Discussion:
Kibo Parry M splatter shit Dr.Panchanathan NSF, Kate Heinzelman CIA, Dr.Hau Harvard who refuses to turn off light and prove AP correct that Light Waves are closed loop circuits. On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 1:48:40 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >
(too old to reply)
Archimedes Plutonium
2022-10-20 04:31:56 UTC
Permalink
Kibo Parry M splatter shit Dr.Panchanathan NSF, Kate Heinzelman CIA, Dr.Hau Harvard who refuses to turn off light and prove AP correct that Light Waves are closed loop circuits.
"teratard"
"Splatter-Fart-Shitee"
flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
Re: _CIA Kate Heinzelman why Kibo Parry call Dr.Hanlon,Dartmouth& Dr.Lavigne Stanford as Analbuttfuckmanure?? Is it Kibo's stalking or is it because they cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse. What is the answer Kate???? Or should I
by Chris M. Thomasson Oct 15, 2022, 5:38:32 PM

Re: Psychoceramic NSF Dr. Panchanathan,F. Fleming Crim, kibo Parry M says will corrupt the minds of your children! Why kibo? Because they still teach 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction and ellipse a conic when it never was.
by Mostowski Collapse (Jan Burse) Feb 4 , 2022, 1:33 AM



Earle Jones is Dr.Hau of Harvard unable to turn the lights off in BEC experiments, because like you Earle Jones of Stanford Univ you poop and piss in your pants, and does Stanford have to clean up your bathroom mess
Earle Jones says Dr. Hau finding the bathroom in the dark has consequences with poop and piss. Is it why she cannot turn off the lights in slow light experiments.
My guess is he will do much better posting about poop and piss than his posting about mathematics and science.
earle
*
"teratard"
"Splatter-Fart-Shitee"
flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
Kibo is that why Harvard's Dr. Hau cannot turn off a light switch and prove AP correct -- Light waves are closed loop circuit with the source in the loop.
Hagfish of Math and Slime Eel of Physics
"psychoceramic"

Harvard's Dr. Hau is not really a scientist because she refuses to turn the light switch off as a vendetta against AP. She does not want AP to get credit that light is a closed loop circuit, and not her straightline arrow ray.
WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
Should Harvard's Dr. Hau be put in a science-jail for Obstruction of Science? Years back I wrote a book on Quantum Entanglement, explaining it fully as the fact that light waves along with electricity is a closed loop phenomenon. Most people would
Years back I wrote a book on Quantum Entanglement, explaining it fully as the fact that light waves along with electricity is a closed loop phenomenon. Most people would not understand that because it looks like a light beam is a straight line phenomenon not a closed loop. But it truly is a closed loop for even the electric extension cord, which looks like a straight line, is in fact a closed loop.
Apparently, to Harvard's Dr.Hau, physics means being in the dark about understanding light waves is more important than understanding light waves and having to give credit to Archimedes Plutonium for predicting light is not a straightline arrow ray but a closed loop circuit. Apparently at Harvard being a scientist is never give credit to AP, is worse than finding out the truth about science and physics. Such petty petty people hatred that Harvard endorses, rather than --- science is all about the truth of the world, not about-- who do you hate.
So, years back, I wanted Harvard's Dr. Hau to set up her slow light experiment, get the light beam to crawl through the BEC, then, abruptly turn off the light beam at the source. What Dr. Hau would predict (I am guessing) is she would predict the slow light inside the BEC is still on and moving. What AP predicts because all light is a closed loop, is that the instant the beam is turned off at the source, all the light in the experiment INSTANTANEOUSLY goes out all at once.
So, can the science community stop obstructing progress and get on with it-- get Dr. Hau or any other similar experiment to "turn off the light" and prove AP correct or prove AP wrong. It is one or the other, and I am totally confident I will win this.
I have other evidence that I will win this.
1) News reporter far away, such as from Europe to Asia, or USA to Asia, have a speed of light lag time in talking to one another. But if the "so to speak circuit was turned off" the loss of signal is instantaneous. We can see it in radio waves where the speed of light has a lag time, not much but a noticeable lag. But if the communication was interrupted, the interruption is not the speed of light but instantaneous.
2) Solar eclipse. This is where the moon directly overhead blocks the Sun. Now, if light waves had no instantaneous shut off, and since it takes 8 minutes for light to travel from Sun to Earth. Then if light cannot be instantaneously shut off, means that in a solar eclipse, we need the Moon to be 8 minutes in its arc to experience the eclipse, not directly overhead.
3) Communication with our rockets such as Voyager 1, the contents of messages from Earth to spacecraft or vice versa take the speed of light time, but the turning off of the signal is instantaneous at both ends-- and is in "real time" not delayed to the speed of light. Just as in Slow Light experiments, turn the source switch off, and all the light downstream disappears instantly.
1- AP's 145th book// TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
by Archimedes Plutonium
Books in this series are.
137th book Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1
145th book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS High School junior year, book 2
146th book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS High School senior year, book 3
147th book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS Freshperson college, book 4
148th book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS Sophomore college, book 5
149th book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS Junior college, book 6
150th book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS Senior college, book 7
Preface: As I said before, each generation of approximately 30 to 60 years time span, it does not have to be exact, but about 30 to 60 years needs a preeminent, premier scientist to write the authoritative texts of physics. There is about that much time span that major discoveries and developments occur to warrant that textbook. And the purpose of which is to set the foundations and fundamentals of physics. The last person to do this was Feynman in his Lectures on Physics in 1960s. Perhaps Rutherford and Bohr did this in early 1900s. But most definitely Maxwell served this function of leading expert on physics with his 1860s book on Maxwell Equations. The time before was Faraday and all his writings circa 1830.
Here it is 2020, and we need to replace the Feynman Lectures on Physics with all the new found knowledge and discoveries since Feynman of 1960s.
What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the education with.
And this Junior year in High School is mostly to be like a laboratory learning, a hands on experiment of physics, mostly electricity and magnetism. This is to emphasize to young students, that physics is, well, mostly about electricity and magnetism and anything else is side show.
Cover Picture: Is two books of Time-Life Lighting & Electricity 1987, and Advanced Wiring 1998, which I will use as template books in writing this book.
What is a template in writing? It means that I will use these two books as much of the substance of this course in physics. Of course I will correct things in the two template books. And the reason for having template books is to save time. If I do not use template books this project could take me anywhere from 5 to 10 years to write these 6 textbooks. By using these template books I cut the time down to perhaps 5 to 10 months.
I need template books for Junior High School that are exceptionally well written and have a laboratory manual type of structure, a lab manual so to speak. And Time-Life books are excellently written. The trouble I found in High School and College lab manuals is they are poorly written, poorly written for first-time students to understand what is going on. And the teacher for these lab manuals did not know much about the experiments either. So lab courses turned into nightmares, is what High School and College was. To this very day, I cannot remember a single lab experiment in which I learned anything. Partly due to the fact that instructors in High School or College seldom get any training in how to teach lab courses. College professors seldom take "how to teach students course" to be a effective teacher. That means, getting down to the level of understanding of first time young students. And that is what Time-Life books overcome with plenty of pictures and clear concise prose to teach.
Junior High School physics should be ample hands on doing, like a laboratory.
So, in TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, AP is going to start with the Ancient Greek Theory of Atoms then jump directly to magnetism and electricity. I am bypassing all the Newton laws and Newton gravity. I am going from Ancient Greek physics to electricity and magnetism.
And this is quite acceptable in the fact that Newton laws and gravity were "idealizations", pointing to the underlying unification that is EM force.
Now I was looking for a picture of magnetism and Halliday & Resnick PHYSICS, part 2, extended version, 1986, which I use as the template book for 1st year college, on pages 584 and 580 shows lines of force from a magnet and/or electric.
In Halliday & Resnick, Fundamentals of Physics, 3rd edition, 1988, page 687, Figure 1 Iron filings sprinkled on a sheet of paper tell us that there is a bar magnet underneath.
I was hoping that Feynman had a picture of magnetic lines of force, but did not. But to his credit, his first pictures are that of "atoms in motion" in his Lectures of Physics.
The Senior High School template book, Asimov in his History of Physics, 1966, page 392 has a picture of magnetic lines of force.
AP
Table of Contents
---------------------------
1) The Atomic Theory by Ancient Greek time.
2) Experiment, experiment, experiment, that is what gives us scientific truth.
3) Experiment and classroom demonstration on magnetism.
4) Experiment and classroom demonstration on Faraday Law.
5) What electric current looks like and how it flows in wire circuits.
6) Principles of Light and Electricity.
7) The Mathematical Equations that governs all of Physics (for Junior High School).
Principles of Light and Electricity.
1) Travels at maximum speed 3.16*10^8 m/s. No speed can exceed this maximum.
2) Travels at a constant maximum speed 3.16*10^8 m/s in vacuum. Do not forget the vacuum.
3) Travels as a closed loop circuit. This is what was missed in Special Relativity physics of Old Physics.
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 propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2022-10-20 20:14:17 UTC
Permalink
Kibo Parry M splatter shit Dr.Panchanathan NSF, Kate Heinzelman CIA, Dr.Hau Harvard who refuses to turn off light and prove AP correct that Light Waves are closed loop circuits.
"teratard"
"Splatter-Fart-Shitee"
flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
Re: _CIA Kate Heinzelman why Kibo Parry call Dr.Hanlon,Dartmouth& Dr.Lavigne Stanford as Analbuttfuckmanure?? Is it Kibo's stalking or is it because they cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse. What is the answer Kate???? Or should I
by Chris M. Thomasson Oct 15, 2022, 5:38:32 PM

Re: Psychoceramic NSF Dr. Panchanathan,F. Fleming Crim, kibo Parry M says will corrupt the minds of your children! Why kibo? Because they still teach 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction and ellipse a conic when it never was.
by Mostowski Collapse (Jan Burse) Feb 4 , 2022, 1:33 AM



Earle Jones is Dr.Hau of Harvard unable to turn the lights off in BEC experiments, because like you Earle Jones of Stanford Univ you poop and piss in your pants, and does Stanford have to clean up your bathroom mess
Earle Jones says Dr. Hau finding the bathroom in the dark has consequences with poop and piss. Is it why she cannot turn off the lights in slow light experiments.
My guess is he will do much better posting about poop and piss than his posting about mathematics and science.
earle
*
"teratard"
"Splatter-Fart-Shitee"
flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
Kibo is that why Harvard's Dr. Hau cannot turn off a light switch and prove AP correct -- Light waves are closed loop circuit with the source in the loop.
Hagfish of Math and Slime Eel of Physics
"psychoceramic"

Harvard's Dr. Hau is not really a scientist because she refuses to turn the light switch off as a vendetta against AP. She does not want AP to get credit that light is a closed loop circuit, and not her straightline arrow ray.
WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
Should Harvard's Dr. Hau be put in a science-jail for Obstruction of Science? Years back I wrote a book on Quantum Entanglement, explaining it fully as the fact that light waves along with electricity is a closed loop phenomenon. Most people would
Years back I wrote a book on Quantum Entanglement, explaining it fully as the fact that light waves along with electricity is a closed loop phenomenon. Most people would not understand that because it looks like a light beam is a straight line phenomenon not a closed loop. But it truly is a closed loop for even the electric extension cord, which looks like a straight line, is in fact a closed loop.
Apparently, to Harvard's Dr.Hau, physics means being in the dark about understanding light waves is more important than understanding light waves and having to give credit to Archimedes Plutonium for predicting light is not a straightline arrow ray but a closed loop circuit. Apparently at Harvard being a scientist is never give credit to AP, is worse than finding out the truth about science and physics. Such petty petty people hatred that Harvard endorses, rather than --- science is all about the truth of the world, not about-- who do you hate.
So, years back, I wanted Harvard's Dr. Hau to set up her slow light experiment, get the light beam to crawl through the BEC, then, abruptly turn off the light beam at the source. What Dr. Hau would predict (I am guessing) is she would predict the slow light inside the BEC is still on and moving. What AP predicts because all light is a closed loop, is that the instant the beam is turned off at the source, all the light in the experiment INSTANTANEOUSLY goes out all at once.
So, can the science community stop obstructing progress and get on with it-- get Dr. Hau or any other similar experiment to "turn off the light" and prove AP correct or prove AP wrong. It is one or the other, and I am totally confident I will win this.
I have other evidence that I will win this.
1) News reporter far away, such as from Europe to Asia, or USA to Asia, have a speed of light lag time in talking to one another. But if the "so to speak circuit was turned off" the loss of signal is instantaneous. We can see it in radio waves where the speed of light has a lag time, not much but a noticeable lag. But if the communication was interrupted, the interruption is not the speed of light but instantaneous.
2) Solar eclipse. This is where the moon directly overhead blocks the Sun. Now, if light waves had no instantaneous shut off, and since it takes 8 minutes for light to travel from Sun to Earth. Then if light cannot be instantaneously shut off, means that in a solar eclipse, we need the Moon to be 8 minutes in its arc to experience the eclipse, not directly overhead.
3) Communication with our rockets such as Voyager 1, the contents of messages from Earth to spacecraft or vice versa take the speed of light time, but the turning off of the signal is instantaneous at both ends-- and is in "real time" not delayed to the speed of light. Just as in Slow Light experiments, turn the source switch off, and all the light downstream disappears instantly.
1- AP's 145th book// TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
by Archimedes Plutonium
Books in this series are.
137th book Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1
145th book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS High School junior year, book 2
146th book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS High School senior year, book 3
147th book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS Freshperson college, book 4
148th book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS Sophomore college, book 5
149th book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS Junior college, book 6
150th book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS Senior college, book 7
Preface: As I said before, each generation of approximately 30 to 60 years time span, it does not have to be exact, but about 30 to 60 years needs a preeminent, premier scientist to write the authoritative texts of physics. There is about that much time span that major discoveries and developments occur to warrant that textbook. And the purpose of which is to set the foundations and fundamentals of physics. The last person to do this was Feynman in his Lectures on Physics in 1960s. Perhaps Rutherford and Bohr did this in early 1900s. But most definitely Maxwell served this function of leading expert on physics with his 1860s book on Maxwell Equations. The time before was Faraday and all his writings circa 1830.
Here it is 2020, and we need to replace the Feynman Lectures on Physics with all the new found knowledge and discoveries since Feynman of 1960s.
What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the education with.
And this Junior year in High School is mostly to be like a laboratory learning, a hands on experiment of physics, mostly electricity and magnetism. This is to emphasize to young students, that physics is, well, mostly about electricity and magnetism and anything else is side show.
Cover Picture: Is two books of Time-Life Lighting & Electricity 1987, and Advanced Wiring 1998, which I will use as template books in writing this book.
What is a template in writing? It means that I will use these two books as much of the substance of this course in physics. Of course I will correct things in the two template books. And the reason for having template books is to save time. If I do not use template books this project could take me anywhere from 5 to 10 years to write these 6 textbooks. By using these template books I cut the time down to perhaps 5 to 10 months.
I need template books for Junior High School that are exceptionally well written and have a laboratory manual type of structure, a lab manual so to speak. And Time-Life books are excellently written. The trouble I found in High School and College lab manuals is they are poorly written, poorly written for first-time students to understand what is going on. And the teacher for these lab manuals did not know much about the experiments either. So lab courses turned into nightmares, is what High School and College was. To this very day, I cannot remember a single lab experiment in which I learned anything. Partly due to the fact that instructors in High School or College seldom get any training in how to teach lab courses. College professors seldom take "how to teach students course" to be a effective teacher. That means, getting down to the level of understanding of first time young students. And that is what Time-Life books overcome with plenty of pictures and clear concise prose to teach.
Junior High School physics should be ample hands on doing, like a laboratory.
So, in TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, AP is going to start with the Ancient Greek Theory of Atoms then jump directly to magnetism and electricity. I am bypassing all the Newton laws and Newton gravity. I am going from Ancient Greek physics to electricity and magnetism.
And this is quite acceptable in the fact that Newton laws and gravity were "idealizations", pointing to the underlying unification that is EM force.
Now I was looking for a picture of magnetism and Halliday & Resnick PHYSICS, part 2, extended version, 1986, which I use as the template book for 1st year college, on pages 584 and 580 shows lines of force from a magnet and/or electric.
In Halliday & Resnick, Fundamentals of Physics, 3rd edition, 1988, page 687, Figure 1 Iron filings sprinkled on a sheet of paper tell us that there is a bar magnet underneath.
I was hoping that Feynman had a picture of magnetic lines of force, but did not. But to his credit, his first pictures are that of "atoms in motion" in his Lectures of Physics.
The Senior High School template book, Asimov in his History of Physics, 1966, page 392 has a picture of magnetic lines of force.
AP
Table of Contents
---------------------------
1) The Atomic Theory by Ancient Greek time.
2) Experiment, experiment, experiment, that is what gives us scientific truth.
3) Experiment and classroom demonstration on magnetism.
4) Experiment and classroom demonstration on Faraday Law.
5) What electric current looks like and how it flows in wire circuits.
6) Principles of Light and Electricity.
7) The Mathematical Equations that governs all of Physics (for Junior High School).
Principles of Light and Electricity.
1) Travels at maximum speed 3.16*10^8 m/s. No speed can exceed this maximum.
2) Travels at a constant maximum speed 3.16*10^8 m/s in vacuum. Do not forget the vacuum.
3) Travels as a closed loop circuit. This is what was missed in Special Relativity physics of Old Physics.
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 propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2022-10-21 01:53:19 UTC
Permalink
David Brooks, Michael Roston is it not childish to have a curse on AP, to never print his name in your newspaper, when the mature grown up act is to publish the fact in your Science section-- slant cut of cone is Oval, and is never ellipse. So that all the residents of New York state realize the truth, and intelligent people like Mr. Marshall Lett need not ask the question. People in New York state and around the world asking which is the slant cut in cone-- is it ellipse or oval??? Yet the Science section of The New York Times refusing to publish the truth because it means printing the name Archimedes Plutonium for which NYT vows to never do. For to publish the truth on conics means having to print the name Archimedes Plutonium as discoverer of the truth. And nothing worse in all the world for Mr. Sulzberger is to have to print the name Archimedes Plutonium in his newspaper. Hatred rules the The New York Times, not the truth of the world.

David Brooks, is the NYT as dumb and stupid in politics as it is dumb and stupid in math-science-- NYT cannot tell the difference between oval and ellipse. Does Michael Roston even know what a oval is??? Is any of the Science printed in the New York Times, is any of your science truthful or is it all a bunch of garbage prattle like your ellipse is a conic section when that is false. Are there any logical brains at the NYT, or is the NYT empty of logical brains???
Mr. Sulzberger, you have a Science section in your newspaper, you have residents of New York State such as Mr. Lett. What the hell good is your Science section, Mr. Sulzberger if you cannot even answer the question-- Slant cut of Cone is Oval, never the ellipse. All because you hate the guts of AP, that your Science section refuses to tell the truth.
Mr. Marshall Lett started a thread over in sci.math, asking the question of what the slant cut in cone truly is?
I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
Who am I supposed to believe?
Mr. Kahn, is it not awfully childish of the The New York Times to hold a curse on AP, and you ignore the science truth and reality. Your motto at the Times-- "all the news fit to print" maybe should become "all the news except Archimedes Plutonium for the NYT hates his guts".

Joseph Kahn, why even bother having a Science section at The New York Times, when your newspaper cannot even inform and teach readers the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse. Even your New York residents are asking question. Even your New York High School students have more geometry brains than the staff at the The New York Times.
I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
Who am I supposed to believe?
The New York Times should step in here, with its Science section-- for what the hell is it good for, if it cannot even tell the truth between a ellipse and a oval.
And an spamming stalker idiot Kibo Parry only confuses those already confused.
Constantly confusing posters and stalks sci.math with his failed and anti-science mischief.
Oh you need to see the ellipse-is-a-conic-section proof again? Here you go!

The New York Times, A.G. Sulzberger would rather publish that than ever publish AP's correction of Ancient Greek mathematics, that since the slant cut of Cylinder is ellipse, it is impossible for slant cut of cone be an ellipse, but rather an Oval instead. For a cylinder has 2 axes of symmetry same as ellipse, but cone has 1 axis of symmetry same as Oval.
The New York Times maintains its hatred and refusal to ever print on AP, as they did in 1994 when NYT along with Dartmouth College suspended posting account of AP for 1 month, because AP was doing science in Usenet. The NYT hates the guts of AP and all the science AP achieves and so there is a directive at NYT, to never publish the name "Archimedes Plutonium" in the NYT, no matter if even AP becomes president of NASA or National Science Foundation. Or, even if every Science magazine publishes AP, the The New York Times will not. No wonder people become anti-semitic when a newspaper invites anti-semitism.

A.G.Sulzberger, Joseph Kahn, Marc Lacey, Carolyn Ryan, Kathleen Kingsbury, David Brooks, Michael Roston, why not publish the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is never a ellipse, always a oval. Or is hatred your game more than truth and reality of the world you live in.
Let us analyze AP's Proof
In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.
The side view of a cylinder is this
| |
| |
| |
That allows cE to be the same distance as cF
But the side view of the cone is
/\E
/c \
F / \
The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF makes that distance larger than cE.
The New York Times has it correct on Darwin Evolution, but when it comes to physics, they use their newspaper to make Einstein a semigod, and trash all physicists working in physics, because the NYT starts almost every physics report, starts it out as saying..... And Einstein did this.... and ending the report with .... this proves Einstein. Some magazines have become almost as bad as NYT in physics reporting.
The New York Times, A.G. Sulzberger would rather publish what is written in a book such as Stillwell, where Stillwell does not analyze anything, than ever publish AP's correction of Ancient Greek mathematics, that since the slant cut of Cylinder is ellipse, it is impossible for slant cut of cone be an ellipse, but rather an Oval instead. For a cylinder has 2 axes of symmetry same as ellipse, but cone has 1 axis of symmetry same as Oval.
The New York Times maintains its hatred curse on AP, as they did in 1994 when NYT along with Dartmouth College suspended posting account of AP for 1 month, because AP was doing science in Usenet. The NYT hates the guts of AP and all the science AP achieves and so there is a directive at NYT, to never publish the name "Archimedes Plutonium" in the NYT, no matter if even AP becomes president of NASA or National Science Foundation.
A.G.Sulzberger, Joseph Kahn, Marc Lacey, Carolyn Ryan, Kathleen Kingsbury,David Brooks, Michael Roston why not publish the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is never a ellipse, always a oval. Or is hatred your game more than truth and reality of the world you live in.
Let us analyze AP's Proof

Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E
In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.
The side view of a cylinder is this
| |
| |
| |
That allows cE to be the same distance as cF
But the side view of the cone is
/\E
/c \
F / \
The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF makes that distance larger than cE.


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, 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.
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)
Archimedes Plutonium
2022-10-21 20:27:17 UTC
Permalink
David Brooks, Michael Roston is it not childish to have a curse on AP, to never print his name in your newspaper, when the mature grown up act is to publish the fact in your Science section-- slant cut of cone is Oval, and is never ellipse. So that all the residents of New York state realize the truth, and intelligent people like Mr. Marshall Lett need not ask the question. People in New York state and around the world asking which is the slant cut in cone-- is it ellipse or oval??? Yet the Science section of The New York Times refusing to publish the truth because it means printing the name Archimedes Plutonium for which NYT vows to never do. For to publish the truth on conics means having to print the name Archimedes Plutonium as discoverer of the truth. And nothing worse in all the world for Mr. Sulzberger is to have to print the name Archimedes Plutonium in his newspaper. Hatred rules the The New York Times, not the truth of the world.

David Brooks, is the NYT as dumb and stupid in politics as it is dumb and stupid in math-science-- NYT cannot tell the difference between oval and ellipse. Does Michael Roston even know what a oval is??? Is any of the Science printed in the New York Times, is any of your science truthful or is it all a bunch of garbage prattle like your ellipse is a conic section when that is false. Are there any logical brains at the NYT, or is the NYT empty of logical brains???
Mr. Sulzberger, you have a Science section in your newspaper, you have residents of New York State such as Mr. Lett. What the hell good is your Science section, Mr. Sulzberger if you cannot even answer the question-- Slant cut of Cone is Oval, never the ellipse. All because you hate the guts of AP, that your Science section refuses to tell the truth.
Mr. Marshall Lett started a thread over in sci.math, asking the question of what the slant cut in cone truly is?
I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
Who am I supposed to believe?
Mr. Kahn, is it not awfully childish of the The New York Times to hold a curse on AP, and you ignore the science truth and reality. Your motto at the Times-- "all the news fit to print" maybe should become "all the news except Archimedes Plutonium for the NYT hates his guts".

Joseph Kahn, why even bother having a Science section at The New York Times, when your newspaper cannot even inform and teach readers the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse. Even your New York residents are asking question. Even your New York High School students have more geometry brains than the staff at the The New York Times.
I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
Who am I supposed to believe?
The New York Times should step in here, with its Science section-- for what the hell is it good for, if it cannot even tell the truth between a ellipse and a oval.
And an spamming stalker idiot Kibo Parry only confuses those already confused.
Constantly confusing posters and stalks sci.math with his failed and anti-science mischief.
Oh you need to see the ellipse-is-a-conic-section proof again? Here you go!

The New York Times, A.G. Sulzberger would rather publish that than ever publish AP's correction of Ancient Greek mathematics, that since the slant cut of Cylinder is ellipse, it is impossible for slant cut of cone be an ellipse, but rather an Oval instead. For a cylinder has 2 axes of symmetry same as ellipse, but cone has 1 axis of symmetry same as Oval.
The New York Times maintains its hatred and refusal to ever print on AP, as they did in 1994 when NYT along with Dartmouth College suspended posting account of AP for 1 month, because AP was doing science in Usenet. The NYT hates the guts of AP and all the science AP achieves and so there is a directive at NYT, to never publish the name "Archimedes Plutonium" in the NYT, no matter if even AP becomes president of NASA or National Science Foundation. Or, even if every Science magazine publishes AP, the The New York Times will not. No wonder people become anti-semitic when a newspaper invites anti-semitism.

A.G.Sulzberger, Joseph Kahn, Marc Lacey, Carolyn Ryan, Kathleen Kingsbury, David Brooks, Michael Roston, why not publish the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is never a ellipse, always a oval. Or is hatred your game more than truth and reality of the world you live in.
Let us analyze AP's Proof
In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.
The side view of a cylinder is this
| |
| |
| |
That allows cE to be the same distance as cF
But the side view of the cone is
/\E
/c \
F / \
The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF makes that distance larger than cE.
The New York Times has it correct on Darwin Evolution, but when it comes to physics, they use their newspaper to make Einstein a semigod, and trash all physicists working in physics, because the NYT starts almost every physics report, starts it out as saying..... And Einstein did this.... and ending the report with .... this proves Einstein. Some magazines have become almost as bad as NYT in physics reporting.
The New York Times, A.G. Sulzberger would rather publish what is written in a book such as Stillwell, where Stillwell does not analyze anything, than ever publish AP's correction of Ancient Greek mathematics, that since the slant cut of Cylinder is ellipse, it is impossible for slant cut of cone be an ellipse, but rather an Oval instead. For a cylinder has 2 axes of symmetry same as ellipse, but cone has 1 axis of symmetry same as Oval.
The New York Times maintains its hatred curse on AP, as they did in 1994 when NYT along with Dartmouth College suspended posting account of AP for 1 month, because AP was doing science in Usenet. The NYT hates the guts of AP and all the science AP achieves and so there is a directive at NYT, to never publish the name "Archimedes Plutonium" in the NYT, no matter if even AP becomes president of NASA or National Science Foundation.
A.G.Sulzberger, Joseph Kahn, Marc Lacey, Carolyn Ryan, Kathleen Kingsbury,David Brooks, Michael Roston why not publish the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is never a ellipse, always a oval. Or is hatred your game more than truth and reality of the world you live in.
Let us analyze AP's Proof

Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E
In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.
The side view of a cylinder is this
| |
| |
| |
That allows cE to be the same distance as cF
But the side view of the cone is
/\E
/c \
F / \
The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF makes that distance larger than cE.


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, 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.
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)
Archimedes Plutonium
2022-10-21 23:07:41 UTC
Permalink
RE: 2-Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Sylvia Else do not do physics but just play ad hominem games. Instead of doing Physics, both Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Else want to play games of ad hominem. Whenever physics proves AP is correct, neither

Earle Jones
Nov 3, 2021, 11:19:48 PM



to
Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Sylvia Else do not do physics but just play ad hominem games. Instead of doing Physics, both Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Else want to play games of ad hominem. Whenever physics proves AP is correct, neither
Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Sylvia Else do not do physics but just play ad hominem games.
Instead of doing Physics, both Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Else want to play games of ad hominem. Whenever physics proves AP is correct, neither Harvard's Dr. Hau nor Berkeley's Sylvia Else want to complete or perform the experiment because they do not want to credit AP. They want physics such that it gives credit to those people they like. Just the opposite of what Feynman warned of-- physics does not care who the person is that discovers the truth. But in modern times, physics at Harvard, MIT, Berkeley is first concern is who gets credit and the actual physics involved-- be damned.
*
To AP:

You give a lot of credit to Dr. Feynman. I agree with you. But he concluded, along with Archimedes (the original) and many others, that the ellipse is, in fact, a conic section.
See the Feynman notes, Principles of Physics, Volume 2, pages 110 and 111.

earle
*
Archimedes Plutonium
2022-10-22 01:14:56 UTC
Permalink
David Brooks, Michael Roston is it not childish to have a curse on AP, to never print his name in your newspaper, when the mature grown up act is to publish the fact in your Science section-- slant cut of cone is Oval, and is never ellipse. So that all the residents of New York state realize the truth, and intelligent people like Mr. Marshall Lett need not ask the question. People in New York state and around the world asking which is the slant cut in cone-- is it ellipse or oval??? Yet the Science section of The New York Times refusing to publish the truth because it means printing the name Archimedes Plutonium for which NYT vows to never do. For to publish the truth on conics means having to print the name Archimedes Plutonium as discoverer of the truth. And nothing worse in all the world for Mr. Sulzberger is to have to print the name Archimedes Plutonium in his newspaper. Hatred rules the The New York Times, not the truth of the world.

David Brooks, is the NYT as dumb and stupid in politics as it is dumb and stupid in math-science-- NYT cannot tell the difference between oval and ellipse. Does Michael Roston even know what a oval is??? Is any of the Science printed in the New York Times, is any of your science truthful or is it all a bunch of garbage prattle like your ellipse is a conic section when that is false. Are there any logical brains at the NYT, or is the NYT empty of logical brains???
Mr. Sulzberger, you have a Science section in your newspaper, you have residents of New York State such as Mr. Lett. What the hell good is your Science section, Mr. Sulzberger if you cannot even answer the question-- Slant cut of Cone is Oval, never the ellipse. All because you hate the guts of AP, that your Science section refuses to tell the truth.
Mr. Marshall Lett started a thread over in sci.math, asking the question of what the slant cut in cone truly is?
I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
Who am I supposed to believe?
Mr. Kahn, is it not awfully childish of the The New York Times to hold a curse on AP, and you ignore the science truth and reality. Your motto at the Times-- "all the news fit to print" maybe should become "all the news except Archimedes Plutonium for the NYT hates his guts".

Joseph Kahn, why even bother having a Science section at The New York Times, when your newspaper cannot even inform and teach readers the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse. Even your New York residents are asking question. Even your New York High School students have more geometry brains than the staff at the The New York Times.
I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
Who am I supposed to believe?
The New York Times should step in here, with its Science section-- for what the hell is it good for, if it cannot even tell the truth between a ellipse and a oval.
And an spamming stalker idiot Kibo Parry only confuses those already confused.
Constantly confusing posters and stalks sci.math with his failed and anti-science mischief.
Oh you need to see the ellipse-is-a-conic-section proof again? Here you go!

The New York Times, A.G. Sulzberger would rather publish that than ever publish AP's correction of Ancient Greek mathematics, that since the slant cut of Cylinder is ellipse, it is impossible for slant cut of cone be an ellipse, but rather an Oval instead. For a cylinder has 2 axes of symmetry same as ellipse, but cone has 1 axis of symmetry same as Oval.
The New York Times maintains its hatred and refusal to ever print on AP, as they did in 1994 when NYT along with Dartmouth College suspended posting account of AP for 1 month, because AP was doing science in Usenet. The NYT hates the guts of AP and all the science AP achieves and so there is a directive at NYT, to never publish the name "Archimedes Plutonium" in the NYT, no matter if even AP becomes president of NASA or National Science Foundation. Or, even if every Science magazine publishes AP, the The New York Times will not. No wonder people become anti-semitic when a newspaper invites anti-semitism.

A.G.Sulzberger, Joseph Kahn, Marc Lacey, Carolyn Ryan, Kathleen Kingsbury, David Brooks, Michael Roston, why not publish the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is never a ellipse, always a oval. Or is hatred your game more than truth and reality of the world you live in.
Let us analyze AP's Proof
In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.
The side view of a cylinder is this
| |
| |
| |
That allows cE to be the same distance as cF
But the side view of the cone is
/\E
/c \
F / \
The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF makes that distance larger than cE.
The New York Times has it correct on Darwin Evolution, but when it comes to physics, they use their newspaper to make Einstein a semigod, and trash all physicists working in physics, because the NYT starts almost every physics report, starts it out as saying..... And Einstein did this.... and ending the report with .... this proves Einstein. Some magazines have become almost as bad as NYT in physics reporting.
The New York Times, A.G. Sulzberger would rather publish what is written in a book such as Stillwell, where Stillwell does not analyze anything, than ever publish AP's correction of Ancient Greek mathematics, that since the slant cut of Cylinder is ellipse, it is impossible for slant cut of cone be an ellipse, but rather an Oval instead. For a cylinder has 2 axes of symmetry same as ellipse, but cone has 1 axis of symmetry same as Oval.
The New York Times maintains its hatred curse on AP, as they did in 1994 when NYT along with Dartmouth College suspended posting account of AP for 1 month, because AP was doing science in Usenet. The NYT hates the guts of AP and all the science AP achieves and so there is a directive at NYT, to never publish the name "Archimedes Plutonium" in the NYT, no matter if even AP becomes president of NASA or National Science Foundation.
A.G.Sulzberger, Joseph Kahn, Marc Lacey, Carolyn Ryan, Kathleen Kingsbury,David Brooks, Michael Roston why not publish the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is never a ellipse, always a oval. Or is hatred your game more than truth and reality of the world you live in.
Let us analyze AP's Proof

Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E
In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.
The side view of a cylinder is this
| |
| |
| |
That allows cE to be the same distance as cF
But the side view of the cone is
/\E
/c \
F / \
The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF makes that distance larger than cE.


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, 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.
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)
Archimedes Plutonium
2023-02-04 08:33:55 UTC
Permalink
Han Duck-soo, Yoon Suk-yeol Please free your Moon bears.
Boycott Samsung & Hyundai until they free their moon bears.
South Korea free your tortured Moon bears


Save moon-bears, sure no-one cares to save spam from FBI, CIA, Mi6, police drag net garbage that floods sci.math and sci.physics everyday. I have kindly asked President Biden to kindly remove this drag net spam from all of sci.math and sci.physics and leave them as __spam free zones__.


FBI, CIA, police drag net, Russian disinformation b.s. spam spam spam oil masterpiece painting of freeing Moon Bears.
No wonder sci.math, sci.physics only survived 1993-1997, 4 brief years, then the b.s. and drag net spam took over

\\ ("`****/").
\\ `0_ 0 ) `-.
\\ (_&_.)' ._ )
\\ `--' / /
\\ ==1(li)===========
\\
\\
two caged Moon Bears caged all their life and bile extracted

\\ ("`****//'").
\\ `0_ 0 ) `-.
\\ (_&_.)' ._ )
\\ `--' / /
\\ ==1(li)===========
\\
\\


Short History of Usenet, sci.physics, sci.math from 1993-2020, and its 90% decline// Sociology series, book 9 Kindle Edition

by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)


Last revision was 6Jan2022. This is AP's 129th published book on science.

Preface: This book started out as a book on "stalking" but when Google revised its Google Newsgroup platform, with altogether different formatting, this book morphed into becoming a "90% demise of Usenet and sci.physics and sci.math in particular". In one of my posts on this book I said the title was going to change often until I actually write the book. And that is what happened. For in late December 2021, It was revealed to me that a persistent stalker under the name Michael Moroney (who stated in one of his stalking posts to be kibo, as in Kibo Parry) was posting from a CIA line in 1997. So that completes this history of Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics, as the demise is nearly all due to the fact that the constant and persistent police drag net spam chased most everyone else away, and most importantly the dot-edu address posters out of sci.math and sci.physics. Educated people just do not want to bother discussing physics or math while everywhere around is criss-crossed with vulgar police drag net spam.

Cover Picture: Is the newsgroup Plutonium-Atom-Universe that is fully controlled by the King of Science AP, Archimedes Plutonium. Every post in that newsgroup is about pure science, no ad hominem. And that is what the sci.physics and sci.math should be. Discussions on pure science, nothing else, and especially no ad hominem, no stalking, no spam, no off-topic junk, no solution manual selling, no drug selling, no police drag-net spam.

Product details
• Publication Date : August 31, 2020
• ASIN : B08H5B71M4
• File Size : 1045 KB
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print Length : 78 pages
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Language: : English
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled


#1-1, 148th published book

Plutonium Atom Totality Universe, 9th edition 2021, Atom Totality Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 30Nov2021. And this is AP's 148th published science book.

Preface:
Physics book that explains what the universe is, and how it works. This is a continuation of the Atomic Theory by Democritus in Ancient Greek times. It adds one more fact to the Atomic Theory picture. That the Universe itself is one gigantic big atom. The picture is that of the Universe, in total, is one big atom that contains more atoms, inside itself. It completes the logic of science that Dr. Feynman wrote-- all things are made up of atoms -- and so, to complete that idea -- all things and the universe itself is an atom.

In this edition of year 2021, AP actually proves the Atom Totality theory, and therefore, a simultaneously _disproof_ of the Big Bang theory. The proof is simple, in that the Sun and stars shine not from fusion, but rather, instead, shine from the Faraday law going on inside each and every proton in the Sun or star, or, in the Universe. The muon is the true electron of atoms and is the bar magnet in Faraday's law while the proton is a 840MeV particle in the geometry shape of 8 ring coil torus that is the closed loop coil in Faraday's Law. NASA scientists have discovered the Sun is a yearly increase in radiation of 0.005% yearly, and is why 25% of all insects have perished in the last decade 2010-2020. Stars and Sun shine from Faraday law, not from fusion and that is how the Universe itself grows. So, we cannot logically have two different mechanisms for the creation of the Universe. We cannot have electricity magnetism of Faraday law and then some silly "explosion of Big Bang" to create and grow the universe.

Also, in the course of providing supporting evidence of the Atom Totality theory, my research had to revise and correct the entire Maxwell Equations, and revise and correct the theory, the quantum electrodynamics theory.

Cover Picture: Again I used 8 rings from plumbing hardware to represent the 8 rings of a proton torus, and visualize each ring as a dot cloud pattern instead of a continuous ring, and the holes in some of those rings helps facilitate that image. Notice the muon ring is inside the proton torus rings, and perpendicular, and situated at the equator, going around and around the proton torus at nearly the speed of light in the Faraday law; producing electricity. Atoms are designed to produce maximum electricity, given their masses.
Length: 329 pages

Product details
• ASIN : B08T82M2LP
• Publication date : January 16, 2021
• Language: : English
• File size : 872 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 329 pages
• Lending : Enabled




#1-2, 48th published book

Plutonium Atom Totality Universe, Atom Totality Series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)


--------------------------
Table of Contents
--------------------------

1) A visual image of a Atom Totality

2) Simply multiply 9 times 105MeV and there you get the rest mass of proton and neutron.

3) The tau-electron 1777MeV is merely 105MeV multiply by 17 is 1785 with Sigma Error of 0.4%.

4) Particle in the 840MeV range so that we can say we discovered the proton particle isolated of its internal muon.

5) Found a 840MeV particle in experimental physics, but, is it the proton torus without its interior occupied by a muon?

6) The theory of 9s, as help in physics.

7) How we picture the interior of Atoms, and the Atom Totality.

8) The Principle of Scooting-Over, applied.

9) An ongoing commentary of the geometry of atoms, both interior and exterior.

10) Galaxies form Rings in Faraday Coil, and Faraday bar-magnet // Cosmic Proton, Cosmic Muon.

11) Is there a Cosmic Faraday Law going on?
Length: 148 pages

Product details
File Size: 2370 KB
Print Length: 148 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publication Date: June 10, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07SW87BF5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #285,417 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#826 in Astronomy (Books)
#166 in Astronomy (Kindle Store)
#671 in Physics (Kindle Store)


#1-3, 74th published book

HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

In 2016-2017, AP discovered that the real proton has a mass of 840 MeV, not 938. The real electron was actually the muon and the muon stays inside the proton that forms a proton torus of 8 rings and with the muon as bar magnet is a Faraday Law producing magnetic monopoles. So this book is all about why researchers of physics and engineers keep getting the number 938MeV when they should be getting the number 840 MeV + 105 MeV = 945 MeV.

Cover Picture is a proton torus of 8 rings with a muon of 1 ring inside the proton torus, doing the Faraday Law and producing magnetic monopoles.
Length: 17 pages

Product details
• Publication Date : December 18, 2019
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 17 pages
• File Size : 698 KB
• ASIN : B082WYGVNG
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled

#1-4, 105th published book

Atom Geometry is Torus Geometry // Atom Totality series, book 4 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Since all atoms are doing the Faraday Law inside them, of their thrusting muon into a proton coil in the shape of a geometry torus, then the torus is the geometry of each and every atom. But then we must explain the neutrons since the muon and proton are doing Faraday's Law, then the neutron needs to be explained in terms of this proton torus with muon inside, all three shaped as rings. The muon is a single ring and each proton is 8 rings. The neutron is shaped like a plate and is solid not hollow. The explanation of a neutron is that of a capacitor storing what the proton-muon rings produce in electricity. Where would the neutron parallel plates be located? I argue in this text that the neutron plates when fully grown from 1 eV until 945MeV are like two parallel plate capacitors where each neutron is part of one plate, like two pieces of bread with the proton-muon torus being a hamburger patty.

Cover Picture: I assembled two atoms in this picture where the proton torus with a band of muons inside traveling around and around the proton torus producing electricity. And the pie-plates represent neutrons as parallel-plate capacitors.
Length: 39 pages

Product details
• Publication Date : March 24, 2020
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• ASIN : B086BGSNXN
• Print Length : 39 pages
• File Size : 935 KB
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,656,820 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#6413 in Mathematics (Kindle Store)
#315 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
#4953 in Physics (Kindle Store)


#1-5, 112th published book

New Perspective on Psi^2 in the Schrodinger Equation in a Atom Totality Universe// Atom Totality series, book 5
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

I first heard of the Schrodinger equation in college chemistry class. We never actually did any problem solving with the equation, and we were only told about it. Then taking physics my next year in college and after I bought the Feynman Lectures on Physics, just for fun for side reading, three volume set did I learn what this Schrodinger equation and the Psi^2 wavefunction was about. I am not going to teach the mathematics of the Schrodinger equation and the math calculations of the Psi or Psi^2 in this book, but leave that up to the reader or student to do that from Feynman's Lectures on Physics. The purpose of this book is to give a new and different interpretation of what Psi^2 is, what Psi^2 means. Correct interpretation of physics experiments and observations turns out to be one of the most difficult tasks in all of physics.

Cover Picture: a photograph taken of me in 1993, after the discovery of Plutonium Atom Totality, and I was 43 years old then, on a wintery hill of New Hampshire. It is nice that Feynman wrote a physics textbook series, for I am very much benefitting from his wisdom. If he had not done that, getting organized in physics by writing textbooks, I would not be writing this book. And I would not have discovered the true meaning of the Fine Structure Constant, for it was Feynman who showed us that FSC is really 0.0854, not that of 0.0072. All because 0.0854 is Psi, and Psi^2 is 0.0072.
Length: 20 pages

Product details
• ASIN : B0875SVDC7
• Publication date : April 15, 2020
• Language: : English
• File size : 1134 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 20 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #240,066 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #5 in 30-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #65 in General Chemistry & Reference
◦ #481 in Physics (Kindle Store)

#1-6, 135th published book

QED in Atom Totality theory where proton is a 8 ring torus and electron = muon inside proton doing Faraday Law// Atom Totality series, book 6 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 

Since the real true electron of atoms is the muon and is a one ring bar magnet thrusting through the 8 ring torus of a proton, we need a whole entire new model of the hydrogen atom. Because the Bohr model with the 0.5MeV particle jumping orbitals as the explanation of Spectral Lines is all wrong. In this vacuum of explaining spectral line physics, comes the AP Model which simply states that the hydrogen atom creates Spectral lines because at any one instant of time 4 of the 8 proton rings is "in view" and the electricity coming from those 4 view rings creates spectral line physics.

Cover Picture: Is a imitation of the 8 ring proton torus, with my fingers holding on the proton ring that has the muon ring perpendicular and in the equatorial plane of the proton rings, thrusting through. This muon ring is the same size as the 8 proton rings making 9 x 105MeV = 945MeV of energy. The muon ring has to be perpendicular and lie on the equator of the proton torus. Surrounding the proton-torus would be neutrons as skin or coating cover and act as capacitors in storing the electricity produced by the proton+muon.


Product details
• ASIN : B08K47K5BB
• Publication date : September 25, 2020
• Language : English
• File size : 587 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 25 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #291,001 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #13 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #52 in General Chemistry & Reference
◦ #334 in General Chemistry



#1-7, 138th published book
The true NUCLEUS of Atoms are inner toruses moving around in circles of a larger outer torus// Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden Experiment revisited // Atom Totality Series, book 7 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

The geometry of Atoms of the Table of Chemical Elements is torus geometry. We know this to be true for the torus geometry forms the maximum electricity production when using the Faraday Law. We see this in Old Physics with their tokamak toruses attempting to make fusion, by accelerating particles of the highest possible acceleration for the torus is that geometry. But the torus is the geometry not only of maximum acceleration but of maximum electrical generation by having a speeding bar magnet go around and around inside a torus== the Faraday law, where the torus rings are the copper closed wire loop. The protons of atoms are 8 loops of rings in a torus geometry, and the electron of atoms is the muon as bar magnet, almost the same size as the proton loops but small enough to fit inside proton loops. It is torus geometry that we investigate the geometry of all atoms.
Length: 41 pages

Product details
• Publication Date : October 9, 2020
• File Size : 828 KB
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print Length : 41 pages
• ASIN : B08KZT5TCD
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled

#1-8, 1st published book

Atom Totality Universe, 8th edition, 2017// A history log book: Atom Totality Series book 8 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)


Last revision 7Apr2021. This was AP's first published science book.

Advisory: This is a difficult book to read and is AP's research log book of the Atom Totality in 2016-2017. I want to keep it for its history value. AP advises all readers wanting to know the Plutonium Atom Totality theory to go to the 9th edition that is the latest up to date account of this theory. The reason AP wants to keep the 8th edition is because of Historical Value, for in this book, while writing it, caused the discovery of the real electron is the muon of atoms. The real proton of atoms is 840MeV and not the 938MeV that most books claim. The particle discovered by JJ Thomson in 1897 thinking he discovered the electron of atoms was actually the Dirac magnetic monopole at 0.5MeV. This discovery changes every, every science that uses atoms and electricity and magnetism, in other words, every science.

Foreward:
I wrote the 8th edition of Atom Totality and near the end of writing it in 2017, I had my second greatest physics discovery. I learned the real electron of atoms was the muon at 105MeV and not the tiny 0.5MeV particle that J.J.Thomson found in 1897. So I desperately tried to include that discovery in my 8th edition and it is quite plain to see for I tried to write paragraphs after each chapter saying as much. I knew in 2017, that it was a great discovery, changing all the hard sciences, and reframing and restructuring all the hard sciences.
Length: 632 pages


Product details
File Size: 1132 KB
Print Length: 632 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLP9NDR
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
 Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #578,229 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
                #1610 in Physics (Kindle Store)
                #8526 in Physics (Books)
                #18851 in Biological Sciences (Books)


#1-9, 163rd published book
Stellar System Evolution for Advanced Intelligent Life //Atom Totality science Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Format: Kindle Edition


Preface: This book explores the question of why the Sun has a planet with abundant life that evolved over 3.7 billion years ago into the advanced intelligent life of humans, yet the Sun has gone Red Giant initiation phase that threatens to destroy all life on Earth in the next few thousand years. The question of why even bother having advanced intelligent life if the home star quickly destroys that life and the planet it resides upon? Why bother with advanced intelligent life if it is put under such enormous stress and strain and energy to move to a distant satellite of Europa and Ganymede. Surely the Cosmic design must tell us why this is our fate.
Cover Picture: is my iphone photograph of Europa.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09NQ65H9F
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 15, 2021
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 999 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 60 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled



#1-10, 161st published book

PHYSICSOPEDIA -- List of 137 fakes and mistakes of Old Physics// Student teaches professor Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Preface:
A Physicsopedia is a book of the overall assessment and evaluation of the state of the art of Physics. It is like a report card. It is a total view of the science and a judgement of the science, both of the past, present and the direction forward into the future. Its greatest use is to alert readers and people in science of what is wrong with their subject, and as a ancillary use, to alert students what to avoid in college as a waste of time.
It is not in alphabetical order but mostly, rather, has a ordering of what is most important at the start and only at the very very end. For there is no index.
Physics is the most important hard science for every other science is a specialized part of physics. And Old Physics has three key huge mistakes that this book addresses. The true theory of the Universe is the Atom Totality, not the Big Bang which is a ridiculous theory. The true electron of atoms is not the particle of 0.5MeV which turns out to be Dirac's magnetic monopole, while the true real electron of atoms is the muon of 105MeV which is stuck inside a proton torus of 8 rings of 840MeV. This causes another huge mistake, for a mistake in physics usually has a cascade effect of more and more mistakes. When we take the true electron of atoms is the muon, means the Sun and stars shine not from fusion, but from that muon thrusting through the proton torus in a Faraday law of electricity and magnetism producing electrical energy. So our Sun shines from the Faraday law, not fusion. And this implies the Sun has gone into Red Giant phase with a solar radiation increase of 0.005% yearly increase. That implies all life on Earth is in danger of going extinct as the Sun becomes more and more Red Giant, and unless humanity moves out to Europa, humanity goes extinct.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09N18QPP1
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 3, 2021
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1139 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 82 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled


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 propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe  
Archimedes Plutonium
Loose Cannon
2023-02-04 11:06:09 UTC
Permalink
That's why they call themselves "GRAND Dragon", folks


KKK "Grand Dragon" sentenced to 20 years: molested his
granddaughter and arranged to have sex with two teenage girls
------------------------------------------------------

ATLANTA, GA - NEAL RAY SCHMIDT, 59, of St. Louis, Missouri, was
sentenced today to serve 20 years in federal prison for seeking
to have sex with two teenage girls. SCHMIDT, a retired delivery
man and former Grand Dragon for the Missouri chapter of the
Ku Klux Klan, had traveled from Missouri to Georgia for what he
hoped would be a sexual encounter with two 14-year-old girls he
met online. Since his arrest in this case, SCHMIDT has been
charged with molesting his granddaughter in Missouri and with
arranging a similar sexual encounter with an underage girl in
Florida.

[...]

According to United States Attorney Yates, the charges, and other
information presented in court: In early 2010, SCHMIDT, while
trolling in an online forum for kids, met whom he believed to be
two 14-year-old girls but who were in fact undercover police
officers. The two girls claimed to be friends and explained that
they lived near each other in McDonough, Georgia. SCHMIDT and the
girls had a series of mundane exchanges until SCHMIDT turned the
conversation toward sexual topics. Over the ensuing months, in
an effort to groom the girls for an eventual sexual encounter,
SCHMIDT sent sexually explicit videos of himself, as well as
images and videos of child pornography.

In June 2010, SCHMIDT made arrangements to drive from his home
near St. Louis to a motel in McDonough, Georgia, where the two
girls were to meet him for their sexual encounter. SCHMIDT was
arrested in the parking lot of the motel in McDonough, carrying
several guns, Klan paraphernalia, and an assortment of sex toys
and supplies.

More (if you must) in http://tinyurl.com/ou674td.
Loose Cannon
2023-02-04 11:07:07 UTC
Permalink
It just doesn't end...

http://sailerfraud.blogspot.co.il/2007/01/more-white-supremacist-racists-arrested.html
Loose Cannon
2023-02-04 11:07:55 UTC
Permalink
This filthy, deranged animal was, at least, considerate
enough to rid the world of its foul presence.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/16/keith-luke-neo-nazi-suicide_n_5334411.html
http://www.enterprisenews.com/article/20140512/news/140519379
Loose Cannon
2023-02-04 11:08:50 UTC
Permalink
Yes folks, it just does not end.

http://tinyurl.com/p7vu5uh

Las Vegas Metro Police arrested the Nevada state leader of the neo-Nazi
National Socialist Movement (NSM), Josh Davenport, 24, on August 11 on
charges of kidnapping and raping a 13-year-old girl. Police investigating
a missing child report were led to Davenport's nearby apartment, but left
when no one answered their knocks. However, members of the kidnapped girl's
family subsequently surveilled the apartment and later in the night
allegedly saw the crying girl leaving his apartment. They called the
police again, who returned and arrested Davenport without incident.

According to police, the victim said she had been sexually assaulted
at gun­point and the suspect had threatened to kill the girl and her
family. Davenport reportedly told police that he saw the girl having
an argument with another boy, then invited her into his apartment for
a short time before telling her to leave. He denied kidnapping or having
sex with the victim. A subsequent medical examination found signs of
sexual trauma on the victim, while a search of Davenport's apartment
allegedly found items of the victim's clothing in a bag in Davenport's
bedroom.
Loose Cannon
2023-02-04 11:09:53 UTC
Permalink
A MUST READ!!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/magteam/2021/10/03/the-popes-corruption-problems/?sh=524bf21d54c9
Loose Cannon
2023-02-04 11:10:54 UTC
Permalink
Loading Image...

Very amusing!
Archimedes Plutonium
2023-02-04 20:53:10 UTC
Permalink
Save whales, sure no-one cares to save spam from FBI, CIA, Mi6, police drag net garbage that floods sci.math and sci.physics everyday. I have kindly asked President Biden to kindly remove this drag net spam from all of sci.math and sci.physics and leave them as spam free zones.

 
                                 Our Whale Animals

Can a Trump tariff fine,
Like the tariff of a Macron French wine,
Show us how crazy is the world sign,
When you have a crazy USA president time,
Who pines about his hair line,
More than he cares about 1,500 whales slaughtered by Japan crime.

                              b
                            .  $  .
        ....             d  *  *  $    .
   .ze$$$$$$$$be..       ^b ^L 4F $    $
  e$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$e      "L $  b $   J%
.$$$$$$$$$$$$$P**""**      3r'L $ $  4F
 "*$$$$$$$$*"               *.$ 3 $  $
   *$$$$$"                  ^$'r'$P d"
   ^$$$"                     ^$$ $F4F
    $$$                       "$r*bP
    $$$F                        "4$"
    $$$$                         ^"
    $$$$b              ..eeeed$$$$$$$$eeee...
    *$$$$b.       .ze$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$be..
    '$$$$$$bee..e$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$bc
     3$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$c
      "*$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$r
        ^""""$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$e..        P
             "$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$bee.z@"
              ^*$$$$$$$$*"""     """"**$$$$$$$$$$$$$"
                ^"*$$$"                 ""*$$$$$$*"
                    ""**eeec............eee@**""  Gilo94'
                           """"""""""""""
               z$
             z$$F
            d$$$
           $$$$$
          J$$$$$
          $$$$$$
         .$$$$$$
         $$$$$$$b
        $$$$$$$$$c
       J$$$$$$$$$$$c
       $$$$ "$$$$$$$$$.
      $$$$P    "*$$$$$"                     .ze$$$$$bc
     .$$$$F                              z$$$$$$$$$$$$$b
     $$$$$                           .e$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
     $$$$$                         z$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$""$$$$
    4$$$$$F                     .$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  $$$$r
    $$$$$$$                   z$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    $$$$$$$c                e$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    '$$$$$$$c            .d$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
     $$$$$$$$b          d$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
      *$$$$$$$$r      d$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Gilo94'




    .-------------'```'----......,,__                        _,
   |                                 `'`'`'`'-.,.__        .'(
   |                                               `'--._.'   )
   |                                                     `'-.<
   \               .-'`'-.                              -.    `\
    \               -.o_.     _                       _,-'`\    |
     ``````''--.._.-=-._    .'  \              _,,--'`      `-._(
       (^^^^^^^^`___    '-. |    \  __,,,...--'                 `
        `````````   `'--..___\    |`
                jgs           `-.,'





Newsgroups: sci.physics and sci.math
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2019 07:32:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: why we especially need whales to exist //SCIENCE COUNCIL RULES EARTH,
 series 2, 2019
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2019 14:32:55 +0000

why the whales are so important for the oceans-- isomers of CO2 //SCIENCE COUNCIL RULES EARTH, series 2, 2019

Chemistry of carbon dioxide in Old Chemistry thought that CO2 from fossil fuel burning is the same CO2 that animals and plants breathe in and breathe out.

Old Chemistry is wrong, for the CO2 that living organisms need to stay alive is a different isomer (the bonding of carbon with two oxygen atoms have different geometries) from the CO2 that is produced through burning.

The fossil fuel CO2 is a toxic poison to plants and animals.

So the best CO2 source in the oceans is the large animals. If you remove animals from ocean, and remove enough of them, you kill off the plants of the ocean also. This idea applies on land also. The plants of terrestrial life, need their large animals for Animal-CO2.

AP

Cranial-rectally inverted. Eric Francis, George Witte, St. Martin's Press Depriving a village somewhere, of an idiot. jfderry , JF Derry Telanthropus brains plugged into Africanthropus body James Kibo Parry James Kibo Parry James Kibo Parry
"..as smart as the average tunicate"
why Jason Herrmann and Dartmouth College (Hanover High School math is brighter than the College math) physics departments has lights turned off, but Harvard's Dr.Hau needs to turn the light off-- Quantum Entanglement verified


1- Kibo Parry Moroney, is it your opinion that Dr. John Baez is a math jackarse that cannot tell the difference from a ellipse and oval as proven by AP (see proofs below) ?? And when confronted with the fact that the ellipse is only a cylinder cut, not a conic cut, the imbecile Baez tries to go out and redefine the ellipse-- I mean, Baez spends more time in making up fake names for himself than actually getting a paper cone and putting a Kerr lid into the cone and see for himself that it is a oval

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 00:28:31 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <421c6f56-7355-***@googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To: ***@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=192.208.232.34;
posting-account=jPnQ2goAAAA461y3QD0lbyw0oKeThma1
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.208.232.34
Message-ID: <69d8bde6-bcb6-***@googlegroups.com>
Subject: asshole
From: noTthaTguY <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 08:28:33 +0000
ellipses are ovals, but not all ovals are elipses, of course;
just grab a dictionary, asshole
Agreed.
So, kibo Parry Moroney, you agree, but which is worse a idiot like you who thinks 938 is 12% short of 945 which even Dr. John Baez would Agree is wrong.


why Jason Herrmann and Dartmouth College (Hanover High School math is brighter than the College math) physics departments has lights turned off, but Harvard's Dr.Hau needs to turn the light off-- Quantum Entanglement verified


1- Kibo Parry Moroney, is it your opinion that Ken Ribet is a math jackarse that cannot tell the difference from a ellipse and oval as proven by AP (see proofs below) ??
Agreed.
1-AMS, Jill Pipher, Ken Ribet, Robert L. Bryant, David Vogan, Eric M. Friedlander, they all love money more than the truth of math and science-- ellipse is never a conic section


why Jason Herrmann and Dartmouth College (Hanover High School math is brighter than the College math) physics departments has lights turned off, but Harvard's Dr.Hau needs to turn the light off-- Quantum Entanglement verified



I mean think of it, down the street from Dartmouth College is Hanover High School and anyone of the many bright students at Hanover High School can take a Euclid plane geometry proof that the ellipse is never a conic but is the oval, and walk into a Dartmouth College math classroom where the nitwit math professor is teaching the conic slant cut is a ellipse, when it never was. Yet here the Hanover High School student has more brains in math than the nitwit Dartmouth College math professor.


#21
Quantum Entanglement, Physics series for High School, book 7 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Quantum Entanglement was shown on NOVA in January 2019 with Austrian physicists at a mountain telescope gathering data. NOVA tried to explain Quantum Entanglement, but the below probably does a better job of explaining. Especially explaining to High School students what is going on, and why.

A much easier and nicer experiment proving Quantum Entanglement and explaining why it exists; the mechanism behind it; is Harvard's Dr. Hau slow light experiments, once the laser light is turned off.

Cover Picture is my photo of a Google search of terms "slow light BEC".
Length: 21 pages


,_ o
/ //\,
\>>|
\\,


#55
Earth axis tilt of 23 degrees came 66 million years ago along with Mediterranean Sea//geology series book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Earth's axis tilt of 23 degrees came late in life for planet Earth some 66 million years ago when a asteroid bolide hit Earth, that caused not only the dinosaur extinction but carved out the Mediterranean Sea and moved the Europe Asian Laurasia supercontinent of Pangaea in plate tectonics. We have overwhelming proof of this axis tilt from 0 degrees to 23 degrees only in K-T boundary, for we have evidence that all the continents had living plants and animals which just could not be if the 23degree tilt had existed from Cambrian to Cretaceous. Australia alone since it was at the South Pole for much of its life yet still abundant in fossils that could only live in a warm climate.

Cover picture of me circa 1993, pointing at the Mediterranean Sea of Europe.
Length: 55 pages



1 customer review


Top Reviews
Jason Herrmann
1.0 out of 5 starsWaste of money and brain cells
November 16, 2019
A complete and utter load of BS.

Helpful
Comment Report abuse
See all 1 customer reviews
Write a customer review



Half a bubble off plumb.

Has a one-way ticket on the Disoriented Express.

Has an IQ one lower than it takes to grunt.

Rusty Tavek AUK Rusty Tavek AUK Rusty Tavek

Divides 3 into 7, and gets a even whole number.

jfderry , JF Derry

Has his solar panels aimed at the moon.

Has it floored in neutral.

Has only one chopstick in the chowmein.

Has signs on both ears saying "Space for Rent."

Has the attention span of an overripe grapefruit.

Has the mental agility of a soap dish.

Hasn't got all his china in the cupboard.

He writes blank checks on a closed account.

kibo James Parry kibo James Parry kibo James Parry

He's really into himself. His head is up his arse.

He's so dense, light bends around him.

His phone doesn't quite reach his desk.

Eric Francis, George Witte, St. Martin's Press

His wipers don't touch the glass.

High relative humidity. He's lost in a fog.

His antenna doesn't pick up all the channels.
Earle Jones Earle Jones Earle Jones Earle Jones
His brain was sold separately and they were out of stock.

His elevator is stuck between floors.

His golf bag does not contain a full set of irons.

His jack can't get the car off the ground.

His head whistles in a cross wind.

His mind is on vacation but his mouth is working overtime.

I don't know what you are talking about, honestly.

It must be frustrating to be sure you are right and so completely
unable to say how or why.

You pinhead think if you find it in wikipedia it must be true. Duhr.

I suggest you do some research.

It's hard to believe you are this dumb.

Pay attention.

Science is about reality, not imagination.

What you describe here has more to do with stamp collecting than it
does science.

It's great how the anonymity of the internet allows fools the freedom
to express the depths of their foolishness.

Present your proof, dumbarse.

Where is this extensive experimental data? Why do you think it is that nobody can find it?

Do you think they are hiding it from us? Why would they do that?

Did I characterize your argument accurately?







,_ o
/ //\,
\>>|
\\,

I have to ask which Jason Herrman is this? For there is one at Penn Univ in anthropology, archaeology dept. One in Stanford as physics student. Or, another Jason Herrmann?? And why so many people see the Internet not as a place to learn and grow, but a place to dis people.

What is this modern day hate spew with the Internet?? Do some people get their "rocks off" by dissing other people and their work?

__| \ / |__
_ o ___\o \o | o/ o/___ o _
/\ /) | ( \ /o\ / ) | (\ /\
___|_\______ _____/_|__


Kibo Parry Moroney, is it your opinion that Dr. Terence Tao is a math basketcase that cannot tell the difference from a ellipse and oval as proven by AP starting 2016, ellipse is a cylinder cut, never a conic (see proofs below) ??
Agreed.
King of Science --AP--what we throw out of Old Math as fakery// TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 19-20 Sophomore-year College, math textbook series, book 4


First an aside for this is in the probability and statistics of Junior year College


#5
HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

In 2016-2017, AP discovered that the real proton has a mass of 840 MeV, not 938. The real electron was actually the muon and the muon stays inside the proton that forms a proton torus of 8 rings and with the muon as bar magnet is a Faraday Law producing magnetic monopoles. So this book is all about why researchers of physics and engineers keep getting the number 938MeV when they should be getting the number 840 MeV + 105 MeV = 945 MeV.

Cover Picture is a proton torus of 8 rings with a muon of 1 ring inside the proton torus, doing the Faraday Law and producing magnetic monopoles.
Length: 16 pages


List of Topics that is Fake Math or Irrelevant Minutiae

First off, let me make a long list of what is not mathematics and was thrown out as either fakery junk mathematics or was pared down immensely for being rather minutiae or irrelevant or archaic and not worth the time in classroom education.

1) All of Old Logic such as the textbooks by Copi and Boole and Jevons with their messed up operators such as 10 OR 4 = 14, are thrown out onto the rubbish pile of shame. Set theory is thrown out completely, although we can use the word "set" to mean collection, group. All of Cantor set theory is phony baloney, not worth reading.

2) Rationals and Negative Numbers thrown out completely because the only true numbers are Decimal Grid Numbers. The Smallest set of numbers is the 10 Grid System with its infinitesimal being .1, and the entire collection of 10 Grid is 0, .1, .2, .3, . . , 9.9, 10.0 where .1 is microinfinity and 10 is macroinfinity. In 100 Grid the infinitesimal is .01, in 1000 Grid the infinitesimal is .001, etc etc. In such a true system of numbers, all the numbers are built by mathematical-induction. Not just one group of numbers-- counting, but all numbers from mathematical-induction.

3) Irrationals thrown out completely (ditto to Rationals and Negative numbers)

4) Reals thrown out completely (ditto)

5) Imaginary numbers and Complex numbers are b.s. and thrown out completely

6) Trigonometry pared down so much-- 90% thrown out, and no trigonometry ever enters Calculus. Only real use of trigonometry is when you have an angle and side, you can figure out the rest of the right triangle. But no, when you give true math to a gaggle of kooks, it is not long before they stretch true math way way out of its "zone of truth". And even fill up by 50% of calculus, when trig should never be in calculus.

7) Continuum and continuity thrown out as horrible fakery (in fact the Quantum Mechanic Physics of early 1900s had a better handle on the truth and reality of math with discrete space)

8) Topology is junk and a waste of time for many reasons such as continuum does not exist, and the fact that the idea of "bending" is not really ever a mathematical concept

9) Prime numbers are fakery for the Naturals never had division in the first place. The real true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers and they do not have a concept of "prime". The key evidence that primes were silly stupid error, was the fact that there never existed a "pattern for primes". And all of mathematics is a science of "pattern". If any part of mathematics has no pattern, is indication that such was a phony fake concept to start with. Below begins a write-up of Math topics all have pattern, if not, then not math.

10) Limit in Old Math was a horrible fakery, built by lowly idiots of math who wanted to get away from the smart students asking them-- stupid professor, come back here,-- how does a zero width rectangle even have interior area

11) Lobachevsky, Riemann geometries and all NonEuclidean geometries are fakery and a waste of time. Many math professors want to spice up their boring math, so they ventured way way off into the twilight-zone of math with NonEuclidean geometry, like eating the hottest peppers in the world for breakfast

12) Boole logic a horrid gaggle of monumental mistakes; one colossal error was their insane 10 OR 4 = 14. Boole was a monumental idiot of logic that he went to college to teach in a rainstorm without umbrella and when he got there, shivering, and no commonsense to switch into dry clothes, taught in rain soaked clothes then ordered his wife to give him cold bathes and wet his bed in order to fight pneumonia, and western culture puts such a logical misfit as a figurehead of logic

13) Galois Algebra of Group, Ring, Field a fakery and waste of time

14) Dimension stops at 3rd, and 3rd is the last and highest dimension possible, for there is no 4th or higher dimensions.

15) High School in Old Math spends too much time on quadratic equations with their negative numbers and imaginary-complex numbers when such never existed in the first place and where they violate a principle of algebra-- that an equation of algebra-- the right-side of the equation must always have a greater than zero number. So we throw out all quadratic equations of Old Math as fake math.

16) High School in Old Math spends too much time on teaching in geometry the congruence of SSS, ASA etc etc and we should pare that back somewhat, as excess teaching of a tiny minor concept.

17) Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations are now seen as superfluous when all functions are polynomials

18) Graph theory-- 90% worthless for it is based on the fakery of continuum

19) Probability and Statistics theory now becomes a part of Sigma Error in New Math, the Old Math Probability and Statistics theory were wastrel and thrown out for it is based on a continuum. We keep Probability and Statistics in new math but revise and overhaul it completely, especially the definition of Probability.

20) We definitely throw out all Old Math Calculus textbooks as mostly propaganda, based on the silly Limit and the Continuum

21) We throw out the Euclidean Axioms of Geometry and start anew, with axioms based on Physics as geometry truth

22) Fractal theory totally junk and a waste-- uses ill-defined infinity

23) Vector Calculus (mind you not vectors versus scalars), Chaos theory, Complex Analysis, utter junk and waste of time since polynomial theory covers all functions

24) Differential geometry, Measure theory fakery since they never had the correct numbers of math, and they had the fakery continuum

25) We throw out all the Apollonius conic sections because he misidentified the ellipse. The ellipse is a cylinder section, never a conic section and the oval is the slant cut of the cone, never the ellipse. We replace the entire conic sections by the AP theory of axes of symmetry using Decimal Grid Numbers for algebra and strip-wavelength-geometry axioms.

This list is ongoing, and is a bulletin-board of Teaching True Mathematics for Sophomore College year. To show students what math to avoid as a total fake and waste of time.

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

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

AP- the King of Science



#14
AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section//ellipse-oval 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.

Length: 21 pages



#15
Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition// ellipse-oval series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

In November of 2019, I was challenged into giving a well-defined definition of Oval, since Old Math Geometry never provided a well defined definition of Oval. I dutifully well defined this important class of geometry figures. And whilst completing that task of a well defined definition, I found a second proof that the ellipse is never a conic section, always a cylinder section, for it is the oval that is the conic section at a slant cut. This second proof is a mere one paragraph long and is a Projective Geometry proof that the slant cut in a cone is a oval, never the ellipse.

Caution: I am worried that ascii-art is messed up and so this book is in rtf file not pdf.

Cover Picture: a cone and cylinder on a cutting board ready to be cut at a slant, and ready to view in silhouette form.
Length: 34 pages


why does Jason Herrmann, Kibo Parry Moroney, Dan Christensen want to kill WHALES, if any?? //rating of Kindle book//Earth axis tilt of 23 degrees came 66 million years ago// SCIENCE COUNCIL RULES// Kindle Edition // Jason Herrmann, Confused as a baby in a topless bar
I ate.. "..and it was delicious!"
AP writes: how repulsive, when the world has the Right Whale and Blue Whale on verge of extinction.
There will be a price to pay. You will be relentlessly and publicly exposed for
AP writes: Whales do not need any price to pay, they have a right to live on Earth far greater than Dan, ever has. And Dan is a bully that needs Canadian jail time. And Kibo Parry Moroney needs USA jail sentence.

why does Jason Herrmann want to kill WHALES, if any?? //rating of Kindle book//Earth axis tilt of 23 degrees came 66 million years ago// SCIENCE COUNCIL RULES// Kindle Edition // Jason Herrmann, Confused as a baby in a topless bar

why does Jason Herrmann want to kill WHALES, if any?? //rating of Kindle book//Earth axis tilt of 23 degrees came 66 million years ago// SCIENCE COUNCIL RULES// Kindle Edition
Jason Herrmann, Confused as a baby in a topless bar

why does Jason Herrmann want to kill WHALES, if any?? //rating of Kindle book//Earth axis tilt of 23 degrees came 66 million years ago// SCIENCE COUNCIL RULES// Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium

1 customer review


Top Reviews
Jason Herrmann
1.0 out of 5 starsWaste of money and brain cells
November 16, 2019
A complete and utter load of BS.

Helpful
Comment Report abuse
See all 1 customer reviews
Write a customer review


,_ o
/ //\,
\>>|
\\,




Newsgroups: sci.physics and sci.math
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2019 07:32:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: why we especially need whales to exist //SCIENCE COUNCIL RULES EARTH,
series 2, 2019
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2019 14:32:55 +0000

why the whales are so important for the oceans-- isomers of CO2 //SCIENCE COUNCIL RULES EARTH, series 2, 2019

Chemistry of carbon dioxide in Old Chemistry thought that CO2 from fossil fuel burning is the same CO2 that animals and plants breathe in and breathe out.

Old Chemistry is wrong, for the CO2 that living organisms need to stay alive is a different isomer (the bonding of carbon with two oxygen atoms have different geometries) from the CO2 that is produced through burning.

The fossil fuel CO2 is a toxic poison to plants and animals.

So the best CO2 source in the oceans is the large animals. If you remove animals from ocean, and remove enough of them, you kill off the plants of the ocean also. This idea applies on land also. The plants of terrestrial life, need their large animals for Animal-CO2.


#64
Science Council Ruling Earth//Paradise supernation corralling Bad Guy nations//series 2 (AP running for USA president) Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)



,_ o
/ //\,
\>>|
\\,

Australopithecus brain fitted into Paranthropus body
Dan Christensen, Dan Christensen
Graecopithecus brain evolved from Sahelanthropus body
kibo James Parry kibo James Parry kibo James Parry

Ardipithecus body coupled to a Australopithecus brain
Rusty Tavek AUK Rusty Tavek AUK Rusty Tavek
Lucy brain housed in a Otzi body

jfderry, jf Derry, JF Derry, lunatic mind housed in a lunatic J F Derry (author)
CroMagnum body enhanced by Floresiensis brain
Eric Francis, George Witte, St. Martin's Press
Improved Neanderthalensis brains from Heidelbergensis

Rusty Tavek AUK Rusty Tavek AUK Rusty Tavek Rusty Tavek
Telanthropus brains plugged into Africanthropus body
kibo James Parry kibo James Parry kibo James Parry
Palaeanthropus thinking by the time of Cyphanthropus
jfderry, jf Derry, JF Derry, lunatic mind housed in a lunatic J F Derry (author)
Tchadanthropus mind by the time of Atlanthropus
Earle Jones Earle Jones Earle Jones
Kenyanthropus body propelled by a Praeanthropus mind
Eric Francis, George Witte, St. Martin's Press
Pithecanthropus body propelled by Sinanthropus mind


__| \ / |__
_ o ___\o \o | o/ o/___ o _
/\ /) | ( \ /o\ / ) | (\ /\
___|_\______ _____/_|__

Mass Spectrometry Comics, LTD
Kibo Parry Michael Moroney's profile photo




                              ..
            .- " `-.   ,..-'''  ```....'`-..
           ,      . `.'            '        `.
         .'   .' `    `           '   `..     ;
         .   ;  .'                     . `.    ;
         ;   . '                       `.  .   '
          . '                            ` `.  |
        . '.                                  '
       .          0              0            ' `.
      '                                          `
     ;                                            `
    .'                                             `
    ;                      U                        `
    ;    ';                                         `
    :   | ;..                                 :`     `
    :    `;. ```.                           .-; |    '
    '.      `    ``..,                   .'   :'    '
     ;       `        ;'..          ..-''    '     '  I am Kibo Parry Moroney, the grand failure of science with my 938 is 12% short of 945, and my ellipse is a conic when it never was, and my idiocy of thinking geothermal is not radioactivity but is recycled solar fossil. I stalk on Internet because NSF pays a million dollars and is 5 times the salary of those professors stuck with actually teaching science and all I do is attack dog style in sci.math, sci.physics. And Barry Shein loves to whisper in my ear how 10 OR 2 =12 with AND as subtraction
      `       `        ;  ````'''""'  ;      '    '
       `       `        ;            ;      '    '
        `       `        ;          ;      '    '
         `       `.       ````''''''      '    '
           `       .                     '    '
         /  `       `.                  '    '        .
        /     `       ..            ..'    .'"""""...'
       /   .`   `       ``........-'     .'` .....'''
      / .'' ;     `                    .'   `
  ...'.'    ;    .' `                .'      `
   ""      .'  .' |    `           .; \       `
           ; .'   |      `. . . . ' .  \       `
           :'     |     '   `       ,   `.     `
                  |    '     `      '     `.    `
                  `   '       `     ;       `.  |
                  `.'          `    ;         `-'
                                `...'






Kibo Parry Michael Moroney wrote:
Jan 7, 2020, 1:08:57 AM



to
Hairworm of Math and Green-banded Broodsac of Physics

Steve of Science Blogs--

Science Blogs
GAPS in a doctor's reasoning about vaccines and autism ...
And now back to ignoring RI's weak substitute for an Archimedes Plutonium. (They just don't make cranks like they used to...) -- Steve.
.Jul 31, 2011
Archimedes Plutonium
2023-02-04 21:55:46 UTC
Permalink
David Brooks, Michael Roston is it not childish to have a curse on AP, to never print his name in your newspaper, when the mature grown up act is to publish the fact in your Science section-- slant cut of cone is Oval, and is never ellipse. So that all the residents of New York state realize the truth, and intelligent people like Mr. Marshall Lett need not ask the question. People in New York state and around the world asking which is the slant cut in cone-- is it ellipse or oval??? Yet the Science section of The New York Times refusing to publish the truth because it means printing the name Archimedes Plutonium for which NYT vows to never do. For to publish the truth on conics means having to print the name Archimedes Plutonium as discoverer of the truth. And nothing worse in all the world for Mr. Sulzberger is to have to print the name Archimedes Plutonium in his newspaper. Hatred rules the The New York Times, not the truth of the world.

David Brooks, is the NYT as dumb and stupid in politics as it is dumb and stupid in math-science-- NYT cannot tell the difference between oval and ellipse. Does Michael Roston even know what a oval is??? Is any of the Science printed in the New York Times, is any of your science truthful or is it all a bunch of garbage prattle like your ellipse is a conic section when that is false. Are there any logical brains at the NYT, or is the NYT empty of logical brains???
Mr. Sulzberger, you have a Science section in your newspaper, you have residents of New York State such as Mr. Lett. What the hell good is your Science section, Mr. Sulzberger if you cannot even answer the question-- Slant cut of Cone is Oval, never the ellipse. All because you hate the guts of AP, that your Science section refuses to tell the truth.
Mr. Marshall Lett started a thread over in sci.math, asking the question of what the slant cut in cone truly is?
I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
Who am I supposed to believe?
Mr. Kahn, is it not awfully childish of the The New York Times to hold a curse on AP, and you ignore the science truth and reality. Your motto at the Times-- "all the news fit to print" maybe should become "all the news except Archimedes Plutonium for the NYT hates his guts".

Joseph Kahn, why even bother having a Science section at The New York Times, when your newspaper cannot even inform and teach readers the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse. Even your New York residents are asking question. Even your New York High School students have more geometry brains than the staff at the The New York Times.
I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
Who am I supposed to believe?
The New York Times should step in here, with its Science section-- for what the hell is it good for, if it cannot even tell the truth between a ellipse and a oval.
And an spamming stalker idiot Kibo Parry only confuses those already confused.
Constantly confusing posters and stalks sci.math with his failed and anti-science mischief.
Oh you need to see the ellipse-is-a-conic-section proof again? Here you go!

The New York Times, A.G. Sulzberger would rather publish that than ever publish AP's correction of Ancient Greek mathematics, that since the slant cut of Cylinder is ellipse, it is impossible for slant cut of cone be an ellipse, but rather an Oval instead. For a cylinder has 2 axes of symmetry same as ellipse, but cone has 1 axis of symmetry same as Oval.
The New York Times maintains its hatred and refusal to ever print on AP, as they did in 1994 when NYT along with Dartmouth College suspended posting account of AP for 1 month, because AP was doing science in Usenet. The NYT hates the guts of AP and all the science AP achieves and so there is a directive at NYT, to never publish the name "Archimedes Plutonium" in the NYT, no matter if even AP becomes president of NASA or National Science Foundation. Or, even if every Science magazine publishes AP, the The New York Times will not. No wonder people become anti-semitic when a newspaper invites anti-semitism.

A.G.Sulzberger, Joseph Kahn, Marc Lacey, Carolyn Ryan, Kathleen Kingsbury, David Brooks, Michael Roston, why not publish the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is never a ellipse, always a oval. Or is hatred your game more than truth and reality of the world you live in.
Let us analyze AP's Proof
In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.
The side view of a cylinder is this
| |
| |
| |
That allows cE to be the same distance as cF
But the side view of the cone is
/\E
/c \
F / \
The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF makes that distance larger than cE.
The New York Times has it correct on Darwin Evolution, but when it comes to physics, they use their newspaper to make Einstein a semigod, and trash all physicists working in physics, because the NYT starts almost every physics report, starts it out as saying..... And Einstein did this.... and ending the report with .... this proves Einstein. Some magazines have become almost as bad as NYT in physics reporting.
The New York Times, A.G. Sulzberger would rather publish what is written in a book such as Stillwell, where Stillwell does not analyze anything, than ever publish AP's correction of Ancient Greek mathematics, that since the slant cut of Cylinder is ellipse, it is impossible for slant cut of cone be an ellipse, but rather an Oval instead. For a cylinder has 2 axes of symmetry same as ellipse, but cone has 1 axis of symmetry same as Oval.
The New York Times maintains its hatred curse on AP, as they did in 1994 when NYT along with Dartmouth College suspended posting account of AP for 1 month, because AP was doing science in Usenet. The NYT hates the guts of AP and all the science AP achieves and so there is a directive at NYT, to never publish the name "Archimedes Plutonium" in the NYT, no matter if even AP becomes president of NASA or National Science Foundation.
A.G.Sulzberger, Joseph Kahn, Marc Lacey, Carolyn Ryan, Kathleen Kingsbury,David Brooks, Michael Roston why not publish the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is never a ellipse, always a oval. Or is hatred your game more than truth and reality of the world you live in.
Let us analyze AP's Proof

Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E
In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.
The side view of a cylinder is this
| |
| |
| |
That allows cE to be the same distance as cF
But the side view of the cone is
/\E
/c \
F / \
The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF makes that distance larger than cE.


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, 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.
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)
Loose Cannon
2023-08-12 20:08:55 UTC
Permalink
Those jew bitches are disgusting!
http://gawker.com/woman-accused-of-seducing-teen-neighbor-is-infamous-all-1702308807
The 23-year-old Florida woman arrested Monday for allegedly having sex
with her 15-year-old neighbor was accused in 2012 of having sex with
at least two dogs.
Volusia County police say Brittany Sonnier seduced her teen neighbor,
despite knowing that he was underage. She’s also accused of providing
the boy with alcohol and weed.
In 2012, Sonnier allegedly told her ex-boyfriend that she’d been
having “vaginal and oral sex” with her family’s dogs since she was 13
and that wanted to have a threesome with him and a dog.
Sonnier’s dog-loving history was apparently well-known to her alleged
teen victim.
She would be Minister of Morality in Israel for sure
One must feel pity for that poor dog being forced to have sex with a
lower species
Kevin S
2023-08-12 20:34:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Loose Cannon
Those jew bitches are disgusting!
http://gawker.com/woman-accused-of-seducing-teen-neighbor-is-infamous-all-1702308807
The 23-year-old Florida woman arrested Monday for allegedly having sex
with her 15-year-old neighbor was accused in 2012 of having sex with
at least two dogs.
Volusia County police say Brittany Sonnier seduced her teen neighbor,
despite knowing that he was underage. She’s also accused of providing
the boy with alcohol and weed.
In 2012, Sonnier allegedly told her ex-boyfriend that she’d been
having “vaginal and oral sex” with her family’s dogs since she was 13
and that wanted to have a threesome with him and a dog.
Sonnier’s dog-loving history was apparently well-known to her alleged
teen victim.
She would be Minister of Morality in Israel for sure
One must feel pity for that poor dog being forced to have sex with a
lower species
wrong forum mate, eugenik und rassentheorie ain't science
Peeler
2023-08-12 20:54:24 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 16:08:55 -0400, Loose Sphincter, the unhappily married
Post by Loose Cannon
One must feel pity for that poor dog being forced to have sex with a
lower species
You mean, like you getting forced by your "pig" at home to have sex with
her, you ridiculous unhappily married gay neo-nazitard? You know, THIS pig:

"This is embarrassing. My fraternity from graduating class of 1980
having our re-union right after Thanksgiving this year. We've booked I
think 194 of us (with wives) on 'Norwegian Cruise Lines" for
7days/6nights in the Caribbean. The problem is my wife. She has added
about 65-70 lbs of unsightly fat on her body and her once cute face
looks like an old catcher's mitt since our college days. I'm embarrassed
to show the old gang that this pig was the best I could do for a wife. I
just know I'll be a laughing stock when this cruise is over."

Loose Sphincter whining in MID: <l1ltsa$pf8$***@speranza.aioe.org>

ROTFLOL!

Why, oh WHY, are ALL you Nazis, ALWAYS, without ANY exception, such LAUGHING
STOCKS? LOL
--
Loose Sphincter about his passion:
" I love eating the Shit out of Poor Helpless Dumb Goran Razovic! LOL"
MID: <***@4ax.com>
NEMO
2024-11-22 03:53:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Loose Cannon
Those jew bitches are disgusting!
http://gawker.com/woman-accused-of-seducing-teen-neighbor-is-infamous-all-1702308807
The 23-year-old Florida woman arrested Monday for allegedly having sex
with her 15-year-old neighbor was accused in 2012 of having sex with
at least two dogs.
Volusia County police say Brittany Sonnier seduced her teen neighbor,
despite knowing that he was underage. She’s also accused of providing
the boy with alcohol and weed.
In 2012, Sonnier allegedly told her ex-boyfriend that she’d been
having “vaginal and oral sex” with her family’s dogs since she was 13
and that wanted to have a threesome with him and a dog.
Sonnier’s dog-loving history was apparently well-known to her alleged
teen victim.
She would be Minister of Morality in Israel for sure
One must feel pity for that poor dog being forced to have sex with a
lower species
Disgusting creatures, those jews.

Archimedes Plutonium
2023-08-12 20:17:46 UTC
Permalink
RE: 2-Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Sylvia Else do not do physics but just play ad hominem games. Instead of doing Physics, both Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Else want to play games of ad hominem. Whenever physics proves AP is correct, neither

Earle Jones
Nov 3, 2021, 11:19:48 PM



to
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Sylvia Else do not do physics but just play ad hominem games. Instead of doing Physics, both Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Else want to play games of ad hominem. Whenever physics proves AP is correct, neither
Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Sylvia Else do not do physics but just play ad hominem games.
Instead of doing Physics, both Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Else want to play games of ad hominem. Whenever physics proves AP is correct, neither Harvard's Dr. Hau nor Berkeley's Sylvia Else want to complete or perform the experiment because they do not want to credit AP. They want physics such that it gives credit to those people they like. Just the opposite of what Feynman warned of-- physics does not care who the person is that discovers the truth. But in modern times, physics at Harvard, MIT, Berkeley is first concern is who gets credit and the actual physics involved-- be damned.
*
To AP:

You give a lot of credit to Dr. Feynman. I agree with you. But he concluded, along with Archimedes (the original) and many others, that the ellipse is, in fact, a conic section.
See the Feynman notes, Principles of Physics, Volume 2, pages 110 and 111.

earle
*
Loading...