Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.math > #458342 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-09-15 06:21 -0700 |
| Last post | 2019-09-24 20:45 +0000 |
| Articles | 13 — 4 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.math
1.9-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Korniss,Toh-Ming Lu,Martin Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-09-15 06:21 -0700
Re: 1.9-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Korniss,Toh-Ming Lu,Martin Dingus Dirtbag McGee <invalideye@ezampleaeze.com> - 2019-09-15 07:57 -0700
Re: 1.9-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Korniss,Toh-Ming Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-09-18 12:21 -0700
Re: 1.9-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Korniss,Toh-Ming Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-09-24 17:01 -0700
Re: 1.9-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Korniss,Toh-Ming Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-09-18 19:46 -0700
Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-09-19 03:06 +0000
kibo Parry Moroney, 27 year long stalker shithead of sci.math-- never any math, never any physics Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-09-23 09:19 -0700
Re: 1.9-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Korniss,Toh-Ming Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-09-22 15:41 -0700
Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-09-22 22:53 +0000
Re: 1.9-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Korniss,Toh-Ming Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-09-23 19:05 -0700
Re: 1.9-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Korniss,Toh-Ming Antonio Man-Bun <invalide@nowhere.net> - 2019-09-23 20:55 -0700
Re: 1.9-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Korniss,Toh-Ming Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-09-24 13:34 -0700
Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-09-24 20:45 +0000
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-15 06:21 -0700 |
| Subject | 1.9-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Korniss,Toh-Ming Lu,Martin |
| Message-ID | <1bd83e31-ec7f-4348-9b61-a7f5c2ddf0d0@googlegroups.com> |
1.9-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton is 840MeV not 938, the .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Korniss,Toh-Ming Lu,Martin
Some blog said kibo-Parry-Moroney ended up in some dance school in Boston area. But I was wondering if kibo just simply failed Rensselaer due to his moron understanding of mathematics such as this post reveals:
Remember the time the failed engineer kibo Parry Moroney said 938 is short of 945 by 12%. How could any engineer pass school not knowing percentages?
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.
But also, I wonder if Rensselaer is part to blame in this science downfall of kibo-Parry-Moroney, for no-one at Rensselaer acknowledges that the real electron of atoms is the muon and the real proton is 840 MeV in order to give atom's subatomic particles an actual task and function to perform-- Faraday Law inside each and every atom. So that the professors of physics at Rensselaer have a kibo mindset of failing.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Physics dept
Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek, Julian S. Georg, Joel T. Giedt, Yong Sung Kim, Gyorgy Korniss, Toh-Ming Lu, Charles Martin, Joseph Darryl Michael, Heidi Jo Newberg, Moussa N'Gom, Peter Persans, John Schroeder, Michael Shur, Shawn-Yu Lin, Humberto Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang, Morris A Washington, Esther A. Wertz, Christian M. Wetzel, Ingrid Wilke, Shengbai Zhang
Rensselaer math department
Donald Schwendeman, Jeffrey Banks, Kristin Bennett, Mohamed Boudjelkha, Joseph Ecker, William Henshaw, Isom Herron, Mark H Holmes, David Isaacson, Elizabeth Kam, Ashwani Kapila, Maya Kiehl, Gregor Kovacic, Peter Kramer, Gina Kucinski, Rongjie Lai, Fengyan Li, Chjan Lim, Yuri V Lvov, Harry McLaughlin, John E. Mitchell, Bruce Piper, David A Schmidt, Daniel Stevenson, Yangyang Xu, Bulent Yener, Donald Drew, William Siegmann
On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 8:40:35 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Math Minnow
Moroney and Rensselaer Polytech Institute fail at High School Math, High School Logic// both teach Ellipse is a conic when it never was// teach 10 OR 4 = 14 when even the village idiot knows 10 AND 4=14 // never have a geometry proof of Calculus
World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math where they had a ill-defined infinity; they had the fakery of Limit concept; and they had the fakery of a continuum.
The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus basically says the integral is inverse to the derivative and the derivative is inverse to the integral. By inverse is meant that you can go to one given the other and vice versa, such as add is the inverse of subtract, so if we had 10 + 4 = 14 then the inverse is subtract 4 and we have 14-4 = 10 back to 10 where we started from. And the geometry proof involves a rectangle and a right triangle hinged atop a trapezoid. You hinge it one direction you have dy*dx for area of a rectangle for integral area. You hinge it the other direction you have the dy/dx for slope or derivative from the trapezoid formed.
Sad that Old Math was so full of ill-defined concepts and fake concepts that never was a geometry proof of FTC ever possible in Old Math.
Length: 29 pages
AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
Length: 21 pages
Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
Length: 65 pages
Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
These are the TRUE Truth Tables of the 4 connectors of Logic
Equal+Not
T = T = T
T = ~F = T
F = ~T = T
F = F = T
If--> then
T --> T = T
T --> F = F
F --> T = U (unknown or uncertain)
F --> F = U (unknown or uncertain)
And
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F
Or
T or T = F
T or F = T
F or T = T
F or F = F
Those can be analyzed as being Equal+Not is multiplication, If-->then is division, And is addition and Or is subtraction in mathematics. Now I need to emphasis this error of Old Logic, the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
Now in Old Logic they had for Reductio Ad Absurdum as displayed by this schematic:
| | ~p
| |---
| | .
| | .
| | q
| | .
| | .
| | ~q
| p
Which is fine except for the error of not indicating the end conclusion of "p" is only a probability of being true, not guaranteed as true. And this is the huge huge error that mathematicians have fallen victim of. For the Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a proof method for mathematics, it is probability of being true or false. Math works on guaranteed truth, not probability. This textbook is written to fix that error.
Cover Picture: I like my covers to be like as if a blackboard in school to connect with students. This is a picture of the above Reductio Ad Absurdum, as a student or teacher would write in their notes or blackboard.
Length: 82 pages
On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 11:34:51 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Autistic
kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_Joel T. Giedt, Yong Sung Kim, Gyorgy Korniss, Toh-Ming Lu, Charles Martin,, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic and real proton is 840MeV not 938
kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_Peter Persans, Moussa N'Gom, John Schroeder, Michael Shur, Shawn-Yu Lin, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938
kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_Humberto Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang, Morris A Washington, Esther A. Wertz, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938
kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_Christian M. Wetzel, Ingrid Wilke, Shengbai Zhang, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938
kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_David A Schmidt, Daniel Stevenson, Yangyang Xu, Bulent Yener, Donald Drew, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938
kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_William Siegmann,Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek, Julian S. Georg, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938
38
AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
Length: 21 pages
World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math where they had a ill-defined infinity; they had the fakery of Limit concept; and they had the fakery of a continuum.
The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus basically says the integral is inverse to the derivative and the derivative is inverse to the integral. By inverse is meant that you can go to one given the other and vice versa, such as add is the inverse of subtract, so if we had 10 + 4 = 14 then the inverse is subtract 4 and we have 14-4 = 10 back to 10 where we started from. And the geometry proof involves a rectangle and a right triangle hinged atop a trapezoid. You hinge it one direction you have dy*dx for area of a rectangle for integral area. You hinge it the other direction you have the dy/dx for slope or derivative from the trapezoid formed.
Sad that Old Math was so full of ill-defined concepts and fake concepts that never was a geometry proof of FTC ever possible in Old Math.
Length: 29 pages
Plutonium Atom Totality Universe, Atom Totality Series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Cover picture: is what the interior and exterior of most atoms looks like once you apply Faraday's Law to subatomic particles.This picture is a coil of 88 rings torus with a smaller ring inside. The 88 coil rings represent 11 protons in a Faraday Law magnetic induction coil and the smaller ring is a muon as a bar magnet thrusting through the proton coil, thereby, producing electricity.
The goal and aim of the 8th edition of Atom Totality, 2017 was to iron out all the mathematics of Electricity and Magnetism so that the AP-Maxwell Equations embodied all the mathematics of physics. In other words, all of physics is handled by the AP-Maxwell Equations. But in the course of straightening out the EM math of physics, I made my second greatest science discovery-- that the real proton was 840MeV, real electron was the muon at 105MeV and that little particle we all thought was the electron since JJ Thompson discovered it in 1897, was in fact not the electron but was Dirac's magnetic monopole. I made that discovery in the midst of my writing the 8th edition (only goes to show that most of our best ideas come from organizing and placing our thoughts into order-- writing a book). And so this 9th edition goal and aim is to go back and fix the picture of atoms, their geometry, and incorporate that discovery, mostly by fixing the picture of what atoms exterior and interior geometry is, in light of the fact that there is the Faraday Law going on inside of atoms.
Length: 115 pages
True Chemistry Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of .5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is every where.
Cover picture: shows two of my chemical models, one of CO and the other CO2
Length: 1154
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS (textbook in the making-- journal textbook): journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; and ages 19 to 26, Volume 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
This is the one textbook in two volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education needs, 5 year old to 26 year old through all of mathematics that is needed to do science. Every other math book is incidental to this one. And the student needs this math book for all their math and science needs. A one-size-fits-all for mathematics study.
I call it a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost continuously. A unique first in education textbooks-- continual overnight editing.
What prompted me to write this textbook is that the Old Math is too much filled with error, mistakes and just sheer nonsense. In the early 2000s I wrote about 5 editions of Correcting Math textbooks and about 9 editions of True Calculus, but then I got so fed up and tired with all the mistakes of Old Math, that I decided the best route to go is throw out all of Old Math and start anew.
Now I wrestled with publishing a "rough first edition" now, or to wait about a year in polishing the textbook and then publish it. I wrestled with this and decided I have enough of a skeleton text, that I can continually polish with overnight editing, and that it would be of more benefit to readers to have this skeleton text and watch and wait as the months and years go by to see the continual polishing take affect. So I decided tonight to publish, for the benefit of many to see, rather than wait a year to see a polished text. I may have made a mistake in this decision for I do not want to turn off anyone to math. But maybe I made the correct decision to allow others to see this book a full year ahead of schedule. Bon Voyage!
Length: 328 pages
AP Atom Model replacing the Rutherford-Bohr Atom Model (Physics series for High School Book 1) Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
The Rutherford and Bohr model of the Atom is seen now as fake physics. And it will take a lot of time before that nonsense is removed and replaced in science textbooks and classrooms for a truer model of the Atom. So to accelerate that movement towards the truth of what the Atom is, I present this short book for High School. In the age of the Internet, when we discover true science but am teaching fake science, we need a process to quicken the exit of fake science. Not to wait around for 50 years to be teaching the true science, we should be teaching the true science as fast as possible and to remove the fake science in our school curriculums in a timely and orderly manner. So this small book is a pattern for future removal of fake science from school curriculums. This small book explains what the Rutherford-Bohr model was and why it was phony science. And I explain what replaces the Rutherford-Bohr model with the AP model of the Atom. So the pattern is -- show both -- and then authors of texts will eliminate the fake science until it is a passing footnote.
Cover Picture is a coil and a bar magnet and a galvanometer that measures the current produced as the bar magnet is thrust through the coil. This is Faraday's Law and needs to be taught in High School.
Length: 12 pages
On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 12:13:14 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Physics minnow
> WARNING TO ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING STUDENTS:
AP writes: Unpacking Moroney, suggests the reason Princeton is too dumb to see that 9 x 105MeV = 945MeV and the proton is clocked in at 938MeV with only a less than 1% sigma error, implies the real proton is 840MeV with a muon = real electron attached. Since none Princeton could ever understand AP's proof ellipse is never a conic section (for that is the oval,not the ellipse) but rather the ellipse is a cylinder section; stands to reason they are far far too stupid at Princeton to see real proton is 840MeV.
On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 10:03:14 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Physics Minnow
On Tuesday, May 28, 2019 at 5:04:17 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Autistic
>
> WARNING TO PARENTS:
why does not Baez, totally worthless in science, just change his name to abu Re: 1kicking out stalkers-- Jan Burse, Dan Christensen, John Baez //
On Monday, April 3, 2017 at 9:30:35 PM UTC-5, abu.ku...@gmail.com wrote:
> blow it out your ass ... oh,
> what was that smell, in the first place
>
abu.ku...@gmail.com
4/5/17
stalkers out kciking cans
yup, complex field is tres c00l
> Only if you failed Calculus would you think that
nanadittos ... when you ever have any result
from ye olde mathe, I'm sure that it will be new -- to you
AP writes: instead of spamming newsgroups, why not do something worthwhile-- Confirm real electron is 105MeV, real proton is 840MeV and that little particle JJ Thomson discovered in 1897 turns out to be not the atom electron but rather the Dirac magnetic monopole.
AP writes: Is the reason Physicists have not yet confirmed real proton is 840MeV not 938, because its scientists behave much like stalker kibo Parry Moroney-- cesspool mind of hatred with daily hate sheets on people rather than spend their daily activity on uncovering the true proton is 840MeV stuck with the real electron as muon doing a Faraday Law dance inside the atom making electricity and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole.
o-:^>___?
`~~c--^c'
Navy dog says: remember the time the failed engineer kibo Parry Moroney said 938 is short of 945 by 12%. How could any engineer pass school not knowing percentages?
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.
Atom Totality Universe: Atom Totality Series book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Physics book that explains what the universe is, and how it works. This is a continuation of the Atomic Theory by Democritus in Ancient Greek times. It adds one more fact to the Atomic Theory. That the Universe itself is one gigantic big atom. It completes the logic of science that Dr. Feynman wrote-- all things are made up of atoms -- and so, to complete that idea -- all things and the universe itself is an atom.
Print Length: 616 pages
Plutonium Atom Totality Universe, Atom Totality Series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Cover picture: is what the interior and exterior of most atoms looks like once you apply Faraday's Law to subatomic particles.This picture is a coil of 88 rings torus with a smaller ring inside. The 88 coil rings represent 11 protons in a Faraday Law magnetic induction coil and the smaller ring is a muon as a bar magnet thrusting through the proton coil, thereby, producing electricity.
The goal and aim of the 8th edition of Atom Totality, 2017 was to iron out all the mathematics of Electricity and Magnetism so that the AP-Maxwell Equations embodied all the mathematics of physics. In other words, all of physics is handled by the AP-Maxwell Equations. But in the course of straightening out the EM math of physics, I made my second greatest science discovery-- that the real proton was 840MeV, real electron was the muon at 105MeV and that little particle we all thought was the electron since JJ Thompson discovered it in 1897, was in fact not the electron but was Dirac's magnetic monopole. I made that discovery in the midst of my writing the 8th edition (only goes to show that most of our best ideas come from organizing and placing our thoughts into order-- writing a book). And so this 9th edition goal and aim is to go back and fix the picture of atoms, their geometry, and incorporate that discovery, mostly by fixing the picture of what atoms exterior and interior geometry is, in light of the fact that there is the Faraday Law going on inside of atoms.
Length: 115 pages
True Chemistry Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of .5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is every where.
Cover picture: shows two of my chemical models, one of CO and the other CO2
Length: 1154
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS (textbook in the making-- journal textbook): journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; and ages 19 to 26, Volume 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
This is the one textbook in two volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education needs, 5 year old to 26 year old through all of mathematics that is needed to do science. Every other math book is incidental to this one. And the student needs this math book for all their math and science needs. A one-size-fits-all for mathematics study.
I call it a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost continuously. A unique first in education textbooks-- continual overnight editing.
What prompted me to write this textbook is that the Old Math is too much filled with error, mistakes and just sheer nonsense. In the early 2000s I wrote about 5 editions of Correcting Math textbooks and about 9 editions of True Calculus, but then I got so fed up and tired with all the mistakes of Old Math, that I decided the best route to go is throw out all of Old Math and start anew.
Now I wrestled with publishing a "rough first edition" now, or to wait about a year in polishing the textbook and then publish it. I wrestled with this and decided I have enough of a skeleton text, that I can continually polish with overnight editing, and that it would be of more benefit to readers to have this skeleton text and watch and wait as the months and years go by to see the continual polishing take affect. So I decided tonight to publish, for the benefit of many to see, rather than wait a year to see a polished text. I may have made a mistake in this decision for I do not want to turn off anyone to math. But maybe I made the correct decision to allow others to see this book a full year ahead of schedule. Bon Voyage!
Length: 328 pages
AP Atom Model replacing the Rutherford-Bohr Atom Model (Physics series for High School Book 1) Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
The Rutherford and Bohr model of the Atom is seen now as fake physics. And it will take a lot of time before that nonsense is removed and replaced in science textbooks and classrooms for a truer model of the Atom. So to accelerate that movement towards the truth of what the Atom is, I present this short book for High School. In the age of the Internet, when we discover true science but am teaching fake science, we need a process to quicken the exit of fake science. Not to wait around for 50 years to be teaching the true science, we should be teaching the true science as fast as possible and to remove the fake science in our school curriculums in a timely and orderly manner. So this small book is a pattern for future removal of fake science from school curriculums. This small book explains what the Rutherford-Bohr model was and why it was phony science. And I explain what replaces the Rutherford-Bohr model with the AP model of the Atom. So the pattern is -- show both -- and then authors of texts will eliminate the fake science until it is a passing footnote.
Cover Picture is a coil and a bar magnet and a galvanometer that measures the current produced as the bar magnet is thrust through the coil. This is Faraday's Law and needs to be taught in High School.
Length: 12 pages
AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
Length: 21 pages
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dingus Dirtbag McGee <invalideye@ezampleaeze.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-15 07:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <qlljg4$u3p$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458342 |
Shut up idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-18 12:21 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: 1.9-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Korniss,Toh-Ming |
| Message-ID | <536e71c8-5342-4770-8eaf-e679ea3382be@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458355 |
On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 8:40:35 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Math Minnow Moroney and Rensselaer Polytech Institute fail at High School Math, High School Logic// both teach Ellipse is a conic when it never was// teach 10 OR 4 = 14 when even the village idiot knows 10 AND 4=14 // never have a geometry proof of Calculus World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math where they had a ill-defined infinity; they had the fakery of Limit concept; and they had the fakery of a continuum. The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus basically says the integral is inverse to the derivative and the derivative is inverse to the integral. By inverse is meant that you can go to one given the other and vice versa, such as add is the inverse of subtract, so if we had 10 + 4 = 14 then the inverse is subtract 4 and we have 14-4 = 10 back to 10 where we started from. And the geometry proof involves a rectangle and a right triangle hinged atop a trapezoid. You hinge it one direction you have dy*dx for area of a rectangle for integral area. You hinge it the other direction you have the dy/dx for slope or derivative from the trapezoid formed. Sad that Old Math was so full of ill-defined concepts and fake concepts that never was a geometry proof of FTC ever possible in Old Math. Length: 29 pages AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone. Length: 21 pages Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors. The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion. My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015. Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector. Length: 65 pages Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) These are the TRUE Truth Tables of the 4 connectors of Logic Equal+Not T = T = T T = ~F = T F = ~T = T F = F = T If--> then T --> T = T T --> F = F F --> T = U (unknown or uncertain) F --> F = U (unknown or uncertain) And T & T = T T & F = T F & T = T F & F = F Or T or T = F T or F = T F or T = T F or F = F Those can be analyzed as being Equal+Not is multiplication, If-->then is division, And is addition and Or is subtraction in mathematics. Now I need to emphasis this error of Old Logic, the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion. Now in Old Logic they had for Reductio Ad Absurdum as displayed by this schematic: | | ~p | |--- | | . | | . | | q | | . | | . | | ~q | p Which is fine except for the error of not indicating the end conclusion of "p" is only a probability of being true, not guaranteed as true. And this is the huge huge error that mathematicians have fallen victim of. For the Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a proof method for mathematics, it is probability of being true or false. Math works on guaranteed truth, not probability. This textbook is written to fix that error. Cover Picture: I like my covers to be like as if a blackboard in school to connect with students. This is a picture of the above Reductio Ad Absurdum, as a student or teacher would write in their notes or blackboard. Length: 82 pages Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 11:34:51 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Autistic kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_Joel T. Giedt, Yong Sung Kim, Gyorgy Korniss, Toh-Ming Lu, Charles Martin,, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic and real proton is 840MeV not 938 kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_Peter Persans, Moussa N'Gom, John Schroeder, Michael Shur, Shawn-Yu Lin, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938 kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_Humberto Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang, Morris A Washington, Esther A. Wertz, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938 kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_Christian M. Wetzel, Ingrid Wilke, Shengbai Zhang, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938 kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_David A Schmidt, Daniel Stevenson, Yangyang Xu, Bulent Yener, Donald Drew, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938 kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_William Siegmann,Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek, Julian S. Georg, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938 38 AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone. Length: 21 pages World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math where they had a ill-defined infinity; they had the fakery of Limit concept; and they had the fakery of a continuum. The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus basically says the integral is inverse to the derivative and the derivative is inverse to the integral. By inverse is meant that you can go to one given the other and vice versa, such as add is the inverse of subtract, so if we had 10 + 4 = 14 then the inverse is subtract 4 and we have 14-4 = 10 back to 10 where we started from. And the geometry proof involves a rectangle and a right triangle hinged atop a trapezoid. You hinge it one direction you have dy*dx for area of a rectangle for integral area. You hinge it the other direction you have the dy/dx for slope or derivative from the trapezoid formed. Sad that Old Math was so full of ill-defined concepts and fake concepts that never was a geometry proof of FTC ever possible in Old Math. Length: 29 pages Plutonium Atom Totality Universe, Atom Totality Series, book 2 Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Cover picture: is what the interior and exterior of most atoms looks like once you apply Faraday's Law to subatomic particles.This picture is a coil of 88 rings torus with a smaller ring inside. The 88 coil rings represent 11 protons in a Faraday Law magnetic induction coil and the smaller ring is a muon as a bar magnet thrusting through the proton coil, thereby, producing electricity. The goal and aim of the 8th edition of Atom Totality, 2017 was to iron out all the mathematics of Electricity and Magnetism so that the AP-Maxwell Equations embodied all the mathematics of physics. In other words, all of physics is handled by the AP-Maxwell Equations. But in the course of straightening out the EM math of physics, I made my second greatest science discovery-- that the real proton was 840MeV, real electron was the muon at 105MeV and that little particle we all thought was the electron since JJ Thompson discovered it in 1897, was in fact not the electron but was Dirac's magnetic monopole. I made that discovery in the midst of my writing the 8th edition (only goes to show that most of our best ideas come from organizing and placing our thoughts into order-- writing a book). And so this 9th edition goal and aim is to go back and fix the picture of atoms, their geometry, and incorporate that discovery, mostly by fixing the picture of what atoms exterior and interior geometry is, in light of the fact that there is the Faraday Law going on inside of atoms. Length: 115 pages True Chemistry Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of .5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is every where. Cover picture: shows two of my chemical models, one of CO and the other CO2 Length: 1154 TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS (textbook in the making-- journal textbook): journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; and ages 19 to 26, Volume 2 Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) This is the one textbook in two volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education needs, 5 year old to 26 year old through all of mathematics that is needed to do science. Every other math book is incidental to this one. And the student needs this math book for all their math and science needs. A one-size-fits-all for mathematics study. I call it a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost continuously. A unique first in education textbooks-- continual overnight editing. What prompted me to write this textbook is that the Old Math is too much filled with error, mistakes and just sheer nonsense. In the early 2000s I wrote about 5 editions of Correcting Math textbooks and about 9 editions of True Calculus, but then I got so fed up and tired with all the mistakes of Old Math, that I decided the best route to go is throw out all of Old Math and start anew. Now I wrestled with publishing a "rough first edition" now, or to wait about a year in polishing the textbook and then publish it. I wrestled with this and decided I have enough of a skeleton text, that I can continually polish with overnight editing, and that it would be of more benefit to readers to have this skeleton text and watch and wait as the months and years go by to see the continual polishing take affect. So I decided tonight to publish, for the benefit of many to see, rather than wait a year to see a polished text. I may have made a mistake in this decision for I do not want to turn off anyone to math. But maybe I made the correct decision to allow others to see this book a full year ahead of schedule. Bon Voyage! Length: 328 pages AP Atom Model replacing the Rutherford-Bohr Atom Model (Physics series for High School Book 1) Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) The Rutherford and Bohr model of the Atom is seen now as fake physics. And it will take a lot of time before that nonsense is removed and replaced in science textbooks and classrooms for a truer model of the Atom. So to accelerate that movement towards the truth of what the Atom is, I present this short book for High School. In the age of the Internet, when we discover true science but am teaching fake science, we need a process to quicken the exit of fake science. Not to wait around for 50 years to be teaching the true science, we should be teaching the true science as fast as possible and to remove the fake science in our school curriculums in a timely and orderly manner. So this small book is a pattern for future removal of fake science from school curriculums. This small book explains what the Rutherford-Bohr model was and why it was phony science. And I explain what replaces the Rutherford-Bohr model with the AP model of the Atom. So the pattern is -- show both -- and then authors of texts will eliminate the fake science until it is a passing footnote. Cover Picture is a coil and a bar magnet and a galvanometer that measures the current produced as the bar magnet is thrust through the coil. This is Faraday's Law and needs to be taught in High School. Length: 12 pages Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Physics dept Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek, Julian S. Georg, Joel T. Giedt, Yong Sung Kim, Gyorgy Korniss, Toh-Ming Lu, Charles Martin, Joseph Darryl Michael, Heidi Jo Newberg, Moussa N'Gom, Peter Persans, John Schroeder, Michael Shur, Shawn-Yu Lin, Humberto Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang, Morris A Washington, Esther A. Wertz, Christian M. Wetzel, Ingrid Wilke, Shengbai Zhang Rensselaer math department Donald Schwendeman, Jeffrey Banks, Kristin Bennett, Mohamed Boudjelkha, Joseph Ecker, William Henshaw, Isom Herron, Mark H Holmes, David Isaacson, Elizabeth Kam, Ashwani Kapila, Maya Kiehl, Gregor Kovacic, Peter Kramer, Gina Kucinski, Rongjie Lai, Fengyan Li, Chjan Lim, Yuri V Lvov, Harry McLaughlin, John E. Mitchell, Bruce Piper, David A Schmidt, Daniel Stevenson, Yangyang Xu, Bulent Yener, Donald Drew, William Siegmann On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 12:13:14 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Physics minnow > WARNING TO ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING STUDENTS: AP writes: Unpacking Moroney, suggests the reason Princeton is too dumb to see that 9 x 105MeV = 945MeV and the proton is clocked in at 938MeV with only a less than 1% sigma error, implies the real proton is 840MeV with a muon = real electron attached. Since none Princeton could ever understand AP's proof ellipse is never a conic section (for that is the oval,not the ellipse) but rather the ellipse is a cylinder section; stands to reason they are far far too stupid at Princeton to see real proton is 840MeV. On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 10:03:14 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Physics Minnow On Tuesday, May 28, 2019 at 5:04:17 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Autistic > > WARNING TO PARENTS: why does not Baez, totally worthless in science, just change his name to abu Re: 1kicking out stalkers-- Jan Burse, Dan Christensen, John Baez // On Monday, April 3, 2017 at 9:30:35 PM UTC-5, abu.ku...@gmail.com wrote: > blow it out your ass ... oh, > what was that smell, in the first place > abu.ku...@gmail.com 4/5/17 stalkers out kciking cans yup, complex field is tres c00l > Only if you failed Calculus would you think that nanadittos ... when you ever have any result from ye olde mathe, I'm sure that it will be new -- to you AP writes: instead of spamming newsgroups, why not do something worthwhile-- Confirm real electron is 105MeV, real proton is 840MeV and that little particle JJ Thomson discovered in 1897 turns out to be not the atom electron but rather the Dirac magnetic monopole. AP writes: Is the reason Physicists have not yet confirmed real proton is 840MeV not 938, because its scientists behave much like stalker kibo Parry Moroney-- cesspool mind of hatred with daily hate sheets on people rather than spend their daily activity on uncovering the true proton is 840MeV stuck with the real electron as muon doing a Faraday Law dance inside the atom making electricity and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. o-:^>___? `~~c--^c' Navy dog says: remember the time the failed engineer kibo Parry Moroney said 938 is short of 945 by 12%. How could any engineer pass school not knowing percentages? 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. Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole President Larry Summers Harvard Physics dept Jacob Barandes, Howard Berg, Michael Brenner, Adam Cohen, Eugene Demler, Michael Desai Louis Deslauriers, John Doyle, Cora Dvorkin, Gary Feldman, Douglas Finkbeiner, Melissa Franklin, Gerald Gabrielse, Howard Georgi, Sheldon Glashow, Roy Glauber, Jene Golovchenko, Markus Greiner, Roxanne Guenette, Girma Hailu, Bertrand Halperin, Lene Hau Thomas Hayes, Eric Heller, Jason Hoffman, Jenny Hoffman, Gerald Holton, Paul Horowitz, John Huth, Arthur Jaffe, Daniel Jafferis, Efthimios Kaxiras, Philip Kim, John Kovac, Erel Levine Mikhail Lukin, Logan McCarty, L. Mahadevan, Vinothan Manoharan, Eric Mazur, Masahiro Morii David Morin, Julia Mundy, Cherry Murray, David Nelson, Kang Ni, Hongkun Park, William Paul Peter Pershan, Mara Prentiss, Lisa Randall, Matthew Reece, Subir Sachdev, Aravinthan Samuel, Matthew Schwartz, Irwin Shapiro, Isaac Silvera, Andrew Strominger, Christopher Stubbs, Cumrun Vafa, Ronald Walsworth, David Weitz, Robert Westervelt, Richard Wilson Tai Wu, Amir Yacoby, Susanne Yelin, Xi Yin Princeton University Math dept Michael Aizenman, Manjul Bhargava, William Browder, Tristan Buckmaster, Sun-Yung Alice Chang, Maria Chudnovsky, Peter Constantin, John Conway, Mihalis Dafermos, Gabriele Di Cerbo, Zeev Dvir, Weinan E, Charles Fefferman, David Gabai, Javier Gómez-Serrano, Robert C. Gunning, Jonathan Hanselman, Wu-Chung Hsiang, Alexandru Ionescu, Nicholas Katz, Sergiu Klainerman, Simon Kochen, Joseph Kohn, János Kollár, Elliott Lieb, Adam Marcus, Fernando Codá Marques, Ana Menezes, Sophie Morel, Assaf Naor, Peter Ozsváth, John Pardon, Fabio Pusateri, Igor Rodnianski, Peter Sarnak, Paul D. Seymour, Tatyana Shcherbyna, Nicholas Sheridan, Goro Shimura, Yakov Sinai, Amit Singer, Christopher Skinner, Allan Sly, Elias Stein, Zoltán Szabó, Gang Tian, Hale Trotter, Vlad Vicol, Paul C. Yang, Shou-Wu Zhang Reed College physics dept Alison Crocker, John Essick, Joel Franklin, Lucas Illing, Mary James, Andrew Larkoski Johnny Powell, Darrell Schroeter, Jenna Smith, Ragnar Stroberg, David Griffiths, Robert Reynolds, Nicholas Wheeler Reed College Math dept Andrew Bray, Safia Chettih, Jim Fix, Eitan Frachtenberg, Adam Groce, Heather Kitada Lyudmila Korobenko, John Lind, Dylan McNamee, Kyle Ormsby, Angelica Osorno David Perkinson, Jamie Pommersheim, Kelly Shaw, Jerry Shurman, Irena Swanson Joe Buhler, Hubert Chrestenson, Albyn Jones, Ray Mayer, V. Potluri, Joe Roberts, Thomas Wieting 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 President: L. Reif (electrical engineer) MIT physics dept William Bertozzi, Robert Birgeneau, Hale Bradt, Bernard Burke, George Clark , Jeffrey Goldstone, Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins , Paul Joss, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon, Irwin Pless, Paul Schechter, James Young LIST of Failed Physicists because they still believe electron is .5MeV, in no order, and so very stupid are they in physics, for they could not even understand the physics of angular momentum of two particles 938 to .5 rather than 840 to 105 MeV Peter Higgs Rainer Weiss Kip S. Thorne Barry C. Barish David J. Thouless F. Duncan M. Haldane John M. Kosterlitz Takaaki Kajita Arthur B. McDonald Francois Englert Saul Perlmutter Brian P. Schmidt Adam G. Riess Makoto Kobayashi Toshihide Maskawa Yoichiro Nambu John C. Mather George F. Smoot Roy J. Glauber David J. Gross Hugh David Politzer Frank Wilczek Raymond Davis Jr. Masatoshi Koshiba Riccardo Giacconi Gerardus 't Hooft Martinus J.G. Veltman Jerome I. Friedman Henry W. Kendall Richard E. Taylor Carlo Rubbia Simon van der Meer William Alfred Fowler Kenneth G. Wilson James Watson Cronin Val Logsdon Fitch Sheldon Lee Glashow Steven Weinberg . . little fishes . . layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = 1 while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu more and more layers of error thinking physics . . John Baez Brian Greene Lisa Randall Alan H. Guth Michael E. Brown Konstantin Batygin Ben Bullock Larry Harson Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views None at all - he was a raving nutter. Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley Edward Witten
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-24 17:01 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: 1.9-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Korniss,Toh-Ming |
| Message-ID | <41b8608c-0132-4603-a2e7-b321670c5484@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458734 |
On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 3:28:37 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Hagfish of Math and Slime Eel of Physics > > Moroney and Rensselaer Polytech Institute fail at High School Math, High School Logic// both teach Ellipse is a conic when it never was// teach 10 OR 4 = 14 when even the village idiot knows 10 AND 4=14 // never have a geometry proof of Calculus > > World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Kindle Edition > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) > > Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math where they had a ill-defined infinity; they had the fakery of Limit concept; and they had the fakery of a continuum. > > The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus basically says the integral is inverse to the derivative and the derivative is inverse to the integral. By inverse is meant that you can go to one given the other and vice versa, such as add is the inverse of subtract, so if we had 10 + 4 = 14 then the inverse is subtract 4 and we have 14-4 = 10 back to 10 where we started from. And the geometry proof involves a rectangle and a right triangle hinged atop a trapezoid. You hinge it one direction you have dy*dx for area of a rectangle for integral area. You hinge it the other direction you have the dy/dx for slope or derivative from the trapezoid formed. > > Sad that Old Math was so full of ill-defined concepts and fake concepts that never was a geometry proof of FTC ever possible in Old Math. > > Length: 29 pages > > > AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section Kindle Edition > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) > > Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone. > > Length: 21 pages > > > Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors Kindle Edition > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) > > First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors. > > The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion. > > My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015. > > Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector. > > Length: 65 pages > > > Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum Kindle Edition > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) > > These are the TRUE Truth Tables of the 4 connectors of Logic > > Equal+Not > T = T = T > T = ~F = T > F = ~T = T > F = F = T > > If--> then > T --> T = T > T --> F = F > F --> T = U (unknown or uncertain) > F --> F = U (unknown or uncertain) > > And > T & T = T > T & F = T > F & T = T > F & F = F > > > Or > T or T = F > T or F = T > F or T = T > F or F = F > > Those can be analyzed as being Equal+Not is multiplication, If-->then is division, And is addition and Or is subtraction in mathematics. Now I need to emphasis this error of Old Logic, the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion. > > Now in Old Logic they had for Reductio Ad Absurdum as displayed by this schematic: > > | | ~p > | |--- > | | . > | | . > | | q > | | . > | | . > | | ~q > | p > > Which is fine except for the error of not indicating the end conclusion of "p" is only a probability of being true, not guaranteed as true. And this is the huge huge error that mathematicians have fallen victim of. For the Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a proof method for mathematics, it is probability of being true or false. Math works on guaranteed truth, not probability. This textbook is written to fix that error. > > Cover Picture: I like my covers to be like as if a blackboard in school to connect with students. This is a picture of the above Reductio Ad Absurdum, as a student or teacher would write in their notes or blackboard. > > Length: 82 pages > > Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. > > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe > Archimedes Plutonium > > On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 11:34:51 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > > Autistic > > > kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_Joel T. Giedt, Yong Sung Kim, Gyorgy Korniss, Toh-Ming Lu, Charles Martin,, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic and real proton is 840MeV not 938 > > kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_Peter Persans, Moussa N'Gom, John Schroeder, Michael Shur, Shawn-Yu Lin, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938 > > kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_Humberto Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang, Morris A Washington, Esther A. Wertz, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938 > > kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_Christian M. Wetzel, Ingrid Wilke, Shengbai Zhang, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938 > > kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_David A Schmidt, Daniel Stevenson, Yangyang Xu, Bulent Yener, Donald Drew, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938 > > kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_William Siegmann,Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek, Julian S. Georg, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938 > 38 > > > > AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section Kindle Edition > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) > > Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone. > > Length: 21 pages > > > World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Kindle Edition > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) > > Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math where they had a ill-defined infinity; they had the fakery of Limit concept; and they had the fakery of a continuum. > > The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus basically says the integral is inverse to the derivative and the derivative is inverse to the integral. By inverse is meant that you can go to one given the other and vice versa, such as add is the inverse of subtract, so if we had 10 + 4 = 14 then the inverse is subtract 4 and we have 14-4 = 10 back to 10 where we started from. And the geometry proof involves a rectangle and a right triangle hinged atop a trapezoid. You hinge it one direction you have dy*dx for area of a rectangle for integral area. You hinge it the other direction you have the dy/dx for slope or derivative from the trapezoid formed. > > Sad that Old Math was so full of ill-defined concepts and fake concepts that never was a geometry proof of FTC ever possible in Old Math. > > Length: 29 pages > > Plutonium Atom Totality Universe, Atom Totality Series, book 2 Kindle Edition > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) > > Cover picture: is what the interior and exterior of most atoms looks like once you apply Faraday's Law to subatomic particles.This picture is a coil of 88 rings torus with a smaller ring inside. The 88 coil rings represent 11 protons in a Faraday Law magnetic induction coil and the smaller ring is a muon as a bar magnet thrusting through the proton coil, thereby, producing electricity. > > The goal and aim of the 8th edition of Atom Totality, 2017 was to iron out all the mathematics of Electricity and Magnetism so that the AP-Maxwell Equations embodied all the mathematics of physics. In other words, all of physics is handled by the AP-Maxwell Equations. But in the course of straightening out the EM math of physics, I made my second greatest science discovery-- that the real proton was 840MeV, real electron was the muon at 105MeV and that little particle we all thought was the electron since JJ Thompson discovered it in 1897, was in fact not the electron but was Dirac's magnetic monopole. I made that discovery in the midst of my writing the 8th edition (only goes to show that most of our best ideas come from organizing and placing our thoughts into order-- writing a book). And so this 9th edition goal and aim is to go back and fix the picture of atoms, their geometry, and incorporate that discovery, mostly by fixing the picture of what atoms exterior and interior geometry is, in light of the fact that there is the Faraday Law going on inside of atoms. > > Length: 115 pages > > > True Chemistry Kindle Edition > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) > > Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of .5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is every where. > > Cover picture: shows two of my chemical models, one of CO and the other CO2 > > Length: 1154 > > TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS (textbook in the making-- journal textbook): journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; and ages 19 to 26, Volume 2 Kindle Edition > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) > > This is the one textbook in two volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education needs, 5 year old to 26 year old through all of mathematics that is needed to do science. Every other math book is incidental to this one. And the student needs this math book for all their math and science needs. A one-size-fits-all for mathematics study. > > I call it a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost continuously. A unique first in education textbooks-- continual overnight editing. > > What prompted me to write this textbook is that the Old Math is too much filled with error, mistakes and just sheer nonsense. In the early 2000s I wrote about 5 editions of Correcting Math textbooks and about 9 editions of True Calculus, but then I got so fed up and tired with all the mistakes of Old Math, that I decided the best route to go is throw out all of Old Math and start anew. > > Now I wrestled with publishing a "rough first edition" now, or to wait about a year in polishing the textbook and then publish it. I wrestled with this and decided I have enough of a skeleton text, that I can continually polish with overnight editing, and that it would be of more benefit to readers to have this skeleton text and watch and wait as the months and years go by to see the continual polishing take affect. So I decided tonight to publish, for the benefit of many to see, rather than wait a year to see a polished text. I may have made a mistake in this decision for I do not want to turn off anyone to math. But maybe I made the correct decision to allow others to see this book a full year ahead of schedule. Bon Voyage! > > Length: 328 pages > > AP Atom Model replacing the Rutherford-Bohr Atom Model (Physics series for High School Book 1) Kindle Edition > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) > The Rutherford and Bohr model of the Atom is seen now as fake physics. And it will take a lot of time before that nonsense is removed and replaced in science textbooks and classrooms for a truer model of the Atom. So to accelerate that movement towards the truth of what the Atom is, I present this short book for High School. In the age of the Internet, when we discover true science but am teaching fake science, we need a process to quicken the exit of fake science. Not to wait around for 50 years to be teaching the true science, we should be teaching the true science as fast as possible and to remove the fake science in our school curriculums in a timely and orderly manner. So this small book is a pattern for future removal of fake science from school curriculums. This small book explains what the Rutherford-Bohr model was and why it was phony science. And I explain what replaces the Rutherford-Bohr model with the AP model of the Atom. So the pattern is -- show both -- and then authors of texts will eliminate the fake science until it is a passing footnote. > > Cover Picture is a coil and a bar magnet and a galvanometer that measures the current produced as the bar magnet is thrust through the coil. This is Faraday's Law and needs to be taught in High School. > > > Length: 12 pages > > > Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. > > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe > Archimedes Plutonium > > > Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Physics dept > Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek, Julian S. Georg, Joel T. Giedt, Yong Sung Kim, Gyorgy Korniss, Toh-Ming Lu, Charles Martin, Joseph Darryl Michael, Heidi Jo Newberg, Moussa N'Gom, Peter Persans, John Schroeder, Michael Shur, Shawn-Yu Lin, Humberto Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang, Morris A Washington, Esther A. Wertz, Christian M. Wetzel, Ingrid Wilke, Shengbai Zhang > > Rensselaer math department > Donald Schwendeman, Jeffrey Banks, Kristin Bennett, Mohamed Boudjelkha, Joseph Ecker, William Henshaw, Isom Herron, Mark H Holmes, David Isaacson, Elizabeth Kam, Ashwani Kapila, Maya Kiehl, Gregor Kovacic, Peter Kramer, Gina Kucinski, Rongjie Lai, Fengyan Li, Chjan Lim, Yuri V Lvov, Harry McLaughlin, John E. Mitchell, Bruce Piper, David A Schmidt, Daniel Stevenson, Yangyang Xu, Bulent Yener, Donald Drew, William Siegmann > > On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 12:13:14 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > > Physics minnow > > WARNING TO ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING STUDENTS: > > > AP writes: Unpacking Moroney, suggests the reason Princeton is too dumb to see that 9 x 105MeV = 945MeV and the proton is clocked in at 938MeV with only a less than 1% sigma error, implies the real proton is 840MeV with a muon = real electron attached. Since none Princeton could ever understand AP's proof ellipse is never a conic section (for that is the oval,not the ellipse) but rather the ellipse is a cylinder section; stands to reason they are far far too stupid at Princeton to see real proton is 840MeV. > > On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 10:03:14 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > > Physics Minnow > > On Tuesday, May 28, 2019 at 5:04:17 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > > Autistic > > > > WARNING TO PARENTS: > > why does not Baez, totally worthless in science, just change his name to abu Re: 1kicking out stalkers-- Jan Burse, Dan Christensen, John Baez // > > On Monday, April 3, 2017 at 9:30:35 PM UTC-5, abu.ku...@gmail.com wrote: > > blow it out your ass ... oh, > > what was that smell, in the first place > > > > abu.ku...@gmail.com > > 4/5/17 > > > stalkers out kciking cans > > yup, complex field is tres c00l > > > Only if you failed Calculus would you think that > > nanadittos ... when you ever have any result > from ye olde mathe, I'm sure that it will be new -- to you > > > AP writes: instead of spamming newsgroups, why not do something worthwhile-- Confirm real electron is 105MeV, real proton is 840MeV and that little particle JJ Thomson discovered in 1897 turns out to be not the atom electron but rather the Dirac magnetic monopole. > > > AP writes: Is the reason Physicists have not yet confirmed real proton is 840MeV not 938, because its scientists behave much like stalker kibo Parry Moroney-- cesspool mind of hatred with daily hate sheets on people rather than spend their daily activity on uncovering the true proton is 840MeV stuck with the real electron as muon doing a Faraday Law dance inside the atom making electricity and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. > > > o-:^>___? > `~~c--^c' > Navy dog says: remember the time the failed engineer kibo Parry Moroney said 938 is short of 945 by 12%. How could any engineer pass school not knowing percentages? > > 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. > > > Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole > > President Larry Summers > > Harvard Physics dept > Jacob Barandes, Howard Berg, Michael Brenner, Adam Cohen, Eugene Demler, Michael Desai > Louis Deslauriers, John Doyle, Cora Dvorkin, Gary Feldman, Douglas Finkbeiner, Melissa Franklin, Gerald Gabrielse, Howard Georgi, Sheldon Glashow, Roy Glauber, Jene Golovchenko, Markus Greiner, Roxanne Guenette, Girma Hailu, Bertrand Halperin, Lene Hau > Thomas Hayes, Eric Heller, Jason Hoffman, Jenny Hoffman, Gerald Holton, Paul Horowitz, John Huth, Arthur Jaffe, Daniel Jafferis, Efthimios Kaxiras, Philip Kim, John Kovac, Erel Levine > Mikhail Lukin, Logan McCarty, L. Mahadevan, Vinothan Manoharan, Eric Mazur, Masahiro Morii > David Morin, Julia Mundy, Cherry Murray, David Nelson, Kang Ni, Hongkun Park, William Paul > Peter Pershan, Mara Prentiss, Lisa Randall, Matthew Reece, Subir Sachdev, Aravinthan Samuel, Matthew Schwartz, Irwin Shapiro, Isaac Silvera, Andrew Strominger, Christopher Stubbs, Cumrun Vafa, Ronald Walsworth, David Weitz, Robert Westervelt, Richard Wilson > Tai Wu, Amir Yacoby, Susanne Yelin, Xi Yin > > > Princeton University Math dept > > Michael Aizenman, Manjul Bhargava, William Browder, Tristan Buckmaster, Sun-Yung Alice Chang, Maria Chudnovsky, Peter Constantin, John Conway, Mihalis Dafermos, Gabriele Di Cerbo, Zeev Dvir, Weinan E, Charles Fefferman, David Gabai, Javier Gómez-Serrano, Robert C. Gunning, Jonathan Hanselman, Wu-Chung Hsiang, Alexandru Ionescu, Nicholas Katz, Sergiu Klainerman, Simon Kochen, Joseph Kohn, János Kollár, Elliott Lieb, Adam Marcus, > Fernando Codá Marques, Ana Menezes, Sophie Morel, Assaf Naor, Peter Ozsváth, John Pardon, Fabio Pusateri, Igor Rodnianski, Peter Sarnak, Paul D. Seymour, Tatyana Shcherbyna, Nicholas Sheridan, Goro Shimura, Yakov Sinai, Amit Singer, Christopher Skinner, Allan Sly, Elias Stein, Zoltán Szabó, Gang Tian, Hale Trotter, Vlad Vicol, Paul C. Yang, Shou-Wu Zhang > > > Reed College physics dept > > Alison Crocker, John Essick, Joel Franklin, Lucas Illing, Mary James, Andrew Larkoski > Johnny Powell, Darrell Schroeter, Jenna Smith, Ragnar Stroberg, David Griffiths, Robert Reynolds, Nicholas Wheeler > > Reed College Math dept > Andrew Bray, Safia Chettih, Jim Fix, Eitan Frachtenberg, Adam Groce, Heather Kitada > Lyudmila Korobenko, John Lind, Dylan McNamee, Kyle Ormsby, Angelica Osorno > David Perkinson, Jamie Pommersheim, Kelly Shaw, Jerry Shurman, Irena Swanson > Joe Buhler, Hubert Chrestenson, Albyn Jones, Ray Mayer, V. Potluri, Joe Roberts, Thomas Wieting > > > > 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 > > President: L. Reif (electrical engineer) > > MIT physics dept > William Bertozzi, Robert Birgeneau, Hale Bradt, Bernard Burke, George Clark , Jeffrey Goldstone, Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins , Paul Joss, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon, Irwin Pless, Paul Schechter, James Young > > LIST of Failed Physicists because they still believe electron is .5MeV, in no order, and so very stupid are they in physics, for they could not even understand the physics of angular momentum of two particles 938 to .5 rather than 840 to 105 MeV > > Peter Higgs > Rainer Weiss > Kip S. Thorne > Barry C. Barish > David J. Thouless > F. Duncan M. Haldane > John M. Kosterlitz > Takaaki Kajita > Arthur B. McDonald > Francois Englert > Saul Perlmutter > Brian P. Schmidt > Adam G. Riess > Makoto Kobayashi > Toshihide Maskawa > Yoichiro Nambu > John C. Mather > George F. Smoot > Roy J. Glauber > David J. Gross > Hugh David Politzer > Frank Wilczek > Raymond Davis Jr. > Masatoshi Koshiba > Riccardo Giacconi > Gerardus 't Hooft > Martinus J.G. Veltman > Jerome I. Friedman > Henry W. Kendall > Richard E. Taylor > Carlo Rubbia > Simon van der Meer > William Alfred Fowler > Kenneth G. Wilson > James Watson Cronin > Val Logsdon Fitch > Sheldon Lee Glashow > Steven Weinberg > . > . > little fishes > . > . > layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = 1 while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV > > Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass > Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu > more and more layers of error thinking physics > . > . > John Baez > Brian Greene > Lisa Randall > Alan H. Guth > Michael E. Brown > Konstantin Batygin > Ben Bullock > Larry Harson > Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan > Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views > None at all - he was a raving nutter. > Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley > Edward Witten
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-18 19:46 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: 1.9-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Korniss,Toh-Ming |
| Message-ID | <f2f00539-1b8b-4f5e-84ee-62c19b951be8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458355 |
On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 9:57:15 AM UTC-5, Dingus Dirtbag McGee wrote: > Shut up idiot. On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 9:24:28 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Minnow of Math and Runt of Physics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-19 03:06 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test |
| Message-ID | <qlurc8$iom$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #458774 |
Minnow of Math and Runt of Physics Archimedes Plutonium >Subject: Re: 1.9-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton�0MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Korniss,Toh-Ming >On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 9:57:15 AM UTC-5, Dingus Dirtbag McGee wrote: >> Shut up idiot. >On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 9:24:28 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Minnow of Math and Runt of Physics Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science: > Thank you for requesting another Babble-o-meter Calculation! ☑ Archie responds to criticism but refuses to discuss the issue... ☑ ...he would rather run away by trying to delete his posts... ☑ ...he actually believes deleting something on Google actually deletes it from Usenet... ☑ Archie considers attempts of actual discussion to be 'stalking'... ☐ ...Giggle Groups screenshot cut and pasted... ☑ Archie's response posted in the wrong topic... ☑ Archie reposts the same old, same old, yet again... ☑ ...with zero new content... ☑ ...multiple times... ☑ ...again and again... ☑ ...and again and again... ☑ ...enough times to be classified as spam... ☑ ...Post has no new content, in fact... ☑ Archie posted in a topic/topics explicitly created by him for doing so... ☐ ...with a subject about flunking a nonexistent test no one ever took... ☐ ...and posted to the wrong newsgroup... ☐ ...and Archie even whines about (other) spammers in his spam... ☑ Purpose of Archie's post is to remain #1 Front Page Hog... ☐ .....meanwhile, Archie complains of some other "Front Page Hog(s)"... ☐ Archie's post mentions totally uninvolved people... ☐ ...who are university math or physics professors... ☐ ...at a university supposedly near the person criticizing Archie... ☐ ...but Archie got the location (and university) completely wrong... ☐ ...and Archie demands they resign for not teaching his broken math... ☐ ....no, Archie demands they be fired for not teaching his broken math... ☐ ....Archie demands they shut down an entire university for not teaching his broken math... ☐ ....heck, Archie demands they shut down HARVARD for not teaching his broken math... ☐ ...and he includes a stalker list of physics and/or math professors... ☑ ...and STILL can't answer 'why post stalker lists of uninvolved profs'... ☑ ...maybe he thinks these professors do a Kibo and will respond here just by mentioning their names... ☑ ...even though those profs have never heard of him and never will... ☑ ...speaking of Kibo, mentions Kibo (how last century!) ☑ .....and Archie can't even tell the difference between Kibo and me... ☐ ...Archie's actual response is completely unrelated to the topic... ☐ Archie even reposts something from 1994 to show he was a failure way back then, too!... ☐ A critic's comment has embarrassing (to AP) portion removed... ☐ ...to the extent the comment is no longer recognizable... ☑ Archie's post includes random snippets by other critics, spammers or babblers... ☐ ...which are attributed to yet other critics, spammers or babblers... ☐ ...followed by yet another repost of the "12 Failures of Plutonium"... ☐ Archie actually claims that anyone who believe the ellipse is a conic section is stupid... ☐ ...followed by yet another repost of his long-discredited ellipse/conic section non-proof... ☐ Archie includes the dumb ascii art cat/owl thing... ☐ ...and that whatever-it-is ascii art... ☐ ...as well as ascii art of Archie's butthole... ☑ ...and Archie doesn't realize ascii art is so 1980s... ☑ Archie still can't answer Dan C's easy 4 question math test... ☐ Archie brings up a "mistake" (in his view) from months ago... ☐ ...which, of course, is not actually a mistake... ☐ ...and Archie invents yet more "mistakes" (that are not mistakes)... ☐ Archie really wears out the "a beer short of a 6 pack" joke... ☑ ...but he still doesn't realize he's about 5 beers short... ☐ Archie awards self Nobel Prize/claims he should be so awarded... ☐ ...then rejects self-awarded Nobel, real awardees don't deserve it... ☐ ...and sour grapes Nobel or other science/math prize... ☐ Archie says something really dumb and stoopid, but realizes how dumb it is, so he accuses another poster of saying it... ☐ Archie doesn't know the definition of "racism", so calls anyone who points out all the flaws in his claims are "racist"... ☐ Archie roots for cockroaches in the Law of the Jungle... ☐ Archie can't tell the difference between Boolean AND/OR and arithmetic addition/subtraction... ☐ Archie doesn't even know the 'rules' of Boolean logic... ☐ ...in particular, doesn't know the difference between AND/OR and addition/subtraction... ☐ Archie whines about iPhone's self-protection feature rather than heat his trailer in the winter... ☐ Archie outsmarted by someone too stupid to come out of the rain AGAIN... ☐ Clay County Sheriff, be on lookout for someone in T-shirt&sandals walking along road during blizzard... ☐ Archie thinks he is the very first person in the history of the world to disbelieve in negative and imaginary numbers... ☐ ...and demands credit from anyone else who also disbelieves in them... ☐ Archie can't get over the shame of messing up percentages... ☐ ...and Archie is envious that I weighed the electron and he didn't... ☐ Archie asks Google Groups to do something they can't do... ☑ Archie is too stoopid to realize attack posts just produce more posts like this... ☑ Google Groups poster. 'Nuf said. ☑ ...because he's too stoopid to configure a newsreader with killfile... Archie's Babbling Nonsense score: 26 plutoniums! (The plutonium is the new SI unit of failure) x-no-archive: yes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-23 09:19 -0700 |
| Subject | kibo Parry Moroney, 27 year long stalker shithead of sci.math-- never any math, never any physics |
| Message-ID | <bc2376d7-f8ce-4a23-89ec-dbf2ea7dd584@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458782 |
On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 10:06:55 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Minnow of Math and Runt of Physics On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 1:53:29 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Math Failure
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-22 15:41 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: 1.9-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Korniss,Toh-Ming |
| Message-ID | <beaf8d65-d286-4841-87f7-9bc858d7e9b3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458355 |
On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 9:57:15 AM UTC-5, Dingus Dirtbag McGee wrote: > Shut up idiot. On Sunday, September 22, 2019 at 4:13:05 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Autistic  AP writes: the failure kibo-Parry-Moroney and his 28 year nonstop stalking, a basketcase for psychology  Re: 1.9-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Korniss,Toh-Ming Lu,Martin By Dingus Dirtbag McGee 1 post 4 views updated 9:57 AM   Re: 2.0-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton is 840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Michael,Newberg,N'Gom By Dingus Dirtbag McGee 1 post 3 views updated 9:56 AM   Re: 2.1-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton is 840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Persans,Schroeder,Shur By Dingus Dirtbag McGee 1 post 3 views updated 9:56 AM   Re: 2.2-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to math percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Shawn-Yu Lin,Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang By Dingus Dirtbag McGee 1 post 4 views updated 9:56 AM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-22 22:53 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test |
| Message-ID | <qm8u17$npr$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #459101 |
Leech of Math and Lamprey of Physics Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science: >AP writes: the failure kibo-Parry-Moroney and his 28 year nonstop stalking,> a basketcase for psychology ☑ Archie won't engage in discussion in a discussion group... ☑ Archie considers attempted discussion in a discussion group to be 'stalking'... x-no-archive: yes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-23 19:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: 1.9-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Korniss,Toh-Ming |
| Message-ID | <554c9081-3ef5-4daa-a8b6-e24dfc0e2596@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458355 |
On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 9:57:15 AM UTC-5, Dingus Dirtbag McGee wrote: > Shut up idiot. On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 8:26:00 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Hagfish of Math and Slime Eel of Physics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Antonio Man-Bun <invalide@nowhere.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-23 20:55 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: 1.9-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Korniss,Toh-Ming |
| Message-ID | <qmc43o$1abi$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #459191 |
Shut up, you retarded prick.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-24 13:34 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: 1.9-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Korniss,Toh-Ming |
| Message-ID | <460ba8b3-7c87-49ca-a1bf-0586afe788b8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #459192 |
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 10:55:44 PM UTC-5, Antonio Man-Bun wrote: > Shut up, you retarded prick. On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 3:28:37 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Hagfish of Math and Slime Eel of Physics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-24 20:45 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test |
| Message-ID | <qmdv9i$309$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #459242 |
Hagfish of Math and Slime Eel of Physics Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science: (Archie *still* hasn't learned not to attack me) >On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 10:55:44 PM UTC-5, Antonio Man-Bun wrote: >> Shut up, you retarded prick. >On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 3:28:37 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Hagfish of Math and Slime Eel of Physics Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science: oops, I think I may have triggered an Autism Meltdown here... x-no-archive: yes
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web