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

Groups > sci.physics > #673063 > unrolled thread

Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-02-24 13:04 -0800
    Re: Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-02-25 22:49 -0800
    Re: Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-02-28 09:30 -0800
    Re: Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-02-28 14:31 -0800
    Re: Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-01 11:14 -0800
    Re: Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-01 22:36 -0800
    Re: Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-02 14:24 -0800
    Re: Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-02 21:10 -0800
    Re: Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-03 13:48 -0800
    Re: Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 14:50 -0800
      Re: Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-05 01:28 +0000
        Re: Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-05 22:00 -0800
        Re: Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-10 18:08 -0800
        Re: Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 08:16 -0700
        Re: Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 12:38 -0700
    Re: Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-04 18:23 -0800
      Re: Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-03-06 00:02 -0800
        Re: Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 13:08 -0700
          Re: Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-02 11:02 +0000
            Re: Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-02 19:24 -0700
              Re: Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-03 19:58 -0700
                Re: Archimedes Plutonium flunked physics lifelong-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-04 03:15 +0000
                  Re: Archimedes Plutonium flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-11 21:41 -0700
                  Re: Archimedes Plutonium flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-14 15:41 -0700
                  Re: Archimedes Plutonium flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-16 21:59 -0700
                    Re: Archimedes Plutonium flunked physics lifelong-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-17 05:48 +0000
                      Re: Archimedes Plutonium flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 18:41 -0700
                      Barry Shein's Moroney always a failure in science, flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 17:56 -0700
                      Re: Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 09:53 -0700
                      Re: Barry Shein's Moroney stalker flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 17:14 -0700
                      Re: Archimedes Plutonium flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 11:52 -0700
                      Re: Archimedes Plutonium flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 08:58 -0700
        Re: Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 19:48 -0700
        1 neutron = 9 muons Re: Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 21:09 -0700
    Re: Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 21:14 -0800
    Re: Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-12 16:26 -0700
    Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-14 13:37 -0700
    Re: Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 12:14 -0700
    Re: Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 14:55 -0700
    Re: Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-20 15:03 -0700
    Re: Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-21 15:54 -0700
      Re: Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-22 18:50 -0700
    Re: Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-07 11:35 -0700
    Re: Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 13:22 -0700
    Re: Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 12:44 -0700
    Re: Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 21:35 -0700
    Re: Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 09:39 -0700
    Moroney calls Weinberg a crackpot with his belief that chemistry has a chemical bond when proton is 938MeV electron is .5MeV Re: Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 16:23 -0700
    Re: Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 15:09 -0700

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#673063 — Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test

Physics lifelong-generation Test & Steven Weinberg flunked it

Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test. It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist, never. 

Now, Physics has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed. 

PHYSICS TEST:: 

1) You studied momentum in physics, especially angular momentum, and, can you have Chemistry and the Chemical Bond, the ionic, covalent, metallic bonding, if the Proton was 938MeV while electron is .5MeV. Or, can this bonding exist only when the Proton is 840 MeV, electron = muon = 105 MeV, and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. So, which is it. Chemistry exists only if 840 to 105 MeV for angular momentum sake or 938 to .5? 

So, all physicists who studied and thought they mastered physics, turns out, they are so pitiful, so pathetic in physics understanding of just about anything, that they believe you can have Chemistry with a 938 MeV proton with a .5 MeV electron. 

Steven Weinberg flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test. 

AP

Michael Moroney writes:
8:24 AM (6 hours ago) 

>Still no evidence or proof the electron


AP writes: at least Steven can do percentages correctly, whereas Moroney thinks 938 MeV is short of 945MeV by 12%, no wonder Moroney failed science

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#673422

Michael Moroney Feb 24 wrote:

>Babbling crazy fool

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon. 
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons. 

Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 

> 
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass 
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short. 


AP writes: at least Steven can do a correct percentage


On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 3:04:18 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Physics lifelong-generation Test & Steven Weinberg flunked it
> 
> Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test. It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist, never. 
> 
> Now, Physics has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed. 
> 
> PHYSICS TEST:: 
> 
> 1) You studied momentum in physics, especially angular momentum, and, can you have Chemistry and the Chemical Bond, the ionic, covalent, metallic bonding, if the Proton was 938MeV while electron is .5MeV. Or, can this bonding exist only when the Proton is 840 MeV, electron = muon = 105 MeV, and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. So, which is it. Chemistry exists only if 840 to 105 MeV for angular momentum sake or 938 to .5? 
> 
> So, all physicists who studied and thought they mastered physics, turns out, they are so pitiful, so pathetic in physics understanding of just about anything, that they believe you can have Chemistry with a 938 MeV proton with a .5 MeV electron. 
> 
> Steven Weinberg flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test. 
> 
> AP
> 
> Michael Moroney writes:
> 8:24 AM (6 hours ago) 
> 
> >Still no evidence or proof the electron
> 
> 
> AP writes: at least Steven can do percentages correctly, whereas Moroney thinks 938 MeV is short of 945MeV by 12%, no wonder Moroney failed science

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

#673877

Michael Moroney	writes:
Feb 27 (18 hours ago) 

<Spock> 
"Highly illogical." 
</Spock> 

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon. 
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons. 

Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 

> 
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass 
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short. 

AP writes: At least Steven can do a proper percentage


On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 3:04:18 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Physics lifelong-generation Test & Steven Weinberg flunked it
> 
> Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test. It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist, never. 
> 
> Now, Physics has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed. 
> 
> PHYSICS TEST:: 
> 
> 1) You studied momentum in physics, especially angular momentum, and, can you have Chemistry and the Chemical Bond, the ionic, covalent, metallic bonding, if the Proton was 938MeV while electron is .5MeV. Or, can this bonding exist only when the Proton is 840 MeV, electron = muon = 105 MeV, and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. So, which is it. Chemistry exists only if 840 to 105 MeV for angular momentum sake or 938 to .5? 
> 
> So, all physicists who studied and thought they mastered physics, turns out, they are so pitiful, so pathetic in physics understanding of just about anything, that they believe you can have Chemistry with a 938 MeV proton with a .5 MeV electron. 
> 
> Steven Weinberg flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test. 
> 
> AP
> 
> Michael Moroney writes:
> 8:24 AM (6 hours ago) 
> 
> >Still no evidence or proof the electron
> 
> 
> AP writes: at least Steven can do percentages correctly, whereas Moroney thinks 938 MeV is short of 945MeV by 12%, no wonder Moroney failed science

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

#673938

Consensus Science Requires No Talent, No Intelligence, and No Effort (81)
By James McGinn 82 posts 145 views updated 4:10 PM
 
+ 5 others
 

Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? (9)
By James McGinn 48 posts 59 views updated 4:10 PM
+ 7 others
 
This topic has been hidden because you reported it for abuse. (+2 more)

Simple Question About Phase Diagram of H2O (2)
By James McGinn 50 posts 159 views updated 4:09 PM
 
+ 9 others
 
This topic has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse.


Bodkin claims Avogadro didn't realize that H2O isn't an ideal gas (2)
By James McGinn 96 posts 177 views updated 4:08 PM



AP writes: the only thing that will stop a flunkie like McGinn in science is to give him a Nobel prize in physics, for it worked with Steven Weinberg


On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 3:04:18 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Physics lifelong-generation Test & Steven Weinberg flunked it
> 
> Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test. It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist, never. 
> 
> Now, Physics has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed. 
> 
> PHYSICS TEST:: 
> 
> 1) You studied momentum in physics, especially angular momentum, and, can you have Chemistry and the Chemical Bond, the ionic, covalent, metallic bonding, if the Proton was 938MeV while electron is .5MeV. Or, can this bonding exist only when the Proton is 840 MeV, electron = muon = 105 MeV, and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. So, which is it. Chemistry exists only if 840 to 105 MeV for angular momentum sake or 938 to .5? 
> 
> So, all physicists who studied and thought they mastered physics, turns out, they are so pitiful, so pathetic in physics understanding of just about anything, that they believe you can have Chemistry with a 938 MeV proton with a .5 MeV electron. 
> 
> Steven Weinberg flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test. 
> 
> AP
> 
> Michael Moroney writes:
> 8:24 AM (6 hours ago) 
> 
> >Still no evidence or proof the electron
> 
> 
> AP writes: at least Steven can do percentages correctly, whereas Moroney thinks 938 MeV is short of 945MeV by 12%, no wonder Moroney failed science

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

#674071

most of my teenage life and most of my adulthood she is been inside me for more than 25 years and me completely helpless and defenceless to get her out->ITS LIKE SORRY YOUR WHOLE LIFE IS JUST A DREAM (1)
By _...@__.__ 1 post 0 views updated 12:10 PM
 

in 96/97 i was already sold out by yngwie malmsteen in facing the animal album, she was inside me all those years->someone had to pay->im not completeley 100%responsible for my own doing when somebody is inside me against my will (1)
By _...@__.__ 1 post 0 views updated 12:07 PM
 

when i blocked her in 1998 itwas just meant for her to bleed i never understood what got people so affected back then->it was collateral damage cause it was only meant for her but they or her or both sold me out (1)
By _...@__.__ 1 post 0 views updated 11:50 AM


When my monitor is off for 4 hours or more, last 2 years. (2)
By Jeff-Relf.Me 4 posts 6 views updated 9:16 AM
 

What's Wrong With the American 
By Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. 5 posts 14 views updated 9:15 AM


AP writes:: how much difference is there with the above delusional spammers, and say, Steven spamming trash like the The First Three Minutes, yet Steven could not even recognize Real Electron = 105 MeV not his silly .5MeV




On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 3:04:18 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Physics lifelong-generation Test & Steven Weinberg flunked it
> 
> Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test. It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist, never. 
> 
> Now, Physics has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed. 
> 
> PHYSICS TEST:: 
> 
> 1) You studied momentum in physics, especially angular momentum, and, can you have Chemistry and the Chemical Bond, the ionic, covalent, metallic bonding, if the Proton was 938MeV while electron is .5MeV. Or, can this bonding exist only when the Proton is 840 MeV, electron = muon = 105 MeV, and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. So, which is it. Chemistry exists only if 840 to 105 MeV for angular momentum sake or 938 to .5? 
> 
> So, all physicists who studied and thought they mastered physics, turns out, they are so pitiful, so pathetic in physics understanding of just about anything, that they believe you can have Chemistry with a 938 MeV proton with a .5 MeV electron. 
> 
> Steven Weinberg flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test. 
> 
> AP
> 
> Michael Moroney writes:
> 8:24 AM (6 hours ago) 
> 
> >Still no evidence or proof the electron
> 
> 
> AP writes: at least Steven can do percentages correctly, whereas Moroney thinks 938 MeV is short of 945MeV by 12%, no wonder Moroney failed science

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

#674185

Making magic closets with a stargate (62)
By KCIR2 62 posts 18 views updated 12:12 AM

Steve BH Provide a link (1)
By James McGinn 1 post 0 views updated 12:02 AM

Admissions by James McGinn (4)
By Ser gio 4 posts 12 views updated Mar 1
 

Response to Arindham; By James McGinn Atmospheric Physicist and top expert on water in the atmosphere
By James McGinn 20 posts 22 views updated Mar 1
 
+ 4 others

Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? (15)
By James McGinn 74 posts 99 views updated Mar 1
 
+ 6 others
 
What if the Universe is Wrong? (32)
By The Starmaker 32 posts 40 views updated Mar 1


AP writes=== Yeh, right, what if the Universe is a spamming jackarse like you

AP writes=== One has to wonder what spamming jackarses like McGinn would have done in bygone eras before the Internet. I mean, the Internet was a godsend to drooling airhead spammers. One can only imagine how nutjobs of the past released their drool-- probably go to bars, and bend the ear off of the guy sitting next to them, and puffing away at cigarettes or cigars. Instead of airhead McGinn's weather-- probably about girls, cars, and government.

Certainly, never about whether the Real electron is .5MeV or 105 MeV


On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 3:04:18 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Physics lifelong-generation Test & Steven Weinberg flunked it
> 
> Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test. It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist, never. 
> 
> Now, Physics has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed. 
> 
> PHYSICS TEST:: 
> 
> 1) You studied momentum in physics, especially angular momentum, and, can you have Chemistry and the Chemical Bond, the ionic, covalent, metallic bonding, if the Proton was 938MeV while electron is .5MeV. Or, can this bonding exist only when the Proton is 840 MeV, electron = muon = 105 MeV, and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. So, which is it. Chemistry exists only if 840 to 105 MeV for angular momentum sake or 938 to .5? 
> 
> So, all physicists who studied and thought they mastered physics, turns out, they are so pitiful, so pathetic in physics understanding of just about anything, that they believe you can have Chemistry with a 938 MeV proton with a .5 MeV electron. 
> 
> Steven Weinberg flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test. 
> 
> AP
> 
> Michael Moroney writes:
> 8:24 AM (6 hours ago) 
> 
> >Still no evidence or proof the electron
> 
> 
> AP writes: at least Steven can do percentages correctly, whereas Moroney thinks 938 MeV is short of 945MeV by 12%, no wonder Moroney failed science

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

#674296

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 10:44:34 -0800 (PST)

Subject: PAGE9, 1-9, More evidence proving Atom Totality, blackbody
 radiation//, Bell Inequality/textbook 8th ed 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2017 18:44:35 +0000

PAGE9, 1-9, More evidence proving Atom Totality, blackbody radiation//, Bell Inequality/textbook 8th ed 2017

Alright, in these pages I want to do more major physical supporting evidence that the Universe is a large plutonium atom totality. 

Now here I am going to need a current day description of what most physicists believe is true of the Universe but in fact is utter false and nonsense. So I need a name for this current widespread held falsehood. I could just call it Big Bang, but that leaves out too much for it is the Big Bang along with the Einstein General Relativity that are fakeries. So I call it the Big Bang Einstein General Relativity BBEGR, which sounds like "beggar". 

I call the Atom Totality Universe as the theory that destroys BBEGR. Atom Totality has 9 key observations, experiments and facts that do this destroying of BBEGR, and they are these nine. 
1) Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is blackbody, meaning cavity, meaning a structure 
2) Bell Inequality is true and thus the Universe is quantum mechanical-- meaning it is the inside of an atom 
3) Solid Body Rotation can exist only in a Universe in which Electromagnetism EM runs the Universe as seen in the EM theory, and so a universe operated by EM theory is a universe of an atom. In fact, recently it was seen that the North Pole of Saturn was a hexagon, like the hexagons of snowflakes caused by EM as Van der Waals force.
4) Strong Nuclear Force is another EM force of Chemical Bonding only scaled higher 
5) the Dirac Sea of positrons works only in an Atom Totality Universe 
6) Gravity is EM gravity which means the Universe is electricity and magnetism, which further means the universe is an atom. In other words, gravity as EM runs astronomy. The Coulomb force varies over a range of forces R to 1/R to 1/R^2. 
7) The so called Doppler Redshift as a aftermath of the Big Bang, is not a Doppler Redshift at all but due to the fact that the monopole of .5 MeV is a charged photon, and the charge either shifts the spectral lines red or blue.
8) Our Sun is Hollow, because of Gauss's law of electricity-- charges move to outer surface, implying gravity is electricity & magnetism, and since gravity is EM, means the Universe is a structure for only Atoms provide for EM
9) Doppler Redshift has nothing to do with Doppler effect. The Doppler effect works on sound waves, never light waves. What is happening with Redshift of light waves is because of the magnetic monopole carries a charge energy of .5 MeV, whether + or - charge on a photon or neutrino. So, when spectral lines of elements are shifted, either blue or redshift is all because of magnetism, magnetic monopoles.

I call the Atom Totality Universe the theory that destroys BBEGR by these 9 key observations, experiments and facts that do this destroying of BBEGR because of structure versus no structure. Atom Totality is a structure, whereas Big Bang is no structure.  An entity with Structure means the Universe has to be something, not a "nothing" for which an explosion, supposedly, to fill up. BBEGR has no structure but a amorphous non-structure from an explosion. 

Now, for the reader, let me tell you the big major difference between Atom Totality and BBEGR, if not clear to the reader already. The big difference is the BBEGR is a theory that has the Universe as a structureless entity. The Atom Totality has the universe as being a Structure, and the only plausible structure is a Atom itself. Not an onion as in Ancient times, and not a elephant or turtle carrying a flat surface that holds the Universe as in Ancient times. The only reasonable plausible Structure is a single big atom. 

1) the blackbody radiation in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation CMBR. This destroys BBEGR because it is "blackbody radiation". If it were not blackbody, BBEGR could reign supreme. And it is totally ironic that CMBR was used, when first discovered, as a supporting evidence of the Big Bang Explosion. But when first discovered, it took a long time to realize it was blackbody and although most physicists should have discarded the Big Bang the moment it was found blackbody, BBEGR was too far entrenched with its muddle headed wrongness. 

A parallel history could be said of the like to like charge as repelling with Thompson in 1904 proposing the plum pudding model and then Rutherford in 1911 shattering the like to like repelling by finding the atom congregates electrons=muons outside the nucleus and congregates protons as the nucleus. So instead of trashcanning the like to like as repelling, the physicists kept on believing in their wrongness. 

Alright I did a little exploring to find some historical dates on CMBR and found that the Big Bang is circa 1927 and a Cosmic Background Radiation is about 1950 to present but not until 1990 with the COBE satellite was it known that the Radiation was blackbody at 2.71 K. 

The moment it was announced and shown Blackbody CMBR, is the moment that any physicist with a gram of logic would have realized that the Universe itself is a Structure and so the Big Bang with General Relativity is not a theory of the cosmos, but flawed and trash. 

Everytime evidence comes in, saying the Universe is a "structure" is another mounting piece of evidence in favor of the Atom Totality theory. 

Of the list of 9 major evidences supporting the Atom Totality, I now delve into (2) Bell Inequality that showed that Bohr's Quantum Mechanics was true but that Einstein's physics of General Relativity was false. Here again, the Universe is Quantum Mechanical which means the Universe is a structure, or cavity, or a container of sorts and thus implying Atomic, which means the Universe is a single big atom. 

Now the Bell Inequality along with CMBR are cosmic features of quantum mechanics, meaning the Universe has to be an Atom to sustain these quantum features. In CMBR, the single Cosmic Atom is a large container or Structure of this cosmic atom. And the Bell Inequality is further evidence that the Cosmos is quantum, not the Structureless BBEGR. 

Now this theory of the Bell Inequality seems totally off the deep end. But only for a second. Because if you start learning about John Bell, Einstein/Rosen/Podalsky and Bohr, you start learning how Einstein with BBEGR was found wrong against Bohr and Bell with Quantum Mechanics dominating the physics of the Universe. 
The John Bell Inequality which decided EPR-thought- experiment. Was Einstein correct or was Quantum Mechanics correct? 
What Bell found out after Aspect did the experiments, is that QM was 
correct and Einstein was wrong. BBEGR is wrong. 
But then the interpretation of Bell Inequality had begun. And what 
Bell concluded was that there was just one way in which to get rid of 
speed faster than light and the Bell experiment to hold true. Bell, 
found one way to solve the problem-- Superdeterminism. 
--- quoting what Archimedes Plutonium gave as a Wikipedia entry on 
Superdeterminism -- 
SUPERDETERMINISM 
 Physicist John S. Bell as 
referenced by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S._Bell is noted 
mostly for his Bell Inequality Theorem which shows us that Quantum 
Physics is not just restricted to the microworld but that Quantum 
Physics stretches clear across the Cosmos. John Bell not only 
discovered the Inequality for which experimental physicists such as 
Alain Aspect could then test to see if Quantum Mechanics stretches 
across the Cosmos, but one of John Bell's contributions to science is 
rarely noted. And John Bell does not discuss this contribution in 
printed material but seems to have conveyed it on the BBC television 
in interviews. It is my opinion that the concept of Superdeterminism 
is John Bell's finest contribution to physics, and much more important 
than his Bell Inequality, even though it required his Inequality to 
come to his concept of Superdeterminism. As far as I know from the 
history of physics, the concept of Superdeterminism begins with John 
Bell because it requires John Bell's Inequality Theorem. And the 
concept of Superdeterminism is probably John Bell's greatest single 
contribution to science. 
Here is John Bell defining what Superdeterminism is: 
--- Bell stated on the BBC --- 
"There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and 
spooky action at a distance. But it (Superdeterminism) involves 
absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free 
will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just 
inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our 
behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. 
There is no need for a faster than light signal to tell particle A what 
measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, 
including particle A, already "knows" what that measurement, and its 
outcome, will be." 
--- end Bell quote --- 
--- further statement by John Bell to the BBC on Superdeterminism --- 
"The only alternative to quantum probabilities, superpositions of 
states, collapse of the wavefunction, and spooky action at a distance, 
is that everything is superdetermined. For me it is a dilemma. I think 
it is a deep dilemma, and the resolution of it will not be trivial; it will require a substantial change in the way we look at things." 
--- end Bell quote--- 

So, what the Bell Inequality did was further support the idea the Universe as a Whole is a Structure, a Cavity, or a Container and the only plausible structure is a big atom as the Universe. The Bell Inequality, like the blackbody CMBR support the Atom Totality theory and throws out the BBEGR. 
The only thing needed for Bell Inequality is the idea of a region of the Cosmos that contains the Nucleus of the Atom Totality, which controls the rest of the Cosmos. 
Physicists rarely mention the concept of superdeterminism and how it 
solves the problems of Quantum Mechanics. They do not mention it 
partly because it disrupts the Big Bang Theory, since it makes no 
sense that a Big Bang Universe can have superdeterminism. 
John Bell lived under the Big Bang Theory, but if he had lived into the 1990s there arose a rival theory to the Big Bang, called the Atom Totality. 
The problem John Bell had with Superdeterminism is that there is no 
mechanism in the Big-Bang theory to make Superdeterminism work. In the Atom-Totality theory, there is a mechanism in that the Nucleus of the 
Atom-Totality does all the ordering up of every event that takes place 
in the Cosmos. The Nucleus pulls the strings of every event that 
takes place in the entire Universe. The year that John S. Bell died, 
1990, is the year in which the Atom-Totality theory was born. 
One ramification of the Bell Inequality and superdeterminism is the explanation of how the brain and mind work, of course that is psychology and not pure physics, but let me amble down that road while here on superdeterminism. 
In the Brain Locus theory, the mind is like a radio receiver which is 
only one atom or one molecule and the rest of the brain tissue goes to 
executing whatever the messages shot from the Atom Totality Nucleus 
into the brain. The photons and neutrinos carry these messages. So that all life is puppets whose every action, thought was shot from the Nucleus into our brain locus and we execute that message.   


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

                ::\ ::|:: /:: 
                 ::\::|::/:: 
                     _ _ 
                    (:Y:) 
                     - - 
                 ::/::|::\:: 
                ::/ ::|:: \:: 

One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. 
 
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ 
whole entire Universe is just one big atom 
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies 

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts in comfort and quiet.     

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

COMMENTS:: Now I am looking for the easiest experiment in Chemistry bonding or in Physics Spectral lines that the true electron is the muon at 105 MeV and not the .5 MeV monopole particle which is a photon or neutrino with a charge energy of .5, not a rest-mass energy. Looking for anomalies, I found the Zeeman anomaly.

Now i picked this up from nyu.edu 

However, there is an anomalous Zeeman effect which shows up particularly for atoms with odd atomic number $Z$ (hydrogen, for example). In such cases, it is found that the number of Zeeman sub-levels is actually even rather than odd. This cannot be explained within the normal Zeeman theory. However, it suggests the possible existence of an angular momentum like quantity that can take on half-integer values. 

--- end quote--- 

What i am asking is whether this anomaly is explained by the fact the true electron is the muon at 105 MeV and not the monopole particle of .5 MeV. 

AP

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

#674357

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 18:04:09 -0800 (PST)

Subject: PAGE11, 1-11, Variable motion, forces of R to 1/R to 1/R^2
 PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE /textbook 8th ed. 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2017 02:04:09 +0000




PAGE11, 1-11, Variable motion, forces of R to 1/R to 1/R^2 PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE /textbook 8th ed. 2017


Alright, I am exploring how Io, Europa, Ganymede have a 4::2::1 resonance while Mercury has a 3::2 resonance. 

Gravity of Newton/GR cannot explain resonance, but EM can, in the idea that gravity lock is EM, a force that requires R or 1/R rather than the weaker force of 1/R^2. In Faraday law R or 1/R would be a closed loop wire circle with a larger closed loop wire oblique to the smaller with magnetic monopoles=current, flowing in both and the gravity lock of resonance is a constant due to the oblique angle. 

Alright, making real good progress here with the idea that of the 3 possible motions of objects going around another object-- star to planets, planets to satellites, planets to rings that the only math that matches the observations correctly is not Newton gravity nor General Relativity gravity, but rather is a EM-gravity theory which has a variable range of force strengths-- 1) of solidbody V proportional to R, 2) of 1/R a constant and then our Newton/GR of 3), a inverse square 1/R^2. 

We cannot have a resonance gravity lock with Newton or GR gravity, but require at least a math of 1/R to explain Mercury 3::2 resonance and explain Io, Europa, Ganymede 4::2::1 resonance. 

Gravity of Newton and GR, also, fall short on explaining why these resonances are whole number constants, tying together rotation with revolution. Gravity of Newton and GR are deaf, dumb, and silent on the math of resonance locked. Only the force of EM can be powerful enough to provide a math for resonance lock, and provide for solidbody motion. 

So, why is this supporting evidence that the Universe is an Atom Totality? Because if the forces of Nature, all the forces are EM force, means the universe is an atom because electricity and magnetism are Atomic phenomenon. Atoms give rise to electricity and magnetism. Electricity and magnetism come from nowhere else, except the atom structure.

So in Old Physics, when they observed solidbody rotation in almost all spiral-galaxies, those soft in logic of physics came up with dark matter and dark energy. They never studied Logic or could ever use logic since their minds were never logical in the first place, and Ad Hoc, declared dark matter and dark energy exist to create solidbody rotation. If they had logic, they would have rather instead said -- solidbody rotation exists in Faraday law of EM theory, and so, instead of ad hoc dark matter, consider gravity as a form of electromagnetism. 

A brilliant and smart scientist would have looked at solidbody rotation in Spiral Galaxies and would not say dark matter, dark energy, but would rather say-- throw out Newton and GR gravity and install EM as what makes gravity. And that only the dumbest of the dumb physicists and astrophysicist would make the shameful claim of dark matter and dark energy. 

Capacitors in physics, in EM has the math of R or 1/R rather than 1/R^2. 

The Faraday law with many closed loops of wire nested in a plane where the wire loops are progressively larger and where you have a thrusting bar magnet in the center of these wire loops, that the motion of magnetic monopoles=current, in the nested wire loops is solidbody rotation of current. All signals to move travel at the speed of light to produce electricity. So here we have motion that is V proportional to radius R. 

Alright, if you look for a force of 1/R rather than 1/R^2 in Maxwell EM theory, it is not hard to find, in capacitors. On page 621 of Halliday & Resnick Fundamentals of Physics, 1988, 3rd ed they have the parallel plate capacitor C = e_0 *(A/d) where 1/d is our 1/R. And they write and I quote: "The capacitance does indeed depend only on geometrical factors, namely, the plate area A and the plate separation d." 

So, here in EM theory we have solidbody motion represented by Faraday's law where we have several closed loops of wire and the magnetic monopoles=current, all traveling at a speed of light signal V = R, and a 1/R motion in capacitors and a 1/R^2 motion in Coulomb's law. 

So, gravity is not just one motion of 1/R^2, but rather, gravity is EM of three main types of motion. No longer is gravity a separate force of Nature, but rather is a variable EM force ranging from R, to 1/R to 1/R^2. 

So, the EM force of variable force causes the gravity lock on moons of planets and on planets with the Sun. 

I see these graphs from several web sites on the rotation curves. I should be able to figure out the new math structure that gives us the true Coulomb force along with force of gravity. That new math structure that encompasses the variable force strengths is a Logarithmic function, for if you look at a logarithmic function graph and the graph of the rotation curves of spiral galaxies, you see they are identical in form.

http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/rotation_curves.htm 

http://spaces.imperial.edu/russell.lavery/ast100/Lectures/Ast100Topic31.html 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve 


Hard to imagine that the Coulomb force law is y = Ln(x) law rather inverse square with distance. 

http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/rotation_curves.htm 

If we look at this Cornell website of rotation curves, the rotation of a typical galaxy is a composition of both a slanted straight line 

 / 
/ 

and a flat straight line 

_____ 

which in full appears as this 

   _____ 
 / 
/ 

If we transport the Ln(x) function to reside fully in the 1st quadrant, we get a math structure of the Coulomb force as y = Ln(x). 

http://spaces.imperial.edu/russell.lavery/ast100/Lectures/Ast100Topic31.html 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve 

Now is there any other parts of Physics that tells us the Coulomb force law is really a natural log function? Yes indeed in the theory of Capacitors where the inverse square 1/r^2 is replaced by 1/r, and we see capacitance as "still motion of a body of charges". 

Now I think I found an extremely exciting application of a Coulomb force that is not inverse square but rather is Logarithmic. The application is both chemical bonding and the Aufbau Principle. The idea is that in multi-electron=muon atoms, the nucleus of protons is solid-body-rotation, whereas the electrons=muons in successive shells turn from solid-body of rotation V proportional to R, to that of rotation proportional to a constant. Same as seen in the Cornell picture of a spiral galaxy. 

Now this Coulomb force as being logarithmic rather than inverse square can be found throughout the chemical bonding. The metallic bond is mostly solid body motion of magnetic monopoles, whereas the ionic bond is mostly a "constant". Many of the anomalies in current physics and chemistry can be explained by a Coulomb force that is not inverse square but rather is Logarithmic. 

If we look at the Cornell webpage on rotation curves we see this: 

(1) Solid body rotation V proportional to R, velocity proportional to radius 

(2) Then, V is a constant 

(3) Typical Galaxy has both (1) and (2), of that of solid body with constant. 

(4) Keplerian velocity V proportional 1/R^2 is not seen in typical galaxies 

However, if we look at this website the basically flat rotation curve has bits and pieces squiggly curves of the 1/r and the 1/r^2 curves. So is the "flat part of the galaxy rotation composed of not only a constant but of 1/r and 1/r^2. 

http://spaces.imperial.edu/russell.lavery/ast100/Lectures/Ast100Topic31.html 
  
Can we have a Logarithmic function that starts out solid body then merges into flat r, then 1/r then 1/r^2 ? 

Since the speed of light is a constant in physics, it would make more sense that the Coulomb force would not have a mathematics of inverse square since that structure has no math constant. But the Logarithmic function has a constant in "2.71..." The number "e" is the mathematical analog of the speed of light in physics. So the Coulomb force must be represented not by inverse square but the Log function. The Coulomb force is not a single solo force but a range of forces varying from R to 1/R to 1/R^2. 

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

                ::\ ::|:: /:: 
                 ::\::|::/:: 
                     _ _ 
                    (:Y:) 
                     - - 
                 ::/::|::\:: 
                ::/ ::|:: \:: 

One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. 
 
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ 
whole entire Universe is just one big atom 
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies 

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts in peace and quiet.      

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

Comments:: The discovery that the Real Electron is a muon weighs much on my mind as I wrap up this textbook of the 8th edition. Next year I will be spending time on a Mathematics textbook and cannot say when I return for the 9th edition of Atom Totality. In the above page I ran into a sentence that asks about the movement of electrons in a current of electricity. Here is where I need far more clarity, far more understanding of how Electron=muon relates to electricity, since electricity as current is all about the .5 MeV magnetic monopole, and that the muon = electron has little to no role in the monopole as the current flow. So, here, I better wait a full year and let clarity come sunshining in the meantime.

AP

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

#674455

,.Moroney says autism // Jeffrey Goldstone, Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins//never realizing Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole 

Michael Moroney writes 



1:00 AM (12 hours ago) 


And this time just another double little autism attack, without the 12 
Failures. A temporary setback. 





On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 3:04:18 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Physics lifelong-generation Test & Steven Weinberg flunked it
> 
> Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test. It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist, never. 
> 
> Now, Physics has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed. 
> 
> PHYSICS TEST:: 
> 
> 1) You studied momentum in physics, especially angular momentum, and, can you have Chemistry and the Chemical Bond, the ionic, covalent, metallic bonding, if the Proton was 938MeV while electron is .5MeV. Or, can this bonding exist only when the Proton is 840 MeV, electron = muon = 105 MeV, and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. So, which is it. Chemistry exists only if 840 to 105 MeV for angular momentum sake or 938 to .5? 
> 
> So, all physicists who studied and thought they mastered physics, turns out, they are so pitiful, so pathetic in physics understanding of just about anything, that they believe you can have Chemistry with a 938 MeV proton with a .5 MeV electron. 
> 
> Steven Weinberg flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test. 
> 
> AP
> 
> Michael Moroney writes:
> 8:24 AM (6 hours ago) 
> 
> >Still no evidence or proof the electron
> 
> 
> AP writes: at least Steven can do percentages correctly, whereas Moroney thinks 938 MeV is short of 945MeV by 12%, no wonder Moroney failed science

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

#674571

Michael Moroney	writes:
8:36 AM (8 hours ago)


Physics Failure 
Sorry, there is no such thing as "my thread" on Usenet. Porat has just 
as much right to babble his nonsense here 
>Subject: Peter Higgs flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test 

And what does Peter Higgs, who has never even heard

AP writes:: Oh, I think Steven and Peter have heard of the .5MeV and the 105 MeV particle before. Their trouble is they mistook which is which, just like Columbus mistook the America's as being India and China


On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 3:04:18 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Physics lifelong-generation Test & Steven Weinberg flunked it
> 
> Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test. It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist, never. 
> 
> Now, Physics has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed. 
> 
> PHYSICS TEST:: 
> 
> 1) You studied momentum in physics, especially angular momentum, and, can you have Chemistry and the Chemical Bond, the ionic, covalent, metallic bonding, if the Proton was 938MeV while electron is .5MeV. Or, can this bonding exist only when the Proton is 840 MeV, electron = muon = 105 MeV, and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. So, which is it. Chemistry exists only if 840 to 105 MeV for angular momentum sake or 938 to .5? 
> 
> So, all physicists who studied and thought they mastered physics, turns out, they are so pitiful, so pathetic in physics understanding of just about anything, that they believe you can have Chemistry with a 938 MeV proton with a .5 MeV electron. 
> 
> Steven Weinberg flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test. 
> 
> AP
> 
> Michael Moroney writes:
> 8:24 AM (6 hours ago) 
> 
> >Still no evidence or proof the electron
> 
> 
> AP writes: at least Steven can do percentages correctly, whereas Moroney thinks 938 MeV is short of 945MeV by 12%, no wonder Moroney failed science

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

#674607

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

>Michael Moroney	writes:
>8:36 AM (8 hours ago)

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

>>Stay out of all my threads, you miserable rotten creep

>Sorry, there is no such thing as "my thread" on Usenet. Porat has just
>as much right to babble his nonsense here as you do to babble your
>nonsense here. You post something, expect a response.

>Besides, what's the difference between Porat babbling nonsense about
>'circlons' and 'chains of orbitals' and Archimedes Plutonium babbling
>nonsense about 'electron=muon' and 'cosmic plutonium atoms'????
>Other than the fact Plutonium is a much better speller?

Why cut my quotes to avoid humiliating yourself again, when you
humiliate yourself with just about every one of your posts??

>>Subject: Peter Higgs flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test

>>And what does Peter Higgs, who has never even heard of you, much
less taken your imaginary test, have to do with anything? Are your
thoughts so jumbled up that they jump from Porat to Higgs to..?

>AP writes:: Oh, I think Murray and Peter have heard of the .5MeV and the 105
> MeV particle before.

Of course they have, but we are discussing your imaginary test, plus the
fact neither has ever heard of anyone so dumb to think the electron
is a muon just because you said so.

<snip babble>

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

#674880

Michael Moroney	wrytes:
Mar 4

>Sorry, there is no such thing as "my thread" on....

Moroney wrote:

>Subject: Peter Higgs flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test 

And what does Peter Higgs, who has never even heard of you, much 
less taken...


AP writes: I thought I was talking about Steven Weinberg, but Peter Higgs is in the same boat-- The Chemical Bond of Covalent is impossible with angular momentum being .5 to 938 MeV. Only with 105 to 840 is Covalent bond possible.

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

#675707

Is this the Barry arsewipe Shein show staged out of Boston or the Kibo arsewipe show-- going on now for 25 years???

Michael Moroney        wrote 
4:46 PM (2 hours ago) 

>Oh, so you finally have a 

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

#678352

On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 7:29:01 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >Michael Moroney	writes:
> >8:36 AM (8 hours ago)
> 

> Of course they have, but we are discussing your imaginary test, plus the
> fact neither has ever heard of anyone so dumb to think the electron
> is a muon just because you said so.
> 
> <snip babble>

 



♥♥♥AMAZING  SHIPPING 1 post 0 views updated 8:20 AM
 



♥ PHARMACY♥♥♥ 0 views updated 8:19 AM
 

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

#679013

On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 7:29:01 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >Michael Moroney	writes:
> >8:36 AM (8 hours ago)
> 
> >Physics Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails:
> 
> >>Stay out of all my threads, you miserable rotten creep
> 
> >Sorry, there is no such thing as "my thread" on Usenet. Porat has just
> >as much right to babble his nonsense here as you do to babble your
> >nonsense here. You post something, expect a response.
> 
> >Besides, what's the difference between Porat babbling nonsense about
> >'circlons' and 'chains of orbitals' and Archimedes Plutonium babbling
> >nonsense about 'electron=muon' and 'cosmic plutonium atoms'????
> >Other than the fact Plutonium is a much better speller?
> 
> Why cut my quotes to avoid humiliating yourself again, when you
> humiliate yourself with just about every one of your posts??
> 
> >>Subject: Peter Higgs flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test
> 
> >>And what does Peter Higgs, who has never even heard of you, much
> less taken your imaginary test, have to do with anything? Are your
> thoughts so jumbled up that they jump from Porat to Higgs to..?
> 
> >AP writes:: Oh, I think Murray and Peter have heard of the .5MeV and the 105
> > MeV particle before.
> 
> Of course they have, but we are discussing your imaginary test, plus the
> fact neither has ever heard of anyone so dumb to think the electron
> is a muon just because you said so.
> 
> <snip babble>


John Gabriel



9:36 AM (3 hours ago)



Bwaaa haaaa haaaa! Seems that the BIG STUPID knows set theory can be very harmful to your health, hence the strategically placed Advertisement!! 

LMAO 


burs...@gmail.com writes



Mar 27



More results by bird brain John Garbage-iel? 
Obtained via his butt sex axiom and 3=<4 invalid? 

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

#674615

True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV

#1page

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

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

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

Experimental PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon 
by Archimedes Plutonium

PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon 

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


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


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

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

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

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

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


#2page

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 15:12:00 -0800 (PST)

Subject: radioactive Beta decay is 105 not .5 MeV Re: Chemists are smarter than
 Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real
 Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 23:12:00 +0000


radioactive Beta decay is it 105MeV or .5 MeV Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV

On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 3:36:00 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV 
> 
> 

So logically incoherent have Physicists become, so incoherent. Incoherent is a polite term for crazy, for physicists have become babbling crazy fools. 

They would have you believe that Beta decay in Radioactivity is the decay of electrons as .5 MeV particles. 

So, do the babbling crazy fools ever consider that if Electrons = .5MeV, then a current in a wire is Radioactive Decay. Give me any 10 outstanding physicists today, any 10, and, even all put together have not one gram of Logical thought among them. 

If you think the electron is the .5MeV particle, then your radioactive decay is all messed up and screwy. 

If you think the Real Electron = 105 MeV, then, you have a modicum of a logical mind, because when the Real Electron = 105 MeV, it seldom ever comes out of its parent-atom. It seldom comes out unless you apply high energy to the atom to force it apart from its 840 MeV proton. Thus, when you have a neutral atom and force that atom to emit or eject a 105 MeV particle, then, then, you have Radioactive Beta Decay. 

But, the run of the mill photon with .5MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy, is not any Radioactive Decay. 

I am going to have to rewrite the entire textbook on Radioactive Decay.



AP

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


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

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

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

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

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

#3page

On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 1:08:56 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:

#3page direct observance some years back in Poland of a 840 Mev particle Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV
2nd proof with the direct observance some years back in Poland of a 840 Mev particle along with 105 MeV particle of the hydrogen atom. 

Hello, well i found the below on the internet. I need a 840MeV particle that is the Real Proton. I have asked to look for it in the production of Muons. Is the below a production of muons along with 840 MeV particles? 

Quoting 

Indication For A Broad J(pc) = 2++ Meson At 840-mev Produced In The Reaction Pi- P ---> Pi+ Pi- N At High |t| 
K. Rybicki, I. Sakrejda (Cracow, INP) 
1985 - 10 pages 

Z.Phys. C28 (1985) 65-74 
DOI: 10.1007/BF01550250 
Abstract (Springer) 
The reaction π−p→π+π−n has been studied at 17.2 GeV/c and 63 GeV/c. A partial wave analysis shows a fairly broad (∼250 MeV) resonance at about 840 MeV. This object, already visible in moments of the angular distribution, is produced in theD wave with helicitym=2 via unnatural exchange. The cross section for the reaction π−p→D2U(840)n is only by an order of magnitude lower than that of ϱ(770) and falls likepLAB−2.1±0.3. We have not been able to explain this object by systematic experimental effects like acceptance and/orN* reflections; neither is the nature of the resonance (if real) clear to us. 
--- end quote --- 



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


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

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

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

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

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




On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 3:04:18 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Physics lifelong-generation Test & Steven Weinberg flunked it
> 
> Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test. It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist, never. 
> 
> Now, Physics has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed. 
> 
> PHYSICS TEST:: 
> 
> 1) You studied momentum in physics, especially angular momentum, and, can you have Chemistry and the Chemical Bond, the ionic, covalent, metallic bonding, if the Proton was 938MeV while electron is .5MeV. Or, can this bonding exist only when the Proton is 840 MeV, electron = muon = 105 MeV, and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. So, which is it. Chemistry exists only if 840 to 105 MeV for angular momentum sake or 938 to .5? 
> 
> So, all physicists who studied and thought they mastered physics, turns out, they are so pitiful, so pathetic in physics understanding of just about anything, that they believe you can have Chemistry with a 938 MeV proton with a .5 MeV electron. 
> 
> Steven Weinberg flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test. 
> 
> AP
> 
> Michael Moroney writes:
> 8:24 AM (6 hours ago) 
> 
> >Still no evidence or proof the electron
> 
> 
> AP writes: at least Steven can do percentages correctly, whereas Moroney thinks 938 MeV is short of 945MeV by 12%, no wonder Moroney failed science

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

#674887

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 4:23:06 AM UTC+2, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV
> 
> #1page
> 
> Newsgroups: sci.math
> Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 13:32:28 -0800 (PST)
> 
> Subject: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment--
>  Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 21:32:28 +0000
> 
> Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole, after all
> 
> Experimental PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon 
> by Archimedes Plutonium
> 
> PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon 
> 
> 1st proof is chemical bonding cannot exist with momentum of 938 versus .5MeV 
> Chemical Bonds are covalent, ionic, metallic. You simply cannot get atoms to bond if the electron is thought of as the .5MeV particle, only with a muon at 105 MeV and the proton at 840 MeV with neutron at 945 MeV do you have the physics of angular momentum that allows bonding in Chemistry. The .5MeV particle was, all along a magnetic monopole of a photon with .5 MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy. 
> 
>===========================
see my
the ''chain of orbitals system ' 
that goes all along my unprecedented  model
--------
> Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH 
> ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu 
=============
that:
 of course a model of Archi psychopath Uoranium rectum 
======= 
 >                 ::\ ::|:: /:: 
                  ::\::|::/:: 
                      _ _ 
                     (:Y:) 
                      - - 
>                  ::/::|::\:: 
>                 ::/ ::|:: \:: 
> One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. 
>             . \ .  . | .   /. 
>            . . \. . .|. . /. . 
>               ..\....|.../... 
>                ::\:::|::/:: 
> ---------------      ------------- 
> --------------- (Y) ------------- 
> ---------------      -------------- 
>                ::/:::|::\:: 
>               ../....|...\... 
>            . . /. . .|. . \. . 
>             . / .  . | .   \ . 
> 
>   
 
> > AP writes: at least Steven can do percentages
---- 

>correctly, whereas Moroney thinks 938 MeV is short of >945MeV by 12%, no wonder Moroney failed science
==================
Does  that dot picture   need more  prove-
- that Archi is a psychopath ??!!
=====
Y.P
============================

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

#679462

On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 2:02:51 AM UTC-6, pora...@gmail.com wrote:

> ---- 
> 
> >correctly, whereas Moroney thinks 938 MeV is short of >945MeV by 12%, no wonder Moroney failed science
> ==================
> Does  that dot picture   need more  prove-
> - that Archi is a psychopath ??!!
> =====
> Y.P
> ============================

On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 8:26:03 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote: 

> Would one of .... 
> 
> Dan 


> On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 8:57:06 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote: 
> 
> "Until I revealed what Euclid had written down, not a single moron academic 
> in the last 2300 years even had a clue what it means to be a number."  (This from a moron who doesn't believe in zero!) 
> -- May 24, 2017     
> 
> "I'll just keep spamming!"  (So far, so bad! What a moron.) 
> -- Dec. 25, 2016 
>                                
>   
> “I am the Creator of this galaxy.” 
> -- March 19, 2015 
>   
> “I am the greatest mathematician ever.” 
> -- June 21, 2016 
> 
> "I am always right."     
> -- Nov. 3, 2016 
> 
> “I am the last word on everything.” 
> -- May 6, 2015 
>   
> “Whatever I imagine is real because whatever I imagine is well defined.” 
> -- March 26, 2015 
>   
> “Unless I think it's logic, it's not... There are no rules in mathematics...  As I have repeatedly stated, if there were to be rules, I'd be making the rules.” 
> -- March 17, 2015   
>   
> "There are no axioms required when concepts are well defined. My mathematics is well defined." 
> --June 21, 2016 
>   
> "A song by Jew wannabee academics and their lackeys..." 
> -- May 26, 2017                        *** NEW *** 
>   
> "I will crush you... You need to be very careful what you say." 
> --November 10, 2016   
>   
> "The Jews never learn and apparently neither do their lackeys" 
> --Nov. 28, 2016 
> 
> "Jews are like parasites on a given host." 
> -- Feb. 23, 2017   
> 
> "F---ing Jews have tried to change historical facts" 
> -- Jan. 9, 2017     
> 
> "That is the reptilian Jewish way." 
> -- March 1, 2017                               
> 
> "What's worse, psychopathic Jews or their lackeys?" 
> -- April 1, 2017                 
> 
> "We can always divide the numerator by 2 and the denominator by 4 from the assumptions, but either way, the same result is obtained - a contradiction. From which 1 = 2 or 1/2 = 1."           
> -- May 6, 2017                         *** NEW *** 
> 
> "We know that pi is not measurable by the unit, because any such k would have to satisfy  1/(k*1) = 1/pi. The only such k is pi itself 
> -- May 11, 2017                        *** NEW *** 
> 
> "There is NO such thing as a "real" number." 
> -- May 12, 2017                        *** NEW *** 
>   
> "Until I revealed what Euclid had written down, not a single moron academic 
> in the last 2300 years even had a clue what it means to be a number" 
> -- May 24, 2017                        *** NEW *** 
> 
> "Frege, Russell, Cantor were all orangutans [...] Not only were these fools    hopeless at philosophy, they were even more hopeless at arithmetic." 
> -- May 24, 2017                        *** NEW *** 
> 
> "Every time you blurt out crap like 0.333... = 1/3 or 0.999... = 1, you are saying that S = Lim S." 
> -- May 27, 2017                        *** NEW *** 
> 
> "Limit theory requires real numbers, but they don't exist. Therefore, Lebesgue theory is by default nonsense." 
> -- May 27, 2017                        *** NEW *** 
> 
> 
> BEFORE: "There are still morons who don't know that Euler claimed S = Lim S.... He wrote it and with exactly that notation!" 
> -- May 26, 2017                        *** NEW *** 
> 
> 
> AFTER: "Of course he did not write 'Lim S'... He did not talk about S." 
> --May 27, 2017 
> 
> 
> "[0,1) is strictly speaking not a 'set'." 
>  -- May 29, 2017                        *** NEW *** 
> 
> 
> "Piece-wise functions are in reality piece-stupid functions." 
> -- April 2, 2017                 
> 
> "Sets don't give rise to functions, but functions give rise to sets." 
> -- April 3, 2017               
> 
> "A right angled isosceles triangle is a SYMPTOM you morons. It's a SYMPTOM of sqrt(2)." 
> -- April 23, 2017               
> 
> "Learn why intuition is very dangerous. Even I, who am infinitely smarter than all of you and have far better intuition, would never base my ideas on intuition! 
> -- April 23, 2017                 
> 
> "If Nikola Tesla were alive, he would have hailed me as the greatest mathematician ever." 
> -- April 30, 2017                 
>                                            
> 
> "A function cannot have a limit at a point x without also being continuous at the point x." 
> -- March 15, 2017                             
> 
> 
> "There are no postulates or axioms in mathematics." 
> -- Feb. 6, 2017 
>                                   
> 
> "Zero is not a number." 
> -- Jan. 10, 2017                                 
> 
> "You are a CRANK if you claim that 1/3 = 0.333..." 
> -- Jan. 17, 2017                                                                
>   
>   
> “1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that” 
> -- February 8, 2015 
> 
> 
> "There is no such thing as long division where p/q is concerned if p < q."  (So, no more 1 -:- 2 = 0.5. What a moron!) 
> -- December 8, 2016       
> 
> “The square root of 2 and pi are NOT numbers.” 
> -- May 28, 2015 
>   
> "No. The square root of two is most definitely not a number!" 
> -- Nov. 26, 2016              
> 
> "Only when idiots began to treat points as numbers, did things start going south fast." 
> --Nov. 19, 2016             
> 
>   
> “Proofs had nothing to do with calculus.” 
> -- May 30, 2015 
>                                            
>   
> "You don't need associativity or commutativity or any other crap." 
> --June 21, 2106 
>   
> “Axioms [are] not required in mathematics.” 
> -- July 4, 2016 
> 
> Dan

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

#679553

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

>On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 2:02:51 AM UTC-6, pora...@gmail.com wrote:

>> >correctly, whereas Moroney thinks 938 MeV is short of >945MeV by 12%, no> wonder Moroney failed science
>> ==================
>> Does  that dot picture   need more  prove-
>> - that Archi is a psychopath ??!!
>> =====
>> Y.P
>> ============================

>On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 8:26:03 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:

>> Would one of ....
>>
>> Dan


>> On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 8:57:06 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:

<snip Gabriel's quotes>

[X] Responds to criticism but is unable to actually discuss the issue...
[X] ...with Archie's response posted in the wrong topic...
[ ] ...and in the wrong newsgroup...
[ ] ...multiple times...
[X] ...in a topic/topics explicitly created by him for doing so...
[X] ...with a subject mentioning totally uninvolved people...
[X] ...who are university math or physics professors...
[ ] ...of a university supposedly near the person criticizing Archie...
[X] ...and Archie's actual response is completely unrelated to the topic...
[X] ...and the critic's comment has embarrassing (to AP) portion removed...
[X] ...to the extent the comment is no longer recognizable...
[X] ...includes random snippets by other critics, spammers or babblers...
[X] ...which are attributed to yet other critics, spammers or babblers...
[ ] ...followed by yet another repost of the "12 Failures of Plutonium"...
[ ] ...or the "you gotta draw pictures of calculus" repost...
[ ] ...and includes the dumb ascii art cat/owl thing...

oh dear, Archie is up to a score of 10 now.

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

#679691

Buck Futter writes:
8:48 PM (30 minutes ago)

>This is a physics group, not a chemistry group, 
>you walking catalog of third-world rectal disorders. 

On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 6:02:24 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:

> [X] Responds to criticism but is unable to actually discuss the issue...
> [X] ...with Archie's response posted in the wrong topic...
> [ ] ...and in the wrong newsgroup...
> [ ] ...multiple times...
> [X] ...in a topic/topics explicitly created by him for doing so...
> [X] ...with a subject mentioning totally uninvolved people...
> [X] ...who are university math or physics professors...
> [ ] ...of a university supposedly near the person criticizing Archie...
> [X] ...and Archie's actual response is completely unrelated to the topic...
> [X] ...and the critic's comment has embarrassing (to AP) portion removed...
> [X] ...to the extent the comment is no longer recognizable...
> [X] ...includes random snippets by other critics, spammers or babblers...
> [X] ...which are attributed to yet other critics, spammers or babblers...
> [ ] ...followed by yet another repost of the "12 Failures of Plutonium"...
> [ ] ...or the "you gotta draw pictures of calculus" repost...
> [ ] ...and includes the dumb ascii art cat/owl thing...

AP writes: is that some sort of antelope species????

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web