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

Groups > sci.math > #458734

Re: 1.9-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Korniss,Toh-Ming

Show all headers | View raw

On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 8:40:35 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Math Minnow 

Moroney and Rensselaer Polytech Institute fail at High School Math, High School Logic// both teach Ellipse is a conic when it never was// teach 10 OR 4 = 14 when even the village idiot knows 10 AND 4=14 // never have a geometry proof of Calculus 

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Kindle Edition 
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math where they had a ill-defined infinity; they had the fakery of Limit concept; and they had the fakery of a continuum. 

The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus basically says the integral is inverse to the derivative and the derivative is inverse to the integral. By inverse is meant that you can go to one given the other and vice versa, such as add is the inverse of subtract, so if we had 10 + 4 = 14 then the inverse is subtract 4 and we have 14-4 = 10 back to 10 where we started from. And the geometry proof involves a rectangle and a right triangle hinged atop a trapezoid. You hinge it one direction you have dy*dx for area of a rectangle for integral area. You hinge it the other direction you have the dy/dx for slope or derivative from the trapezoid formed. 

Sad that Old Math was so full of ill-defined concepts and fake concepts that never was a geometry proof of FTC ever possible in Old Math. 

Length: 29 pages 


AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section Kindle Edition 
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 

Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone. 

Length: 21 pages 


Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors Kindle Edition 
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 

First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors. 

The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion. 

My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015. 

Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector. 

Length: 65 pages 

 
                 
Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum Kindle Edition 
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 

These are the TRUE Truth Tables of the 4 connectors of Logic 

Equal+Not                     
T = T  =  T                       
T = ~F = T                       
F = ~T = T 
F = F   = T    

If--> then                   
T --> T  = T 
T --> F  = F 
F --> T  = U  (unknown or uncertain)            
F --> F  = U  (unknown or uncertain) 

And 
T  &  T = T                        
T  &  F = T                       
F  &  T = T                       
F  &  F = F                       


Or 
T  or  T  = F 
T  or  F  = T 
F  or  T  = T 
F  or  F  = F 

Those can be analyzed as being Equal+Not is multiplication, If-->then is division, And is addition and Or is subtraction in mathematics. Now I need to emphasis this error of Old Logic, the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion. 

Now in Old Logic they had for Reductio Ad Absurdum as displayed by this schematic: 

|    | ~p 
|    |--- 
|    | . 
|    | . 
|    | q 
|    | . 
|    | . 
|    | ~q 
| p 

Which is fine except for the error of not indicating the end conclusion of "p" is only a probability of being true, not guaranteed as true. And this is the huge huge error that mathematicians have fallen victim of. For the Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a proof method for mathematics, it is probability of being true or false. Math works on guaranteed truth, not probability. This textbook is written to fix that error. 

Cover Picture: I like my covers to be like as if a blackboard in school to connect with students. This is a picture of the above Reductio Ad Absurdum, as a student or teacher would write in their notes or blackboard. 

Length: 82 pages 

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. 

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

On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 11:34:51 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Autistic


kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_Joel T. Giedt, Yong Sung Kim, Gyorgy Korniss, Toh-Ming Lu, Charles Martin,, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic and real proton is 840MeV not 938

kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_Peter Persans, Moussa N'Gom, John Schroeder, Michael Shur, Shawn-Yu Lin,  too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938

kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_Humberto Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang, Morris A Washington, Esther A. Wertz, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938

kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_Christian M. Wetzel, Ingrid Wilke, Shengbai Zhang, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938

kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_David A Schmidt, Daniel Stevenson, Yangyang Xu, Bulent Yener, Donald Drew, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938

kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_William Siegmann,Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek, Julian S. Georg, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938
38



AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.

Length: 21 pages 


World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math where they had a ill-defined infinity; they had the fakery of Limit concept; and they had the fakery of a continuum. 

The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus basically says the integral is inverse to the derivative and the derivative is inverse to the integral. By inverse is meant that you can go to one given the other and vice versa, such as add is the inverse of subtract, so if we had 10 + 4 = 14 then the inverse is subtract 4 and we have 14-4 = 10 back to 10 where we started from. And the geometry proof involves a rectangle and a right triangle hinged atop a trapezoid. You hinge it one direction you have dy*dx for area of a rectangle for integral area. You hinge it the other direction you have the dy/dx for slope or derivative from the trapezoid formed.

Sad that Old Math was so full of ill-defined concepts and fake concepts that never was a geometry proof of FTC ever possible in Old Math.

Length: 29 pages

Plutonium Atom Totality Universe, Atom Totality Series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Cover picture: is what the interior and exterior of most atoms looks like once you apply Faraday's Law to subatomic particles.This picture is a coil of 88 rings torus with a smaller ring inside. The 88 coil rings represent 11 protons in a Faraday Law magnetic induction coil and the smaller ring is a muon as a bar magnet thrusting through the proton coil, thereby, producing electricity.

The goal and aim of the 8th edition of Atom Totality, 2017 was to iron out all the mathematics of Electricity and Magnetism so that the AP-Maxwell Equations embodied all the mathematics of physics. In other words, all of physics is handled by the AP-Maxwell Equations. But in the course of straightening out the EM math of physics, I made my second greatest science discovery-- that the real proton was 840MeV, real electron was the muon at 105MeV and that little particle we all thought was the electron since JJ Thompson discovered it in 1897, was in fact not the electron but was Dirac's magnetic monopole. I made that discovery in the midst of my writing the 8th edition (only goes to show that most of our best ideas come from organizing and placing our thoughts into order-- writing a book). And so this 9th edition goal and aim is to go back and fix the picture of atoms, their geometry, and incorporate that discovery, mostly by fixing the picture of what atoms exterior and interior geometry is, in light of the fact that there is the Faraday Law going on inside of atoms.

Length: 115 pages


True Chemistry Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of .5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is every where.

Cover picture: shows two of my chemical models, one of CO and the other CO2

Length: 1154

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS (textbook in the making-- journal textbook): journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; and ages 19 to 26, Volume 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

This is the one textbook in two volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education needs, 5 year old to 26 year old through all of mathematics that is needed to do science. Every other math book is incidental to this one. And the student needs this math book for all their math and science needs. A one-size-fits-all for mathematics study.

I call it a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost continuously. A unique first in education textbooks-- continual overnight editing.

What prompted me to write this textbook is that the Old Math is too much filled with error, mistakes and just sheer nonsense. In the early 2000s I wrote about 5 editions of Correcting Math textbooks and about 9 editions of True Calculus, but then I got so fed up and tired with all the mistakes of Old Math, that I decided the best route to go is throw out all of Old Math and start anew.

Now I wrestled with publishing a "rough first edition" now, or to wait about a year in polishing the textbook and then publish it. I wrestled with this and decided I have enough of a skeleton text, that I can continually polish with overnight editing, and that it would be of more benefit to readers to have this skeleton text and watch and wait as the months and years go by to see the continual polishing take affect. So I decided tonight to publish, for the benefit of many to see, rather than wait a year to see a polished text. I may have made a mistake in this decision for I do not want to turn off anyone to math. But maybe I made the correct decision to allow others to see this book a full year ahead of schedule. Bon Voyage!

Length: 328 pages

AP Atom Model replacing the Rutherford-Bohr Atom Model (Physics series for High School Book 1) Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
The Rutherford and Bohr model of the Atom is seen now as fake physics. And it will take a lot of time before that nonsense is removed and replaced in science textbooks and classrooms for a truer model of the Atom. So to accelerate that movement towards the truth of what the Atom is, I present this short book for High School. In the age of the Internet, when we discover true science but am teaching fake science, we need a process to quicken the exit of fake science. Not to wait around for 50 years to be teaching the true science, we should be teaching the true science as fast as possible and to remove the fake science in our school curriculums in a timely and orderly manner. So this small book is a pattern for future removal of fake science from school curriculums. This small book explains what the Rutherford-Bohr model was and why it was phony science. And I explain what replaces the Rutherford-Bohr model with the AP model of the Atom. So the pattern is -- show both -- and then authors of texts will eliminate the fake science until it is a passing footnote.

Cover Picture is a coil and a bar magnet and a galvanometer that measures the current produced as the bar magnet is thrust through the coil. This is Faraday's Law and needs to be taught in High School.


Length: 12 pages


Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. 

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


Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Physics dept 
Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek, Julian S. Georg, Joel T. Giedt, Yong Sung Kim, Gyorgy Korniss, Toh-Ming Lu, Charles Martin, Joseph Darryl Michael, Heidi Jo Newberg, Moussa N'Gom, Peter Persans, John Schroeder, Michael Shur, Shawn-Yu Lin, Humberto Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang, Morris A Washington, Esther A. Wertz, Christian M. Wetzel, Ingrid Wilke, Shengbai Zhang 

Rensselaer math department 
Donald Schwendeman, Jeffrey Banks, Kristin Bennett, Mohamed Boudjelkha, Joseph Ecker, William Henshaw, Isom Herron, Mark H Holmes, David Isaacson, Elizabeth Kam, Ashwani Kapila, Maya Kiehl, Gregor Kovacic, Peter Kramer, Gina Kucinski, Rongjie Lai, Fengyan Li, Chjan Lim, Yuri V Lvov, Harry McLaughlin, John E. Mitchell, Bruce Piper, David A Schmidt, Daniel Stevenson, Yangyang Xu, Bulent Yener, Donald Drew, William Siegmann 

On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 12:13:14 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Physics minnow 
> WARNING TO ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING STUDENTS: 


AP writes: Unpacking Moroney, suggests the reason Princeton is too dumb to see that 9 x 105MeV = 945MeV and the proton is clocked in at 938MeV with only a less than 1% sigma error, implies the real proton is 840MeV with a muon = real electron attached. Since none Princeton could ever understand AP's proof ellipse is never a conic section (for that is the oval,not the ellipse) but rather the ellipse is a cylinder section; stands to reason they are far far too stupid at Princeton to see real proton is 840MeV.

On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 10:03:14 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Physics Minnow 

On Tuesday, May 28, 2019 at 5:04:17 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Autistic
> 
> WARNING TO PARENTS:

why does not Baez, totally worthless in science, just change his name to abu Re: 1kicking out stalkers-- Jan Burse, Dan Christensen, John Baez //

On Monday, April 3, 2017 at 9:30:35 PM UTC-5, abu.ku...@gmail.com wrote: 
> blow it out your ass ... oh, 
> what was that smell, in the first place 
> 

abu.ku...@gmail.com 
 
4/5/17 


stalkers out kciking cans 

yup, complex field is tres c00l 

> Only if you failed Calculus would you think that 

nanadittos ... when you ever have any result 
from ye olde mathe, I'm sure that it will be new -- to you 


AP writes: instead of spamming newsgroups, why not do something worthwhile-- Confirm real electron is 105MeV, real proton is 840MeV and that little particle JJ Thomson discovered in 1897 turns out to be not the atom electron but rather the Dirac magnetic monopole. 


AP writes: Is the reason Physicists have not yet confirmed real proton is 840MeV not 938, because its scientists behave much like stalker kibo Parry Moroney-- cesspool mind of hatred with daily hate sheets on people rather than spend their daily activity on uncovering the true proton is 840MeV stuck with the real electron as muon doing a Faraday Law dance inside the atom making electricity and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. 


       o-:^>___? 
       `~~c--^c' 
Navy dog says: remember the time the failed engineer kibo Parry Moroney said 938 is short of 945 by 12%. How could any engineer pass school not knowing percentages?

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
  
 > Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon. 
 > Hardly "exactly" 9 muons. 
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
  
>  Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass 
 > of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short. 


Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole

President Larry Summers

Harvard Physics dept
Jacob Barandes, Howard Berg, Michael Brenner, Adam Cohen, Eugene Demler, Michael Desai
Louis Deslauriers, John Doyle, Cora Dvorkin, Gary Feldman, Douglas Finkbeiner, Melissa Franklin, Gerald Gabrielse, Howard Georgi, Sheldon Glashow, Roy Glauber, Jene Golovchenko, Markus Greiner, Roxanne Guenette, Girma Hailu, Bertrand Halperin, Lene Hau
Thomas Hayes, Eric Heller, Jason Hoffman, Jenny Hoffman, Gerald Holton, Paul Horowitz, John Huth, Arthur Jaffe, Daniel Jafferis, Efthimios Kaxiras, Philip Kim, John Kovac, Erel Levine
Mikhail Lukin, Logan McCarty, L. Mahadevan, Vinothan Manoharan, Eric Mazur, Masahiro Morii
David Morin, Julia Mundy, Cherry Murray, David Nelson, Kang Ni, Hongkun Park, William Paul
Peter Pershan, Mara Prentiss, Lisa Randall, Matthew Reece, Subir Sachdev, Aravinthan Samuel, Matthew Schwartz, Irwin Shapiro, Isaac Silvera, Andrew Strominger, Christopher Stubbs, Cumrun Vafa, Ronald Walsworth, David Weitz, Robert Westervelt, Richard Wilson
Tai Wu, Amir Yacoby, Susanne Yelin, Xi Yin


Princeton University Math dept 

Michael Aizenman, Manjul Bhargava, William Browder, Tristan Buckmaster, Sun-Yung Alice Chang, Maria Chudnovsky, Peter Constantin, John Conway, Mihalis Dafermos, Gabriele Di Cerbo, Zeev Dvir, Weinan E, Charles Fefferman, David Gabai, Javier Gómez-Serrano, Robert C. Gunning, Jonathan Hanselman, Wu-Chung Hsiang, Alexandru Ionescu, Nicholas Katz, Sergiu Klainerman, Simon Kochen, Joseph Kohn, János Kollár, Elliott Lieb, Adam Marcus,
Fernando Codá Marques, Ana Menezes, Sophie Morel, Assaf Naor, Peter Ozsváth, John Pardon, Fabio Pusateri, Igor Rodnianski, Peter Sarnak, Paul D. Seymour, Tatyana Shcherbyna, Nicholas Sheridan,  Goro Shimura, Yakov Sinai, Amit Singer, Christopher Skinner, Allan Sly, Elias Stein, Zoltán Szabó, Gang Tian, Hale Trotter, Vlad Vicol, Paul C. Yang, Shou-Wu Zhang


Reed College physics dept 

Alison Crocker, John Essick, Joel Franklin, Lucas Illing, Mary James, Andrew Larkoski 
Johnny Powell, Darrell Schroeter, Jenna Smith, Ragnar Stroberg, David Griffiths, Robert Reynolds, Nicholas Wheeler 

Reed College Math dept 
Andrew Bray, Safia Chettih, Jim Fix, Eitan Frachtenberg, Adam Groce, Heather Kitada 
Lyudmila Korobenko, John Lind, Dylan McNamee, Kyle Ormsby, Angelica Osorno 
David Perkinson, Jamie Pommersheim, Kelly Shaw, Jerry Shurman, Irena Swanson 
Joe Buhler, Hubert Chrestenson, Albyn Jones, Ray Mayer, V. Potluri, Joe Roberts, Thomas Wieting 



MIT math dept. 

Michael Artin, Martin Bazant, Bonnie Berger, Roman Bezrukavnikov, Alexei Borodin, John Bush, Herman Chernoff, Henry Cohn, Laurent Demanet, Richard Dudley, Jörn Dunkel, Alan Edelman, Pavel Etingof, Daniel Freedman, Michel Goemans, Vadim Gorin, Harvey Greenspan, Victor Guillemin, Larry Guth, Sigurdur Helgason, Anette Hosoi, David Jerison, Steven Johnson, Victor Kac, Steven Kleiman, Daniel Kleitman,
 Andrew Lawrie, Tom Leighton, George Lusztig, Arthur Mattuck, Davesh Maulik, Richard Melrose, Haynes Miller, William Minicozzi, Ankur Moitra, Elchanan Mossel, Tomasz Mrowka, James Munkres, Andrei Negut, Aaron Pixton, Bjorn Poonen, Alexander Postnikov, Philippe Rigollet, Rodolfo Rosales, Giulia Saccà, Gerald Sacks, Paul Seidel, Scott Sheffield, Peter Shor, Isadore Singer, Michael Sipser, Jared Speck, Gigliola Staffilani, Richard Stanley, Harold Stark, Gilbert Strang, Daniel Stroock, Goncalo Tabuada, Alar Toomre, David Vogan 

President: L. Reif (electrical engineer) 

MIT physics dept 
William Bertozzi, Robert Birgeneau, Hale Bradt, Bernard Burke, George Clark , Jeffrey Goldstone, Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins , Paul Joss, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon, Irwin Pless, Paul Schechter, James Young   

LIST of Failed Physicists because they still believe electron is .5MeV, in no order, and so very stupid are they in physics, for they could not even understand the physics of angular momentum of two particles 938 to .5 rather than 840 to 105 MeV

Peter Higgs 
Rainer Weiss 
Kip S. Thorne 
Barry C. Barish 
David J. Thouless 
F. Duncan M. Haldane 
John M. Kosterlitz 
Takaaki Kajita 
Arthur B. McDonald 
Francois Englert 
Saul Perlmutter 
Brian P. Schmidt 
Adam G. Riess 
Makoto Kobayashi 
Toshihide Maskawa 
Yoichiro Nambu 
John C. Mather 
George F. Smoot 
Roy J. Glauber 
David J. Gross 
Hugh David Politzer 
Frank Wilczek 
Raymond Davis Jr. 
Masatoshi Koshiba 
Riccardo Giacconi 
Gerardus 't Hooft 
Martinus J.G. Veltman 
Jerome I. Friedman 
Henry W. Kendall 
Richard E. Taylor 
Carlo Rubbia 
Simon van der Meer 
William Alfred Fowler 
Kenneth G. Wilson 
James Watson Cronin 
Val Logsdon Fitch 
Sheldon Lee Glashow 
Steven Weinberg   
. 
. 
little fishes 
. 
. 
layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = 1 while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV 

Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass 
Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu 
more and more layers of error thinking physics 
. 
. 
John Baez 
Brian Greene 
Lisa Randall 
Alan H. Guth 
Michael E. Brown 
Konstantin Batygin 
Ben Bullock 
Larry Harson 
Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
None at all - he was a raving nutter.
Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley 
Edward Witten 

Back to sci.math | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

1.9-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Korniss,Toh-Ming Lu,Martin Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-09-15 06:21 -0700
  Re: 1.9-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Korniss,Toh-Ming Lu,Martin Dingus Dirtbag McGee <invalideye@ezampleaeze.com> - 2019-09-15 07:57 -0700
    Re: 1.9-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Korniss,Toh-Ming Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-09-18 12:21 -0700
      Re: 1.9-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Korniss,Toh-Ming Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-09-24 17:01 -0700
    Re: 1.9-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Korniss,Toh-Ming Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-09-18 19:46 -0700
      Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-09-19 03:06 +0000
        kibo Parry Moroney, 27 year long stalker shithead of sci.math-- never any math, never any physics Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-09-23 09:19 -0700
    Re: 1.9-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Korniss,Toh-Ming Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-09-22 15:41 -0700
      Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-09-22 22:53 +0000
    Re: 1.9-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Korniss,Toh-Ming Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-09-23 19:05 -0700
      Re: 1.9-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Korniss,Toh-Ming Antonio Man-Bun <invalide@nowhere.net> - 2019-09-23 20:55 -0700
        Re: 1.9-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Korniss,Toh-Ming Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-09-24 13:34 -0700
          Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-09-24 20:45 +0000

csiph-web