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

Groups > sci.math > #416475 > unrolled thread

Irwin Pless, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon -- do you incite Moroney to every day come attack AP for doing math and physics? Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

Contents

  Irwin Pless, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon -- do you incite Moroney to every day come attack AP for doing math and physics? Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 17:08 -0700
    Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-27 00:32 +0000
    Jacob Barandes, Howard Berg, Michael Brenner, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker, -- do you incite Moroney to every day come attack AP? True Calculus (see below) Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 21:25 -0700
      Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-27 04:58 +0000
        William Bertozzi, Robert Birgeneau, Hale Bradt, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker, -- do you incite Moroney to bully stalk? Erroneous--percentage &Calculus &Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-27 12:49 -0700
    Bernard Burke, George Clark , Jeffrey Goldstone, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker, -- do you incite Moroney to bully stalk? Erroneous--percentage &Calculus //Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-27 21:43 -0700
    Irwin Pless, Paul Schechter, James Young, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker, -- do you incite Moroney to bully stalk? Erroneous--percentage &Calculus //Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-28 20:44 -0700

#416475 — Irwin Pless, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon -- do you incite Moroney to every day come attack AP for doing math and physics? Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole

Irwin Pless, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon -- do you incite Moroney to every day come attack AP for doing math and physics? Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 10:29:18 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> Back to attacking, 


Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test Group: sci.math (Member) 
... too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test. More repost of ad hominem against me. Do you need to be punished? 
Jun 2 by Michael Moroney 


Gary Feldman, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker,Douglas Finkbeiner, Melissa Franklin -- Moroney asks why you keep failing with identity of Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole 


AP writes: Google has abuse, but what good is that when it cannot recognize a 26 year long stalker Moroney with his ad hominem bully stalking-- never any math or physics. I have asked Google to engineer a delete key to original authors of threads, so that would eliminate bully stalkers, if the author so desires. 

Paul Joss, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon -- Moroney asks why you keep failing with identity of Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole 
  

> 
> percentage for Moroney, 938 is what percent short of 945 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> > 
> > Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon. 
> > Hardly "exactly" 9 muons. 
> 
> Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > 
> > Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass 
> > of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short. 
> 
> AP writes: 
> Does the state of Massachusetts ever have education reviews. For here is a stalker of Moroney for 25 years-- obsessive stalker of AP, and only AP, says he is a electrical engineer yet never admits to mistakes that 938 is not 12% short of 945, but only .7% short, less than 1% short. So what kind of engineer is it from Barry Shein's std.com, that cannot even do a percentage correctly and never admits to mistakes, only stalks and harasses other people who do know math and science. 
> 
> Why is std.com so hateful of the tv program THIS OLD HOUSE, when I have learned so much from that show. 
> 

> 
> Why is std.com such a antiscience ISP, with Moroney hating percentage problem, hating geothermal-- is std.com the worst isp for science in Boston, or is Barry Shein topped by someone else? 
> 
> 
> 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* 
> 
>    /\-------/\ 
>    \::O:::O::/ 
>   (::_  ^  _::) 
>    \_`-----'_/ 
> You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Boston? 
> And, even though you-- professors of physics, want to remain stupid in Real Electron=105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, and .5MeV was Dirac's magnetic monopole, your students deserve better. 
> 
> Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole 
> 
> President Larry Summers 
> 
> 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 
> 
> 
> Can someone in the Boston area make sure this numbskull is never a science teacher in Boston-- and the damage he can do to a classroom 
> 
> Mike Moroney, science failure-- on geothermal 
> 
> 
> (1) 
> On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 12:15:22 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > 
> > There are some places here that use "geothermal" for heating and cooling 
> > but even these are solar power in disguise.  They pump water from wells 
> > from where the temperature is the average over many years and extract heat 
> > from it (in the winter) and dump heat into it (in the summer) and pump the 
> > water back into the ground.  The water is about 55F out of the ground. 
> 
> 
> 
> (2) 
> On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 1:31:27 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:   
> 
> > 
> > >Just as a point of order, what you described is not geothermal. What 
> > >you've just described is thermal balancing with water, using water 
> > >cooler than air from the water table to cool a building in the summer, 
> > >and using water warmer than air from the water table to warm a building 
> > >in the winter. 
> > 
> > In other words, glorified solar energy.  Solar energy stored and averaged 
> > out over many, many years. 
> > 
> 
> (3) 
> On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 8:44:12 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > 
> > Admit it, you were fooled by a "This Old House" type show where they 
> > use a high-tech sounding buzzword to impress people who don't know any 
> > better. 
> > 
> > Just answer one question, if you can.  If it's really geothermal, why 
> > is the temperature only 51 degrees, but in Iceland, where there's real 
> > geothermal, they're accessing temperatures of hundreds of degrees? 
> 
> 
> (4) 
> > On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 10:40:09 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > > 
> > > Pretty cool, fossil solar energy! 51 degrees, the average of summer and 
> > > winter temperatures for hundreds or even thousands of years, depending 
> > > on how deep they go. 
> > > 
> > > Too bad you do have to use real energy to run the heat pump, although it 
> > > is much better than simply using that energy to make heat. 
> > 
> 
> (5) 
> On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 12:30:56 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > 
> > It's amusing how he can't handle that at all. Just like he can't 
> > handle the concept of permafrost when he goes off on geothermal 
> > energy.  All he can do is attack. 
> 
> (6) 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 12:21:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > geothermal heat energy is 99% from the sun where he was (unsure where, 
> > Mass. I think) 
> > 
> > Now tell us where Permafrost comes from. 
> > 
> > p.p.s. I was searching because I am actually looking into getting 
> > geothermal heat. Fossil solar energy is a great resource! 
> 
> 
By Archimedes Plutonium 
------------------------- 

SEE PICTURE DIAGRAM of FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS below, professors hate teaching this for it shows their "limit calculus to be a joke" 

PICTURE DIAGRAM OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS 

By April 2015, was there for the first time a picture diagram proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, not just an analysis argument, but a geometry proof (see below). Old Math could never assemble a picture diagram of the FTC. All they could do is argue with limit concept an analysis argument, never a geometry proof of FTC. 

A picture diagram proof of FTC changes all of calculus and thus, changes all of mathematics for it requires a infinity borderline to produce an actual number for the  infinitesimal, and that number is the inverse of the infinity borderline. Requiring a infinity borderline to produce the infinitesimal changes all of mathematics, and throwing out the limit concept. By changing all of Calculus and thus correcting mathematics, all of math before 2015 was just trash math. 

Picture Diagram needed for Fundamental Theorem of Calculus 

Why no continuum and no curves exist in Math, so that the Calculus 
can exist, and does exist 

by Archimedes Plutonium 

Calculus is based upon there being Grid points in geometry, no 
continuum, but actually, empty space between two neighboring points. 
This is called Discrete geometry, and in physics, this is called 
Quantum Mechanics. In 10 Grid, the first few numbers are 0, .1, .2, 
.3, etc. That means there does not exist any number between 0 and .1, 
no number exists between .1 and .2. Now if you want more precise 
numbers, you go to a higher Grid like that of 100 Grid where the first 
few numbers are 0, .01, .02, .03, etc. 

Calculus in order to exist at all, needs this empty space between 
consecutive numbers or successor numbers. It needs that empty space so 
that the integral of calculus is actually small rectangles whose 
interior area is not zero. So in 10 Grid, the smallest width of any 
Calculus rectangle is of width .1. In 100 Grid the smallest width is 
.01. 

But, this revolutionary understanding of Calculus does not stop with 
the Integral, for having empty space between numbers, means no curves 
in math exist, but are ever tinier straight-line segments. 

It also means, that the Derivative in Calculus is part and parcel of 
the function graph itself. So that in a function such as y = x^2, the 
function graph is the derivative at a point. In Old Math, they had the 
folly and idiocy of a foreign, alien tangent line to a function graph 
as derivative. In New Math, the derivative is the same as the function 
graph itself. And, this makes commonsense, utter commonsense, for the 
derivative is a prediction of the future of the function in question, 
and no way in the world can a foreign tangent line to a point on the 
function be able to predict, be able to tell where the future point of 
that function be. The only predictor of a future point of a function, 
is the function graph itself. 

If the Calculus was done correctly, conceived correctly, then a 
minimal diagram explains all of Calculus. Old Math never had such a 
diagram, because Old Math was in total error of what Calculus is, and 
what Calculus does. 

The fundamental picture of all of Calculus are these two of a 
trapezoid and rectangle. In fact, call the picture, the 

FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS, Picture 

Trapezoid for derivative as the roof-top of 
the trapezoid, which must be a straight-line segment. If it is curved, 
you cannot fold it down to form a integral rectangle. And the 
rectangle for integral as area. 

From this: 
        B 
        /| 
      /  | 
 A /----| 
  /      | 
|        | 
|____| 


The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative) 
so that it can be hinged at A, and swiveled down to form rectangle for 
integral. 

To this: 

______ 
|         | 
|         | 
|         | 
--------- 

And the derivative of x= A, above is merely the dy/dx involving points 
A and B. Thus, it can never be a curve in Calculus. And the AB is part 
of the function graph itself. No curves exist in mathematics and no 
continuum exists in mathematics. 

In the above we see that CALCULUS needs and requires a diagram in 
which you can go from derivative to integral, or go from integral to 
derivative, by simply a hinge down to form a rectangle for area, or a 
hinge up to form the derivative from a given rectangle. 

Why in Old Math could no professor of math ever do the Calculus 
Diagram? Why? The answer is simple, no-one in Old Math pays attention 
to Logic, and that no-one in Old Math was required to take formal 
Logic when they attended school. So a person bereft of Logic, is never 
going to find mistakes of Logic and think clear and think straight. 

by Archimedes Plutonium 
------------------ 
------------------- 



Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall 

12 PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon 
by Archimedes Plutonium 

Proofs that the Real Electron=muon and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall 
> 
PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon 

1st proof is chemical bonding cannot exist with momentum of 938 versus .5MeV 
Chemical Bonds are covalent, ionic, metallic. You simply cannot get atoms to bond if the electron is thought of as the .5MeV particle, only with a muon at 105 MeV and the proton at 840 MeV with neutron at 945 MeV do you have the physics of angular momentum that allows bonding in Chemistry. The .5MeV particle was, all along a magnetic monopole of a photon with .5 MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy. 

AP

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#416482 — Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test

Archimedes "Failure" Plutonium fails:

>AP writes: Google has abuse, but what good is that when it cannot

Fail, fail, fail. That's all Archimedes "Failure" Plutonium can do is
fail. Fail at math. Fail at physics. Why do you insist on attacking me,
failure?

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

#416506 — Jacob Barandes, Howard Berg, Michael Brenner, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker, -- do you incite Moroney to every day come attack AP? True Calculus (see below) Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole

Jacob Barandes, Howard Berg, Michael Brenner, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker, -- do you incite Moroney to every day come attack AP? True Calculus (see below) Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole
> 
> On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 10:29:18 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> > Back to attacking, 
> 
> 
> Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test Group: sci.math (Member) 
> ... too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test. More repost of ad hominem against me. Do you need to be punished? 
> Jun 2 by Michael Moroney 
> 
> 
> Gary Feldman, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker,Douglas Finkbeiner, Melissa Franklin -- Moroney asks why you keep failing with identity of Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole 
> 
> 
> AP writes: Google has abuse, but what good is that when it cannot recognize a 26 year long stalker Moroney with his ad hominem bully stalking-- never any math or physics. I have asked Google to engineer a delete key to original authors of threads, so that would eliminate bully stalkers, if the author so desires. 
> 
> Paul Joss, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon -- Moroney asks why you keep failing with identity of Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole 
>   
> 
> > 
> > percentage for Moroney, 938 is what percent short of 945 
> > 
> > 
> > On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> > > 
> > > Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon. 
> > > Hardly "exactly" 9 muons. 
> > 
> > Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass 
> > > of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short. 
> > 
> > AP writes: 
> > Does the state of Massachusetts ever have education reviews. For here is a stalker of Moroney for 25 years-- obsessive stalker of AP, and only AP, says he is a electrical engineer yet never admits to mistakes that 938 is not 12% short of 945, but only .7% short, less than 1% short. So what kind of engineer is it from Barry Shein's std.com, that cannot even do a percentage correctly and never admits to mistakes, only stalks and harasses other people who do know math and science. 
> > 
> > Why is std.com so hateful of the tv program THIS OLD HOUSE, when I have learned so much from that show. 
> > 
> 
> > 
> > Why is std.com such a antiscience ISP, with Moroney hating percentage problem, hating geothermal-- is std.com the worst isp for science in Boston, or is Barry Shein topped by someone else? 
> > 
> > 
> > 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* 
> > 
> >    /\-------/\ 
> >    \::O:::O::/ 
> >   (::_  ^  _::) 
> >    \_`-----'_/ 
> > You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Boston? 
> > And, even though you-- professors of physics, want to remain stupid in Real Electron=105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, and .5MeV was Dirac's magnetic monopole, your students deserve better. 
> > 
> > Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole 
> > 
> > President Larry Summers 
> > 
> > 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 
> > 
> > 
> > Can someone in the Boston area make sure this numbskull is never a science teacher in Boston-- and the damage he can do to a classroom 
> > 
> > Mike Moroney, science failure-- on geothermal 
> > 
> > 
> > (1) 
> > On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 12:15:22 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> > 
> > > 
> > > There are some places here that use "geothermal" for heating and cooling 
> > > but even these are solar power in disguise.  They pump water from wells 
> > > from where the temperature is the average over many years and extract heat 
> > > from it (in the winter) and dump heat into it (in the summer) and pump the 
> > > water back into the ground.  The water is about 55F out of the ground. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > (2) 
> > On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 1:31:27 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:   
> > 
> > > 
> > > >Just as a point of order, what you described is not geothermal. What 
> > > >you've just described is thermal balancing with water, using water 
> > > >cooler than air from the water table to cool a building in the summer, 
> > > >and using water warmer than air from the water table to warm a building 
> > > >in the winter. 
> > > 
> > > In other words, glorified solar energy.  Solar energy stored and averaged 
> > > out over many, many years. 
> > > 
> > 
> > (3) 
> > On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 8:44:12 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Admit it, you were fooled by a "This Old House" type show where they 
> > > use a high-tech sounding buzzword to impress people who don't know any 
> > > better. 
> > > 
> > > Just answer one question, if you can.  If it's really geothermal, why 
> > > is the temperature only 51 degrees, but in Iceland, where there's real 
> > > geothermal, they're accessing temperatures of hundreds of degrees? 
> > 
> > 
> > (4) 
> > > On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 10:40:09 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> > 
> > > > 
> > > > Pretty cool, fossil solar energy! 51 degrees, the average of summer and 
> > > > winter temperatures for hundreds or even thousands of years, depending 
> > > > on how deep they go. 
> > > > 
> > > > Too bad you do have to use real energy to run the heat pump, although it 
> > > > is much better than simply using that energy to make heat. 
> > > 
> > 
> > (5) 
> > On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 12:30:56 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> > 
> > > 
> > > It's amusing how he can't handle that at all. Just like he can't 
> > > handle the concept of permafrost when he goes off on geothermal 
> > > energy.  All he can do is attack. 
> > 
> > (6) 
> > 
> > 
> > On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 12:21:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> > 
> > > geothermal heat energy is 99% from the sun where he was (unsure where, 
> > > Mass. I think) 
> > > 
> > > Now tell us where Permafrost comes from. 
> > > 
> > > p.p.s. I was searching because I am actually looking into getting 
> > > geothermal heat. Fossil solar energy is a great resource! 
> > 
> > 
> By Archimedes Plutonium 
> ------------------------- 
> 
> SEE PICTURE DIAGRAM of FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS below, professors hate teaching this for it shows their "limit calculus to be a joke" 
> 
> PICTURE DIAGRAM OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS 
> 
> By April 2015, was there for the first time a picture diagram proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, not just an analysis argument, but a geometry proof (see below). Old Math could never assemble a picture diagram of the FTC. All they could do is argue with limit concept an analysis argument, never a geometry proof of FTC. 
> 
> A picture diagram proof of FTC changes all of calculus and thus, changes all of mathematics for it requires a infinity borderline to produce an actual number for the  infinitesimal, and that number is the inverse of the infinity borderline. Requiring a infinity borderline to produce the infinitesimal changes all of mathematics, and throwing out the limit concept. By changing all of Calculus and thus correcting mathematics, all of math before 2015 was just trash math. 
> 
> Picture Diagram needed for Fundamental Theorem of Calculus 
> 
> Why no continuum and no curves exist in Math, so that the Calculus 
> can exist, and does exist 
> 
> by Archimedes Plutonium 
> 
> Calculus is based upon there being Grid points in geometry, no 
> continuum, but actually, empty space between two neighboring points. 
> This is called Discrete geometry, and in physics, this is called 
> Quantum Mechanics. In 10 Grid, the first few numbers are 0, .1, .2, 
> .3, etc. That means there does not exist any number between 0 and .1, 
> no number exists between .1 and .2. Now if you want more precise 
> numbers, you go to a higher Grid like that of 100 Grid where the first 
> few numbers are 0, .01, .02, .03, etc. 
> 
> Calculus in order to exist at all, needs this empty space between 
> consecutive numbers or successor numbers. It needs that empty space so 
> that the integral of calculus is actually small rectangles whose 
> interior area is not zero. So in 10 Grid, the smallest width of any 
> Calculus rectangle is of width .1. In 100 Grid the smallest width is 
> .01. 
> 
> But, this revolutionary understanding of Calculus does not stop with 
> the Integral, for having empty space between numbers, means no curves 
> in math exist, but are ever tinier straight-line segments. 
> 
> It also means, that the Derivative in Calculus is part and parcel of 
> the function graph itself. So that in a function such as y = x^2, the 
> function graph is the derivative at a point. In Old Math, they had the 
> folly and idiocy of a foreign, alien tangent line to a function graph 
> as derivative. In New Math, the derivative is the same as the function 
> graph itself. And, this makes commonsense, utter commonsense, for the 
> derivative is a prediction of the future of the function in question, 
> and no way in the world can a foreign tangent line to a point on the 
> function be able to predict, be able to tell where the future point of 
> that function be. The only predictor of a future point of a function, 
> is the function graph itself. 
> 
> If the Calculus was done correctly, conceived correctly, then a 
> minimal diagram explains all of Calculus. Old Math never had such a 
> diagram, because Old Math was in total error of what Calculus is, and 
> what Calculus does. 
> 
> The fundamental picture of all of Calculus are these two of a 
> trapezoid and rectangle. In fact, call the picture, the 
> 
> FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS, Picture 
> 
> Trapezoid for derivative as the roof-top of 
> the trapezoid, which must be a straight-line segment. If it is curved, 
> you cannot fold it down to form a integral rectangle. And the 
> rectangle for integral as area. 
> 
> From this: 
>         B 
>         /| 
>       /  | 
>  A /----| 
>   /      | 
> |        | 
> |____| 
> 
> 
> The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative) 
> so that it can be hinged at A, and swiveled down to form rectangle for 
> integral. 
> 
> To this: 
> 
> ______ 
> |         | 
> |         | 
> |         | 
> --------- 
> 
> And the derivative of x= A, above is merely the dy/dx involving points 
> A and B. Thus, it can never be a curve in Calculus. And the AB is part 
> of the function graph itself. No curves exist in mathematics and no 
> continuum exists in mathematics. 
> 
> In the above we see that CALCULUS needs and requires a diagram in 
> which you can go from derivative to integral, or go from integral to 
> derivative, by simply a hinge down to form a rectangle for area, or a 
> hinge up to form the derivative from a given rectangle. 
> 
> Why in Old Math could no professor of math ever do the Calculus 
> Diagram? Why? The answer is simple, no-one in Old Math pays attention 
> to Logic, and that no-one in Old Math was required to take formal 
> Logic when they attended school. So a person bereft of Logic, is never 
> going to find mistakes of Logic and think clear and think straight. 
> 
> by Archimedes Plutonium 
> ------------------ 
> ------------------- 
> 
> 
> 
> Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall 
> 
> 12 PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon 
> by Archimedes Plutonium 
> 
> Proofs that the Real Electron=muon and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall 
> > 
> PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon 
> 
> 1st proof is chemical bonding cannot exist with momentum of 938 versus .5MeV 
> Chemical Bonds are covalent, ionic, metallic. You simply cannot get atoms to bond if the electron is thought of as the .5MeV particle, only with a muon at 105 MeV and the proton at 840 MeV with neutron at 945 MeV do you have the physics of angular momentum that allows bonding in Chemistry. The .5MeV particle was, all along a magnetic monopole of a photon with .5 MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy. 
> 
> AP

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

#416514 — Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test

Did those Russian saboteurs really think that any school in the US would
*ever* let such crap "True Math" within a mile of their school??

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

#416586 — William Bertozzi, Robert Birgeneau, Hale Bradt, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker, -- do you incite Moroney to bully stalk? Erroneous--percentage &Calculus &Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole

William Bertozzi, Robert Birgeneau, Hale Bradt, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker, -- do you incite Moroney to bully stalk? Erroneous--percentage &Calculus &Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole 

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 11:58:58 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> *ever* let such crap "True Math" within a mile of their school??



On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 10:29:18 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> Back to attacking, 


Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test Group: sci.math (Member) 
... too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test. More repost of ad hominem against me. Do you need to be punished? 
Jun 2 by Michael Moroney 


Gary Feldman, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker,Douglas Finkbeiner, Melissa Franklin -- Moroney asks why you keep failing with identity of Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole 


AP writes: Google has abuse, but what good is that when it cannot recognize a 26 year long stalker Moroney with his ad hominem bully stalking-- never any math or physics. I have asked Google to engineer a delete key to original authors of threads, so that would eliminate bully stalkers, if the author so desires. 

Paul Joss, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon -- Moroney asks why you keep failing with identity of Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole 
  

> 
> percentage for Moroney, 938 is what percent short of 945 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> > 
> > Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon. 
> > Hardly "exactly" 9 muons. 
> 
> Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > 
> > Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass 
> > of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short. 
> 
> AP writes: 
> Does the state of Massachusetts ever have education reviews. For here is a stalker of Moroney for 25 years-- obsessive stalker of AP, and only AP, says he is a electrical engineer yet never admits to mistakes that 938 is not 12% short of 945, but only .7% short, less than 1% short. So what kind of engineer is it from Barry Shein's std.com, that cannot even do a percentage correctly and never admits to mistakes, only stalks and harasses other people who do know math and science. 
> 
> Why is std.com so hateful of the tv program THIS OLD HOUSE, when I have learned so much from that show. 
> 

> 
> Why is std.com such a antiscience ISP, with Moroney hating percentage problem, hating geothermal-- is std.com the worst isp for science in Boston, or is Barry Shein topped by someone else? 
> 
> 
> 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* 
> 
>    /\-------/\ 
>    \::O:::O::/ 
>   (::_  ^  _::) 
>    \_`-----'_/ 
> You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Boston? 
> And, even though you-- professors of physics, want to remain stupid in Real Electron=105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, and .5MeV was Dirac's magnetic monopole, your students deserve better. 
> 
> Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole 
> 
> President Larry Summers 
> 
> 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 
> 
> 
> Can someone in the Boston area make sure this numbskull is never a science teacher in Boston-- and the damage he can do to a classroom 
> 
> Mike Moroney, science failure-- on geothermal 
> 
> 
> (1) 
> On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 12:15:22 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > 
> > There are some places here that use "geothermal" for heating and cooling 
> > but even these are solar power in disguise.  They pump water from wells 
> > from where the temperature is the average over many years and extract heat 
> > from it (in the winter) and dump heat into it (in the summer) and pump the 
> > water back into the ground.  The water is about 55F out of the ground. 
> 
> 
> 
> (2) 
> On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 1:31:27 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:   
> 
> > 
> > >Just as a point of order, what you described is not geothermal. What 
> > >you've just described is thermal balancing with water, using water 
> > >cooler than air from the water table to cool a building in the summer, 
> > >and using water warmer than air from the water table to warm a building 
> > >in the winter. 
> > 
> > In other words, glorified solar energy.  Solar energy stored and averaged 
> > out over many, many years. 
> > 
> 
> (3) 
> On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 8:44:12 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > 
> > Admit it, you were fooled by a "This Old House" type show where they 
> > use a high-tech sounding buzzword to impress people who don't know any 
> > better. 
> > 
> > Just answer one question, if you can.  If it's really geothermal, why 
> > is the temperature only 51 degrees, but in Iceland, where there's real 
> > geothermal, they're accessing temperatures of hundreds of degrees? 
> 
> 
> (4) 
> > On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 10:40:09 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > > 
> > > Pretty cool, fossil solar energy! 51 degrees, the average of summer and 
> > > winter temperatures for hundreds or even thousands of years, depending 
> > > on how deep they go. 
> > > 
> > > Too bad you do have to use real energy to run the heat pump, although it 
> > > is much better than simply using that energy to make heat. 
> > 
> 
> (5) 
> On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 12:30:56 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > 
> > It's amusing how he can't handle that at all. Just like he can't 
> > handle the concept of permafrost when he goes off on geothermal 
> > energy.  All he can do is attack. 
> 
> (6) 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 12:21:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > geothermal heat energy is 99% from the sun where he was (unsure where, 
> > Mass. I think) 
> > 
> > Now tell us where Permafrost comes from. 
> > 
> > p.p.s. I was searching because I am actually looking into getting 
> > geothermal heat. Fossil solar energy is a great resource! 
> 
> 
By Archimedes Plutonium 
------------------------- 

SEE PICTURE DIAGRAM of FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS below, professors hate teaching this for it shows their "limit calculus to be a joke" 

PICTURE DIAGRAM OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS 

By April 2015, was there for the first time a picture diagram proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, not just an analysis argument, but a geometry proof (see below). Old Math could never assemble a picture diagram of the FTC. All they could do is argue with limit concept an analysis argument, never a geometry proof of FTC. 

A picture diagram proof of FTC changes all of calculus and thus, changes all of mathematics for it requires a infinity borderline to produce an actual number for the  infinitesimal, and that number is the inverse of the infinity borderline. Requiring a infinity borderline to produce the infinitesimal changes all of mathematics, and throwing out the limit concept. By changing all of Calculus and thus correcting mathematics, all of math before 2015 was just trash math. 

Picture Diagram needed for Fundamental Theorem of Calculus 

Why no continuum and no curves exist in Math, so that the Calculus 
can exist, and does exist 

by Archimedes Plutonium 

Calculus is based upon there being Grid points in geometry, no 
continuum, but actually, empty space between two neighboring points. 
This is called Discrete geometry, and in physics, this is called 
Quantum Mechanics. In 10 Grid, the first few numbers are 0, .1, .2, 
.3, etc. That means there does not exist any number between 0 and .1, 
no number exists between .1 and .2. Now if you want more precise 
numbers, you go to a higher Grid like that of 100 Grid where the first 
few numbers are 0, .01, .02, .03, etc. 

Calculus in order to exist at all, needs this empty space between 
consecutive numbers or successor numbers. It needs that empty space so 
that the integral of calculus is actually small rectangles whose 
interior area is not zero. So in 10 Grid, the smallest width of any 
Calculus rectangle is of width .1. In 100 Grid the smallest width is 
.01. 

But, this revolutionary understanding of Calculus does not stop with 
the Integral, for having empty space between numbers, means no curves 
in math exist, but are ever tinier straight-line segments. 

It also means, that the Derivative in Calculus is part and parcel of 
the function graph itself. So that in a function such as y = x^2, the 
function graph is the derivative at a point. In Old Math, they had the 
folly and idiocy of a foreign, alien tangent line to a function graph 
as derivative. In New Math, the derivative is the same as the function 
graph itself. And, this makes commonsense, utter commonsense, for the 
derivative is a prediction of the future of the function in question, 
and no way in the world can a foreign tangent line to a point on the 
function be able to predict, be able to tell where the future point of 
that function be. The only predictor of a future point of a function, 
is the function graph itself. 

If the Calculus was done correctly, conceived correctly, then a 
minimal diagram explains all of Calculus. Old Math never had such a 
diagram, because Old Math was in total error of what Calculus is, and 
what Calculus does. 

The fundamental picture of all of Calculus are these two of a 
trapezoid and rectangle. In fact, call the picture, the 

FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS, Picture 

Trapezoid for derivative as the roof-top of 
the trapezoid, which must be a straight-line segment. If it is curved, 
you cannot fold it down to form a integral rectangle. And the 
rectangle for integral as area. 

From this: 
        B 
        /| 
      /  | 
 A /----| 
  /      | 
|        | 
|____| 


The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative) 
so that it can be hinged at A, and swiveled down to form rectangle for 
integral. 

To this: 

______ 
|         | 
|         | 
|         | 
--------- 

And the derivative of x= A, above is merely the dy/dx involving points 
A and B. Thus, it can never be a curve in Calculus. And the AB is part 
of the function graph itself. No curves exist in mathematics and no 
continuum exists in mathematics. 

In the above we see that CALCULUS needs and requires a diagram in 
which you can go from derivative to integral, or go from integral to 
derivative, by simply a hinge down to form a rectangle for area, or a 
hinge up to form the derivative from a given rectangle. 

Why in Old Math could no professor of math ever do the Calculus 
Diagram? Why? The answer is simple, no-one in Old Math pays attention 
to Logic, and that no-one in Old Math was required to take formal 
Logic when they attended school. So a person bereft of Logic, is never 
going to find mistakes of Logic and think clear and think straight. 

by Archimedes Plutonium 
------------------ 
------------------- 



Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall 

12 PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon 
by Archimedes Plutonium 

Proofs that the Real Electron=muon and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall 
> 
PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon 

1st proof is chemical bonding cannot exist with momentum of 938 versus .5MeV 
Chemical Bonds are covalent, ionic, metallic. You simply cannot get atoms to bond if the electron is thought of as the .5MeV particle, only with a muon at 105 MeV and the proton at 840 MeV with neutron at 945 MeV do you have the physics of angular momentum that allows bonding in Chemistry. The .5MeV particle was, all along a magnetic monopole of a photon with .5 MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy. 

AP

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

#416616 — Bernard Burke, George Clark , Jeffrey Goldstone, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker, -- do you incite Moroney to bully stalk? Erroneous--percentage &Calculus //Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole

Bernard Burke, George Clark , Jeffrey Goldstone, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker, -- do you incite Moroney to bully stalk? Erroneous--percentage &Calculus //Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole


> 
> On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 10:29:18 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> > Back to attacking, 
> 
> 
> Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test Group: sci.math (Member) 
> ... too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test. More repost of ad hominem against me. Do you need to be punished? 
> Jun 2 by Michael Moroney 
> 
> 
> Gary Feldman, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker,Douglas Finkbeiner, Melissa Franklin -- Moroney asks why you keep failing with identity of Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole 
> 
> 
> AP writes: Google has abuse, but what good is that when it cannot recognize a 26 year long stalker Moroney with his ad hominem bully stalking-- never any math or physics. I have asked Google to engineer a delete key to original authors of threads, so that would eliminate bully stalkers, if the author so desires. 
> 
> Paul Joss, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon -- Moroney asks why you keep failing with identity of Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole 
>   
> 
> > 
> > percentage for Moroney, 938 is what percent short of 945 
> > 
> > 
> > On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> > > 
> > > Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon. 
> > > Hardly "exactly" 9 muons. 
> > 
> > Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass 
> > > of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short. 
> > 
> > AP writes: 
> > Does the state of Massachusetts ever have education reviews. For here is a stalker of Moroney for 25 years-- obsessive stalker of AP, and only AP, says he is a electrical engineer yet never admits to mistakes that 938 is not 12% short of 945, but only .7% short, less than 1% short. So what kind of engineer is it from Barry Shein's std.com, that cannot even do a percentage correctly and never admits to mistakes, only stalks and harasses other people who do know math and science. 
> > 
> > Why is std.com so hateful of the tv program THIS OLD HOUSE, when I have learned so much from that show. 
> > 
> 
> > 
> > Why is std.com such a antiscience ISP, with Moroney hating percentage problem, hating geothermal-- is std.com the worst isp for science in Boston, or is Barry Shein topped by someone else? 
> > 
> > 
> > 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* 
> > 
> >    /\-------/\ 
> >    \::O:::O::/ 
> >   (::_  ^  _::) 
> >    \_`-----'_/ 
> > You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Boston? 
> > And, even though you-- professors of physics, want to remain stupid in Real Electron=105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, and .5MeV was Dirac's magnetic monopole, your students deserve better. 
> > 
> > Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole 
> > 
> > President Larry Summers 
> > 
> > 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 
> > 
> > 
> > Can someone in the Boston area make sure this numbskull is never a science teacher in Boston-- and the damage he can do to a classroom 
> > 
> > Mike Moroney, science failure-- on geothermal 
> > 
> > 
> > (1) 
> > On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 12:15:22 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> > 
> > > 
> > > There are some places here that use "geothermal" for heating and cooling 
> > > but even these are solar power in disguise.  They pump water from wells 
> > > from where the temperature is the average over many years and extract heat 
> > > from it (in the winter) and dump heat into it (in the summer) and pump the 
> > > water back into the ground.  The water is about 55F out of the ground. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > (2) 
> > On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 1:31:27 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:   
> > 
> > > 
> > > >Just as a point of order, what you described is not geothermal. What 
> > > >you've just described is thermal balancing with water, using water 
> > > >cooler than air from the water table to cool a building in the summer, 
> > > >and using water warmer than air from the water table to warm a building 
> > > >in the winter. 
> > > 
> > > In other words, glorified solar energy.  Solar energy stored and averaged 
> > > out over many, many years. 
> > > 
> > 
> > (3) 
> > On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 8:44:12 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Admit it, you were fooled by a "This Old House" type show where they 
> > > use a high-tech sounding buzzword to impress people who don't know any 
> > > better. 
> > > 
> > > Just answer one question, if you can.  If it's really geothermal, why 
> > > is the temperature only 51 degrees, but in Iceland, where there's real 
> > > geothermal, they're accessing temperatures of hundreds of degrees? 
> > 
> > 
> > (4) 
> > > On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 10:40:09 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> > 
> > > > 
> > > > Pretty cool, fossil solar energy! 51 degrees, the average of summer and 
> > > > winter temperatures for hundreds or even thousands of years, depending 
> > > > on how deep they go. 
> > > > 
> > > > Too bad you do have to use real energy to run the heat pump, although it 
> > > > is much better than simply using that energy to make heat. 
> > > 
> > 
> > (5) 
> > On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 12:30:56 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> > 
> > > 
> > > It's amusing how he can't handle that at all. Just like he can't 
> > > handle the concept of permafrost when he goes off on geothermal 
> > > energy.  All he can do is attack. 
> > 
> > (6) 
> > 
> > 
> > On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 12:21:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> > 
> > > geothermal heat energy is 99% from the sun where he was (unsure where, 
> > > Mass. I think) 
> > > 
> > > Now tell us where Permafrost comes from. 
> > > 
> > > p.p.s. I was searching because I am actually looking into getting 
> > > geothermal heat. Fossil solar energy is a great resource! 
> > 
> > 
> By Archimedes Plutonium 
> ------------------------- 
> 
> SEE PICTURE DIAGRAM of FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS below, professors hate teaching this for it shows their "limit calculus to be a joke" 
> 
> PICTURE DIAGRAM OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS 
> 
> By April 2015, was there for the first time a picture diagram proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, not just an analysis argument, but a geometry proof (see below). Old Math could never assemble a picture diagram of the FTC. All they could do is argue with limit concept an analysis argument, never a geometry proof of FTC. 
> 
> A picture diagram proof of FTC changes all of calculus and thus, changes all of mathematics for it requires a infinity borderline to produce an actual number for the  infinitesimal, and that number is the inverse of the infinity borderline. Requiring a infinity borderline to produce the infinitesimal changes all of mathematics, and throwing out the limit concept. By changing all of Calculus and thus correcting mathematics, all of math before 2015 was just trash math. 
> 
> Picture Diagram needed for Fundamental Theorem of Calculus 
> 
> Why no continuum and no curves exist in Math, so that the Calculus 
> can exist, and does exist 
> 
> by Archimedes Plutonium 
> 
> Calculus is based upon there being Grid points in geometry, no 
> continuum, but actually, empty space between two neighboring points. 
> This is called Discrete geometry, and in physics, this is called 
> Quantum Mechanics. In 10 Grid, the first few numbers are 0, .1, .2, 
> .3, etc. That means there does not exist any number between 0 and .1, 
> no number exists between .1 and .2. Now if you want more precise 
> numbers, you go to a higher Grid like that of 100 Grid where the first 
> few numbers are 0, .01, .02, .03, etc. 
> 
> Calculus in order to exist at all, needs this empty space between 
> consecutive numbers or successor numbers. It needs that empty space so 
> that the integral of calculus is actually small rectangles whose 
> interior area is not zero. So in 10 Grid, the smallest width of any 
> Calculus rectangle is of width .1. In 100 Grid the smallest width is 
> .01. 
> 
> But, this revolutionary understanding of Calculus does not stop with 
> the Integral, for having empty space between numbers, means no curves 
> in math exist, but are ever tinier straight-line segments. 
> 
> It also means, that the Derivative in Calculus is part and parcel of 
> the function graph itself. So that in a function such as y = x^2, the 
> function graph is the derivative at a point. In Old Math, they had the 
> folly and idiocy of a foreign, alien tangent line to a function graph 
> as derivative. In New Math, the derivative is the same as the function 
> graph itself. And, this makes commonsense, utter commonsense, for the 
> derivative is a prediction of the future of the function in question, 
> and no way in the world can a foreign tangent line to a point on the 
> function be able to predict, be able to tell where the future point of 
> that function be. The only predictor of a future point of a function, 
> is the function graph itself. 
> 
> If the Calculus was done correctly, conceived correctly, then a 
> minimal diagram explains all of Calculus. Old Math never had such a 
> diagram, because Old Math was in total error of what Calculus is, and 
> what Calculus does. 
> 
> The fundamental picture of all of Calculus are these two of a 
> trapezoid and rectangle. In fact, call the picture, the 
> 
> FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS, Picture 
> 
> Trapezoid for derivative as the roof-top of 
> the trapezoid, which must be a straight-line segment. If it is curved, 
> you cannot fold it down to form a integral rectangle. And the 
> rectangle for integral as area. 
> 
> From this: 
>         B 
>         /| 
>       /  | 
>  A /----| 
>   /      | 
> |        | 
> |____| 
> 
> 
> The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative) 
> so that it can be hinged at A, and swiveled down to form rectangle for 
> integral. 
> 
> To this: 
> 
> ______ 
> |         | 
> |         | 
> |         | 
> --------- 
> 
> And the derivative of x= A, above is merely the dy/dx involving points 
> A and B. Thus, it can never be a curve in Calculus. And the AB is part 
> of the function graph itself. No curves exist in mathematics and no 
> continuum exists in mathematics. 
> 
> In the above we see that CALCULUS needs and requires a diagram in 
> which you can go from derivative to integral, or go from integral to 
> derivative, by simply a hinge down to form a rectangle for area, or a 
> hinge up to form the derivative from a given rectangle. 
> 
> Why in Old Math could no professor of math ever do the Calculus 
> Diagram? Why? The answer is simple, no-one in Old Math pays attention 
> to Logic, and that no-one in Old Math was required to take formal 
> Logic when they attended school. So a person bereft of Logic, is never 
> going to find mistakes of Logic and think clear and think straight. 
> 
> by Archimedes Plutonium 
> ------------------ 
> ------------------- 
> 
> 
> 
> Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall 
> 
> 12 PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon 
> by Archimedes Plutonium 
> 
> Proofs that the Real Electron=muon and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall 
> > 
> PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon 
> 
> 1st proof is chemical bonding cannot exist with momentum of 938 versus .5MeV 
> Chemical Bonds are covalent, ionic, metallic. You simply cannot get atoms to bond if the electron is thought of as the .5MeV particle, only with a muon at 105 MeV and the proton at 840 MeV with neutron at 945 MeV do you have the physics of angular momentum that allows bonding in Chemistry. The .5MeV particle was, all along a magnetic monopole of a photon with .5 MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy. 
> 
> AP

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

#416757 — Irwin Pless, Paul Schechter, James Young, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker, -- do you incite Moroney to bully stalk? Erroneous--percentage &Calculus //Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole

Irwin Pless, Paul Schechter, James Young, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker, -- do you incite Moroney to bully stalk? Erroneous--percentage &Calculus //Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole

> Irwin Pless, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon -- do you incite Moroney to every day come attack AP for doing math and physics? Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole
> 
> On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 10:29:18 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> > Back to attacking, 
> 
> 
> Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test Group: sci.math (Member) 
> ... too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test. More repost of ad hominem against me. Do you need to be punished? 
> Jun 2 by Michael Moroney 
> 
> 
> Gary Feldman, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker,Douglas Finkbeiner, Melissa Franklin -- Moroney asks why you keep failing with identity of Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole 
> 
> 
> AP writes: Google has abuse, but what good is that when it cannot recognize a 26 year long stalker Moroney with his ad hominem bully stalking-- never any math or physics. I have asked Google to engineer a delete key to original authors of threads, so that would eliminate bully stalkers, if the author so desires. 
> 
> Paul Joss, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon -- Moroney asks why you keep failing with identity of Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole 
>   
> 
> > 
> > percentage for Moroney, 938 is what percent short of 945 
> > 
> > 
> > On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> > > 
> > > Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon. 
> > > Hardly "exactly" 9 muons. 
> > 
> > Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass 
> > > of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short. 
> > 
> > AP writes: 
> > Does the state of Massachusetts ever have education reviews. For here is a stalker of Moroney for 25 years-- obsessive stalker of AP, and only AP, says he is a electrical engineer yet never admits to mistakes that 938 is not 12% short of 945, but only .7% short, less than 1% short. So what kind of engineer is it from Barry Shein's std.com, that cannot even do a percentage correctly and never admits to mistakes, only stalks and harasses other people who do know math and science. 
> > 
> > Why is std.com so hateful of the tv program THIS OLD HOUSE, when I have learned so much from that show. 
> > 
> 
> > 
> > Why is std.com such a antiscience ISP, with Moroney hating percentage problem, hating geothermal-- is std.com the worst isp for science in Boston, or is Barry Shein topped by someone else? 
> > 
> > 
> > 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 
> > 
> >    /\-------/\ 
> >    \::O:::O::/ 
> >   (::_  ^  _::) 
> >    \_`-----'_/ 
> > You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Boston? 
> > And, even though you-- professors of physics, want to remain stupid in Real Electron=105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, and .5MeV was Dirac's magnetic monopole, your students deserve better. 
> > 
> > Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole 
> > 
> > President Larry Summers 
> > 
> > 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 
> > 
> > 
> > Can someone in the Boston area make sure this numbskull is never a science teacher in Boston-- and the damage he can do to a classroom 
> > 
> > Mike Moroney, science failure-- on geothermal 
> > 
> > 
> > (1) 
> > On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 12:15:22 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> > 
> > > 
> > > There are some places here that use "geothermal" for heating and cooling 
> > > but even these are solar power in disguise.  They pump water from wells 
> > > from where the temperature is the average over many years and extract heat 
> > > from it (in the winter) and dump heat into it (in the summer) and pump the 
> > > water back into the ground.  The water is about 55F out of the ground. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > (2) 
> > On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 1:31:27 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:   
> > 
> > > 
> > > >Just as a point of order, what you described is not geothermal. What 
> > > >you've just described is thermal balancing with water, using water 
> > > >cooler than air from the water table to cool a building in the summer, 
> > > >and using water warmer than air from the water table to warm a building 
> > > >in the winter. 
> > > 
> > > In other words, glorified solar energy.  Solar energy stored and averaged 
> > > out over many, many years. 
> > > 
> > 
> > (3) 
> > On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 8:44:12 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Admit it, you were fooled by a "This Old House" type show where they 
> > > use a high-tech sounding buzzword to impress people who don't know any 
> > > better. 
> > > 
> > > Just answer one question, if you can.  If it's really geothermal, why 
> > > is the temperature only 51 degrees, but in Iceland, where there's real 
> > > geothermal, they're accessing temperatures of hundreds of degrees? 
> > 
> > 
> > (4) 
> > > On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 10:40:09 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> > 
> > > > 
> > > > Pretty cool, fossil solar energy! 51 degrees, the average of summer and 
> > > > winter temperatures for hundreds or even thousands of years, depending 
> > > > on how deep they go. 
> > > > 
> > > > Too bad you do have to use real energy to run the heat pump, although it 
> > > > is much better than simply using that energy to make heat. 
> > > 
> > 
> > (5) 
> > On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 12:30:56 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> > 
> > > 
> > > It's amusing how he can't handle that at all. Just like he can't 
> > > handle the concept of permafrost when he goes off on geothermal 
> > > energy.  All he can do is attack. 
> > 
> > (6) 
> > 
> > 
> > On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 12:21:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> > 
> > > geothermal heat energy is 99% from the sun where he was (unsure where, 
> > > Mass. I think) 
> > > 
> > > Now tell us where Permafrost comes from. 
> > > 
> > > p.p.s. I was searching because I am actually looking into getting 
> > > geothermal heat. Fossil solar energy is a great resource! 
> > 
> > 
> By Archimedes Plutonium 
> ------------------------- 
> 
> SEE PICTURE DIAGRAM of FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS below, professors hate teaching this for it shows their "limit calculus to be a joke" 
> 
> PICTURE DIAGRAM OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS 
> 
> By April 2015, was there for the first time a picture diagram proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, not just an analysis argument, but a geometry proof (see below). Old Math could never assemble a picture diagram of the FTC. All they could do is argue with limit concept an analysis argument, never a geometry proof of FTC. 
> 
> A picture diagram proof of FTC changes all of calculus and thus, changes all of mathematics for it requires a infinity borderline to produce an actual number for the  infinitesimal, and that number is the inverse of the infinity borderline. Requiring a infinity borderline to produce the infinitesimal changes all of mathematics, and throwing out the limit concept. By changing all of Calculus and thus correcting mathematics, all of math before 2015 was just trash math. 
> 
> Picture Diagram needed for Fundamental Theorem of Calculus 
> 
> Why no continuum and no curves exist in Math, so that the Calculus 
> can exist, and does exist 
> 
> by Archimedes Plutonium 
> 
> Calculus is based upon there being Grid points in geometry, no 
> continuum, but actually, empty space between two neighboring points. 
> This is called Discrete geometry, and in physics, this is called 
> Quantum Mechanics. In 10 Grid, the first few numbers are 0, .1, .2, 
> .3, etc. That means there does not exist any number between 0 and .1, 
> no number exists between .1 and .2. Now if you want more precise 
> numbers, you go to a higher Grid like that of 100 Grid where the first 
> few numbers are 0, .01, .02, .03, etc. 
> 
> Calculus in order to exist at all, needs this empty space between 
> consecutive numbers or successor numbers. It needs that empty space so 
> that the integral of calculus is actually small rectangles whose 
> interior area is not zero. So in 10 Grid, the smallest width of any 
> Calculus rectangle is of width .1. In 100 Grid the smallest width is 
> .01. 
> 
> But, this revolutionary understanding of Calculus does not stop with 
> the Integral, for having empty space between numbers, means no curves 
> in math exist, but are ever tinier straight-line segments. 
> 
> It also means, that the Derivative in Calculus is part and parcel of 
> the function graph itself. So that in a function such as y = x^2, the 
> function graph is the derivative at a point. In Old Math, they had the 
> folly and idiocy of a foreign, alien tangent line to a function graph 
> as derivative. In New Math, the derivative is the same as the function 
> graph itself. And, this makes commonsense, utter commonsense, for the 
> derivative is a prediction of the future of the function in question, 
> and no way in the world can a foreign tangent line to a point on the 
> function be able to predict, be able to tell where the future point of 
> that function be. The only predictor of a future point of a function, 
> is the function graph itself. 
> 
> If the Calculus was done correctly, conceived correctly, then a 
> minimal diagram explains all of Calculus. Old Math never had such a 
> diagram, because Old Math was in total error of what Calculus is, and 
> what Calculus does. 
> 
> The fundamental picture of all of Calculus are these two of a 
> trapezoid and rectangle. In fact, call the picture, the 
> 
> FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS, Picture 
> 
> Trapezoid for derivative as the roof-top of 
> the trapezoid, which must be a straight-line segment. If it is curved, 
> you cannot fold it down to form a integral rectangle. And the 
> rectangle for integral as area. 
> 
> From this: 
>         B 
>         /| 
>       /  | 
>  A /----| 
>   /      | 
> |        | 
> |____| 
> 
> 
> The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative) 
> so that it can be hinged at A, and swiveled down to form rectangle for 
> integral. 
> 
> To this: 
> 
> ______ 
> |         | 
> |         | 
> |         | 
> --------- 
> 
> And the derivative of x= A, above is merely the dy/dx involving points 
> A and B. Thus, it can never be a curve in Calculus. And the AB is part 
> of the function graph itself. No curves exist in mathematics and no 
> continuum exists in mathematics. 
> 
> In the above we see that CALCULUS needs and requires a diagram in 
> which you can go from derivative to integral, or go from integral to 
> derivative, by simply a hinge down to form a rectangle for area, or a 
> hinge up to form the derivative from a given rectangle. 
> 
> Why in Old Math could no professor of math ever do the Calculus 
> Diagram? Why? The answer is simple, no-one in Old Math pays attention 
> to Logic, and that no-one in Old Math was required to take formal 
> Logic when they attended school. So a person bereft of Logic, is never 
> going to find mistakes of Logic and think clear and think straight. 
> 
> by Archimedes Plutonium 
> ------------------ 
> ------------------- 
> 
> 
> 
> Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall 
> 
> 12 PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon 
> by Archimedes Plutonium 
> 
> Proofs that the Real Electron=muon and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall 
> > 
> PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon 
> 
> 1st proof is chemical bonding cannot exist with momentum of 938 versus .5MeV 
> Chemical Bonds are covalent, ionic, metallic. You simply cannot get atoms to bond if the electron is thought of as the .5MeV particle, only with a muon at 105 MeV and the proton at 840 MeV with neutron at 945 MeV do you have the physics of angular momentum that allows bonding in Chemistry. The .5MeV particle was, all along a magnetic monopole of a photon with .5 MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy. 
> 
> AP

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web