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

Groups > sci.physics > #683389 > unrolled thread

Pierre Agostini, John Kasich, C. Andereck, Gordon Aubrecht II, is Benj the face of science in Ohio //never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole// attacking AP for checking into CO2

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Pierre Agostini, John Kasich, C. Andereck, Gordon Aubrecht II, is Benj the face of science in Ohio //never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole// attacking AP for checking into CO2 Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 13:51 -0700
    Re: Pierre Agostini, John Kasich, C. Andereck, Gordon Aubrecht II, is Benj the face of science in Ohio //never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole// attacking AP for checking into CO2 Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 14:30 -0700
    Re: Pierre Agostini, John Kasich, C. Andereck, Gordon Aubrecht II, is Benj the face of science in Ohio //never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole// attacking AP for checking into CO2 Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 19:23 -0700
      Re: is Archie the face of science in South Dakota? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-03 06:34 +0000
    Re: Pierre Agostini, John Kasich, C. Andereck, Gordon Aubrecht II, is Benj the face of science in Ohio //never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole// attacking AP for checking into CO2 Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 09:44 -0700

#683389 — Pierre Agostini, John Kasich, C. Andereck, Gordon Aubrecht II, is Benj the face of science in Ohio //never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole// attacking AP for checking into CO2

Pierre Agostini, John Kasich, C. Andereck, Gordon Aubrecht II, is Benj the face of science in Ohio //never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole// attacking AP for checking into CO2

Benj is a antiscience bully stalker

On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 8:18:32 AM UTC-5, benj wrote:
> Just listen to this insane fantasy from ArchiePoo! Archie is so 
> desperate to have recognition he dances insanely just to get attention. 
> No matter what your fantasies there is no evidence of any "triangular" 
> CO2 or different energies required to disassemble it. You think that if 
> you just say the opposite of what science says, one day you'll be right 
> and get the recognition you so crave. Like you Archie, such a method is 
> nothing but a swindle and only proves your senility and insanity. Get 
> help, Archie. Your drool cup is full again.

Benj on occasion makes death threats:

> From: benj <be...@nobody.net> 
> Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 18:47:09 -0400 

> > 
> Overpopulation is such a horrible problem ArchiePoo. I suggest we start 
> by killing you. Think of the good you'd be doing for humanity. Think of 
> the way that would raise the level of science discussion in this 
> newsgroup. Get that Barrel Boat from Bert and sail into the sunset to 
> Hawaii. DRink your TAng Geezer. YOu are STILL an idiot. 


> bjacoby@iwaynet.net Benj 2010, Jun 7, 12:54 am 

Benj is an annoying stalker in sci.physics. He has stalked me for at least 5 years. Never any science out of him as far as I have seen, always a vicious ad hominem. And I am especially annoyed by his constant reference to death and threats. And his recent allegiance to the NRA in automatic rifle despite the tragedy of Florida school. But worst of all, is Benj's anti global warming tirades, his anti science here, antiscience everywhere. Sci.physics needs a mechanism to kick out these anti science knuckleheads, who use sci.physics as their pissing and pooping post.

Everyday, good scientists want and seek the truth, and yet everyday a Benj comes a posting nothing but antiscience.

I know Ohio well, for I lived there and went to Univ Cincinnati. In the day computers with doing science, Ohio needs to be ahead of the curve on Internet science, not behind the curve, by showing bad people posting antiscience and hatred which Benj only displays-- antiscience and hatred of others.


Ohio State Physics dept 
Pierre Agostini 
C. Andereck 
Gordon Aubrecht II 
*
Lei Bao 
James Beatty 
Paul Berger 
Marc Bockrath 
Richard Boyd 
Eric Braaten 
Leonard Brillson 
Ralf Bundschuh 
Amy Connolly 
Frank DeLucia 
Andrew Dougherty 
L. Durkin 
Charles Ebner 
David Edwards 
Richard Freeman 
Richard Furnstahl 
James Gaines 
KK Gan 
Daniel Gauthier 
Ilya Gruzberg 
P. Hammel 
Andrew Heckler 
Ulrich Heinz 
Christopher Hill 
Klaus Honscheid 
Richard Hughes 
Harris Kagan 
Richard Kass 
Roland Kawakami 
Thomas Lemberger 
TY Ling 
Bruce Mainland 
Bernard Mulligan 
William Palmer 
Bruce Patton 
Jonathan Pelz 
Robert Perry 
Stephen Pinsky 
Michael Poirier 
Stuart Raby 
Neville Reay 
Steven Ringel 
William Saam 
Douglas Schumacher 
David Stroud 
Evan Sugarbaker 
Terrence Walker 
Philip Wigen 

Ohio State Univ Math dept. 

Archie Addison 
David Anderson 
Cody Armond 
Gregory Baker 
Vitaly Bergelson 
Janet Best 
Robert Brown 
Dan Burghelea 
Timothy Carlson


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

PICTURE DIAGRAM OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS 

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

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

Picture Diagram needed for Fundamental Theorem of Calculus 

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

by Archimedes Plutonium 

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

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

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

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

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

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

FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS, Picture 

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

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


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

To this: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

12 PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon 
by Archimedes Plutonium 

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

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

AP 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#683404

So, what is wrong with Ohio these days. I myself lived in Ohio, went to Anderson High School, and Wyoming High School, went to Univ. Cincinnati degree in mathematics, even went to Ohio Science Fair in Columbus and won a science experiment award.

What is wrong with Ohio that they let a stalker bully of Benj.
> bjacoby@iwaynet.net Benj 2010, Jun 7, 12:54 am 

Let this stalker bully rant for years and years how he denies Global Warming, and how he attacks so many posters who actually are doing science.

Did Benj flunck science in Ohio and now ranting how he hates science.

So, Ohio, does anyone there review on how Ohio looks to the rest of the world, by letting a antiscience jerk be the Face of science of Ohio.

AP

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

#683452

On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 3:51:42 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Pierre Agostini, John Kasich, C. Andereck, Gordon Aubrecht II, is Benj the face of science in Ohio //never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole// attacking AP for checking into CO2
> 
> Benj is a antiscience bully stalker
> 
> On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 8:18:32 AM UTC-5, benj wrote:
> > Just listen to this insane fantasy from ArchiePoo! Archie is so 
> > desperate to have recognition he dances insanely just to get attention. 
> > No matter what your fantasies there is no evidence of any "triangular" 
> > CO2 or different energies required to disassemble it. You think that if 
> > you just say the opposite of what science says, one day you'll be right 
> > and get the recognition you so crave. Like you Archie, such a method is 
> > nothing but a swindle and only proves your senility and insanity. Get 
> > help, Archie. Your drool cup is full again.

> 
> > bjacoby@iwaynet.net Benj 2010, Jun 7, 12:54 am 

Snipped. So, there is Benj, posting for what? 10 years now, and not a single post of any serious science. All his posts are attacks on other posters.

Is this the face of Ohio in science? No-one there recognizing abuse, and all just "going along with it".

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

#683464 — Re: is Archie the face of science in South Dakota?

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

<snip>
So, there is Archimedes Plutonium, posting for what? 25 years now, and 
not a single post of any serious science. All his posts are attacks on 
other posters or babbling nonsense.

Is this the face of South Dakota in science? No-one there recognizing 
abuse, and all just "going along with it".

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

#686923

crackpot crank--Uncle Hal writes:
2:24 AM (9 hours ago)
> 1) A brain 2) Get one 3) LOL!



physics failure--benj writes:	
11:04 AM (27 minutes ago)
>He has one, it's just a little bit diseased. 
>Ok. It's a LOT diseased! 

AP writes:: Ohio State-- question-- how many times did you flunk Brian Jacoby to be such a sour person, a antiscience creep?


On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 3:51:42 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Pierre Agostini, John Kasich, C. Andereck, Gordon Aubrecht II, is Benj the face of science in Ohio //never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole// attacking AP for checking into CO2
> 
> Benj is a antiscience bully stalker
> 
> On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 8:18:32 AM UTC-5, benj wrote:
> > Just listen to this insane fantasy from ArchiePoo! Archie is so 
> > desperate to have recognition he dances insanely just to get attention. 
> > No matter what your fantasies there is no evidence of any "triangular" 
> > CO2 or different energies required to disassemble it. You think that if 
> > you just say the opposite of what science says, one day you'll be right 
> > and get the recognition you so crave. Like you Archie, such a method is 
> > nothing but a swindle and only proves your senility and insanity. Get 
> > help, Archie. Your drool cup is full again.
> 
> Benj on occasion makes death threats:
> 
> > From: benj <be...@nobody.net> 
> > Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 18:47:09 -0400 
> 
> > > 
> > Overpopulation is such a horrible problem ArchiePoo. I suggest we start 
> > by killing you. Think of the good you'd be doing for humanity. Think of 
> > the way that would raise the level of science discussion in this 
> > newsgroup. Get that Barrel Boat from Bert and sail into the sunset to 
> > Hawaii. DRink your TAng Geezer. YOu are STILL an idiot. 
> 
> 
> > bjacoby@iwaynet.net Benj 2010, Jun 7, 12:54 am 
> 
> Benj is an annoying stalker in sci.physics. He has stalked me for at least 5 years. Never any science out of him as far as I have seen, always a vicious ad hominem. And I am especially annoyed by his constant reference to death and threats. And his recent allegiance to the NRA in automatic rifle despite the tragedy of Florida school. But worst of all, is Benj's anti global warming tirades, his anti science here, antiscience everywhere. Sci.physics needs a mechanism to kick out these anti science knuckleheads, who use sci.physics as their pissing and pooping post.
> 
> Everyday, good scientists want and seek the truth, and yet everyday a Benj comes a posting nothing but antiscience.
> 
> I know Ohio well, for I lived there and went to Univ Cincinnati. In the day computers with doing science, Ohio needs to be ahead of the curve on Internet science, not behind the curve, by showing bad people posting antiscience and hatred which Benj only displays-- antiscience and hatred of others.
> 
> 
> Ohio State Physics dept 
> Pierre Agostini 
> C. Andereck 
> Gordon Aubrecht II 
> *
> Lei Bao 
> James Beatty 
> Paul Berger 
> Marc Bockrath 
> Richard Boyd 
> Eric Braaten 
> Leonard Brillson 
> Ralf Bundschuh 
> Amy Connolly 
> Frank DeLucia 
> Andrew Dougherty 
> L. Durkin 
> Charles Ebner 
> David Edwards 
> Richard Freeman 
> Richard Furnstahl 
> James Gaines 
> KK Gan 
> Daniel Gauthier 
> Ilya Gruzberg 
> P. Hammel 
> Andrew Heckler 
> Ulrich Heinz 
> Christopher Hill 
> Klaus Honscheid 
> Richard Hughes 
> Harris Kagan 
> Richard Kass 
> Roland Kawakami 
> Thomas Lemberger 
> TY Ling 
> Bruce Mainland 
> Bernard Mulligan 
> William Palmer 
> Bruce Patton 
> Jonathan Pelz 
> Robert Perry 
> Stephen Pinsky 
> Michael Poirier 
> Stuart Raby 
> Neville Reay 
> Steven Ringel 
> William Saam 
> Douglas Schumacher 
> David Stroud 
> Evan Sugarbaker 
> Terrence Walker 
> Philip Wigen 
> 
> Ohio State Univ Math dept. 
> 
> Archie Addison 
> David Anderson 
> Cody Armond 
> Gregory Baker 
> Vitaly Bergelson 
> Janet Best 
> Robert Brown 
> Dan Burghelea 
> Timothy Carlson
> 
> 
> SEE PICTURE DIAGRAM of FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS below, professors hate teaching this for it shows their "limit calculus to be a joke" 
> 
> PICTURE DIAGRAM OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS 
> 
> By April 2015, was there for the first time a picture diagram proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, not just an analysis argument, but a geometry proof (see below). Old Math could never assemble a picture diagram of the FTC. All they could do is argue with limit concept an analysis argument, never a geometry proof of FTC. 
> 
> A picture diagram proof of FTC changes all of calculus and thus, changes all of mathematics for it requires a infinity borderline to produce an actual number for the  infinitesimal, and that number is the inverse of the infinity borderline. Requiring a infinity borderline to produce the infinitesimal changes all of mathematics, and throwing out the limit concept. By changing all of Calculus and thus correcting mathematics, all of math before 2015 was just trash math. 
> 
> Picture Diagram needed for Fundamental Theorem of Calculus 
> 
> Why no continuum and no curves exist in Math, so that the Calculus 
> can exist, and does exist 
> 
> by Archimedes Plutonium 
> 
> Calculus is based upon there being Grid points in geometry, no 
> continuum, but actually, empty space between two neighboring points. 
> This is called Discrete geometry, and in physics, this is called 
> Quantum Mechanics. In 10 Grid, the first few numbers are 0, .1, .2, 
> .3, etc. That means there does not exist any number between 0 and .1, 
> no number exists between .1 and .2. Now if you want more precise 
> numbers, you go to a higher Grid like that of 100 Grid where the first 
> few numbers are 0, .01, .02, .03, etc. 
> 
> Calculus in order to exist at all, needs this empty space between 
> consecutive numbers or successor numbers. It needs that empty space so 
> that the integral of calculus is actually small rectangles whose 
> interior area is not zero. So in 10 Grid, the smallest width of any 
> Calculus rectangle is of width .1. In 100 Grid the smallest width is 
> .01. 
> 
> But, this revolutionary understanding of Calculus does not stop with 
> the Integral, for having empty space between numbers, means no curves 
> in math exist, but are ever tinier straight-line segments. 
> 
> It also means, that the Derivative in Calculus is part and parcel of 
> the function graph itself. So that in a function such as y = x^2, the 
> function graph is the derivative at a point. In Old Math, they had the 
> folly and idiocy of a foreign, alien tangent line to a function graph 
> as derivative. In New Math, the derivative is the same as the function 
> graph itself. And, this makes commonsense, utter commonsense, for the 
> derivative is a prediction of the future of the function in question, 
> and no way in the world can a foreign tangent line to a point on the 
> function be able to predict, be able to tell where the future point of 
> that function be. The only predictor of a future point of a function, 
> is the function graph itself. 
> 
> If the Calculus was done correctly, conceived correctly, then a 
> minimal diagram explains all of Calculus. Old Math never had such a 
> diagram, because Old Math was in total error of what Calculus is, and 
> what Calculus does. 
> 
> The fundamental picture of all of Calculus are these two of a 
> trapezoid and rectangle. In fact, call the picture, the 
> 
> FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS, Picture 
> 
> Trapezoid for derivative as the roof-top of 
> the trapezoid, which must be a straight-line segment. If it is curved, 
> you cannot fold it down to form a integral rectangle. And the 
> rectangle for integral as area. 
> 
> From this: 
>         B 
>         /| 
>       /  | 
>  A /----| 
>   /      | 
> |        | 
> |____| 
> 
> 
> The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative) 
> so that it can be hinged at A, and swiveled down to form rectangle for 
> integral. 
> 
> To this: 
> 
> ______ 
> |         | 
> |         | 
> |         | 
> --------- 
> 
> And the derivative of x= A, above is merely the dy/dx involving points 
> A and B. Thus, it can never be a curve in Calculus. And the AB is part 
> of the function graph itself. No curves exist in mathematics and no 
> continuum exists in mathematics. 
> 
> In the above we see that CALCULUS needs and requires a diagram in 
> which you can go from derivative to integral, or go from integral to 
> derivative, by simply a hinge down to form a rectangle for area, or a 
> hinge up to form the derivative from a given rectangle. 
> 
> Why in Old Math could no professor of math ever do the Calculus 
> Diagram? Why? The answer is simple, no-one in Old Math pays attention 
> to Logic, and that no-one in Old Math was required to take formal 
> Logic when they attended school. So a person bereft of Logic, is never 
> going to find mistakes of Logic and think clear and think straight. 
> 
> by Archimedes Plutonium 
> ------------------ 
> ------------------- 
> 
> Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall 
> 
> 12 PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon 
> by Archimedes Plutonium 
> 
> Proofs that the Real Electron=muon and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall 
> > 
> PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon 
> 
> 1st proof is chemical bonding cannot exist with momentum of 938 versus .5MeV 
> Chemical Bonds are covalent, ionic, metallic. You simply cannot get atoms to bond if the electron is thought of as the .5MeV particle, only with a muon at 105 MeV and the proton at 840 MeV with neutron at 945 MeV do you have the physics of angular momentum that allows bonding in Chemistry. The .5MeV particle was, all along a magnetic monopole of a photon with .5 MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy. 
> 
> AP

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web