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

Groups > sci.physics > #702064 > unrolled thread

AP taking credit for coining and trending the word "fake" as in fake news, but AP used it mostly for fake math and science starting 1993

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  AP taking credit for coining and trending the word "fake" as in fake  news, but AP used it mostly for fake math and science starting 1993 Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 00:15 -0700
    Re: AP taking credit for coining and trending the word "fake" as in fake  news, but AP used it mostly for fake math and science starting 1993 Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 14:45 -0700
      Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-12 19:23 +0000

#702064 — AP taking credit for coining and trending the word "fake" as in fake news, but AP used it mostly for fake math and science starting 1993

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 00:06:30 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: AP taking credit for coining and trending the word "fake" as in fake
 news, but AP used it mostly for fake math and science starting 1993
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 07:06:31 +0000

AP taking credit for coining and trending the word "fake" as in fake news, but AP used it mostly for fake math and science starting 1993

I even remember a poster asking me, why you use "fake" so much and my answer was, that it is the best four letter word that conveys the meaning there is something not correct. Words like "wrong" "error", "mistake" "contradiction" just do not convey the full meaning as does "fake". And as the 25 years rolled by, my use of "fake" and "fakery" was an enormous use, increasing dramatically, for I was constantly calling out Fake Math. 

Did Mr. Trump read AP posts before he ran for president? Likely, but he would never admit to such if asked. 
And the AP posts were world wide public. You can still go back and likely retrieve the 100,000 AP posts from 1993 to present day. I have a archive of my own newsgroup 

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 

So, I want the credit for being the person that started this major trend of the use of "fake" for I saw so much, very much fakery in all the sciences. And the newsmedia really has alot of blame and shame for keeping "fake science" going. Fakery of Big Bang, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, neutron stars, Doppler redshift of light, quarks, strings, fractals, irrational numbers, transcendental numbers, ellipse as conic when it was never a conic, but a cylinder section. Calculus fake of limit concept, of no infinity borderline, and the list is huge. 

So, AP starts this public awareness campaign in 1993 about the fake and fakery of math and science, and then by 2016, we get the trending of "fake" into politics, with newspaper journalism as steeped into fake news. 

So when the history books start to look for when the social trend worldwide of "Fake" and Fakery began-- there it is Archimedes Plutonium in August of 1993. Can Google get a accurate count of say how many times AP used fake and fakery in his say 100,000 posts from 1993 to 2018? Would the count be 50,000 times AP used "fake and fakery" ? Is Google capable of delivering that info data? 



appears 30 times in my first month of posting, which steadily increases 

Newsgroups: sci.math 
From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) 
Subject: Wiles blunders 
Message-ID: (CBo3EG.3vu@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> 
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 22:20:39 GMT   
Lines: 51 

        Tabloid presses press for stories like that of apprentice A. Wiles-- 
" Wiles Masters The Cold Fusion Reporting Technique". Wiles has 1000 
pages which 5 other math majors S. Kochen, K. Ribet, H.M. Edwards, B. 
Mazur, and J. McKay can read. What has the world come to, when an 
alleged proof is reported as a forgone conclusion because 6 persons 
jump-up-and-down?  Can not the NYT staff recognize self-deluded 
publicity seekers? What is the limit for math tolerance? When one 
person from Princeton reports a 10000 page proof and the method of 
proof is-- readers fatigue. The most important aspect of a math proof 
is to convince. If Wiles really does have a valid 1000 page proof, 
then it can be boiled-down to 1 or 2 pages. Wiles can not do that, 
indicating his proof is another fake.  Here are the logical flaws in 
Wiles's alleged proof.  1) Elliptic curves can not uniquely represent 
the positive integers 2) Wiles can not even produce Pythagorean 
triples when the exponent is 2. 3) Fourier Analysis proves that all 
generalized functions are uniquely representable by sine-cosine. But 
after transforming Wiles's elliptic curves into the more general 
mathematics of Fourier Analysis, the net result is that when Wiles 
wants to show the nonexistence of peculiar elliptic curves, his 
method implies that the sine-cosine function of Fourier Analysis 
does not exist. 4) Wiles's method contradicts Fourier Analysis.   
5) Wiles's method is indirect nonexistence. Mathematically there 
are only three viable existence proof methods i) direct existence 
ii) direct nonexistence iii) and indirect existence. A proof 
method of indirect nonexistence is impossible. The supercomputer 
4-color mapping problem proof is another fake proof because it 
uses the method of indirect nonexistence. See The Dartmouth 
19MAY1992 for my two proofs of the 4-color mapping problem. 
Forgive these 6 math majors for they are weak in mathematical 
logic and know not what they do. And be not surprised that some 
in the math community will eject overboard sine-cosine just to 
embrace wiles curves. Wiles is wily about publicity, but will 
he be a test-tube-cry-baby once he realizes that his FLouT sunk? 
Not all is lost though, because Wiles's blunders creates a very 
important mathematical conjecture. Call my conjecture 
Complementary Mathematics (CM) since it originates from the 
complementary principle of quantum physics. CM states: Math 
theorems have a duality of proof method, either geometrical or 
arithmetical, where one excludes 100%  of the other 
(particle-wave duality of quantum mechanics). Hence, the 
correct geometrical proof of FLT will come only after someone 
gives the proven equivalent geometrical statement to the 
arithmetical FLT. The Moebius function proved to be the 
geometrical equivalent to the Riemann Hypothesis. See my two 
proofs of the Riemann Hypothesis The Dartmouth 9AUG1991, and 
my proof of FLT The Dartmouth 16APR1991. The arithmetic 
proofs of both the Riemann Hypothesis and FLT were achieved 
through the uniqueness of the number 2. But the geometrical 
proof of FLT will come only after the equivalent geometrical 
statement is obtained, and it will be much longer than my 1 
page proof of FLT, or my 1 paragraph proof of the World's 
most outstanding math problem-- the Riemann Hypothesis. This 
newsgram was published in The Dartmouth under Notices 9JUL1993. 
Sincerely, LP 

AP

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#702162

AP started the TREND of "fake" as in fake news by 1993 Re: AP taking credit for coining and trending the word "fake" as in fake news

I made a Google Search and roughly I made 67,321 posts for 25 years 1993-2018. 

There are 365 days in a year and for 25 years. So 67,321 / 25 = 2,692 posts on average a year. That would be 
2,692/ 365  which is roughly 7 to 8 posts a day. That sounds about correct. 

Now the Google search further states that 11,644 times I used "fake or fakery". That would be 11,644/25 = 465 times per year or roughly 465/365 = 1.2 or roughly once or twice a day, __on average__ did I use over 25 years, the word "fake or fakery". 

Now some in Internet want to give me credit for coining the term Search Engine Bombing in the 1990s when I was bombed by a biology newsgroup of my email and then people started to "plant, my name" so that Google would bomb anyone searching for Archimedes Plutonium with a hatefilled bias. People were constructing and designing websites so as to shovel hate manure to all searches of "Archimedes Plutonium". But, now, I did invent the term Search Engine Bombing but I am not really caring about that invention-- I say -- so what. 

But, my TRENDING of "fake and fakery" that is something I am proud of starting the worldwide trend of looking at our beliefs and realizing-- much of it is sheer fake and fakery. And I started that in 1993, as I embarked to Correct math, correct physics, correct any and all science. I was pleasantly surprised that by 2016, what I had started in 1993-- with Fake this Fake that, Fakery this Fakery that, that by 2016, politics would take over the term Fake and use it against media and journalism. 

So, Search Engine Bombing that I coined and invented in 1990s, I do not much care about. 

But, Fake and Fakery in science or in social life, I do care about that TRENDING for I started that trend. There is no other place that used Fake and Fakery as what AP used starting 1993. 


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

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

#702313 — Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

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

>Subject: Re: AP taking credit for coining and trending the word "fake"

Maybe I should take credit for trending the word "the", because I bet I 
used that word in nearly every one of my posts!

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web