Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #706608 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-10-07 20:37 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-10-09 07:03 +0000 |
| Articles | 4 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: chemistry cannot exist with electron .5 to 938 MeV Re: Drs.Thomas Rosenbaum John Schwarz Kip Thorne of CalTech/never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac monopole Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 20:37 -0700
Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-08 13:53 +0000
Moroney 26 year arsewipe— flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 19:22 -0700
Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-09 07:03 +0000
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 20:37 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: chemistry cannot exist with electron .5 to 938 MeV Re: Drs.Thomas Rosenbaum John Schwarz Kip Thorne of CalTech/never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac monopole |
| Message-ID | <2f952af8-61ac-4705-aa2a-119dc4eda646@googlegroups.com> |
On Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 11:36:09 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: snip that 26 year long stalker, insane stalker On Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 2:35:06 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: chemistry cannot exist with electron .5 to 938 MeV Re: Drs.Thomas Rosenbaum John Schwarz Kip Thorne of CalTech/never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac monopole - show quoted text - Drs.Thomas Rosenbaum Murray Gell-Mann John Schwarz of CalTech, do you use "dumb Jan Bielawski excuse"??//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac monopole On Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 4:04:33 PM UTC-6, Jan wrote: > > Electron is not muon (muon is unstable for starters). > > BTW, since you are trying to work with particle physics, do you mind if > I test your knowledge? Just to make sure you can even do what you are > setting out to do. > > So: (and I've asked this before) what is the value of the 2-vertex > Feynman diagram of electron-muon scattering? (see, I'm making it simple > for you, two electrons would be more work). Please list which Feynman > rules you used and why. > > -- > Jan AP wrote: Don't you think Dr. Gell-Mann knows all that and far better than your crank dull mind. What Dr. Gell-Mann does not know, is that Chemistry cannot exist with the electron being .5MeV running around a 938 MeV. The values of energy of electron to proton have to be no reasonably close so you can have momentum between the two. A car on the highway (proton) is not going to be influenced by a marble (electron) rolling by
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 13:53 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test |
| Message-ID | <ppfnh0$kti$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #706608 |
Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails: >AP wrote: >Don't you think Dr. Gell-Mann knows all that and far better than your >crank dull mind. Well he certainly knows better than _your_ crank dull mind! He knows muons only last about 2.2 microseconds!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 19:22 -0700 |
| Subject | Moroney 26 year arsewipe— flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test |
| Message-ID | <81478999-2e26-4abe-a368-27ec4b635eff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #706624 |
Thomas Hales,RACIST MATHEMATICIANS, Ribet,Tao,Conway,Wiles,Fefferman,Meyer,Stillwell, Andrew Beal, Mauldin who refuse to admit ellipse is never a conic, refuse to even offer a Geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
Oct 7me
qbwr...@gmail.com writes:
3:48 PM (21 minutes ago)
>Nope. There are several reasons that nobody is debating this.
>1: You have FIRMLY established yourself as a mentally ill crank brain.
>2: You have NO reproducible experiment,
snip the qbwr list of hatred,,,,,
(snip a long list of a racist qbwr hatred mind in science and math,,,)
You see why qbwr is a failed person, and is now a hired hand by racists of science, when a proof a conic is never an ellipse or a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is placed in front of him or in front of
Kenneth Ribet
Tao
Conway
Wiles
Hales
Fefferman
Meyer
Stillwell
Andrew Beal
They do not bother to even look at what is presented by AP, no, rather instead they call up their hired hands qbwr, Boston stalker net std with shein, moroney and say-- accelerate the pestering of AP and hate mockery
Even a High School geometry student can prove to the Math Racists that the ellipse was never a conic.
Kenneth Ribet, Racist Mathematicians, Tao,Conway,Wiles,Hales,Fefferman,Meyer,Stillwell, Andrew Beal, Ron Graham, Daniel Mauldin who refuse to admit ellipse is never a conic, refuse to even offer a Geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
Kenneth Ribet Racist Mathematicians Tao,Conway,Wiles,Hales,Fefferman,Meyer,Stillwell who refuse to admit ellipse is never a conic, refuse to even offer a Geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
A racist scientist or mathematician is one who ignores and refuses to admit true science or math all because they hate and despise the source of that new knowledge, they are racists at heart and not scientists at all.
DEFINITION of a racist-scientist , racist-mathematician
Racist Mathematician & Scientist definition— this is a person or group of people who reject a idea or proof or experiment on simply the grounds of __who the person was that gave/discovered the idea___, proof, or experiment. Hatred of the source. Hatred of the author/s. Racists ignore or deny the truth because they hate the source. And racists would rather keep on teaching a fakery or wrong science than to change to the true science.
Most people think Racist Mathematicians and Physicists are rare. But sci.math and sci.physics from 1993 to 2018 is proving that the majority of physics and math professors around the world are Racists, for example-- the AP proof ellipse is never a conic cut, but rather a cylinder cut. And the AP discovery that the Real Electron = muon = 105MeV, real proton = 840MeV, and the .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole.
A real mathematician or scientist weighs only the substance and content of the claim, not by who did the work.
In that manner, Ribet, Tao,Conway,Wiles,Hales,Fefferman,Ribet,Meyer, Andrew Beal are racist mathematicians because AP's proof that ellipse is never a Conic, always a cylinder section has been in sci.math since 2016, yet these listed persons still teach and preach a ellipse is a conic. Otherwise they would publicly admit a oval is a conic section, never the ellipse.
Proofs ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section by
Archimedes Plutonium
--------------------
AP's proof the ellipse is never a Conic Section, always a Cylinder section, and how the proof works
Let us analyze AP's Proof
On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 6:57:36 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Array:: Analytic Geometry proof that Cylinder section= Ellipse//Conic
section = Oval, never ellipse
Now I did 3 Experiments and 3 models of the problem, but it turns out
that one model is superior over all the other models. One model is the
best of all.
That model is where you construct a cone and a cylinder and then
implant a circle inside the cone and cylinder attached to a handle so
that you can rotate the circle inside. Mine uses a long nail that I
poked holes into the side of a cylinder and another one inside a cone
made from heavy wax paper of magazine covers. And I used a Mason or
Kerr used lid and I attached them to the nail by drilling two holes
into each lid and running a wire as fastener. All of this done so I
can rotate or pivot the circle inside the cylinder and cone. You need
a long nail, for if you make the models too small or too skinny, you
lose clarity.
ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse::
E
__
.-' `-.
.' `.
/ \
; ;
| G c | H
; ;
\ /
`. .'
`-. _____ .-'
F
Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E
In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.
The side view of a cylinder is this
| |
| |
| |
That allows cE to be the same distance as cF
But the side view of the cone is
/\E
/c \
F / \
The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF make that distance larger than cE
The above is a view of a ellipse with center c and is produced by the
Sectioning of a Cylinder as long as the cut is not perpendicular to
the base, and as long as the cut involves two points not larger than
the height of the cylinder walls. What we want to prove is that the
cut is always a ellipse, which is a plane figure of two axes of
symmetry with a Major Axis and Minor Axis and center at c.
Side view of Cylinder EGFH above with entry point cut at E and exit
point cut at F and where c denotes the central axis of the cylinder
and where x denotes a circle at c parallel with the base-circle of
cylinder
| |
| | E
| |
| |
|x c |x
| |
| |
| |
|F |
| |
| |
| |
So we can see that the distance cE = cF in cylinder for the walls are Parallel to one another, giving distance symmetry
But in the Cone, the walls are not parallel, shortening the distance cE compared to cF. Leaving only one axis of symmetry that of cx. The oval is the conic section of a cut at a slant, while the cylinder cut at a slant is a ellipse. The Oval has just one axis of symmetry.
So, what is the proof that figure EGFH is always an ellipse in the
cylinder section? The line segment GH is the diameter of the circle
base of cylinder and the cylinder axis cuts this diameter in half such
that Gc = cH. Now we only need to show that Fc = cE. This is done from
the right triangles cxF and cxE, for we note that by Angle-Side-Angle
these two right triangles are congruent and hence Fc = cE, our second
axis of symmetry and thus figure EGFH is always an ellipse. QED
Array proof:: Analytic Geometry proof that Conic section= Oval// never ellipse
ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Conic Section is a Oval, never an ellipse::
A
,'" "`.
/ \
C | c | D
\ /
` . ___ .'
B
The above is a view of a figure formed from the cut of a conic with
center c as the axis of the cone and is produced by the Sectioning of
a Cone as long as the cut is not perpendicular to the base, and as
long as the cut is not a hyperbola, parabola or circle (nor line).
What we want to prove is that this cut is always a oval, never an
ellipse. An oval is defined as a plane figure of just one axis of
symmetry and possessing a center, c, with a Major Diameter as the axis
of symmetry and a Minor Diameter. In our diagram above, the major
diameter is AB and minor diameter is CD.
Alright, almost the same as with Cylinder section where we proved the
center was half way between Major Axis and Minor Axis of cylinder,
only in the case of the Conic, we find that the center is half way
between CD the Minor Diameter, but the center is not halfway in
between the Major Diameter, and all of that because of the reason the
slanted walls of the cone cause the distance cA to be far smaller than
the distance cB. In the diagram below we have the circle of x centered
at c and parallel to base. The angle at cx is not 90 degrees as in
cylinder. The angle of cAx is not the same as the angle cBx, as in the
case of the cylinder, because the walls of the cone-for line segments-
are slanted versus parallel in the cylinder. Triangles cAx and cBx are
not congruent, and thus, the distance of cA is not equal to cB,
leaving only one axis of symmetry AB, not CD.
/ \A
x/ c \x
B/ \
Hence, every cut in the Cone, not a hyperbola, not a parabola, not a
circle (not a line) is a Oval, never an ellipse.
QED
--Archimedes Plutonium
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
------------------
-------------------
Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu
::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ . . | . /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
--------------- -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
--------------- --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / . . | . \ .
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-09 07:03 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test |
| Message-ID | <pphjs8$ea3$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #706784 |
Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails:
>On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 3:45:53 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Math Failure
That's "Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium...", bub, and don't you forget
it!
Remember, you are the math failure around here, not anyone else.
>Terry Tao must believe in Moroney's failed ellipse proof is a conic, for
>Tao is silent// but does Tao also think 938 is 12% short of 945 ?
You requested the ellipse proof AGAIN??? Sure thing!!!
Some preliminaries:
Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used
in the proof:
^ x
|
-+- <= x=h
.' | `.
. | .
| | |
' | '
`. | .'
y <----------+ <= x=0
Cone (side view):
.
/|\
/ | \
/b | \
/---+---' <= x = h
/ |' \
/ ' | \
/ ' | \
x = 0 => '-------+-------\
/ a | \
Proof:
r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence
y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.
Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1 ...equation of an ellipse
qed
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web