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

Groups > sci.math > #423519 > unrolled thread

math professors take the low road on moral truth telling Re: John Horton Conway 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

  math professors take the low road on moral truth telling Re: John Horton Conway flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 13:53 -0700
    Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-13 22:33 +0000
    Re: math professors take the low road on moral truth telling Re: John Horton Conway flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-16 02:06 +0000
      Re: math professors take the low road on moral truth telling Re: John Horton Conway flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 21:36 -0700
        Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-02 04:44 +0000
          1-Racist-math at MIT Henry Cohn, Laurent Demanet, Richard Dudley,Michael Artin, Martin Bazant, Bonnie Berger, Roman Bezrukavnikov, Alexei Borodin, John Bush, Herman Chernoff// Ellipse is never a conic (see proof below) Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 15:17 -0700
          shitheads Moroney Eastside never do math in sci.math only stalk and pester some for 26 years Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 10:50 -0700
            Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-07 03:09 +0000
              Moroney says: Racist Physicists, Peter Higgs, Francois Englert, Adam Riess, Brian P. Schmidt, Saul Perlmutter, Toshihide Maskawa, Makoto Kobayashi, George Smoot, John C. Mather// fail in Chemistry bonding for it cannot exist when proton=938MeV, elect Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 12:57 -0700
                Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-07 21:12 +0000
                Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-07 21:14 +0000
                  page1 TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 20:49 -0700
                    Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-08 14:00 +0000
                      Moroney says:Kenneth Ribet,RACIST MATHEMATICIANS, Hales,Tao,Conway,Wiles,Fefferman,Meyer,Stillwell, Andrew Beal, Mauldin who refuse to admit ellipse is never a conic, refuse to even offer a Geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 14:54 -0700
                        Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-09 07:15 +0000
    Sad, when math professors are racist liars about the truth Re: John Horton Conway flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-16 14:19 -0700

#423519 — math professors take the low road on moral truth telling Re: John Horton Conway flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 3:48:23 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> Perhaps you missed this little test that I created just for you, 


Michael Moroney wrote:

Sep 12 (17 hours ago)


>Can you show the research papers which identify all those

AP writes:  yes, sad situation in world mathematics and science, that it is easier for the liaring president Donald Trump to tell the truth about his wrongdoings over Russian collusion, than it is for John Horton Conway to tell the truth about ellipse-- it is never a conic, always a cylinder section. Sad that Donald Trump rises to a higher moral standard than does the typical professor of mathematics when truth is involved.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#423526 — Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails:

>>Can you show the research papers which identify all those

>AP writes:  yes, sad situation in world mathematics and science, that it
>is easier for the liaring president Donald Trump to tell the truth about his

I take that as "If I, Archimedes Plutonium, babbles it, then it's true!!"

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

#423662

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:

>On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 3:48:23 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
>> Perhaps you missed this little test that I created just for you,=20


>Michael Moroney wrote:

>Sep 12 (17 hours ago)

>>Can you show the research papers which identify all those

>AP writes:  yes, sad situation in world mathematics and science, that it is
>easier for the liaring president Donald Trump to tell the truth about 

I'll take this as a "no, I cannot show any research papers, since I just 
believe in 'if I babbled it, it must be true'".

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

#424742

On Saturday, September 15, 2018 at 9:06:11 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
Re: math professors take the low road on moral truth telling Re: John Horton Conway flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test


Dan Christensen 	writes:
11:20 PM (8 minutes ago)

>A mind is a terrible thing to lose!
>
>In the immortal words of VP Dan Quayle, "What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is >being very wasteful. How true that is." 

AP writes: Dan the Canadian failure of math and science, has no good words to say about John Conway. Because Dan is an insane nutjob-- burnt out in school, and now polluting the young minds of Canadian children with his 2 OR 10 = 12, when even the toddler knows better than Dan it is 2 AND 10 = 12.

What does Canada do for a stalking nutjob of Dan, lets him have a website on logic to further pollute the minds of young children.

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

#424744 — Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails:

>AP writes: Dan the Canadian failure of math and science, has no good words
>to say about John Conway. Because Dan is an insane nutjob-- burnt out in 

Hey Al, don't go yet! Stoopid Plutonium did it again!! Can you believe it?


"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]

#425037 — 1-Racist-math at MIT Henry Cohn, Laurent Demanet, Richard Dudley,Michael Artin, Martin Bazant, Bonnie Berger, Roman Bezrukavnikov, Alexei Borodin, John Bush, Herman Chernoff// Ellipse is never a conic (see proof below)

1-Racist-math at MIT Henry Cohn, Laurent Demanet, Richard Dudley,Michael Artin, Martin Bazant, Bonnie Berger, Roman Bezrukavnikov, Alexei Borodin, John Bush, Herman Chernoff// Ellipse is never a conic (see proof below)




On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 4:21:43 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> Archie has 


DEFINITION of a racist-scientist , racist-mathematician 
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/discovered the idea___, proof, or experiment. Hatred of the source. Hatred of the author/s. Racists ignore or deny the truth because they hate the source. And racists would rather keep on teaching a fakery or wrong science than to change to the true science. 

Most people think Racist Mathematicians and Physicists are rare. But sci.math and sci.physics from 1993 to 2018 is proving that the majority of physics and math professors around the world are Racists, for example-- the AP proof ellipse is never a conic cut, but rather a cylinder cut. And the AP discovery that the Real Electron = muon = 105MeV, real proton = 840MeV, and the .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole. 

Drs.Noam Elkies, Dennis Gaitsgory, Robin Gottlieb of Harvard, teach percentages correctly-- Moroney//Volney has a difficult time of percentages of how much is 938 short of 945. But worse yet, why do you keep teaching the ellipse is a conic when it never was, but rather the ellipse is always a cylinder section. 

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. 

President: L. Reif (electrical engineer) 

MIT math dept. 

Michael Artin, Martin Bazant, Bonnie Berger, Roman Bezrukavnikov, Alexei Borodin, John Bush, Herman Chernoff, Henry Cohn, Laurent Demanet, Richard Dudley, Jörn Dunkel, Alan Edelman, Pavel Etingof, Daniel Freedman, Michel Goemans, Vadim Gorin, Harvey Greenspan , Victor Guillemin, Larry Guth, Sigurdur Helgason, Anette Hosoi , David Jerison, Steven Johnson*, Victor Kac, Steven Kleiman, Daniel Kleitman, Andrew Lawrie, Tom Leighton, George Lusztig, Arthur Mattuck, Davesh Maulik, Richard Melrose, Haynes Miller, William Minicozzi, Ankur Moitra, Elchanan Mossel, Tomasz Mrowka, James Munkres, Andrei Negut, Aaron Pixton, Bjorn Poonen, Alexander Postnikov, Philippe Rigollet, Rodolfo Rosales, Giulia Saccà, Gerald Sacks, Paul Seidel, Scott Sheffield, Peter Shor, Isadore Singer, Michael Sipser, Jared Speck, Gigliola Staffilani, Richard Stanley, Harold Stark, Gilbert Strang, Daniel Stroock, Goncalo Tabuada, Alar Toomre, David Vogan 


shein,std,kibo, Moroney 26 year virulent stalker harasser and pest 

                              .. 
            .- " `-.   ,..-'''  ```....'`-.. 
           ,      . `.'            '        `. 
         .'   .' `    `           '   `..     ; 
         .   ;  .'                     . `.    ; 
         ;   . '                       `.  .   ' 
          . '                            ` `.  | 
        . '.                                  ' 
       .          0              0            ' `. 
      '                                          ` 
     ;                                            ` 
    .'                                             ` 
    ;                      U                        ` 
    ;    ';                                         ` 
    :   | ;..                                 :`     ` 
    :    `;. ```.                           .-; |    ' 
    '.      `    ``..,                   .'   :'    ' 
     ;       `        ;'..          ..-''    '     '  I am Moroney, stupid in math, but a pestering bully, trying to scrape together a joke off of another person by destroying his character 
      `       `        ;  ````'''""'  ;      '    ' 
       `       `        ;            ;      '    ' 
        `       `        ;          ;      '    ' 
         `       `.       ````''''''      '    ' 
           `       .                     '    ' 
         /  `       `.                  '    '        . 
        /     `       ..            ..'    .'"""""...' 
       /   .`   `       ``........-'     .'` .....''' 
      / .'' ;     `                    .'   ` 
  ...'.'    ;    .' `                .'      ` 
   ""      .'  .' |    `           .; \       ` 
           ; .'   |      `. . . . ' .  \       ` 
           :'     |     '   `       ,   `.     ` 
                  |    '     `      '     `.    ` 
                  `   '       `     ;       `.  | 
                  `.'          `    ;         `-' 
                                `...' 


Harvard Math dept 

Noam Elkies, Dennis Gaitsgory, Robin Gottlieb, Benedict Gross, Joseph Harris, Heisuke Hironaka, Michael Hopkins, Arthur Jaffe, David Kazhdan, Mark Kisin, Peter Kronheimer, Jacob Lurie , Eric Maskin, Barry Mazur *, Curtis McMullen, David Mumford, Martin Nowak, Gerald Sacks, Wilfried Schmid, Yum-Tong Siu, Shlomo Sternberg, John Tate, Cliff Taubes, Hugh Woodin, Horng-Tzer Yau, Shing-Tung Yau 

   /\-------/\ 
   \::O:::O::/ 
  (::_  ^  _::) 
   \_`-----'_/ 
You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Boston? 
And, even though you-- professors of math who never want to fix and clean up error filled mathematics, your students deserve better, and you should quit teaching if you cannot come around to admitting a ellipse is a cylinder section, never a conic section. For it is embarrassing to have students smarter than the math professor who by taking a cone, cylinder can and a round lid, can prove on the spot, in the classroom that the cone yields an oval, never an ellipse. 

And, even though you-- professors of math who never want to fix and clean up error filled mathematics, your students deserve better, and you should quit teaching if you cannot come around to admitting a ellipse is a cylinder section, never a conic section. For it is embarrassing to have students smarter than the math professor who by taking a cone, cylinder can and a round lid, can prove on the spot, in the classroom that the cone yields an oval, never an ellipse. 

Proofs ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section by 
Archimedes Plutonium 
-------------------- 
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] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#425083 — shitheads Moroney Eastside never do math in sci.math only stalk and pester some for 26 years

On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 11:44:47 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:

shitheads Moroney Eastside never do math in sci.math only stalk and pester some for 26 years

eastsi...@gmail.com Hey Archie! Look at your first column if P is prime: P 0 P-1 1 P-2 2 ... P-n n ... Just for fun, divide both columns by anything, say m. You get P/m - n/m n/m Even is n/m is integer, P/m is NEVER integer. Your conjecture is TRIVIAL. 

Oct 5 (20 hours ago) 

 Michael Moroney Archie has stumbled across a variation of trial division to find primes. Instead of trying every number n from 2 to P/2 and seeing if n divides P evenly, he is trying every number n from 2 to P/2 and seeing if (P-n)/n divides evenly. However, 

12:28 AM (12 hours ago) 

Michael Moroney          
1:29 AM (11 hours ago) 

Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test 

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails: 

>Re: AP's stupid conjecture 

<snip more failure> 

So how is your logorrhea doing?

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

#425101 — Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails:

>Oct 5 (20 hours ago)

> Michael Moroney Archie has stumbled across a variation of trial division 
>to find primes. Instead of trying every number n from 2 to P/2 and seeing 
>if n divides P evenly, he is trying every number n from 2 to P/2 and seeing 
>if (P-n)/n divides evenly. However,

>12:28 AM (12 hours ago)

>Michael Moroney         
>1:29 AM (11 hours ago)

It's strange how Archie somehow loves my replies to his posts. It is 
obvious that he must love it, since it would be really dumb and stoopid
for someone to provoke someone else if he did NOT want a response. And we
all know Archie is a super genius and not dumb and stoopid, right? Wait,
what was that???

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

#425121 — Moroney says: Racist Physicists, Peter Higgs, Francois Englert, Adam Riess, Brian P. Schmidt, Saul Perlmutter, Toshihide Maskawa, Makoto Kobayashi, George Smoot, John C. Mather// fail in Chemistry bonding for it cannot exist when proton=938MeV, elect

On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 10:09:21 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
Boston's std 26 year long stalkers shein,kibo,Moroney -- just another stalk---

Moroney says: Racist Physicists, Peter Higgs, Francois Englert, Adam Riess, Brian P. Schmidt, Saul Perlmutter, Toshihide Maskawa, Makoto Kobayashi, George Smoot, John C. Mather// fail in Chemistry bonding for it cannot exist when proton=938MeV, electron=.5MeV


The knowledge that Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840 MeV, and the .5MeV was Dirac's Magnetic Monopole is going on 2 years now in the public eye starting 2017. Yet why are no physicists debating the issue?? Because they are racists at heart, and not really true genuine scientists.

Moroney says: Racist Physicists, Barry Barish, Kip Thorne, Rainer Weiss, John M. Kosterlitz, F Duncan M. Haldane, David J. Thouless, Arthur B. McDonald, Takaaki Kajita// fail in Chemistry bonding for it cannot exist when proton=938MeV, electron=.5MeV


DEFINITION of a racist-scientist , racist-mathematician 
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/discovered the idea___, proof, or experiment. Hatred of the source. Hatred of the author/s. Racists ignore or deny the truth because they hate the source. And racists would rather keep on teaching a fakery or wrong science than to change to the true science. 

Most people think Racist Mathematicians and Physicists are rare. But sci.math and sci.physics from 1993 to 2018 is proving that the majority of physics and math professors around the world are Racists, for example-- the AP proof ellipse is never a conic cut, but rather a cylinder cut. And the AP discovery that the Real Electron = muon = 105MeV, real proton = 840MeV, and the .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole. 

Help stop Physics Racists by stopping their hired stalking hands on Internet

shein,std,kibo, Moroney 26 year virulent stalker harasser and pest 

                              .. 
            .- " `-.   ,..-'''  ```....'`-.. 
           ,      . `.'            '        `. 
         .'   .' `    `           '   `..     ; 
         .   ;  .'                     . `.    ; 
         ;   . '                       `.  .   ' 
          . '                            ` `.  | 
        . '.                                  ' 
       .          0              0            ' `. 
      '                                          ` 
     ;                                            ` 
    .'                                             ` 
    ;                      U                        ` 
    ;    ';                                         ` 
    :   | ;..                                 :`     ` 
    :    `;. ```.                           .-; |    ' 
    '.      `    ``..,                   .'   :'    ' 
     ;       `        ;'..          ..-''    '     '  I am Moroney, stupid in physics, but a pestering hired bully by math and physics racists, trying to scrape together a joke off of another person by destroying their character and never doing any physics or math
      `       `        ;  ````'''""'  ;      '    ' 
       `       `        ;            ;      '    ' 
        `       `        ;          ;      '    ' 
         `       `.       ````''''''      '    ' 
           `       .                     '    ' 
         /  `       `.                  '    '        . 
        /     `       ..            ..'    .'"""""...' 
       /   .`   `       ``........-'     .'` .....''' 
      / .'' ;     `                    .'   ` 
  ...'.'    ;    .' `                .'      ` 
   ""      .'  .' |    `           .; \       ` 
           ; .'   |      `. . . . ' .  \       ` 
           :'     |     '   `       ,   `.     ` 
                  |    '     `      '     `.    ` 
                  `   '       `     ;       `.  | 
                  `.'          `    ;         `-' 
                                `...' 



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 

Moroney math failure, here is where the fool thinks 938 is short of 945 by 12%, and he pretends he is an electrical engineer. Perhaps the first e.e. in the world that cannot do a percentage correctly 

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. 


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

Yes, 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 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. 

In that manner,  physics departments  are racist physicists for the knowledge that Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840 MeV, and the .5MeV was Dirac's Magnetic Monopole is going on 2 years now in the public eye starting 2017, yet none of these physicists (these poor physicists lacking understanding of angular momentum has raised a single peep). The reason they keep their mouths shut, is because they are so poor in physics, they do not want to be embarrassed. These gentlemen are not physicists, for a real physicist would debate the issue, not hide and run from the issue. And real physicist would not discount a discovery because of the person-- Archimedes Plutonium who discovered it. 


TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium 

page1 

History Preface:: 

A history Preface to this textbook Re: TRUE CHEMISTRY, textbook, 2018 

Alright, this textbook is written as a Memoir, in that I am writing it as a notebook, my daily activity, an historical accounting, along with a textbook of facts of True Chemistry. Both a textbook on True Chemistry and a historical accounting, both combined into one. So you will see many dates of posts throughout this Memoir. 

Now this book needs a Preface, to sort of tell people what it was like in the time period of 1897 when JJ Thomson discovered a .5MeV particle and then going on to believe he discovered the "electron of atoms", when in fact, what he discovered was the Magnetic Monopole of atoms. Yet the entire Scientific Community, whether physics, chemistry, biology, all were duped into thinking this .5MeV particle was the integral electron of atoms. So from 1897 until 2017 when I discovered the Real Electron = muon = 105 MeV, that community of scientists all fell duped to thinking electron= .5 MeV. 

Of course, that changes all of electricity, as we understood it in 1897 through 2017. So some time in the future, few people will understand what took place from 1897 through 2017, when all scientists thought the atom was a proton at 938MeV, neutron 940MeV and electron at .5MeV. Of course, my very first proof of the Real Electron is 105 MeV was instantaneous to my mind--chemical bonding, chemical bonding-- is it possible to have covalent bonding with 938 to .5 ??  For if the Real Electron is 105 MeV then the Real Proton cannot be 938, but had to be 840MeV, and then, chemical bonding covalent of 105 versus 840, all makes sense. 

This entire discovery was caused by a noting in 2016, that it takes 9 muons to make a proton (plus or minus less than 1%) To me, in science, I know all physics has outside "noise" and so when you say plus or minus less than 1%, means to me, anyway, that 9 muons = 1 proton. Now, sorry, but it took me another year from 2016 to 2017, to say-- Real Proton = 840 MeV. Sadly, to discover that 9 muons = 1 proton in 2016, took another year in 2017 to subtract 105 from 945 to see that the Real Proton was 840MeV. 

And the instantaneous proof that came to my mind, is, well, you just cannot have Chemistry, the Chemical bond of covalent, if the electron is .5MeV and the proton 938MeV, for the angular-momentum is just not there to make covalent bonding. If the Real Electron is 105MeV and Real Proton is 840MeV then you have sufficient numbers of MeV for angular momentum to create covalent bonding in atoms. 

But let me in this preface tell the story of how Electricity was imagined to be from 1897 to 2017. Electricity with the electron assumed as .5 MeV and proton at 938 MeV, that electricity in this view was seen as a electron particle that is wishy washy, here now, gone a second later flowing in a wire as electricity. In the new true view of electricity, electron = 105 MeV, proton = 840 MeV, it is rare for that electron of hydrogen atoms to ever leave its proton, and what electricity is-- is this monopole particle that assumes either a +1 or -1 charge and is fickle, for it can be attached to a hydrogen atom and with little to no encouragement, go flying off along a copper wire. Only, flying is a metaphor, for the Monopole is a photon or a neutrino dressed up (superposition) with .5MeV charge energy. So the monopole is a wave, a closed loop wave that becomes the shape of the closed loop wire itself. At the moment, I am rebuilding a crystal radio set I had as a Xmas gift from my father way back in about 1968. You see, the radio wave is a magnetic monopole, it is not an electron out of some atom. 

I need to build this Preface into a good logical history expose of how feeble was the understanding and teaching of What the Real Electron was in science from 1897 to 2017. 

How utterly feeble it is, to have millions of students around the world sitting in classes, hearing the teacher, the instructor saying that the electron is a .5MeV particle that runs along copper wires and yields electricity. 

When the real truth is, that electrons are very heavy particles of 105 MeV, 1/8 the mass of the proton at 840 MeV, and it is rare, extremely rare that this massive Real Electron ever leaves its proton, but that these magnetic monopoles flit around, flit here, flit there, flit almost everywhere, and these monopoles are electricity. 

AP 

Newsgroups: sci.math 
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 13:32:28 -0800 (PST) 

Subject: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- 
 Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV 
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> 
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 21:32:28 +0000 

Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole, after all 

Experimental PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon 
by Archimedes Plutonium 

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. 

Newsgroups: sci.physics 
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 18:28:06 -0700 (PDT) 

Subject: short history of subatomic particles of Physics Re: True Chemistry-- 
 2018 textbook 
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> 
Injection-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 01:28:07 +0000 

short history of subatomic particles of Physics Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook 

In my textbook True Chemistry, those new early pages, I need a chronology of history of how we viewed atoms, their constituent elementary particles, and electricity. For the blame as to not knowing the .5MeV particle was not the electron but a magnetic monopole, is the conceit of the minds of physicists, or should be say the naivety of the minds of physicists is that they were blown away by +1 and -1 charge. If we had taken off the table the electric charge. Then when JJ Thomson discovered this 1897 particle of .5MeV, if electric charge was not a issue, then Thomson, in my opinion would have realized it could not be the electron. 

So let me make a rough sketch of the history involved, the pertinent history. 

1861-1864, Maxwell wrote " A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field"-- a complete theory of electricity tying together magnetism, as EM, electromagnetism theory. Perhaps the single greatest physics book, or book in general, before the Atom Totality textbook. 

1897, J.J. Thomson discovers a .5MeV particle, with a -1 charge, which he names as electron, thinking it is the electron of atoms, which, it turns out by 2017 is the Dirac magnetic monopole, and the muon is the real-electron. 

1913, the Bohr model of the Atom, which gives no working role for its elementary subatomic particles of proton, electron, neutron, photon (of which the magnetic monopole is a photon with a charge energy-- or a neutrino with charge energy). Sadly, the Bohr model is lacking any sort of physical role for these subatomic particles, other than to say, let there exist a proton, let there exist a electron. It is this lack of a job or role or working marching order for subatomic particles that should have alerted all chemists, all physicists, that they have a looney tune model of the atom. In the true model of the Atom, come 2017, is that the elementary particles are doing a Faraday Law and Ampere Law sort of like a dance, a job, a commitment for their existence, inside the Atom, conducted by those protons and muons. Where protons as a coil and muon electron as a bar magnet creates new monopoles, converting Space into monopoles, and stored in neutrons as capacitors, which a hydrogen atom grows to become a deuterium atom etc etc. In other words, the creation of new atoms and heavier atoms is the job of existing atoms. 

1917-1920, Rutherford discovers the proton of what he thought was 938 MeV 

1931, Dirac with a paper on magnetic monopoles which in order to satisfy the quantization of electricity, which implies that monopoles must exist. 

1932, Chadwick discovered the neutron of 945 MeV. Now they discovered these particles, like the neutron and proton but would have to wait years before they refined their masses on how much mass they had. 

1936, Anderson & Neddermeyer discover the muon particle of 105 MeV. I do not know what year they found out it weighed 105 MeV. 

Now, the big question is why are the minds of physicists so backwards, so empty of Logical thought, because when the proton was discovered by Rutherford in 1917 and could measure its mass to be roughly 940 MeV and then Thomson's particle of .5MeV. So, the puzzling question is from 1917 to 2017 is a span of time of 100 years, and the astonishment that in those 100 years, every physicist, every chemist knew of the Covalent bond of chemistry, every one of them knew what angular momentum was, or had a reasonable notion of what angular momentum means-- at least we thought they knew, yet not a single scientist ever had the thought run through their mind-- stop a minute-- how can a covalent bond of chemistry exist if the proton was 938 versus .5MeV electron ?? How, how is that possible. When that is only possible if the proton was 840 versus 105 MeV. Is the simple and short answer-- no physicist in the 20th century had a good decent logical mind to think straight, to think clear. 


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] | [next] | [standalone]

#425129 — Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails:

>Moroney says: Racist Physicists, Barry Barish, Kip Thorne, Rainer Weiss,
>John M. Kosterlitz, F Duncan M. Haldane, David J. Thouless, Arthur B.
>McDonald, Takaaki Kajita// fail in Chemistry bonding for it cannot exist
>when proton=938MeV, electron=.5MeV

So you are now lying about what I say? I am glad you like for me to
reply to your posts, and asked for me to do it again!

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

#425130 — Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails:

>Moroney says: Racist Physicists, Barry Barish, Kip Thorne, Rainer Weiss,
>John M. Kosterlitz, F Duncan M. Haldane, David J. Thouless, Arthur B.
>McDonald, Takaaki Kajita// fail in Chemistry bonding for it cannot exist
>when proton=938MeV, electron=.5MeV

So you are now lying about what I say? I am glad you like for me to
reply to your posts, and asked for me to do it again!

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

#425159 — page1 TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium

TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium

page1

History Preface::


A history Preface to this textbook Re: TRUE CHEMISTRY, textbook, 2018


Alright, this textbook is written as a Memoir, in that I am writing it as a notebook, my daily activity, an historical accounting, along with a textbook of facts of True Chemistry. Both a textbook on True Chemistry and a historical accounting, both combined into one. So you will see many dates of posts throughout this Memoir.

Now this book needs a Preface, to sort of tell people what it was like in the time period of 1897 when JJ Thomson discovered a .5MeV particle and then going on to believe he discovered the "electron of atoms", when in fact, what he discovered was the Magnetic Monopole of atoms. Yet the entire Scientific Community, whether physics, chemistry, biology, all were duped into thinking this .5MeV particle was the integral electron of atoms. So from 1897 until 2017 when I discovered the Real Electron = muon = 105 MeV, that community of scientists all fell duped to thinking electron= .5 MeV. 

Of course, that changes all of electricity, as we understood it in 1897 through 2017. So some time in the future, few people will understand what took place from 1897 through 2017, when all scientists thought the atom was a proton at 938MeV, neutron 940MeV and electron at .5MeV. Of course, my very first proof of the Real Electron is 105 MeV was instantaneous to my mind--chemical bonding, chemical bonding-- is it possible to have covalent bonding with 938 to .5 ??  For if the Real Electron is 105 MeV then the Real Proton cannot be 938, but had to be 840MeV, and then, chemical bonding covalent of 105 versus 840, all makes sense. 

This entire discovery was caused by a noting in 2016, that it takes 9 muons to make a proton (plus or minus less than 1%) To me, in science, I know all physics has outside "noise" and so when you say plus or minus less than 1%, means to me, anyway, that 9 muons = 1 proton. Now, sorry, but it took me another year from 2016 to 2017, to say-- Real Proton = 840 MeV. Sadly, to discover that 9 muons = 1 proton in 2016, took another year in 2017 to subtract 105 from 945 to see that the Real Proton was 840MeV. 

And the instantaneous proof that came to my mind, is, well, you just cannot have Chemistry, the Chemical bond of covalent, if the electron is .5MeV and the proton 938MeV, for the angular-momentum is just not there to make covalent bonding. If the Real Electron is 105MeV and Real Proton is 840MeV then you have sufficient numbers of MeV for angular momentum to create covalent bonding in atoms. 

But let me in this preface tell the story of how Electricity was imagined to be from 1897 to 2017. Electricity with the electron assumed as .5 MeV and proton at 938 MeV, that electricity in this view was seen as a electron particle that is wishy washy, here now, gone a second later flowing in a wire as electricity. In the new true view of electricity, electron = 105 MeV, proton = 840 MeV, it is rare for that electron of hydrogen atoms to ever leave its proton, and what electricity is-- is this monopole particle that assumes either a +1 or -1 charge and is fickle, for it can be attached to a hydrogen atom and with little to no encouragement, go flying off along a copper wire. Only, flying is a metaphor, for the Monopole is a photon or a neutrino dressed up (superposition) with .5MeV charge energy. So the monopole is a wave, a closed loop wave that becomes the shape of the closed loop wire itself. At the moment, I am rebuilding a crystal radio set I had as a Xmas gift from my father way back in about 1968. You see, the radio wave is a magnetic monopole, it is not an electron out of some atom. 

I need to build this Preface into a good logical history expose of how feeble was the understanding and teaching of What the Real Electron was in science from 1897 to 2017. 

How utterly feeble it is, to have millions of students around the world sitting in classes, hearing the teacher, the instructor saying that the electron is a .5MeV particle that runs along copper wires and yields electricity. 

When the real truth is, that electrons are very heavy particles of 105 MeV, 1/8 the mass of the proton at 840 MeV, and it is rare, extremely rare that this massive Real Electron ever leaves its proton, but that these magnetic monopoles flit around, flit here, flit there, flit almost everywhere, and these monopoles are electricity. 

AP 

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 13:32:28 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment--
 Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 21:32:28 +0000

Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole, after all

Experimental PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon 
by Archimedes Plutonium

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. 

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 18:28:06 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: short history of subatomic particles of Physics Re: True Chemistry--
 2018 textbook
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 01:28:07 +0000

short history of subatomic particles of Physics Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook

In my textbook True Chemistry, those new early pages, I need a chronology of history of how we viewed atoms, their constituent elementary particles, and electricity. For the blame as to not knowing the .5MeV particle was not the electron but a magnetic monopole, is the conceit of the minds of physicists, or should be say the naivety of the minds of physicists is that they were blown away by +1 and -1 charge. If we had taken off the table the electric charge. Then when JJ Thomson discovered this 1897 particle of .5MeV, if electric charge was not a issue, then Thomson, in my opinion would have realized it could not be the electron. 

So let me make a rough sketch of the history involved, the pertinent history. 

1861-1864, Maxwell wrote " A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field"-- a complete theory of electricity tying together magnetism, as EM, electromagnetism theory. Perhaps the single greatest physics book, or book in general, before the Atom Totality textbook. 

1897, J.J. Thomson discovers a .5MeV particle, with a -1 charge, which he names as electron, thinking it is the electron of atoms, which, it turns out by 2017 is the Dirac magnetic monopole, and the muon is the real-electron. 

1913, the Bohr model of the Atom, which gives no working role for its elementary subatomic particles of proton, electron, neutron, photon (of which the magnetic monopole is a photon with a charge energy-- or a neutrino with charge energy). Sadly, the Bohr model is lacking any sort of physical role for these subatomic particles, other than to say, let there exist a proton, let there exist a electron. It is this lack of a job or role or working marching order for subatomic particles that should have alerted all chemists, all physicists, that they have a looney tune model of the atom. In the true model of the Atom, come 2017, is that the elementary particles are doing a Faraday Law and Ampere Law sort of like a dance, a job, a commitment for their existence, inside the Atom, conducted by those protons and muons. Where protons as a coil and muon electron as a bar magnet creates new monopoles, converting Space into monopoles, and stored in neutrons as capacitors, which a hydrogen atom grows to become a deuterium atom etc etc. In other words, the creation of new atoms and heavier atoms is the job of existing atoms. 

1917-1920, Rutherford discovers the proton of what he thought was 938 MeV 

1931, Dirac with a paper on magnetic monopoles which in order to satisfy the quantization of electricity, which implies that monopoles must exist. 

1932, Chadwick discovered the neutron of 945 MeV. Now they discovered these particles, like the neutron and proton but would have to wait years before they refined their masses on how much mass they had. 

1936, Anderson & Neddermeyer discover the muon particle of 105 MeV. I do not know what year they found out it weighed 105 MeV. 

Now, the big question is why are the minds of physicists so backwards, so empty of Logical thought, because when the proton was discovered by Rutherford in 1917 and could measure its mass to be roughly 940 MeV and then Thomson's particle of .5MeV. So, the puzzling question is from 1917 to 2017 is a span of time of 100 years, and the astonishment that in those 100 years, every physicist, every chemist knew of the Covalent bond of chemistry, every one of them knew what angular momentum was, or had a reasonable notion of what angular momentum means-- at least we thought they knew, yet not a single scientist ever had the thought run through their mind-- stop a minute-- how can a covalent bond of chemistry exist if the proton was 938 versus .5MeV electron ?? How, how is that possible. When that is only possible if the proton was 840 versus 105 MeV. Is the simple and short answer-- no physicist in the 20th century had a good decent logical mind to think straight, to think clear. 


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] | [next] | [standalone]

#425192 — Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails:

>AP wrote:

>Don't you think Dr. Gell-Mann knows all that and far better than your
>crank dull mind.

Well he certainly knows better than _your_ crank dull mind! He knows muons
only last about 2.2 microseconds!

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

#425211 — Moroney says:Kenneth Ribet,RACIST MATHEMATICIANS, Hales,Tao,Conway,Wiles,Fefferman,Meyer,Stillwell, Andrew Beal, Mauldin who refuse to admit ellipse is never a conic, refuse to even offer a Geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 9:01:05 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Math Failure 

Moroney says:Kenneth Ribet,RACIST MATHEMATICIANS, Hales,Tao,Conway,Wiles,Fefferman,Meyer,Stillwell, Andrew Beal, Mauldin who refuse to admit ellipse is never a conic, refuse to even offer a Geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

Moroney says:Kenneth Ribet,RACIST MATHEMATICIANS, Hales,Tao,Conway,Wiles,Fefferman,Meyer,Stillwell, Andrew Beal, Mauldin who refuse to admit ellipse is never a conic, refuse to even offer a Geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus 

On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 3:45:56 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> Math Failure 

kibo, barry shein, std, Moroney the analbuttfuckmanure STALKER dance in sci.math sci.physics 

 A few clowns short of a circus. 

     A few clues shy of a solution. 

     A few brains short of a mind. 

     A few centimeters short of a meter. 

     A few kernels short of an ear. 

     A few links shy of a chain. 

     A few open splices. 

     A few peas short of a casserole. 

     A few pickles short of a jar. 

     A few pies short of a holiday. 

     99 short of 100 

     A few points short of a polygon. 

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

#425247 — Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails:

> kick-out that insane stealing cocksucker Porat from sci.physics-- 
>constant accusation of stealing, constant stealing from others and never 
>any physics-- only baby talk, never any science talk

> Porat steals the circulon from Lord Kelvin and mathematician Tait and 
>never ever refers to either one.

> Now the kleptomaniac stealing cuss tries to steal from others in 
>sci.physics.

Look at this. The white German guy, Archie Pu, has been whimpering that he
is a victim of "racism", and now he is here with a bunch of stereotypes...
hypocrite!

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

#423699 — Sad, when math professors are racist liars about the truth Re: John Horton Conway flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

Sad, when math professors are racist liars about the truth Re: John Horton Conway flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

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 




On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 7:30:05 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> 
> WARNING TO STUDENTS:

AP writes: Christensen is warning students that math professors are dishonest liars (worse than the morals of Donald Trump) when they cram down your throat that the ellipse is a conic when it never was, but rather instead a Cylinder section. And Christensen is warning all students that his crazy Logic of 2 OR 10 = 12, is as crazy as Dan Christensen is a crazy bully oaf of academics, for-- every student with a pinch of Logical Reasoning knows and feels in her/his bones, that the correct logic is 2 AND 10 = 12. So, be warned of insane stalkers like Dan Christensen in sci.math, that should have been kicked out of sci.math a decade ago.



John Conway, David Riley,Gordon Sinnamon, Justin Trudeau,Christensen says why teach correct math-- ellipse is a cylinder section, never a conic section

Univ Western Ontario math dept 
Janusz Adamus, Tatyana  Barron,   Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon, Matthias  Franz, John Jardine, Massoud Khalkhali, Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon 


Amit Chakma (chem engr) 

Univ. Western Ontario physics dept 
Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel*, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang 

Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker, Henry M. Van Driel, David J. Rowe, John W. Moffat, John F. Martin, Robert K. Logan, Albert E. Litherland, Roland List, Philipp Kronberg, James King, Anthony W. Key, Bob Holdom, Ron M. Farquhar, R. Nigel Edwards, David J. Dunlop, James Drummond, Tom E. Drake, R.Fraser Code, Richard C. Bailey, Robin Armstrong 


Canadian Educ Ministers-- endorsing stalking hypocrites like Dan Christensen with his insane 2 OR 10 = 12 when even a Canadian 8 year old knows 2 AND 10 = 12. Endorsing the "perpetual stalking by Dan Christensen" 

Sebastien Proulx 
Jordan Brown 
David Eggen 
Gordon Wyant 
Zach Churchill 
Ian Wishart 
Rob Fleming 


   /\-------/\ 
   \::O:::O::/ 
  (::_  ^  _::) 
   \_`-----'_/ 
You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Ontario? 
And, even though you-- professors of math who never want to fix and clean up error filled mathematics, your students deserve better, and you should quit teaching if you cannot come around to admitting a ellipse is a cylinder section, never a conic section. For it is embarrassing to have students smarter than the math professor who by taking a cone, cylinder can and a round lid, can prove on the spot, in the classroom that the cone yields an oval, never an ellipse. 

Proofs ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section by 
Archimedes Plutonium 
-------------------- 
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] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web