NSA Nakasone, NSF Panchanathan,Dorothy Aronson,Brian Stone hate stalk: "still can't find the marbles" of Jan Burse's ETH Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner, Andre Rubbia, Werner Schmutz, Thomas Schulthess, Manfred Sigrist, nor Kibo Parry Rensselaer Polytech Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek, Julian S. Georg, Joel T. Giedt

Kibo Parry--NSA,NSF hate stalkers looking for Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek, Julian S. Georg, Joel T. Giedt, lost marbles On Thursday, April 28, 2022 Kibo Parry M,General Nakasone,NSF France Anne Cordova,Subra Suresh,Arden Lee Bement Jr.,Rita R. Colwell,Neal Francis Lane,John Howard Gibbons wrote: "I*still* can't find my marbles".

Kibo, 30 year nonstop stalker, even if you do find Rensselaer Polytech marbles, do you honestly think they will admit the truth-- Oval is slant cut in single cone, not the ellipse, or give a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, or ask the simple question which is the Atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle.
Dr. Panchanathan NSF, General Nakasone, Kibo Parry M on math failures Philip J. Hanlon, Thomas Hales. Why Kibo, because he is too dumb in math to do a geometry proof of Fundamental theorem of Calculus. Or is it 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.

Kibo, why is Dr. Hanlon so dumb in math that he cannot even add 1 and 1, for a single cone has 1 axis of symmetry, oval 1 axis of symmetry yet ellipse has 2 axes of symmetry, yet the fools Hanlon, Hales, Wiles, Tao still teach ellipse is a conic section when it the Oval at slant cut.

The 30 year payed for attack stalker Kibo Parry M.
On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 1:59:04 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"I *still* can't find my marbles" "math hater"
> 77)

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

Kibo Parry M on Donald Schwendeman and Harry Cliff-- why kibo? Because he cannot ask the simple question which is the atoms real electron -- muon or 0..5MeV particle?
>
> More to the point Rensselaer losing its accreditation for graduating a moron like Kibo Parry M. who still thinks 938 is 12% short of 945. Talk about failure, here Rensselaer graduates a so called engineer who cannot even do proper percentage problems.
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 2:15:25 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > "math hater"
> > fails at math and science:
> >Village Idiot"
> > fails at math and science:
>
> 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.
>

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: 1.1Dr. John Baez is a failed mathematician-physicist with his proton of 938MeV when it is 840MeV, electron= muon //his ellipse is a conic when it never was// as phony in math and physics as kibo Parry Moroney's ellipse and Christensen 10 OR 4 by Dan Christensen Sep 22, 2019, 9:54:06 AM

Re: _Donald Schwendeman, Rensselaer,Jeffrey Banks, Kristin Bennett, Mohamed Boudjelkha, Joseph Ecker, is the reason you failed to confirm .5MeV was not the atom's electron but Dirac's monopole because you failed science like kibo
by Mostowski Collapse (Jan Burse) Apr 25, 2019, 12:08:26 PM

Re: a second forgery post by Jan Burse-- time to pull the plug on him
by Mostowski Collapse (Jan Burse) Feb 24, 2017, 6:00:53 AM

Re: 4-Andrew Wiles and his fake FLT proof, so dumb on FLT he could not even spot Euler's flaw of exp 3 FLT, and so dumb as a mathematician, he never could do a geometry proof of calculus, FTC.
by Blake Studdard Jul 12, 2021, 10:51 AM

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: 1.2Analbuttfuckmanure Justin Trudeau,Sophie Gregoire, says Dan Christensen or Kibo//Stephen Lecce, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon
by Hoofington P. McSnort Aug 26, 2020, 7:01:28 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: More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics.
by Dan Christensen Jun 28, 2021, 2:33 PM

Re: 2- Dan Christensen on failed math MIT Gilbert Strang, with his scatterbrained Calculus books, no geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Gilbert never knew
by Chris M. Thomasson 6:09 PM On 6/25/2021

Jan Burse is Joel Mesot a failure of math because he cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus or because he cannot even comprehend the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse? Stands to reason if Joel is too dumb in conic sections he would fail doing a proof of calculus.
>
> Jan Burse laughs at Joel Mesot, too dumb to ask even the simple question of physics-- which is the Atom's true electron, the 0.5MeV particle or the muon, which AP says the muon is stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law producing more Dirac magnetic monopoles of 0.5MeV.
> >
> Jan Burse Swiss failure with his ellipse a conic section when it is a Oval at the slant cut, but Jan farted his way through ETH.
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 8:52:23 AM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> > Ha Ha, dream on with your Nazi mathematics and cleansing.
> >brain farto, Putler of sci.math and sci.physics.
> > Not a single line of math in 30 years.
>
> 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)