > Vishnu Jejjala
> > > > > Robert Joubert
> > > > > Jonathan Keartland
> > > > > Nukri Komin
> > > > > Bruce Mellado
> > > > > Deena Naidoo
> > > > > Mervin Naidoo
> > > > > Alex Quandt
> > > > > Elias Sideras-Haddad
> > > > > Martin Ntwaeaborwa
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Durban Univ, South Africa math dept
> > > > >
> > > > > Dr. D. Brijlall
> > > > > Dr. D Day
> > > > > Dr. DB Lortan
> > > > > Dr. A Maharaj
> > > > > Dr. S Moyo
> > > > > Dr. S Rajah
> > > > > Dr. D Singh
> > > > >
> > > > > University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
> > > > > Betsie Jonck
> > > > > Jesse Alt
> > > > > Margaret Archibald
> > > > > Charlotte Brennan
> > > > > Sonja Currie
> > > > > Alexander Davison
> > > > > Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
> > > > > Marie Grobbelaar
> > > > > Yorick Hardy
> > > > > Meira Hockman
> > > > > Sameerah Jamal
> > > > > Abdul Kara
> > > > > Arnold Knopfmacher
> > > > > Wen Chi Kou
> > > > > Christopher Kriel
> > > > > Rugare Kwashira
> > > > > Florian Luca
> > > > > Ronnie Maartens
> > > > > Carminda Mennen
> > > > > Manfred Moller
> > > > > Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
> > > > > Augustine Munagi
> > > > > Loyiso Nongxa
> > > > > Bruce Watson
> > > > > Yevhen Zelenyuk
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > y
> > > > > | /
> > > > > | /
> > > > > |/______ x
> > > > >
> > > > > More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.
> > > > >
> > > > > In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.
> > > > >
> > > > > I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.
> > > > >
> > > > > Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
> > > > 2> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium

2nd published book

True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere.

Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule.

Length: 1150 pages

Product details
• File Size : 2167 KB
• ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ
• Publication Date : March 11, 2019
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 1150 pages
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#181 in General Chemistry & Reference
#1324 in General Chemistry
#1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)

#3-2, 50th published book

Geometry of the Chemical Bond; metallic, covalent, ionic//Chemistry Series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

This is the second book of the Series -- True Chemistry. I left off of True Chemistry with trying to solve the Chemical bond when the proton and muon inside of each and every atom is doing the Faraday Law. And since that book was already 1154 pages long, I decided to start afresh in a second book devoted to solving the Geometry of the chemical bond of metallic, covalent and ionic.
Cover Picture: PHYSICS: Part 2: Extended Version: Halliday & Resnick, 1986, pages 654, 655 talking about Capacitors and my collection of some capacitors in my lab. The first one is a two prong wall plug taken apart to show what the prongs fasten onto when plugged-in (two parallel plates). The next three are spade and socket connectors (two parallel plates). Next is circular or hook plates, and last is a cylinder plate and socket.

Length: 134 pages

Product details
Print Length : 134 pages
Publication Date : June 21, 2019
Word Wise : Enabled
ASIN : B07TCVBD93
File Size : 1308 KB
Language: : English
Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
Simultaneous Device Usage : Unlimited
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Lending : Enabled



#3-3, 81st published book

Animal-CO2 of the 3 CO2 isomers// Chemistry Series, book 3
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

CO2 molecule has 3 isomers. An isomer means same chemical formula but different geometries. The 3 isomers of CO2 come from fire-CO2 and animal-CO2. The fire-CO2 has the carbon atom as central in the molecule and one of the oxygen atoms has a unshared dipole. The animal-CO2 has the carbon atom on the periphery with an unshared dipole.
This is very important chemistry science for it impacts Global Warming but also hugely impacts biology because plants can only live on animal-CO2 and the fire-CO2 is a toxic poison to plants, much like CO is a toxic poison to animals.

Here we learn new facts about the molecules CO, N2, CO2, O2 and even H2O, new facts we never understood before, all because the real electron is the muon stuck inside a proton doing the Faraday Law and that chemical bonding is governed not by electrons but by Dirac magnetic monopoles, and that makes the Lewis structure be based on 6 not 8.

New concepts in chemistry: Lewis structure based on 6, not 8, and the unshared dipole. For a Lewis Structure based on 6, not 8, is the only logical way that the strongest bonded molecules end up being CO and N2. With a Lewis 8 Structure, the strongest bonded molecules, by logic, note, by logic would have to be O2 and FH or possibly FB. However, the proof is that bond dissociation energy of CO is the highest, proving Lewis 6 Structure is the true structure of Chemistry.

source: chem.ucsb.edu

in kJ/mol

CO 1076
N2  946
CO2 532
O2  498
C2 as in diamond is 602 kJ/mol
H2O = 492
OH = 425
H2 = 432

Cover Picture is a winter stored potted clover that I am experimenting with and shows a animal-CO2 molecule going in, and going out is a O2 molecule that animals need to breathe.
Length: 15 pages

Product details
ASIN : B084217LB9
Publication date : January 19, 2020
Language : English
File size : 1042 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Enabled
Print length : 15 pages
Lending : Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #277,873 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #9 in 30-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #52 in General Chemistry & Reference
◦ #297 in Biology (Kindle Store)




#3-4, 38th published book

Hypothesis that Tar restores the Iron in Rust, back to the iron metal object// Chemistry series, book 4 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Back in 2003 I noticed that while working on my roof, that when I pulled off tar on steel, that the steel was shiny bright iron with no rust while all around where no tar was, was much rust. So that started me to think whether tar acts as a chemical reaction in which it takes the iron atoms out of rust and places those iron-atoms-back-into-the-iron-object. Now that was 2003, and I have not had much time to really dive into experiments on this topic. For one reason-- I have to wait years for the tar to dissolve the rust and perhaps return the iron from iron oxide back into the original iron object. No, I do not have years and I was far too busy with other items of science. But now I plan to do more on this subject. Especially since in 2017 I discovered the real electron of atoms is the muon at 105MeV and real proton is 840MeV, casting brand new light on chemistry and chemical reactions. The iron rust molecule Fe2O3 in New Chemistry where the .5MeV particle is not the electron but is Dirac's magnetic monopole, has to be reviewed in terms of this new found knowledge, and whether or not, tar can return the Fe2 back to the original metal object.

Picture cover: About 5 years ago this hammer and trowel were both iron rusted surfaces, both had iron rust, the trowel worse than the hammer. I put tar on the trowel rusty surface and today with a chisel removed some tar and see the shiny bright iron surface. I suppose if I had coated the hammer back then when I coated the trowel, the hammer would also be bright shiny iron.. So the tar must have done something to not only remove the rust but restore the trowel to "more iron bright shiny surface", some claim (see below in text) that the tar only lifted the rust off the iron surface. I think there is more to it than just adhesion lift, and am thinking the tar takes the iron atoms out of iron oxide and puts the iron atoms back into the original iron object. So this is not a proof by any means, but a hypothesis, and a request for more research.
Length: 32 pages

File Size: 2655 KB
Print Length: 32 pages
Publication Date: April 9, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07QK428KN

#3-5, 119th published book

The 2 Chemistry Periodic Tables of Elements, one based on magnetic monopole S,P,D,F and one a Nuclear Table based on torus geometry of 6
by Archimedes Plutonium (Kindle edition)

Preface:
In 2016-2017, AP discovered that the real true electron of atoms was the muon and this muon is stuck inside its attendant proton torus. The muon is of 105MeV while the proton is 840 MeV. The particle that JJ Thomson in 1897 discovered was not the electron of atoms but instead was the Dirac magnetic monopole. Such a huge mistake throughout all of chemistry and physics, to think the electron was 0.5MeV orbiting around outside a proton of 938MeV breaks even the angular momentum concept of physics, for no hydrogen atom can exist with a 0.5 MeV particle traveling at 99.9% the speed of light around a 938MeV particle just will not stay together. And besides, in that Bohr-Rutherford model of the atom, their subatomic particles have no function, no job, no task, nothing. In that viewpoint of the atom, there must be a second Periodic Table of Chemical Elements that takes into account the true geometry of the atom. That geometry is based on protons forming a torus and the nucleus of the atom is the donut hole and parallel plate capacitor covering top and bottom of the proton torus composed of neutrons.

We keep the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements based on magnetic monopoles, the 0.5MeV particle and causing S,P,D,F orbitals. We keep that table, but we now include a second table based on the torus structure of protons of atoms.

Cover Picture: artwork of what a Periodic Table of Chemical Elements based on 6, looks like.

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0891TTP29
Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 21, 2020 revised in 2022
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 1081 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 109 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #4,312,406 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #2,251 in General Chemistry & Reference
◦ #15,495 in General Chemistry

#3-6, 123rd published book

World's first logical teaching of 6.*10^23, Avogadro's number and "mole"; refurbished with "hyasys" as 6.18*10^23 // Chemistry series, book 6
Kindle Edition

by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Preface: I was worried I did not reach the target audience on this topic of mole and Avogadro's number. The cover picture is a High School physics textbook, a later edition of PSSC that I took when I was in High School circa 1967. It teaches mole and Avogadro's number. So I needed to write this textbook starting High School, because it is shameful to teach wrong science in either High School or University.

Cover Picture is page 448-9 of PSSC Physics, 3rd ed., 1971, Haber-Schaim, Cross, Dodge, Walter, explaining how Rutherford in 1919 weighed the mass of the proton in a experiment. It is disheartening to find I cannot see that experiment in a Google search because of another famous experiment of Rutherford of the gold leaf. And lucky for me that I retrieved this PSSC book I used in High School circa 1967-8 that explains how the proton mass was weighed in physics history. The mass of the proton is vital to understand the mole and Avogadro's number concept. Sad of course that every Old Chemistry and Old Physics textbooks that teaches the concept mole and Avogadro number never mentions the proton mass as crucial to understanding.
Length: 70 pages

Product details
File Size : 796 KB
Publication Date : June 10, 2020
Word Wise : Enabled
Print Length : 70 pages
Language: : English
ASIN : B08B1GCRDH
Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Lending : Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #233,083 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #68 in General Chemistry & Reference
◦ #69 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #425 in General Chemistry

y  z
|  /
| /
|/______ x

More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.

In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.  And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.

There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as spy propaganda platforms and spy training ground exercises-- all of no value-- just look at sci.chem for a burnt out empty husk of a newsgroup; such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot. Which reminds me of the question-- do they even allow Logic to be taught in Russia or China? For their press releases are all vapid of logical content to outright liaring of almost everything that is true in the world. So what does Russia and China call Logic?? Do they call it the West's White Man's Propaganda??? And scared to teach logic in schools and colleges for fear that the dictator is seen for what he is worth?

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe  
Archimedes Plutonium