James S. Olvestad NSF, General Nakasone, Kibo Parry M on math failure Philip Hanlon. Why Kibo, because he is still deluded with a slant cut in single cone as ellipse when it is in truth a Oval, see AP proof below.

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 12:18:13 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"wasting everyone's time with his mindless, endless spam"
>flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
1) NSA General Paul Nakasone
2) Dr. Panchanathan NSF
3) F. Fleming Crim NSF
4) Brian Stone NSF
5) James S. Olvestad NSF
6) Dorothy E. Aronson NSF

Kibo Parry Moron blowing his cover with the CIA in 1997, where was General Nakasone?
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:
---quoting Wikipedia ---
Controversy
Many government and university installations blocked, threatened to block, or attempted to shut-down The World's Internet connection until Software Tool & Die was eventually granted permission by the National Science Foundation to provide public Internet access on "an experimental basis."
--- end quote ---

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Dr. Panchanathan , present day
France Anne Cordova
Subra Suresh
Arden Lee Bement Jr.
Rita R. Colwell
Neal Francis Lane
John Howard Gibbons 1993

Barry Shein, kibo parry std world
Jim Frost, Joe "Spike" Ilacqua

Dr Panchanathan how much do you pay Kibo to stalk nonstop for 30 years?

Kibo says failure Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss. Why Kibo? Because they think the electron of atoms is the 0.5MeV particle when in truth it is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law.

Kibo says physics failures Dr.Panchanathan, Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall, Harry Cliff says Kibo Parry M, the 30 year stalker, who says 938 is 12% short of 945.

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 says math failures Ken Ribet, John Stillwell,Terence Tao, Andrew Wiles, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, SAYS stalker Kibo Parry M. of 30 years nonstop.
>
> Why Kibo, because Tao, Wiles, Hales, Stillwell, Ribet, believes a single cone with 1 axis of symmetry the same as a oval, yet a ellipse has 2 axes of symmetry and the above failures of math still brainwashing the world with their ellipse a conic section. Or is it that they preach Boole logic of 2 OR 1 = 3, with AND as subtraction, being brain dead in logic reasoning to understand the truth table of AND has to be TTTF and not the absurd (throw the baby out in the bathe water) of TFFF. Or is it that they fail to ever do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
>
> Why do you call them failures of math and logic Kibo Parry M, with your failure at Rensselaer Polytech with your 938 is 12% short of 945.

Kibo why do you have this open hate channel--
On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 11:59:50 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 4:53:13 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >"Putin's minion"
> On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 10:37:31 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >"AnalButtfuckManure"
> > fails at math and science:
> Kibo, I see you still use your famous invented word of 2017 "analbuttfuckmanure" as your frustrations in failing science, and now living on stalking those that succeed in science.
>
>
>
186th published book

Proof the Muon is true real electron of Atoms, and 0.5MeV particle is the magnetic monopole// physics research

by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Format: Kindle Edition

Preface: In April of 2022, AP notices a anomaly of battery life of operation and of power output of radioactive element plutonium compared to commonplace batteries such as lithium. And almost instantly, I realized this could be a proof that the muon stuck inside of every proton doing the Faraday law with the proton is the cause of this "extra electricity" and "long life longevity". When each proton inside a atom is an electrical generator producing electricity, means the heaviest elements in Nature are going to be the best batteries. Lithium atom has 3 protons+ 3muons while plutonium atom has 94 protons + 94muons, so that when divided, 94/3 we can expect that the plutonium battery is 31 times more electricity than lithium battery.

Well, in doing this book, I could only find evidence that the plutonium battery is 10 times better than a lithium battery, not 31 times. So maybe that is an anomaly for future research to work out. But for now, I have proven the muon is the real true electron of Atoms and that the 0.5MeV particle, although the unit particle of electricity, the 0.5MeV particle is not the atom's electron but is the Dirac magnetic monopole, produced by the muon thrusting through the proton torus in Faraday law.

Old Physics was really dumb physics, with their elementary particles doing nothing, but relaxing on a beach. Whereas in New Physics, every particle in Nature has a task and function to perform, such as the Faraday law. And that makes commonsense, while Old Physics is kook physics, no logical thinking.

Cover Picture: My iphone photograph picture of a Google search for when Caltech scientists Neddermeyer and Anderson discovered the muon particle of physics in 1936.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09YLLKWBX
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ April 20, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 366 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 36 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

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 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)