Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #843772 > unrolled thread

100 monkeys.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  100 monkeys. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-01 14:41 -0800
    Re: 100 monkeys. Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2022-02-01 15:17 -0800
    Re: 100 monkeys. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-02-02 11:16 -0800
      Re: 100 monkeys. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-02-02 11:26 -0800
      Re: 100 monkeys. Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2022-02-02 13:58 -0600
        Re: 100 monkeys. Kneel Young <trumptardssss@74.net> - 2022-02-02 23:17 +0000
        Re: 100 monkeys. Kneel Young <trumptardssss@74.net> - 2022-02-08 04:20 +0000
    Re: 100 monkeys. Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2022-02-02 16:47 -0800
      Re: 100 monkeys. Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2022-02-02 18:59 -0800
    Re: 100 monkeys. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-02-02 18:43 -0800
    Re: 100 monkeys. Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2022-02-05 16:01 -0800
      Re: 100 monkeys. Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2022-02-07 16:54 -0800
    Harry Cliff LHCb physicist needs to publish in the Cambridge Univ student newspaper of how sorry he is and apologizes for his physics stupidity of thinking that a hydrogen atom is composed of a electron of 0.5MeV flying around outside of a proton of Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2022-02-07 00:33 -0800
      Re: Harry Cliff LHCb physicist needs to publish in the Cambridge Univ student newspaper of how sorry he is and apologizes for his physics stupidity of thinking that a hydrogen atom is composed of a electron of 0.5MeV flying around outside of a proton Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2022-02-07 12:18 -0800
    Re: 100 monkeys. Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2022-02-08 09:01 -0800
      Front page hogs McGinn, Pennino, Pnal, Claudius, tornado etc all to take over the front page of sci.physics Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 13:47 -0800
      Re: 100 monkeys. Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 18:02 -0800
      Re: 100 monkeys. Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2022-02-16 13:41 -0800
    Re: 100 monkeys. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 13:53 -0800
    Re: 100 monkeys. Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2022-02-17 16:57 -0800
    Re: 100 monkeys. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-02-20 12:08 -0800
      Re: 100 monkeys. Andy Everett <andyeverett57@gmail.com> - 2022-02-20 12:16 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#843772 — 100 monkeys.

How long is the
United States
going to take..
to admit that
the China Virus
did not leak
from the
Wuhan lab...
it was
purposely
injected in a
100 Chinese
persons and
put them
on a plane
to the
United States.

Doctor Fauci
is a Virologist.
That means
someone who
specializes in
Germ Warfare...
or what it is
now called
Biological
Weapons
or 
Gain-of-Function
weapons.

100 monkeys.


**'gain-of-function' is: experiments designed to create pandemics; Hidden laboratories funded by Dr. Fauci to 
develop bacteria/viruses for which no one else will be able to find a cure. 

 

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#843773

Starmaker says 
Boycott Samsung & Hyundai until they free their moon bears 

Starmaker mindless spam spam spam oil masterpiece painting of freeing Moon Bears. 

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

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

Short History of Use

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#843827

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> How long is the
> United States
> going to take..
> to admit that
> the China Virus
> did not leak
> from the
> Wuhan lab...
> it was
> purposely
> injected in a
> 100 Chinese
> persons and
> put them
> on a plane
> to the
> United States.
> 
> Doctor Fauci
> is a Virologist.
> That means
> someone who
> specializes in
> Germ Warfare...
> or what it is
> now called
> Biological
> Weapons
> or
> Gain-of-Function
> weapons.
> 
> 100 monkeys.
> 
> **'gain-of-function' is: experiments designed to create pandemics; Hidden laboratories funded by Dr. Fauci to
> develop bacteria/viruses for which no one else will be able to find a cure.

Airline Says It Will Stop Monkey Shipments After Truck Carrying 100 Monkeys Crashes In Pennsylvania
https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2022/02/01/airline-will-stop-monkey-shipments-after-crash-pennsylvania/

How about all those monkeys that buy airplane tickets? 

"Hey! There's a monkey sitting next to me!"

Questions Remain After Highway Crash Involving Monkeys
https://dnyuz.com/2022/02/01/questions-remain-after-highway-crash-involving-monkeys/


How about all those monkeys in China they put in the airplane to the United States????


Chinkpanzees...




-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#843830

man only needs to come from one monkey...
what monkey did you inherit your mind from you evolutionists?

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#843835

On 2/2/2022 1:16 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Chinkpanzees...


Monkeys are probably for show. I think pharma is already testing on 
human at any stage of development of the drugs or therapies. A lot of 
people in USA are of no better use than being utilized in lab tests.

Look at them in "Kensigton Ave." Philly. They wouldn't mind getting paid 
for such tests at all.







-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#843857

Clutterfreak wrote

> Monkeys are probably for show. I think pharma is already testing on 
> human at any stage of development of the drugs or therapies. A lot of 
> people in USA are of no better use than being utilized in lab tests.
> 

Trump uses monkees for his sex parties at Mar-a-Lago


How much do  you think Big Pharma pays him to promote the vaccines?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#844630

Clutterfreak wrote

> Monkeys are probably for show. I think pharma is already testing on 
> human at any stage of development of the drugs or therapies. A lot of 
> people in USA are of no better use than being utilized in lab tests.
> 

Trump uses monkees for his sex parties at Mar-a-Lago


How much do  you think Big Pharma pays him to promote the vaccines?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#843885

Peter Higgs & Sheldon Glashow, sickfuck McGinn spam filling sci.physics just to hog the front page, CSUN Erika D. Beck, Adriana Ocampo, Scott J. Horowitz, William Karush, Lorraine Foster, Olympia LePoint, as McGinn & Pennino shit spam sci.physics every day, William Alfred Fowler, Kenneth G. Wilson, James Watson Cronin, Val Logsdon Fitch, Sheldon Lee Glashow with their silly Standard Model, can they ever multiply muon mass 105MeV by 9 and see it is within Sigma Error of the neutron and proton (alleged proton rest mass) of 940MeV. Meaning what? Meaning that the proton is a composite of 8 muon rings and the neutron is 9 muon rings. And the muon is the real true electron of atoms, stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law of creating new electrical energy-- the reason stars and Sun shine. But no, the imps of physics like Sheldon Glashow and Peter Higgs put physics knowledge and understanding backwards in time, to caveman mentality physics with their impish Standard Model. 

> > 
> > Why do imps of physics like Glashow or Higgs never understand that a do nothing electron and do nothing proton are imp reasoning in physics. Whereas AP's particles are always doing some law of Electrodynamics. And why does Nobel award imps of science, do they like imp physics instead of true physics? 
> > 
> > Makoto Kobayashi, Toshihide Maskawa, Yoichiro Nambu, John C. Mather, George F. Smoot, Roy J. Glauber, David J. Gross -- please, please can they ever ask the simple question, of which is the atom's true real electron, the muon or the 0.5MeV particle that AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole. 
> > 
> > > > > .. 
> > > > > .- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-.. 
> > > > > , . `.' ' `. 
> > > > > .' .' ` ` ' `.. ; 
> > > > > . ; .' . `. ; 
> > > > > ; . ' `. . ' 
> > > > > . ' ` `. | 
> > > > > . '. ' 
> > > > > . 0 0 ' `. 
> > > > > ' ` 
> > > > > ; ` 
> > > > > .' ` 
> > > > > ; U ` 
> > > > > ; '; ` 
> > > > > : | ;.. :` ` 
> > > > > : `;. ```. .-; | ' 
> > > > > '. ` ``.., .' :' ' 
> > > > > ; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' Hi, I am McGinn antiscience with together my friends Claudius, Pennino, Pnal flood sci.physics everyday so as to hog front page, and thus no other post survives the front page more than 5 seconds. 
> > > > > ` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' ' 
> > > > > ` ` ; ; ' ' 
> > > > > ` ` ; ; ' ' 
> > > > > ` `. ````'''''' ' ' 
> > > > > ` . ' ' 
> > > > > / ` `. ' ' . 
> > > > > / ` .. ..' .'"""""...' 
> > > > > / .` ` ``........-' .'` .....''' 
> > > > > / .'' ; ` .' ` 
> > > > > ...'.' ; .' ` .' ` 
> > > > > "" .' .' | ` .; \ ` 
> > > > > ; .' | `. . . . ' . \ ` 
> > > > > :' | ' ` , `. ` 
> > > > > | ' ` ' `. ` 
> > > > > ` ' ` ; `. | 
> > > > > `.' ` ; `-' 
> > > > > `...' 
> > 
> > 
> > Robert Ingalls,David Kaplan,Univ Washington,Henry Lubatti,Lillian McDermott,Larry McLerran,Gerald Miller is the reason you have not yet confirmed real proton=840MeV, electron=105MeV, and .5MeV= Dirac magnetic monopole is offtopic Relf? Is Relf taking away your attention? 
> > 
> > 
> > Stupid Nobel Physics prizes to those who cannot even ask the question of which is the atom's real true electron, the muon or 0.5MeV particle that AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole 
> > 
> > Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez, 
> > Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish 
> > David J. Thouless, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita 
> > Arthur B. McDonald 
> > Francois Englert 
> > Saul Perlmutter 
> > Brian P. Schmidt 
> > Adam G. Riess 
> > Makoto Kobayashi 
> > Toshihide Maskawa 
> > Yoichiro Nambu 
> > John C. Mather 
> > George F. Smoot 
> > Roy J. Glauber 
> > David J. Gross 
> > Hugh David Politzer 
> > Frank Wilczek 
> > Raymond Davis Jr. 
> > Masatoshi Koshiba 
> > Riccardo Giacconi 
> > Gerardus 't Hooft 
> > Martinus J.G. Veltman 
> > Jerome I. Friedman 
> > Henry W. Kendall 
> > Richard E. Taylor 
> > Carlo Rubbia 
> > Simon van der Meer 
> > William Alfred Fowler 
> > Kenneth G. Wilson 
> > James Watson Cronin 
> > Val Logsdon Fitch 
> > Sheldon Lee Glashow 
> > Steven Weinberg 
> > . 
> > . 
> > little fishes 
> > . 
> > . 
> > Layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = subtraction of either 3 or 2, while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV 
> > 
> > Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass 
> > Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu 
> > more and more layers of error thinking physics 
> > . 
> > . 
> > John Baez 
> > Brian Greene 
> > Lisa Randall 
> > Alan H. Guth 
> > Michael E. Brown 
> > Konstantin Batygin 
> > Ben Bullock 
> > Larry Harson 
> > Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan 
> > Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views 
> > None at all - he was a raving nutter. 
> > Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley 
> > Edward Witten 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 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 
> > 
> > 
> > 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 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > #2-1, 137th published book 
> > 
> > Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition 
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > #1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory 
> > 
> > This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so I can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me. 
> > 
> > Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics community updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast, as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to. 
> > 
> > Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory. 
> > And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism. 
> > Length: 64 pages 
> > 
> > Product details 
> > • File Size : 790 KB 
> > • Publication Date : October 5, 2020 
> > • Word Wise : Enabled 
> > • Print Length : 64 pages 
> > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled 
> > • Screen Reader : Supported 
> > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled 
> > • X-Ray : Not Enabled 
> > • Language: : English 
> > • ASIN : B08KS4YGWY 
> > • Lending : Enabled 
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store) 
> > ◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory 
> > ◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store) 
> > ◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads 
> > 
> > #2-2, 145th published book 
> > 
> > 
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2 
> > Kindle Edition 
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 
> > 
> > What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and errors 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 halls and corridors of education. 
> > 
> > Product details 
> > • ASIN : B08PC99JJB 
> > • Publication date : November 29, 2020 
> > • Language: : English 
> > • File size : 682 KB 
> > • Text-to-Speech : Enabled 
> > • Screen Reader : Supported 
> > • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled 
> > • X-Ray : Not Enabled 
> > • Word Wise : Enabled 
> > • Print length : 78 pages 
> > • Lending : Enabled 
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store) 
> > ◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads 
> > ◦ #344 in Physics (Kindle Store) 
> > ◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books) 
> > 
> > #2-3, 146th published book 
> > 
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3 
> > Kindle Edition 
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 
> > 
> > I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science, you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the science. I further believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later years of physics courses, we can always pick up on details. So I devote this senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this textbook. Now Asimov's book is full of error and mistakes, and that is disappointing but all of Old Physics is full of error. On errors and mistakes of Old Physics, the best I can do is warn the students, and the largest warning of all is that whenever someone in Old Physics says "electron" what they are talking about is really the Dirac magnetic monopole. And whenever they talk about the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, they are talking about huge huge grave mistakes, for the true atom is protons as 8 ringed toruses with a muon stuck inside of a proton doing the Faraday law and producing those magnetic monopoles as electricity. I use Asimov's book as a template but in the future, I hope to rewrite this textbook using no template at all, that is if I have time in the future. 
> > Cover Picture: Is the book The History of Physics, by Isaac Asimov, 1966 and on top of the book are 4 cut-outs of bent circles representing magnetic monopoles which revolutionizes modern physics, especially the ElectroMagnetic theory. 
> > 
> > Product details 
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08RK33T8V 
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 28, 2020 
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English 
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 794 KB 
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported 
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled 
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 123 pages 
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #4,167,235 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store) 
> > ◦ #15,099 in Physics (Kindle Store) 
> > ◦ #91,163 in Physics (Books) 
> > 
> > 
> > #2-4, 151st published book 
> > 
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4 
> > Kindle Edition 
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 
> > 
> > Preface: This is AP's 151st book of science published. It is one of my most important books of science because 1st year college physics is so impressionable on students, if they should continue with physics, or look elsewhere for a career. And also, physics is a crossroad to all the other hard core sciences, where physics course is mandatory such as in chemistry or even biology. I have endeavored to make physics 1st year college to be as easy and simple to learn. In this endeavor to make physics super easy, I have made the writing such that you will see core ideas in all capital letters as single sentences as a educational tool. And I have made this textbook chapter writing follow a logical pattern of both algebra and geometry concepts, throughout. The utmost importance of logic in physics needs to be seen and understood. For I have never seen a physics book, prior to this one that is logical. Every Old Physics textbook I have seen is scatter-brained in topics and in writing. I use as template book of Halliday & Resnick because a edition of H&R was one I was taught physics at University of Cincinnati in 1969. And in 1969, I had a choice of majors, do I major in geology, or mathematics, or in physics, for I will graduate from UC in 1972. For me, geology was too easy, but physics was too tough, so I ended up majoring in mathematics. If I had been taught in 1969 using this textbook that I have written, I would have ended up majoring in physics, my first love. For physics is not hard, not hard at all, once you clear out the mistakes and the obnoxious worthless mathematics that clutters up Old Physics, and the illogic that smothers much of Old Physics. 
> > 
> > Maybe it was good that I had those impressions of physics education of poor education, which still exists throughout physics today. Because maybe I am forced to write this book, because of that awful experience of learning physics in 1969. Without that awful experience, maybe this textbook would have never been written by me. 
> > 
> > Cover picture is the template book of Halliday & Resnick, 1988, 3rd edition Fundamentals of Physics and sitting on top are cut outs of "half bent circles, bent at 90 degrees" to imitate magnetic monopoles. Magnetic Monopoles revolutionizes physics education, and separates-out, what is Old Physics from what is New Physics. 
> > 
> > Product details 
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09JW5DVYM 
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 19, 2021 
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English 
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1033 KB 
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported 
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled 
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 386 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 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > #3-1, 2nd published book 
> > 
> > True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition 
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 
> > 
> > Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere. 
> > 
> > Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule. 
> > 
> > Length: 1150 pages 
> > 
> > 
> > Product details 
> > • File Size : 2167 KB 
> > • ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ 
> > • Publication Date : March 11, 2019 
> > • Word Wise : Enabled 
> > • Print Length : 1150 pages 
> > • Language: : English 
> > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled 
> > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled 
> > • X-Ray : Not Enabled 
> > • Lending : Enabled 
> > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store) 
> > #181 in General Chemistry & Reference 
> > #1324 in General Chemistry 
> > #1656 in Physics (Kindle Store) 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#843894

Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez, Peter Higgs, all too dumb and losers of physics for they are too feeble to even ask the simple question which is the atoms true real electron the muon or the 0.5MeV particle that AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole, no these people are not distinguished in physics but polluters of physics, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish,
David J. Thouless, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita, Arthur B. McDonald 
> > Francois Englert 
> > Saul Perlmutter 
> > Brian P. Schmidt 
> > Adam G. Riess 
> > Makoto Kobayashi 
> > Toshihide Maskawa 
> > Yoichiro Nambu 
> > John C. Mather 
> > George F. Smoot 
> > Roy J. Glauber 
> > David J. Gross 
> > Hugh David Politzer 
> > Frank Wilczek 
> > Raymond Davis Jr. 
> > Masatoshi Koshiba 
> > Riccardo Giacconi 
> > Gerardus 't Hooft 
> > Martinus J.G. Veltman 
> > Jerome I. Friedman 
> > Henry W. Kendall 
> > Richard E. Taylor 
> > Carlo Rubbia 
> > Simon van der Meer 
> > William Alfred Fowler 
> > Kenneth G. Wilson 
> > James Watson Cronin 
> > Val Logsdon Fitch 
> > Sheldon Lee Glashow 
> > Steven Weinberg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#843892

On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 2:40:43 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> How long is the 
> United States 
> going to take.. 
> to admit that 
> the China Virus 
> did not leak 
> from the 
> Wuhan lab... 
> it was 
> purposely 
> injected in a 
> 100 Chinese 
> persons and 
> put them 
> on a plane 
> to the 
> United States. 
> 
> Doctor Fauci 
> is a Virologist. 
> That means 
> someone who 
> specializes in 
> Germ Warfare... 
> or what it is 
> now called 
> Biological 
> Weapons 
> or 
> Gain-of-Function 
> weapons. 
> 
> 100 monkeys. 
> 
> 
> **'gain-of-function' is: experiments designed to create pandemics; Hidden laboratories funded by Dr. Fauci to 
> develop bacteria/viruses for which no one else will be able to find a cure. 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, 
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge 
> the unchallengeable.

Trump won China so they bio terrorized the whole world.
They kill their own. This time it is the world...

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#844204

AndreaGhez,RogerPenrose, PeterHiggs,Simon van der Meer, William Alfred Fowler, Kenneth G. Wilson, James Watson Cronin, Val Logsdon Fitch, 
Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall, Lene Hau ever ever, ever ask the question, which is the atom's real electron, the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law or the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. 
 
Can Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall, Lene Hau ask the question, which is the atom's real electron, the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law or the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. 

Why do oafs of physics believe the hydrogen atom is a proton of 938MeV with electron of 0.5MeV flying around the OUTSIDE of the proton at 99.9% speed of light and still cling on to the proton. Whereas the Logical commonsense minded AP says to maintain angular momentum the real electron is the muon of 105MeV stuck INSIDE the proton torus of 840MeV doing the Faraday law. A proton torus of 8 rings keeps the muon inside the proton even though the muon flys around the inside of the proton torus at 99.4% speed of light. So that AP is confronted with physicists who have on logical brains, none whatsoever. 


> 
> 
> .. 
> .- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-.. 
> , . `.' ' `. 
> .' .' ` ` ' `.. ; 
> . ; .' . `. ; 
> ; . ' `. . ' 
> . ' ` `. | 
> . '. ' 
> . 0 0 ' `. 
> ' ` 
> ; ` 
> .' ` 
> ; U ` 
> ; '; ` 
> : | ;.. :` ` 
> : `;. ```. .-; | ' 
> '. ` ``.., .' :' ' 
> ; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' Hi I am McGinn & Pennino and I shovel b.s. along with Pnal into sci.physics everyday because I keep my buddy McGinn on the front page first 15 threads all day long. I am Pennino a spammers helper. 
> ` ` ; ; ' ' 
> ` ` ; ; ' ' 
> ` `. ````'''''' ' ' 
> ` . ' ' 
> / ` `. ' ' . 
> / ` .. ..' .'"""""...' 
> / .` ` ``........-' .'` .....''' 
> / .'' ; ` .' ` 
> ...'.' ; .' ` .' ` 
> "" .' .' | ` .; \ ` 
> ; .' | `. . . . ' . \ ` 
> :' | ' ` , `. ` 
> | ' ` ' `. ` 
> ` ' ` ; `. | 
> `.' ` ; `-' 
> `...' 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Larry Summers 
> President now Lawrence Bacow 
> 
> Harvard Physics dept 
> Jacob Barandes, Howard Berg, Michael Brenner, Adam Cohen, Eugene Demler, Michael Desai 
> Louis Deslauriers, John Doyle, Cora Dvorkin, Gary Feldman, Douglas Finkbeiner, Melissa Franklin, Gerald Gabrielse, Howard Georgi, Sheldon Glashow, Roy Glauber, Jene Golovchenko, Markus Greiner, Roxanne Guenette, Girma Hailu, Bertrand Halperin, Lene Hau 
> Thomas Hayes, Eric Heller, Jason Hoffman, Jenny Hoffman, Gerald Holton, Paul Horowitz, John Huth, Arthur Jaffe, Daniel Jafferis, Efthimios Kaxiras, Philip Kim, John Kovac, Erel Levine 
> Mikhail Lukin, Logan McCarty, L. Mahadevan, Vinothan Manoharan, Eric Mazur, Masahiro Morii 
> David Morin, Julia Mundy, Cherry Murray, David Nelson, Kang Ni, Hongkun Park, William Paul 
> Peter Pershan, Mara Prentiss, Lisa Randall, Matthew Reece, Subir Sachdev, Aravinthan Samuel, Matthew Schwartz, Irwin Shapiro, Isaac Silvera, Andrew Strominger, Christopher Stubbs, Cumrun Vafa, Ronald Walsworth, David Weitz, Robert Westervelt, Richard Wilson 
> Tai Wu, Amir Yacoby, Susanne Yelin, Xi Yin 
> 
> 
> MIT math dept. 
> 
> Michael Artin, Martin Bazant, Bonnie Berger, Roman Bezrukavnikov, Alexei Borodin, John Bush, Herman Chernoff, Henry Cohn, Laurent Demanet, Richard Dudley, Jörn Dunkel, Alan Edelman, Pavel Etingof, Daniel Freedman, Michel Goemans, Vadim Gorin, Harvey Greenspan, Victor Guillemin, Larry Guth, Sigurdur Helgason, Anette Hosoi, David Jerison, Steven Johnson, Victor Kac, Steven Kleiman, Daniel Kleitman, 
> Andrew Lawrie, Tom Leighton, George Lusztig, Arthur Mattuck, Davesh Maulik, Richard Melrose, Haynes Miller, William Minicozzi, Ankur Moitra, Elchanan Mossel, Tomasz Mrowka, James Munkres, Andrei Negut, Aaron Pixton, Bjorn Poonen, Alexander Postnikov, Philippe Rigollet, Rodolfo Rosales, Giulia Saccà, Gerald Sacks, Paul Seidel, Scott Sheffield, Peter Shor, Isadore Singer, Michael Sipser, Jared Speck, Gigliola Staffilani, Richard Stanley, Harold Stark, Gilbert Strang, Daniel Stroock, Goncalo Tabuada, Alar Toomre, David Vogan 
> 
> Chancellor Cynthia Barnhart 
> President: L. Reif (electrical engineer) 
> 
> MIT physics dept 
> William Bertozzi, Robert Birgeneau, Hale Bradt, Bernard Burke, George Clark , Jeffrey Goldstone, Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins , Paul Joss, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon, Irwin Pless, Paul Schechter, James Young 
> 
> Why can no-one at Harvard or MIT ever ask the question which is the atom's true electron the muon or the 0.5MeV particle 
> 
> Nobel awards, yet they cannot even tell a ellipse from oval, and they think with 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, and they cannot even multiply and chew gum-- their electron is 0.5MeV and their muon is unknown. 
> 
> Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez, 
> Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish 
> David J. Thouless, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita 
> Arthur B. McDonald 
> Francois Englert 
> Saul Perlmutter 
> Brian P. Schmidt 
> Adam G. Riess 
> Makoto Kobayashi 
> Toshihide Maskawa 
> Yoichiro Nambu 
> John C. Mather 
> George F. Smoot 
> Roy J. Glauber 
> David J. Gross 
> Hugh David Politzer 
> Frank Wilczek 
> Raymond Davis Jr. 
> Masatoshi Koshiba 
> Riccardo Giacconi 
> Gerardus 't Hooft 
> Martinus J.G. Veltman 
> Jerome I. Friedman 
> Henry W. Kendall 
> Richard E. Taylor 
> Carlo Rubbia 
> Simon van der Meer 
> William Alfred Fowler 
> Kenneth G. Wilson 
> James Watson Cronin 
> Val Logsdon Fitch 
> Sheldon Lee Glashow 
> Steven Weinberg 
> . 
> . 
> little fishes 
> . 
> . 
> Layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = subtraction of either 3 or 2, while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV 
> 
> Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass 
> Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu 
> more and more layers of error thinking physics 
> . 
> . 
> John Baez 
> Brian Greene 
> Lisa Randall 
> Alan H. Guth 
> Michael E. Brown 
> Konstantin Batygin 
> Ben Bullock 
> Larry Harson 
> Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan 
> Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views 
> None at all - he was a raving nutter. 
> Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley 
> Edward Witten 
> 
> 
> 
> 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) 
> 
 
> 
> #3-1, 2nd published book 
> 
> True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition 
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 
> 
> Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere. 
> 
> Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule. 
> 
> Length: 1150 pages 
> 
> 
> Product details 
> • File Size : 2167 KB 
> • ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ 
> • Publication Date : March 11, 2019 
> • Word Wise : Enabled 
> • Print Length : 1150 pages 
> • Language: : English 
> • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled 
> • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled 
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled 
> • Lending : Enabled 
> Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store) 
> #181 in General Chemistry & Reference 
> #1324 in General Chemistry 
> #1656 in Physics (Kindle Store) 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#844621

Is McGinn funded by Dr.Carol Christ Berkeley, Dr. Mary Papazian SJSU California State Univ,CSUN Dr.Beck, Dr.Joseph Castro California State Univ System??? 
> 
> 
> Who is paying for the McGinn front page hogging-SPAM of sci.physics-- NSF? Calif University state system? US Dept of Educ??? 6 or more bad actors McGinn, Claudius, Pennino, Pnal, tornado, et al. 
> 
> Please do not be fooled-- there is no science going on with McGinn but rather all a stunt to keep all posts from lasting on the front page of sci.physics for more than 2 minutes--- whoosh, your post is on 2nd page. 
> 
> This is the new form of censor of sci.physics-- flood the front page with b.s. 
> 
> McGinn spam originates from CSUN-- is that right Dr. Beck? SheldonGlashow in Harvard, Peter Higgs in Edinburgh still teaching 2 OR 1= 3 with AND as subtraction, ellipse a conic when in reality it is a oval, and never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, electron as 0.5MeV when it really is the muon. So stupid are these universities that they still teach a hydrogen atom electron flies at 99.9% speed of light OUTSIDE a 938MeV proton. AP says these schools are losers of science for the truth of science is the muon is the real electron of atoms and a muon is stuck INSIDE a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law, which makes sense because flying at 99.4% speed of light inside a proton, the hydrogen atom can exist. 
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> > 
> > So ask yourself, do you want to go to a school that cannot even fix its mindless mistakes-- 2 OR 1 = 3, slant cut in cone is ellipse when truthfully it is Oval, and they cannot even see that a electron outside a proton would fly away. 
> > Harry Cliff LHCb physicist needs to publish in the Cambridge Univ student newspaper of how sorry he is and apologizes for his physics stupidity of thinking that a hydrogen atom is composed of a electron of 0.5MeV flying around outside of a proton of 938MeV, flying around at 99% speed of light and still holding up and holding together as a hydrogen atom. Such stupid physics. 
> > > > 
> > > > Whereas the truth be known the real electron of a hydrogen atom is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus of 8 rings, where the muon and proton are doing the Faraday Law of producing more new electricity and storaging that electricity in what are known as neutrons. Because the muon is inside the proton it can fly around the torus inside at nearly the speed of light.
> > > > 
> > > > Old Physics which Harry Cliff is a member, never took Logic, never learned how to think straight, think clear, and thus his physics knowledge is just hand down memorization. So stupid he never understood what the hell is angular momentum for no hydrogen atom can exist with a 0.5MeV particle flying around at 99% speed of light and stay put on a proton of 938MeV. 
> > > > 
> > > > AP says the 0.5MeV particle is Dirac's Magnetic Monopole. Now Dirac was a real physicist, but not Harry Cliff and everyone at CERN with their electron = 0.5MeV. 
> > > > 
> > > > So, Harry Cliff, AP requires you to publish in Cambridge student newspaper your apology for the boneheaded physics you pursue and teach and test on fake physics of the atom. 
> > > > 
> > > > AP, King of Science, especially Physics 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > #2-1, 137th published book 
> > > >  
> > > > #3-1, 2nd published book 
> > > > 
> > > > True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition 
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 
> > > > 
> > > > Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere. 
> > > > 
> > > > Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule. 
> > > > 
> > > > Length: 1150 pages 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Product details 
> > > > • File Size : 2167 KB 
> > > > • ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ 
> > > > • Publication Date : March 11, 2019 
> > > > • Word Wise : Enabled 
> > > > • Print Length : 1150 pages 
> > > > • Language: : English 
> > > > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled 
> > > > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled 
> > > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled 
> > > > • Lending : Enabled 
> > > > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store) 
> > > > #181 in General Chemistry & Reference 
> > > > #1324 in General Chemistry 
> > > > #1656 in Physics (Kindle Store) 
> > 3rd published book 
> > 
> > AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition 
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 
> > 
> > Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone. 
> > 
> > Product details 
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC 
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019 
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English 
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB 
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled 
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled 
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages 
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > • 
> > • 
> > 
> > Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition 
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 
> > 
> > Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science. 
> > 
> > Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news. 
> > 
> > In November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid. 
> > 
> > Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop. 
> > 
> > Product details 
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6 
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019 
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English 
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 KB 
> > • Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited 
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported 
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled 
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled 
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 50 pages 
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > 
> > #11-2, 11th published book 
> > 
> > World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition 
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 
> > 
> > Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science. 
> > Preface: 
> > Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC. 
> > 
> > Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof. 
> > 
> > To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC? 
> > 
> > Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP. 
> > 
> > 
> > Product details 
> > ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY 
> > Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019 
> > Language ‏ : ‎ English 
> > File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB 
> > Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported 
> > Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled 
> > Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled 
> > Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages 
> > Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store) 
> > #2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads 
> > #134 in Calculus (Books) 
> > #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store) 
> > > > 
> > > > y 
> > > >  
> > > > | / 
> > > > | / 
> > > > |/______ x 
> > > > 
> > > > More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies. 
> > > > 
> > > > In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night. 
> > > > 
> > > > I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts. 
> > > > 
> > > > There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot. 
> > > > 
> > > > Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. 
> > 99> > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe 
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#844513 — Harry Cliff LHCb physicist needs to publish in the Cambridge Univ student newspaper of how sorry he is and apologizes for his physics stupidity of thinking that a hydrogen atom is composed of a electron of 0.5MeV flying around outside of a proton of

Is McGinn spam biodegradable  
Dr.Carol Christ Berkeley, Dr. Mary Papazian SJSU California State Univ,CSUN Dr.Beck, Dr.Joseph Castro California State Univ System??? 


Who is paying for the McGinn front page hogging-SPAM of sci.physics-- NSF? Calif University state system? US Dept of Educ??? 6 or more bad actors McGinn, Claudius, Pennino, Pnal, tornado, et al. 

Please do not be fooled-- there is no science going on with McGinn but rather all a stunt to keep all posts from lasting on the front page of sci.physics for more than 2 minutes--- whoosh, your post is on 2nd page. 

This is the new form of censor of sci.physics-- flood the front page with b.s. 

McGinn spam originates from CSUN-- is that right Dr. Beck? SheldonGlashow in Harvard, Peter Higgs in Edinburgh still teaching 2 OR 1= 3 with AND as subtraction, ellipse a conic when in reality it is a oval, and never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, electron as 0.5MeV when it really is the muon. So stupid are these universities that they still teach a hydrogen atom electron flies at 99.9% speed of light OUTSIDE a 938MeV proton. AP says these schools are losers of science for the truth of science is the muon is the real electron of atoms and a muon is stuck INSIDE a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law, which makes sense because flying at 99.4% speed of light inside a proton, the hydrogen atom can exist. 

 
 
 
 
 
> 
> So ask yourself, do you want to go to a school that cannot even fix its mindless mistakes-- 2 OR 1 = 3, slant cut in cone is ellipse when truthfully it is Oval, and they cannot even see that a electron outside a proton would fly away. 
> Harry Cliff LHCb physicist needs to publish in the Cambridge Univ student newspaper of how sorry he is and apologizes for his physics stupidity of thinking that a hydrogen atom is composed of a electron of 0.5MeV flying around outside of a proton of 938MeV, flying around at 99% speed of light and still holding up and holding together as a hydrogen atom. Such stupid physics. 
> > > 
> > > Whereas the truth be known the real electron of a hydrogen atom is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus of 8 rings, where the muon and proton are doing the Faraday Law of producing more new electricity and storaging that electricity in what are known as neutrons. Because the muon is inside the proton it can fly around the torus inside at nearly the speed of light.
> > > 
> > > Old Physics which Harry Cliff is a member, never took Logic, never learned how to think straight, think clear, and thus his physics knowledge is just hand down memorization. So stupid he never understood what the hell is angular momentum for no hydrogen atom can exist with a 0.5MeV particle flying around at 99% speed of light and stay put on a proton of 938MeV. 
> > > 
> > > AP says the 0.5MeV particle is Dirac's Magnetic Monopole. Now Dirac was a real physicist, but not Harry Cliff and everyone at CERN with their electron = 0.5MeV. 
> > > 
> > > So, Harry Cliff, AP requires you to publish in Cambridge student newspaper your apology for the boneheaded physics you pursue and teach and test on fake physics of the atom. 
> > > 
> > > AP, King of Science, especially Physics 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > #2-1, 137th published book 
> > >  
> > > #3-1, 2nd published book 
> > > 
> > > True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition 
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 
> > > 
> > > Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere. 
> > > 
> > > Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule. 
> > > 
> > > Length: 1150 pages 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Product details 
> > > • File Size : 2167 KB 
> > > • ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ 
> > > • Publication Date : March 11, 2019 
> > > • Word Wise : Enabled 
> > > • Print Length : 1150 pages 
> > > • Language: : English 
> > > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled 
> > > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled 
> > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled 
> > > • Lending : Enabled 
> > > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store) 
> > > #181 in General Chemistry & Reference 
> > > #1324 in General Chemistry 
> > > #1656 in Physics (Kindle Store) 
> 3rd published book 
> 
> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition 
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 
> 
> Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone. 
> 
> Product details 
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC 
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019 
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English 
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB 
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled 
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled 
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages 
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> • 
> • 
> 
> Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition 
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 
> 
> Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science. 
> 
> Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news. 
> 
> In November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid. 
> 
> Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop. 
> 
> Product details 
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6 
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019 
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English 
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 KB 
> • Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited 
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported 
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled 
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled 
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 50 pages 
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> 
> #11-2, 11th published book 
> 
> World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition 
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 
> 
> Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science. 
> Preface: 
> Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC. 
> 
> Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof. 
> 
> To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC? 
> 
> Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP. 
> 
> 
> Product details 
> ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY 
> Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019 
> Language ‏ : ‎ English 
> File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB 
> Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported 
> Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled 
> Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled 
> Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages 
> Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store) 
> #2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads 
> #134 in Calculus (Books) 
> #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store) 
> > > 
> > > y 
> > >  
> > > | / 
> > > | / 
> > > |/______ x 
> > > 
> > > More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies. 
> > > 
> > > In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night. 
> > > 
> > > I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts. 
> > > 
> > > There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot. 
> > > 
> > > Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. 
> 23> > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe 
> > > Archimedes Plutonium 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#844589 — Re: Harry Cliff LHCb physicist needs to publish in the Cambridge Univ student newspaper of how sorry he is and apologizes for his physics stupidity of thinking that a hydrogen atom is composed of a electron of 0.5MeV flying around outside of a proton

Is McGinn funded by Dr.Carol Christ Berkeley, Dr. Mary Papazian SJSU California State Univ,CSUN Dr.Beck, Dr.Joseph Castro California State Univ System??? 
> 
> 
> Who is paying for the McGinn front page hogging-SPAM of sci.physics-- NSF? Calif University state system? US Dept of Educ??? 6 or more bad actors McGinn, Claudius, Pennino, Pnal, tornado, et al. 
> 
> Please do not be fooled-- there is no science going on with McGinn but rather all a stunt to keep all posts from lasting on the front page of sci.physics for more than 2 minutes--- whoosh, your post is on 2nd page. 
> 
> This is the new form of censor of sci.physics-- flood the front page with b.s. 
> 
> McGinn spam originates from CSUN-- is that right Dr. Beck? SheldonGlashow in Harvard, Peter Higgs in Edinburgh still teaching 2 OR 1= 3 with AND as subtraction, ellipse a conic when in reality it is a oval, and never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, electron as 0.5MeV when it really is the muon. So stupid are these universities that they still teach a hydrogen atom electron flies at 99.9% speed of light OUTSIDE a 938MeV proton. AP says these schools are losers of science for the truth of science is the muon is the real electron of atoms and a muon is stuck INSIDE a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law, which makes sense because flying at 99.4% speed of light inside a proton, the hydrogen atom can exist. 
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> > 
> > So ask yourself, do you want to go to a school that cannot even fix its mindless mistakes-- 2 OR 1 = 3, slant cut in cone is ellipse when truthfully it is Oval, and they cannot even see that a electron outside a proton would fly away. 
> > Harry Cliff LHCb physicist needs to publish in the Cambridge Univ student newspaper of how sorry he is and apologizes for his physics stupidity of thinking that a hydrogen atom is composed of a electron of 0.5MeV flying around outside of a proton of 938MeV, flying around at 99% speed of light and still holding up and holding together as a hydrogen atom. Such stupid physics. 
> > > > 
> > > > Whereas the truth be known the real electron of a hydrogen atom is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus of 8 rings, where the muon and proton are doing the Faraday Law of producing more new electricity and storaging that electricity in what are known as neutrons. Because the muon is inside the proton it can fly around the torus inside at nearly the speed of light. 
> > > > 
> > > > Old Physics which Harry Cliff is a member, never took Logic, never learned how to think straight, think clear, and thus his physics knowledge is just hand down memorization. So stupid he never understood what the hell is angular momentum for no hydrogen atom can exist with a 0.5MeV particle flying around at 99% speed of light and stay put on a proton of 938MeV. 
> > > > 
> > > > AP says the 0.5MeV particle is Dirac's Magnetic Monopole. Now Dirac was a real physicist, but not Harry Cliff and everyone at CERN with their electron = 0.5MeV. 
> > > > 
> > > > So, Harry Cliff, AP requires you to publish in Cambridge student newspaper your apology for the boneheaded physics you pursue and teach and test on fake physics of the atom. 
> > > > 
> > > > AP, King of Science, especially Physics 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > #2-1, 137th published book 
> > > > 
> > > > #3-1, 2nd published book 
> > > > 
> > > > True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition 
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 
> > > > 
> > > > Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere. 
> > > > 
> > > > Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule. 
> > > > 
> > > > Length: 1150 pages 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Product details 
> > > > • File Size : 2167 KB 
> > > > • ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ 
> > > > • Publication Date : March 11, 2019 
> > > > • Word Wise : Enabled 
> > > > • Print Length : 1150 pages 
> > > > • Language: : English 
> > > > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled 
> > > > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled 
> > > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled 
> > > > • Lending : Enabled 
> > > > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store) 
> > > > #181 in General Chemistry & Reference 
> > > > #1324 in General Chemistry 
> > > > #1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > 3rd published book 
> > 
> > AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition 
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 
> > 
> > Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone. 
> > 
> > Product details 
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC 
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019 
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English 
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB 
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled 
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages 
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > • 
> > • 
> > 
> > Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition 
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 
> > 
> > Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science. 
> > 
> > Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news. 
> > 
> > In November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid. 
> > 
> > Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop. 
> > 
> > Product details 
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6 
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019 
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English 
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 KB 
> > • Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported 
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled 
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 50 pages 
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > 
> > #11-2, 11th published book 
> > 
> > World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition 
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 
> > 
> > Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science. 
> > Preface: 
> > Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC. 
> > 
> > Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof. 
> > 
> > To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC? 
> > 
> > Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP. 
> > 
> > 
> > Product details 
> > ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY 
> > Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019 
> > Language ‏ : ‎ English 
> > File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
> > Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported 
> > Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled 
> > Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages 
> > Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store) 
> > #2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads 
> > #134 in Calculus (Books) 
> > #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store) 
> > > > 
> > > > y 
> > > > 
> > > > | / 
> > > > | / 
> > > > |/______ x 
> > > > 
> > > > More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies. 
> > > > 
> > > > In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night. 
> > > > 
> > > > I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts. 
> > > > 
> > > > There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot. 
> > > > 
> > > > Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
> > 23> > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe 
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#844659

Is McGinn funded by Dr.Carol Christ Berkeley, Dr. Mary Papazian SJSU California State Univ,CSUN Dr.Beck, Dr.Joseph Castro California State Univ System??? 
> 
> 
> Who is paying for the McGinn front page hogging-SPAM of sci.physics-- NSF? Calif University state system? US Dept of Educ??? 6 or more bad actors McGinn, Claudius, Pennino, Pnal, tornado, et al. 
> 
> Please do not be fooled-- there is no science going on with McGinn but rather all a stunt to keep all posts from lasting on the front page of sci.physics for more than 2 minutes--- whoosh, your post is on 2nd page. 
> 
> This is the new form of censor of sci.physics-- flood the front page with b.s. 
> 
> McGinn spam originates from CSUN-- is that right Dr. Beck? SheldonGlashow in Harvard, Peter Higgs in Edinburgh still teaching 2 OR 1= 3 with AND as subtraction, ellipse a conic when in reality it is a oval, and never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, electron as 0.5MeV when it really is the muon. So stupid are these universities that they still teach a hydrogen atom electron flies at 99.9% speed of light OUTSIDE a 938MeV proton. AP says these schools are losers of science for the truth of science is the muon is the real electron of atoms and a muon is stuck INSIDE a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law, which makes sense because flying at 99.4% speed of light inside a proton, the hydrogen atom can exist. 
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> > 
> > So ask yourself, do you want to go to a school that cannot even fix its mindless mistakes-- 2 OR 1 = 3, slant cut in cone is ellipse when truthfully it is Oval, and they cannot even see that a electron outside a proton would fly away. 
> > Harry Cliff LHCb physicist needs to publish in the Cambridge Univ student newspaper of how sorry he is and apologizes for his physics stupidity of thinking that a hydrogen atom is composed of a electron of 0.5MeV flying around outside of a proton of 938MeV, flying around at 99% speed of light and still holding up and holding together as a hydrogen atom. Such stupid physics. 
> > > > 
> > > > Whereas the truth be known the real electron of a hydrogen atom is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus of 8 rings, where the muon and proton are doing the Faraday Law of producing more new electricity and storaging that electricity in what are known as neutrons. Because the muon is inside the proton it can fly around the torus inside at nearly the speed of light.
> > > > 
> > > > Old Physics which Harry Cliff is a member, never took Logic, never learned how to think straight, think clear, and thus his physics knowledge is just hand down memorization. So stupid he never understood what the hell is angular momentum for no hydrogen atom can exist with a 0.5MeV particle flying around at 99% speed of light and stay put on a proton of 938MeV. 
> > > > 
> > > > AP says the 0.5MeV particle is Dirac's Magnetic Monopole. Now Dirac was a real physicist, but not Harry Cliff and everyone at CERN with their electron = 0.5MeV. 
> > > > 
> > > > So, Harry Cliff, AP requires you to publish in Cambridge student newspaper your apology for the boneheaded physics you pursue and teach and test on fake physics of the atom. 
> > > > 
> > > > AP, King of Science, especially Physics 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > #2-1, 137th published book 
> > > >  
> > > > #3-1, 2nd published book 
> > > > 
> > > > True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition 
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 
> > > > 
> > > > Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere. 
> > > > 
> > > > Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule. 
> > > > 
> > > > Length: 1150 pages 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Product details 
> > > > • File Size : 2167 KB 
> > > > • ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ 
> > > > • Publication Date : March 11, 2019 
> > > > • Word Wise : Enabled 
> > > > • Print Length : 1150 pages 
> > > > • Language: : English 
> > > > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled 
> > > > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled 
> > > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled 
> > > > • Lending : Enabled 
> > > > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store) 
> > > > #181 in General Chemistry & Reference 
> > > > #1324 in General Chemistry 
> > > > #1656 in Physics (Kindle Store) 
> > 3rd published book 
> > 
> > AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition 
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 
> > 
> > Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone. 
> > 
> > Product details 
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC 
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019 
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English 
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB 
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled 
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled 
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages 
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > • 
> > • 
> > 
> > Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition 
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 
> > 
> > Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science. 
> > 
> > Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news. 
> > 
> > In November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid. 
> > 
> > Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop. 
> > 
> > Product details 
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6 
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019 
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English 
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 KB 
> > • Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited 
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported 
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled 
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled 
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 50 pages 
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > 
> > #11-2, 11th published book 
> > 
> > World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition 
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 
> > 
> > Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science. 
> > Preface: 
> > Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC. 
> > 
> > Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof. 
> > 
> > To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC? 
> > 
> > Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP. 
> > 
> > 
> > Product details 
> > ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY 
> > Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019 
> > Language ‏ : ‎ English 
> > File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB 
> > Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported 
> > Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled 
> > Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled 
> > Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages 
> > Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store) 
> > #2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads 
> > #134 in Calculus (Books) 
> > #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store) 
> > > > 
> > > > y 
> > > >  
> > > > | / 
> > > > | / 
> > > > |/______ x 
> > > > 
> > > > More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies. 
> > > > 
> > > > In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night. 
> > > > 
> > > > I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts. 
> > > > 
> > > > There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot. 
> > > > 
> > > > Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. 
> > 99> > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe 
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#845227 — Front page hogs McGinn, Pennino, Pnal, Claudius, tornado etc all to take over the front page of sci.physics

Is Pennino &McGinn the same person funded by Dr.Carol Christ Berkeley, Dr. Mary Papazian SJSU California State Univ,CSUN Dr.Beck, Dr.Joseph Castro California State Univ System??? Why would Pennino & McGinn be one and the same person? To front page hog sci.physics, seeing that Pennino is some sort of custodian of Usenet with unlimited posting.
> > 
> > 
> > Who is paying for the McGinn front page hogging-SPAM of sci.physics-- NSF? Calif University state system? US Dept of Educ??? 6 or more bad actors McGinn, Claudius, Pennino, Pnal, tornado, et al. 
> > 
> > Please do not be fooled-- there is no science going on with McGinn but rather all a stunt to keep all posts from lasting on the front page of sci.physics for more than 2 minutes--- whoosh, your post is on 2nd page. 
> > 
> > This is the new form of censor of sci.physics-- flood the front page with b.s. 
> > 
> > McGinn spam originates from CSUN-- is that right Dr. Beck? SheldonGlashow in Harvard, Peter Higgs in Edinburgh still teaching 2 OR 1= 3 with AND as subtraction, ellipse a conic when in reality it is a oval, and never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, electron as 0.5MeV when it really is the muon. So stupid are these universities that they still teach a hydrogen atom electron flies at 99.9% speed of light OUTSIDE a 938MeV proton. AP says these schools are losers of science for the truth of science is the muon is the real electron of atoms and a muon is stuck INSIDE a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law, which makes sense because flying at 99.4% speed of light inside a proton, the hydrogen atom can exist. 
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > > 
> > > So ask yourself, do you want to go to a school that cannot even fix its mindless mistakes-- 2 OR 1 = 3, slant cut in cone is ellipse when truthfully it is Oval, and they cannot even see that a electron outside a proton would fly away. 
> > > Harry Cliff LHCb physicist needs to publish in the Cambridge Univ student newspaper of how sorry he is and apologizes for his physics stupidity of thinking that a hydrogen atom is composed of a electron of 0.5MeV flying around outside of a proton of 938MeV, flying around at 99% speed of light and still holding up and holding together as a hydrogen atom. Such stupid physics. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Whereas the truth be known the real electron of a hydrogen atom is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus of 8 rings, where the muon and proton are doing the Faraday Law of producing more new electricity and storaging that electricity in what are known as neutrons. Because the muon is inside the proton it can fly around the torus inside at nearly the speed of light. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Old Physics which Harry Cliff is a member, never took Logic, never learned how to think straight, think clear, and thus his physics knowledge is just hand down memorization. So stupid he never understood what the hell is angular momentum for no hydrogen atom can exist with a 0.5MeV particle flying around at 99% speed of light and stay put on a proton of 938MeV. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > AP says the 0.5MeV particle is Dirac's Magnetic Monopole. Now Dirac was a real physicist, but not Harry Cliff and everyone at CERN with their electron = 0.5MeV. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > So, Harry Cliff, AP requires you to publish in Cambridge student newspaper your apology for the boneheaded physics you pursue and teach and test on fake physics of the atom. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > AP, King of Science, especially Physics 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > #2-1, 137th published book 
> > > > > 
> > > > > #3-1, 2nd published book 
> > > > > 
> > > > > True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition 
> > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Length: 1150 pages 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Product details 
> > > > > • File Size : 2167 KB 
> > > > > • ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ 
> > > > > • Publication Date : March 11, 2019 
> > > > > • Word Wise : Enabled 
> > > > > • Print Length : 1150 pages 
> > > > > • Language: : English 
> > > > > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled 
> > > > > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled 
> > > > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled 
> > > > > • Lending : Enabled 
> > > > > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store) 
> > > > > #181 in General Chemistry & Reference 
> > > > > #1324 in General Chemistry 
> > > > > #1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > > 3rd published book 
> > > 
> > > AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition 
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 
> > > 
> > > Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone. 
> > > 
> > > Product details 
> > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC 
> > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019 
> > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English 
> > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB 
> > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled 
> > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages 
> > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > > • 
> > > • 
> > > 
> > > Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition 
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 
> > > 
> > > Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science. 
> > > 
> > > Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news. 
> > > 
> > > In November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid. 
> > > 
> > > Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop. 
> > > 
> > > Product details 
> > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6 
> > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019 
> > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English 
> > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 KB 
> > > • Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
> > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported 
> > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled 
> > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 50 pages 
> > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > > 
> > > #11-2, 11th published book 
> > > 
> > > World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition 
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 
> > > 
> > > Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science. 
> > > Preface: 
> > > Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC. 
> > > 
> > > Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof. 
> > > 
> > > To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC? 
> > > 
> > > Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Product details 
> > > ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY 
> > > Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019 
> > > Language ‏ : ‎ English 
> > > File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
> > > Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > > Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported 
> > > Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > > X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled 
> > > Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages 
> > > Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store) 
> > > #2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads 
> > > #134 in Calculus (Books) 
> > > #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store) 
> > > > > 
> > > > > y 
> > > > > 
> > > > > | / 
> > > > > | / 
> > > > > |/______ x 
> > > > > 
> > > > > More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
> > > 99> > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe 
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#845246

Is Pennino &McGinn the same person funded by Dr.Carol Christ Berkeley, Dr. Mary Papazian SJSU California State Univ,CSUN Dr.Beck, Dr.Joseph Castro California State Univ System??? Why would Pennino & McGinn be one and the same person? To front page hog sci.physics, seeing that Pennino is some sort of custodian of Usenet with unlimited posting. 

> > Who is paying for the McGinn front page hogging-SPAM of sci.physics-- NSF? Calif University state system? US Dept of Educ??? 6 or more bad actors McGinn, Claudius, Pennino, Pnal, tornado, et al. 
> > 
> > Please do not be fooled-- there is no science going on with McGinn but rather all a stunt to keep all posts from lasting on the front page of sci.physics for more than 2 minutes--- whoosh, your post is on 2nd page. 
> > 
> > This is the new form of censor of sci.physics-- flood the front page with b.s. 
> > 
> > McGinn spam originates from CSUN-- is that right Dr. Beck? SheldonGlashow in Harvard, Peter Higgs in Edinburgh still teaching 2 OR 1= 3 with AND as subtraction, ellipse a conic when in reality it is a oval, and never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, electron as 0.5MeV when it really is the muon. So stupid are these universities that they still teach a hydrogen atom electron flies at 99.9% speed of light OUTSIDE a 938MeV proton. AP says these schools are losers of science for the truth of science is the muon is the real electron of atoms and a muon is stuck INSIDE a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law, which makes sense because flying at 99.4% speed of light inside a proton, the hydrogen atom can exist. 
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > > 
> > > So ask yourself, do you want to go to a school that cannot even fix its mindless mistakes-- 2 OR 1 = 3, slant cut in cone is ellipse when truthfully it is Oval, and they cannot even see that a electron outside a proton would fly away. 
> > > Harry Cliff LHCb physicist needs to publish in the Cambridge Univ student newspaper of how sorry he is and apologizes for his physics stupidity of thinking that a hydrogen atom is composed of a electron of 0.5MeV flying around outside of a proton of 938MeV, flying around at 99% speed of light and still holding up and holding together as a hydrogen atom. Such stupid physics. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Whereas the truth be known the real electron of a hydrogen atom is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus of 8 rings, where the muon and proton are doing the Faraday Law of producing more new electricity and storaging that electricity in what are known as neutrons. Because the muon is inside the proton it can fly around the torus inside at nearly the speed of light.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Old Physics which Harry Cliff is a member, never took Logic, never learned how to think straight, think clear, and thus his physics knowledge is just hand down memorization. So stupid he never understood what the hell is angular momentum for no hydrogen atom can exist with a 0.5MeV particle flying around at 99% speed of light and stay put on a proton of 938MeV. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > AP says the 0.5MeV particle is Dirac's Magnetic Monopole. Now Dirac was a real physicist, but not Harry Cliff and everyone at CERN with their electron = 0.5MeV. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > So, Harry Cliff, AP requires you to publish in Cambridge student newspaper your apology for the boneheaded physics you pursue and teach and test on fake physics of the atom. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > AP, King of Science, especially Physics 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > #2-1, 137th published book 
> > > > >  
> > > > > #3-1, 2nd published book 
> > > > > 
> > > > > True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition 
> > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Length: 1150 pages 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Product details 
> > > > > • File Size : 2167 KB 
> > > > > • ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ 
> > > > > • Publication Date : March 11, 2019 
> > > > > • Word Wise : Enabled 
> > > > > • Print Length : 1150 pages 
> > > > > • Language: : English 
> > > > > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled 
> > > > > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled 
> > > > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled 
> > > > > • Lending : Enabled 
> > > > > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store) 
> > > > > #181 in General Chemistry & Reference 
> > > > > #1324 in General Chemistry 
> > > > > #1656 in Physics (Kindle Store) 
> > > 3rd published book 
> > > 
> > > AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition 
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 
> > > 
> > > Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone. 
> > > 
> > > Product details 
> > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC 
> > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019 
> > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English 
> > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB 
> > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled 
> > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled 
> > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages 
> > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > > • 
> > > • 
> > > 
> > > Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition 
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 
> > > 
> > > Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science. 
> > > 
> > > Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news. 
> > > 
> > > In November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid. 
> > > 
> > > Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop. 
> > > 
> > > Product details 
> > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6 
> > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019 
> > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English 
> > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 KB 
> > > • Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited 
> > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported 
> > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled 
> > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled 
> > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 50 pages 
> > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > > 
> > > #11-2, 11th published book 
> > > 
> > > World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition 
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 
> > > 
> > > Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science. 
> > > Preface: 
> > > Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC. 
> > > 
> > > Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof. 
> > > 
> > > To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC? 
> > > 
> > > Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Product details 
> > > ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY 
> > > Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019 
> > > Language ‏ : ‎ English 
> > > File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB 
> > > Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > > Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported 
> > > Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > > X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled 
> > > Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled 
> > > Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages 
> > > Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store) 
> > > #2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads 
> > > #134 in Calculus (Books) 
> > > #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store) 
> > > > > 
> > > > > y 
> > > > >  
> > > > > | / 
> > > > > | / 
> > > > > |/______ x 
> > > > > 
> > > > > More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. 
100> > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe 
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#845383

Is Pennino &McGinn the same person funded by Dr.Carol Christ Berkeley, Dr. Mary Papazian SJSU California State Univ,CSUN Dr.Beck, Dr.Joseph Castro California State Univ System??? Why would Pennino & McGinn be one and the same person? To front page hog sci.physics, seeing that Pennino is some sort of custodian of Usenet with unlimited posting. 


> > Who is paying for the McGinn front page hogging-SPAM of sci.physics-- NSF? Calif University state system? US Dept of Educ??? 6 or more bad actors McGinn, Claudius, Pennino, Pnal, tornado, et al. 
> > 
> > Please do not be fooled-- there is no science going on with McGinn but rather all a stunt to keep all posts from lasting on the front page of sci.physics for more than 2 minutes--- whoosh, your post is on 2nd page. 
> > 
> > This is the new form of censor of sci.physics-- flood the front page with b.s. 
> > 
> > McGinn spam originates from CSUN-- is that right Dr. Beck? SheldonGlashow in Harvard, Peter Higgs in Edinburgh still teaching 2 OR 1= 3 with AND as subtraction, ellipse a conic when in reality it is a oval, and never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, electron as 0.5MeV when it really is the muon. So stupid are these universities that they still teach a hydrogen atom electron flies at 99.9% speed of light OUTSIDE a 938MeV proton. AP says these schools are losers of science for the truth of science is the muon is the real electron of atoms and a muon is stuck INSIDE a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law, which makes sense because flying at 99.4% speed of light inside a proton, the hydrogen atom can exist. 
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > > 
> > > So ask yourself, do you want to go to a school that cannot even fix its mindless mistakes-- 2 OR 1 = 3, slant cut in cone is ellipse when truthfully it is Oval, and they cannot even see that a electron outside a proton would fly away. 
> > > Harry Cliff LHCb physicist needs to publish in the Cambridge Univ student newspaper of how sorry he is and apologizes for his physics stupidity of thinking that a hydrogen atom is composed of a electron of 0.5MeV flying around outside of a proton of 938MeV, flying around at 99% speed of light and still holding up and holding together as a hydrogen atom. Such stupid physics. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Whereas the truth be known the real electron of a hydrogen atom is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus of 8 rings, where the muon and proton are doing the Faraday Law of producing more new electricity and storaging that electricity in what are known as neutrons. Because the muon is inside the proton it can fly around the torus inside at nearly the speed of light. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Old Physics which Harry Cliff is a member, never took Logic, never learned how to think straight, think clear, and thus his physics knowledge is just hand down memorization. So stupid he never understood what the hell is angular momentum for no hydrogen atom can exist with a 0.5MeV particle flying around at 99% speed of light and stay put on a proton of 938MeV. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > AP says the 0.5MeV particle is Dirac's Magnetic Monopole. Now Dirac was a real physicist, but not Harry Cliff and everyone at CERN with their electron = 0.5MeV. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > So, Harry Cliff, AP requires you to publish in Cambridge student newspaper your apology for the boneheaded physics you pursue and teach and test on fake physics of the atom. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > AP, King of Science, especially Physics 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > #2-1, 137th published book 
> > > > >  
> > > > > #3-1, 2nd published book 
> > > > > 
> > > > > True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition 
> > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Length: 1150 pages 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Product details 
> > > > > • File Size : 2167 KB 
> > > > > • ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ 
> > > > > • Publication Date : March 11, 2019 
> > > > > • Word Wise : Enabled 
> > > > > • Print Length : 1150 pages 
> > > > > • Language: : English 
> > > > > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled 
> > > > > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled 
> > > > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled 
> > > > > • Lending : Enabled 
> > > > > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store) 
> > > > > #181 in General Chemistry & Reference 
> > > > > #1324 in General Chemistry 
> > > > > #1656 in Physics (Kindle Store) 
> > > 3rd published book 
> > > 
> > > AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition 
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 
> > > 
> > > Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone. 
> > > 
> > > Product details 
> > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC 
> > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019 
> > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English 
> > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB 
> > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled 
> > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled 
> > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages 
> > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > > • 
> > > • 
> > > 
> > > Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition 
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 
> > > 
> > > Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science. 
> > > 
> > > Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news. 
> > > 
> > > In November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid. 
> > > 
> > > Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop. 
> > > 
> > > Product details 
> > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6 
> > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019 
> > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English 
> > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 KB 
> > > • Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited 
> > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported 
> > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled 
> > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled 
> > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 50 pages 
> > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > > 
> > > #11-2, 11th published book 
> > > 
> > > World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition 
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 
> > > 
> > > Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science. 
> > > Preface: 
> > > Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC. 
> > > 
> > > Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof. 
> > > 
> > > To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC? 
> > > 
> > > Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Product details 
> > > ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY 
> > > Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019 
> > > Language ‏ : ‎ English 
> > > File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB 
> > > Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > > Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported 
> > > Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > > X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled 
> > > Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled 
> > > Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages 
> > > Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled 
> > > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store) 
> > > #2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads 
> > > #134 in Calculus (Books) 
> > > #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store) 
> > > > > 
> > > > > y 
> > > > >  
> > > > > | / 
> > > > > | / 
> > > > > |/______ x 
> > > > > 
> > > > > More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. 
100> > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe 
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium 


[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#845231

On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 2:40:43 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> How long is the 
> United States 
> going to take.. 
> to admit that 
> the China Virus 
> did not leak 
> from the 
> Wuhan lab... 
> it was 
> purposely 
> injected in a 
> 100 Chinese 
> persons and 
> put them 
> on a plane 
> to the 
> United States. 
> 
> Doctor Fauci 
> is a Virologist. 
> That means 
> someone who 
> specializes in 
> Germ Warfare... 
> or what it is 
> now called 
> Biological 
> Weapons 
> or 
> Gain-of-Function 
> weapons. 
> 
> 100 monkeys. 
> 
> 
> **'gain-of-function' is: experiments designed to create pandemics; Hidden laboratories funded by Dr. Fauci to 
> develop bacteria/viruses for which no one else will be able to find a cure. 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, 
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge 
> the unchallengeable.

What monkey did you inherit your mind from you moron?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#845472

Ukraine cruise missiles that reach Moscow & Stalingrad// Give Taiwan cruise missiles that reach Beijing everytime NK fires a missile// tit for tat is the only way to stop bullies// Science Council Rules Earth. 

Diplomacy never works on madmen. We learned that lesson with Hitler. The only thing that works on madmen is force for force. 

Give Ukraine cruise missiles that reach Moscow & Stalingrad// Give Taiwan cruise missiles that reach Beijing everytime NK fires a missile// tit for tat is the only way to stop bullies. 

I read that India makes the world's finest cruise missiles, send a shipment up north to Ukraine. 


Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; 
Genius hits a target no one else can see." 

That is right Pete, we cannot see Moscow from Cambridge Univ campus 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web