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

Groups > sci.math > #423633 > unrolled thread

Racist Mathematicians Re: Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Racist Mathematicians Re: Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-15 04:17 -0700
    Re: Racist Mathematicians Re: Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-16 02:39 +0000
    Malum loves AP's discovery that Starpower is 90% Faraday law on hydrogen & helium, turning Space in magnetic monopoles. Does Bo Thide, Max Tegmark, Cecilia Jarlskog, Carl XVI Gustaf, also love AP's starpower theory?? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-20 00:58 -0700

#423633 — Racist Mathematicians Re: Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

 

On Saturday, September 15, 2018 at 5:49:54 AM UTC-5, bert wrote:
> 
> It is you, AP, who by that definition are the "Racist" 
> who hates all the mathematicians who disagree with him.
> 

AP writes: here is the definition of Racist Mathematician:
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2018 03:05:43 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Defining— Racist Mathematician & Racist Scientist
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2018 10:05:44 +0000

Defining— Racist Mathematician & Racist Scientist

Racist Mathematician & Scientist definition— this is a person or group of people who reject a idea or proof or experiment on simply the grounds of who the person was that gave the idea, proof, or experiment. Hatred of the source. Racists ignore or deny the truth because they hate the source. 

Most people think Racist Mathematicians are rare. But sci.math from 1993 to 2018 is proving that the majority of math professors are Racists, e.g. the AP proof ellipse is never a conic cut, but rather a cylinder cut. 


AP further writes:: And what Rascist Mathematicians like Wiles do, is encourage his students to go out and attack and mock AP, just like Bert. For Bert nor Wiles can sit down and read this proof below that the ellipse is never a conic section. No, all they can do, day and night-- chatter box their hatred.


Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 22:31:28 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: AP's proof the ellipse is never a Conic Section, always a Cylinder
 section, and how the proof works
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2018 05:31:29 +0000


AP's proof the ellipse is never a Conic Section, always a Cylinder section, and how the proof works

Let us analyze AP's Proof 

On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 6:57:36 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 

> 
> Array:: Analytic Geometry proof that Cylinder section= Ellipse//Conic 
> section = Oval, never ellipse 
> 
> Now I did 3 Experiments and 3 models of the problem, but it turns out 
> that one model is superior over all the other models. One model is the 
> best of all. 
> 
> That model is where you construct a cone and a cylinder and then 
> implant a circle inside the cone and cylinder attached to a handle so 
> that you can rotate the circle inside. Mine uses a long nail that I 
> poked holes into the side of a cylinder and another one inside a cone 
> made from heavy wax paper of magazine covers. And I used a Mason or 
> Kerr used lid and I attached them to the nail by drilling two holes 
> into each lid and running a wire as fastener. All of this done so I 
> can rotate or pivot the circle inside the cylinder and cone. You need 
> a long nail, for if you make the models too small or too skinny, you 
> lose clarity. 
> 
> ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse:: 
> 
> 
>               E 
>              __ 
>       .-'              `-. 
>     .'                    `. 
>   /                         \ 
>  ;                           ; 
> | G          c              | H 
>  ;                           ; 
>   \                         / 
>    `.                     .' 
>       `-.    _____  .-' 
>                 F 
> 


Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E 

In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry. 

The side view of a cylinder is this 

|    | 
|    | 
|    | 

That allows cE to be the same distance as cF 


But the side view of the cone is 

     /\E 
    /c \ 
F /     \ 


The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF make that distance larger than cE 

> The above is a view of a ellipse with center c and is produced by the 
> Sectioning of a Cylinder as long as the cut is not perpendicular to 
> the base, and as long as the cut involves two points not larger than 
> the height of the cylinder walls. What we want to prove is that the 
> cut is always a ellipse, which is a plane figure of two axes of 
> symmetry with a Major Axis and Minor Axis and center at c. 
> 
> Side view of Cylinder EGFH above with entry point cut at E and exit 
> point cut at F and where c denotes the central axis of the cylinder 
> and where x denotes a circle at c parallel with the base-circle of 
> cylinder 
> 
> |                              | 
> |                              | E 
> |                              | 
> |                              | 
> |x            c              |x 
> |                              | 
> |                              | 
> |                              | 
> |F                            | 
> |                              | 
> |                              | 
> |                              | 
> 
> 

So we can see that the distance cE = cF in cylinder for the walls are Parallel to one another, giving distance symmetry 

But in the Cone, the walls are not parallel, shortening the distance cE compared to cF. Leaving only one axis of symmetry that of cx. The oval is the conic section of a cut at a slant, while the cylinder cut at a slant is a ellipse. The Oval has just one axis of symmetry. 

> So, what is the proof that figure EGFH is always an ellipse in the 
> cylinder section? The line segment GH is the diameter of the circle 
> base of cylinder and the cylinder axis cuts this diameter in half such 
> that Gc = cH. Now we only need to show that Fc = cE. This is done from 
> the right triangles cxF and cxE, for we note that by Angle-Side-Angle 
> these two right triangles are congruent and hence Fc = cE, our second 
> axis of symmetry and thus figure EGFH is always an ellipse. QED 
> 
> 
> 
> Array proof:: Analytic Geometry proof that Conic section= Oval// never ellipse 
> 
> ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Conic Section is a Oval, never an ellipse:: 
> 
> 
>          A 
>       ,'"   "`. 
>    /            \ 
> C |     c       | D 
>  \               / 
>     ` . ___ .' 
>          B 
> 
> The above is a view of a figure formed from the cut of a conic with 
> center c as the axis of the cone and is produced by the Sectioning of 
> a Cone as long as the cut is not perpendicular to the base, and as 
> long as the cut is not a hyperbola, parabola or circle (nor line). 
> What we want to prove is that this cut is always a oval, never an 
> ellipse. An oval is defined as a plane figure of just one axis of 
> symmetry and possessing a center, c, with a Major Diameter as the axis 
> of symmetry and a Minor Diameter. In our diagram above, the major 
> diameter is AB and minor diameter is CD. 
> 
> Alright, almost the same as with Cylinder section where we proved the 
> center was half way between Major Axis and Minor Axis of cylinder, 
> only in the case of the Conic, we find that the center is half way 
> between CD the Minor Diameter, but the center is not halfway in 
> between the Major Diameter, and all of that because of the reason the 
> slanted walls of the cone cause the distance cA to be far smaller than 
> the distance cB. In the diagram below we have the circle of x centered 
> at c and parallel to base. The angle at cx is not 90 degrees as in 
> cylinder. The angle of cAx is not the same as the angle cBx, as in the 
> case of the cylinder, because the walls of the cone-for line segments- 
> are slanted versus parallel in the cylinder. Triangles cAx and cBx are 
> not congruent, and thus, the distance of cA is not equal to cB, 
> leaving only one axis of symmetry AB, not CD. 
> 
>      /  \A 
>  x/  c  \x 
> B/         \ 
> 
> Hence, every cut in the Cone, not a hyperbola, not a parabola, not a 
> circle (not a line) is a Oval, never an ellipse. 
> 
> QED 
> 
> --Archimedes Plutonium 
> 
> Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH 
> ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu 
> 
> 
>                 ::\ ::|:: /:: 
>                  ::\::|::/:: 
>                      _ _ 
>                     (:Y:) 
>                      - - 
>                  ::/::|::\:: 
>                 ::/ ::|:: \:: 
> One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. 
>             . \ .  . | .   /. 
>            . . \. . .|. . /. . 
>               ..\....|.../... 
>                ::\:::|::/:: 
> ---------------      ------------- 
> --------------- (Y) ------------- 
> ---------------      -------------- 
>                ::/:::|::\:: 
>               ../....|...\... 
>            . . /. . .|. . \. . 
>             . / .  . | .   \ . 
> 
>   
> http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ 
whole entire Universe is just one big atom 
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies 
> 
> I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.       
> 
> Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. 
> 
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe         
> Archimedes Plutonium

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#423664

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:
>On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 11:56:17 PM UTC-5, Earle Jones wrote:

>> Thanks for your response.
>
>> Have you ever considered that you might be wrong?  Is that possible?
>
>> What if someone came along with a definition of "conic section" and
>> showed that the ellipse is in fact a conic section.
>
>> Could you handle it?

>AP writes: here is the definition of Racist Mathematician:
...
>Jones as far as I can make out is a Rascist Mathematician, who only wants 
>to accept the idea ellipse is not a conic, by a person who Jones likes. 
>Jones hates AP, hence, AP cannot have a proof and all of AP's math must be
>in error. Jones should never be in science or math, for he is just a 
>obnoxious rascist. And Jones should certainly not be in education. For it 


That's too bad. Archie actually had a reasonable response to Earle's
question. It was an actual attempt at showing a proof, a post that did 
not involve stalker lists or cubbyhole critters. It was an actual attempt
at explaining what Archie believed.
It was still wrong because it implicitly assumed the center of the ellipse
was on the axis of the cone, but still it was a good response.

But then this happens: Archie now accuses Earle of being a 'racist' for
questioning Archie's blithering? Perhaps the stupidity demons that haunt
Archie's mind were caught asleep at the switch when Archie replied to
Earle, so they decided to more than make up for it, by coming up with
something incredibly stupid? Stupid like a person of German extraction,
therefore white, accusing others of being racists biased against him for
questioning Archie's supposed 'proofs'??

I guess Archie finally figured out that calling everyone 'gay' was going
absolutely nowhere...but he switched to calling them 'racists' instead...


Hey Al, what do you think of some German white guy who accuses anyone who
questions his babbling of being a racist discriminating against him??


"I cannot believe how incredibly stupid Archie-Poo is.  I mean rock-hard
stupid.  Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid.  Surface of Venus
under 80 atmospheres of red hot carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid vapor
dehydrated for 300 million years rock-hard stupid.  Stupid so stupid that
it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different sensorium of
stupid.  Archie-Poo is trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid.  Stupid so
collapsed upon itself that it is within its own Schwarzschild radius.  
Black hole stupid.  Stupid gotten so dense and massive that no intellect
can escape.  Singularity stupid. Archie-Poo emits more stupid/second than
our entire galaxy otherwise emits stupid/year.  Quasar stupid.  Nothing
else in the universe can be this stupid.  Archie-Poo is an oozingly
putrescent primordial fragment from the original Big Bang of Stupid, a
pure essence of stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond
the laws of physics that define maximally extrapolated hypergeometric
n-dimensional backgroundless stupid as we can imagine it.  Archie-Poo is
Planck stupid, a quantum foam of stupid, a vacuum decay of stupid, a grand
unified theory of stupid.

Archie-Poo is the epitome of stupidity, the epiphany of stupid, the
apotheosis of stupidity.  Archie-poo is stooopid."

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

#423897 — Malum loves AP's discovery that Starpower is 90% Faraday law on hydrogen & helium, turning Space in magnetic monopoles. Does Bo Thide, Max Tegmark, Cecilia Jarlskog, Carl XVI Gustaf, also love AP's starpower theory??

On Saturday, September 15, 2018 at 6:17:32 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Saturday, September 15, 2018 at 5:49:54 AM UTC-5, bert wrote:
> > 
> > It is you, AP, who by that definition are the "Racist" 
> > who hates all the mathematicians who disagree with him.
> > 
> 
> AP writes: here is the definition of Racist Mathematician:
> Newsgroups: sci.math
> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2018 03:05:43 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> Subject: Defining— Racist Mathematician & Racist Scientist
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2018 10:05:44 +0000
> 
> Defining— Racist Mathematician & Racist Scientist
> 
> Racist Mathematician & Scientist definition— this is a person or group of people who reject a idea or proof or experiment on simply the grounds of who the person was that gave the idea, proof, or experiment. Hatred of the source. Racists ignore or deny the truth because they hate the source. 
> 
> Most people think Racist Mathematicians are rare. But sci.math from 1993 to 2018 is proving that the majority of math professors are Racists, e.g. the AP proof ellipse is never a conic cut, but rather a cylinder cut. 
> 
> 
> AP further writes:: And what Rascist Mathematicians like Wiles do, is encourage his students to go out and attack and mock AP, just like Bert. For Bert nor Wiles can sit down and read this proof below that the ellipse is never a conic section. No, all they can do, day and night-- chatter box their hatred.
> 
> 
> Newsgroups: sci.math
> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 22:31:28 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> Subject: AP's proof the ellipse is never a Conic Section, always a Cylinder
>  section, and how the proof works
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2018 05:31:29 +0000
> 
> 
> AP's proof the ellipse is never a Conic Section, always a Cylinder section, and how the proof works
> 
> Let us analyze AP's Proof 
> 
> On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 6:57:36 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> 
> > 
> > Array:: Analytic Geometry proof that Cylinder section= Ellipse//Conic 
> > section = Oval, never ellipse 
> > 
> > Now I did 3 Experiments and 3 models of the problem, but it turns out 
> > that one model is superior over all the other models. One model is the 
> > best of all. 
> > 
> > That model is where you construct a cone and a cylinder and then 
> > implant a circle inside the cone and cylinder attached to a handle so 
> > that you can rotate the circle inside. Mine uses a long nail that I 
> > poked holes into the side of a cylinder and another one inside a cone 
> > made from heavy wax paper of magazine covers. And I used a Mason or 
> > Kerr used lid and I attached them to the nail by drilling two holes 
> > into each lid and running a wire as fastener. All of this done so I 
> > can rotate or pivot the circle inside the cylinder and cone. You need 
> > a long nail, for if you make the models too small or too skinny, you 
> > lose clarity. 
> > 
> > ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse:: 
> > 
> > 
> >               E 
> >              __ 
> >       .-'              `-. 
> >     .'                    `. 
> >   /                         \ 
> >  ;                           ; 
> > | G          c              | H 
> >  ;                           ; 
> >   \                         / 
> >    `.                     .' 
> >       `-.    _____  .-' 
> >                 F 
> > 
> 
> 
> Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E 
> 
> In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry. 
> 
> The side view of a cylinder is this 
> 
> |    | 
> |    | 
> |    | 
> 
> That allows cE to be the same distance as cF 
> 
> 
> But the side view of the cone is 
> 
>      /\E 
>     /c \ 
> F /     \ 
> 
> 
> The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF make that distance larger than cE 
> 
> > The above is a view of a ellipse with center c and is produced by the 
> > Sectioning of a Cylinder as long as the cut is not perpendicular to 
> > the base, and as long as the cut involves two points not larger than 
> > the height of the cylinder walls. What we want to prove is that the 
> > cut is always a ellipse, which is a plane figure of two axes of 
> > symmetry with a Major Axis and Minor Axis and center at c. 
> > 
> > Side view of Cylinder EGFH above with entry point cut at E and exit 
> > point cut at F and where c denotes the central axis of the cylinder 
> > and where x denotes a circle at c parallel with the base-circle of 
> > cylinder 
> > 
> > |                              | 
> > |                              | E 
> > |                              | 
> > |                              | 
> > |x            c              |x 
> > |                              | 
> > |                              | 
> > |                              | 
> > |F                            | 
> > |                              | 
> > |                              | 
> > |                              | 
> > 
> > 
> 
> So we can see that the distance cE = cF in cylinder for the walls are Parallel to one another, giving distance symmetry 
> 
> But in the Cone, the walls are not parallel, shortening the distance cE compared to cF. Leaving only one axis of symmetry that of cx. The oval is the conic section of a cut at a slant, while the cylinder cut at a slant is a ellipse. The Oval has just one axis of symmetry. 
> 
> > So, what is the proof that figure EGFH is always an ellipse in the 
> > cylinder section? The line segment GH is the diameter of the circle 
> > base of cylinder and the cylinder axis cuts this diameter in half such 
> > that Gc = cH. Now we only need to show that Fc = cE. This is done from 
> > the right triangles cxF and cxE, for we note that by Angle-Side-Angle 
> > these two right triangles are congruent and hence Fc = cE, our second 
> > axis of symmetry and thus figure EGFH is always an ellipse. QED 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Array proof:: Analytic Geometry proof that Conic section= Oval// never ellipse 
> > 
> > ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Conic Section is a Oval, never an ellipse:: 
> > 
> > 
> >          A 
> >       ,'"   "`. 
> >    /            \ 
> > C |     c       | D 
> >  \               / 
> >     ` . ___ .' 
> >          B 
> > 
> > The above is a view of a figure formed from the cut of a conic with 
> > center c as the axis of the cone and is produced by the Sectioning of 
> > a Cone as long as the cut is not perpendicular to the base, and as 
> > long as the cut is not a hyperbola, parabola or circle (nor line). 
> > What we want to prove is that this cut is always a oval, never an 
> > ellipse. An oval is defined as a plane figure of just one axis of 
> > symmetry and possessing a center, c, with a Major Diameter as the axis 
> > of symmetry and a Minor Diameter. In our diagram above, the major 
> > diameter is AB and minor diameter is CD. 
> > 
> > Alright, almost the same as with Cylinder section where we proved the 
> > center was half way between Major Axis and Minor Axis of cylinder, 
> > only in the case of the Conic, we find that the center is half way 
> > between CD the Minor Diameter, but the center is not halfway in 
> > between the Major Diameter, and all of that because of the reason the 
> > slanted walls of the cone cause the distance cA to be far smaller than 
> > the distance cB. In the diagram below we have the circle of x centered 
> > at c and parallel to base. The angle at cx is not 90 degrees as in 
> > cylinder. The angle of cAx is not the same as the angle cBx, as in the 
> > case of the cylinder, because the walls of the cone-for line segments- 
> > are slanted versus parallel in the cylinder. Triangles cAx and cBx are 
> > not congruent, and thus, the distance of cA is not equal to cB, 
> > leaving only one axis of symmetry AB, not CD. 
> > 
> >      /  \A 
> >  x/  c  \x 
> > B/         \ 
> > 
> > Hence, every cut in the Cone, not a hyperbola, not a parabola, not a 
> > circle (not a line) is a Oval, never an ellipse. 
> > 
> > QED 
> > 
> > --Archimedes Plutonium 
> > 

AP writes:: my gosh, Malum, you have a lot of lovin going on of AP's theories.

Malum loves AP's discovery that Starpower is 90% Faraday law on hydrogen & helium, turning Space in magnetic monopoles. Does Bo Thide, Max Tegmark, Cecilia Jarlskog, Carl XVI Gustaf, also love AP's starpower theory?? 

Malum loves, loves AP theory of Starpower because, can you believe it-- AP discovered true Starpower is Faraday's Law inside of atoms in 2017- 2018, just as it was discovered that Jupiter had a permanent blue light Aurorae by Hubble Space telescope in 2016. The timing could not have been any more perfect of a timing. 

On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 3:09:30 AM UTC-5, Zelos Malum wrote: 
> Definitionally, there are any amount of dimension you want. 

AP writes: yes, definitely as recent proof of AP's Starpower is that Jupiter has a permanent lit up pole of blue light Northern Lights, Aurora Borealis. So Jupiter is already a lit up star. 


Which is AP's 2nd and 3rd best theory? Sun and Stars are powered by Faraday Law of atoms where inside every atom, the muon is thrust through the proton producing magnetic monopoles and creating starpower. Or, AP's theory that Real Proton = 840 MeV with electron= muon and .5MeV was Dirac magnetic monopole. 

Stockholm University 
Math logic 
Per Martin-Lof, Erik Palmgren, Tom Britton, Pavel Kurasov 
Alexander Berglund, Jonas Bergstrom*, Rikard Bogvad 
Samuel Lundqvist, Annemarie Luger *, Erik Palmgren 
Torbjorn Tambour 

Stockholm Univ physics 
Tony Hansson, Markus Hennrich, Tommy Ohlsson, Paul Crutzen *, 

Swedish physics, et al 
Bo Thide, Max Tegmark, Cecilia Jarlskog *, Lars Bergstrom, Lars Samuelson 
Anders Flodstrom, Hans Ryde, Anders Barany, Gunnar von Heijne 
Claes-Goran Granqvist, Joakim Edsjo, Carl Falthammar, Sven Hansson, Arne Kaijser 
Pres. Sigbritt Karlsson (KTH) 


University Gothenburg 
Bernt Wennberg 
Aila Sarkka 

Univ Stockholm Physics dept 

Gunnar Benediktsson, Clas Blomberg, Bo Cartling 
Olle Edholm, Goran Grimvall, Goran Lindblad 
Hakan Snellman, Jouko Mickelsson, Anders Rosengren 
John Rundgren 


   /\-------/\ 
   \::O:::O::/ 
  (::_  ^  _::) 
   \_`-----'_/ 
You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Stockholm? 

And, even though you-- professors of physics/math, want to remain silent and stupid in Real Electron = muon, starpower is only 10% fusion, 90% Faraday Law of its atoms. 


And, even though you-- professors of physics/math, want to remain silent and stupid in Real Electron = muon, and true real Calculus with a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, your students deserve better.  Remain stupid in that the ellipse is never a conic but always a cylinder section. The oval is a conic section. 


Yes, there Malum, what did they say-- the power of Sun and stars is not really fusion but is the Faraday Law inside of atoms creating monopoles and turning Space into energy that fuels the Sun and stars. My rough estimate is that fusion mixed with fission only supplies 10% or less of Sun and stars. 

But of course, I could not have discovered the true starpower when under the idiotic idea that the electron was a mere .5MeV when it truly is 105 MeV. 

And of course, AP's greatest all time theory is 231Pu Atom Totality, the whole entire universe is just one big atom. 

What answer did they give? 


Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH 
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu 


                ::\ ::|:: /:: 
                 ::\::|::/:: 
                     _ _ 
                    (:Y:) 
                     - - 
                 ::/::|::\:: 
                ::/ ::|:: \:: 
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. 
            . \ .  . | .   /. 
           . . \. . .|. . /. . 
              ..\....|.../... 
               ::\:::|::/:: 
---------------      ------------- 
--------------- (Y) ------------- 
---------------      -------------- 
               ::/:::|::\:: 
              ../....|...\... 
           . . /. . .|. . \. . 
            . / .  . | .   \ . 

  
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ 
whole entire Universe is just one big atom 
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies 

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

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. 

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe         
Archimedes Plutonium

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web