• Volney on NSF Dr.Panchanathan on Dr.Rita Colwell ...> "not notable" > "

    From Archimedes Plutonium@21:1/5 to Volney on Fri Sep 1 17:11:10 2023
    Volney on NSF Dr.Panchanathan on Dr.Rita Colwell ...> "not notable" > "Imp of Science"> tarded.. on Purdue's France Cordova, inane failures of common sense with their Meiosis going from 46 to 92 to reach 23
    1 view
    Skip to first unread message
    Subscribe
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium
    unread,
    7:08 PM (2 minutes ago)



    to
    Volney on NSF Dr.Panchanathan on Dr.Rita Colwell ...> "not notable"
    "Imp of Science"> tarded:
    On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 10:26:50 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
    "not notable"
    "Imp of Science"> tarded:

    NSF Dr.Panchanathan's Volney blames Rita Colwell for the insane Meiosis going from 46 to 92 just to get to 23.
    On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 1:06:31 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
    "wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place"
    "Putin's minion"

    Panch, was it the Russian vodka that made Rita think the chromosomes needed to climb to 92??



    NSF Dr.Panchanathan's Volney blames Rita Colwell for the insane Meiosis going from 46 to 92 just to get to 23.
    On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 1:06:31 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
    "wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place"
    "Putin's minion"

    Panch, was it the Russian vodka that made Rita think the chromosomes needed to climb to 92??

    3-Volney on NSF Dr.Panchanathan on Purdue Dr. France Cordova "Drag Queen of Science" "irrelevant" Why Volney?? Is it because Dr.Panchanathan is a math failure with his slant cut of cone a ellipse, when in reality it is a oval

    Kibo on..NSF Rebecca Lynn Keiser,Dunning-Kruger Arden Lee Bement Jr. Fuckhole Dr.Panchanathan of science

    On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 8:18:48 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
    "Drag Queen of Science"
    "irrelevant"

    On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 5:58:25 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
    "the FUCKHOLE of math"
    On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 11:28:58 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
    "Kim Jong Un's stooge"

    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 12:08:44 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
    is *always* wrong.

    Kibo, Volney, does Dr. Panchanathan remind you of Dr. Silberman in the Terminator movies--rock hard insanity

    Re: kibo-Parry-Moroney, the FUCKHOLE of sci.math, sci.physics
    By Richard Tobin Jul 4, 2019, 9:45:05 AM

    Kibo Parry Moron-Volney blowing his cover with the CIA in 1997
    Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
    On Sunday, June 8, 1997 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
    In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes:



    ---quoting Wikipedia ---
    Controversy
    Many government and university installations blocked, threatened to block, or attempted to shut-down The World's Internet connection until Software Tool & Die was eventually granted permission by the National Science Foundation to provide public Internet
    access on "an experimental basis."
    --- end quote ---

    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

    Dr. Panchanathan , present day
    NSF Dr. Panchanathan, F. Fleming Crim, Dorothy E Aronson, Brian Stone, James S Ulvestad (math), Rebecca Lynn Keiser, Vernon D. Ross, Lloyd Whitman, John J. Veysey (physics), Scott Stanley
    France Anne Cordova
    Subra Suresh
    Arden Lee Bement Jr.
    Rita R. Colwell (microbiology)
    Neal Francis Lane
    John Howard Gibbons 1993

    Barry Shein, kibo parry std world
    Jim Frost, Joe "Spike" Ilacqua


    Canada-- NSERC , Alejandro Adem (math) , Navdeep Bains, Francois-Philippe Champagne

    My 3rd published book

    AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1
    by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

    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
  • From Archimedes Plutonium@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 2 12:15:10 2023
    Volney on Imps Dr.Colwell,Dr.Griffiths,Dr.Miller, Dr.Suzuki, Dr.Lewontin,Dr.Gelbart (Genetic Analysis textbook)

    Just because you see spindles, why do you idiotically then assume division is going on????

    A wise person would not jump to conclusions, for a wise person would say,-- hey, a spindle can be a sorting out or rearrangement, and not a division.

    So question your idiotic and absurd and paradoxical Meiosis going from 46 to 92 in order to arrive at 23.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Archimedes Plutonium@21:1/5 to All on Sun Sep 3 01:48:04 2023
    Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
    3:11 AM (1 hour ago)



    to Plutonium Atom Universe
    It looks like AP is going to have to apologize to all the biologists on Meiosis. But 1/2 of the fault is their fault for lousy presentation. Finally a YouTube clip explains the process. Maybe YouTube will take over Education of our Youth. And now I have
    a wholescale rewrite of my biology book of Meiosis.

    It looks like I finally found someone to explain this clearly, in Interphase, the chromosomes of Meiosis duplicate but stay attached to the centromeres and is called -- still -- 46 chromosomes, or 92 chromotids.

    Newly duplicated chromosome is still attached at the centromere location.

    From YouTube Amoeba Sisters.
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
    3:19 AM (25 minutes ago)



    to Plutonium Atom Universe
    Now, has anyone actually "timed" from start to finish the process of meiosis, and "timed" the process of mitosis from start to finish?

    Probably not, probably as slipshod and lousy in experimentation watching as chemists and physicists in Water Electrolysis, so stupid in not weighing the mass of the hydrogen test tube compared to oxygen test tube.

    I was looking in Genetic Analysis of where they got their pictures on pages 60-61.

    It says (Modified from J. McLeish and B. Snoad, Looking at Chromosomes, 1958.)

    It could be, that only a handful-- 2, 3, perhaps 5 people in all the history of biology that watched mitosis and meiosis in action from start to finish. And that everyone else in biology hung their own theoretical nonsense thinking, their "group nonsense"
    on just five peoples watching. And no wonder no biologist would say-- "stop a moment, can you see how dumb and silly it is to say 46 goes to 92, in order to end up at 23"?? Can you see how absurd, how paradoxical, how contradictory that looks like, that
    Nature needs to double the chromosomes to 92 to get to 23???

    Leave it to biologists who hate math calculus, and then have to decipher meiosis. Maybe it is their moment of revenge for failing calculus, that they can get back at mathematicians with teaching 46 goes to 92 to get to 23.

    But there is one very excellent, very nice form of Confirmation by Physics. Does the process of Meiosis last as long and as the same time as Mitosis?? Or does Meiosis require 2 times the Time interval, from start to finish?

    If it takes the very same length of time for Mitosis to end up with 2 cells identical as it takes for a cell in Meiosis to have two cells of 23 chromosomes, is Proof that just like mitosis there was one division.

    Looking at the Web, and with all these nuisance robots, fogging up the place. It is said that Meiosis from start to finish takes 74 hours.

    Surprisingly, it says that Mitosis takes longer than meiosis.

    This would indicate that Meiosis has just one division and the Meiosis Two is just mitosis.

    Nature is not going to invest energy in meiosis more than it takes for mitosis.

    AP

    After watching a YouTube clip by Amoeba Sisters I finally understand this 46 to 92 to 23.

    This is the most excellent advantage of YouTube, as a teacher for which blackboard teachers cannot explain.

    And in the above of "time", the robots on Google are becoming more of a bad thing than a good thing as they are all over the map and hinder science, not help it. Meiosis takes almost 3 times as long to complete as mitosis.

    AP

    P.S. I thought I would help my book of My 9th published book.

    Biology's Meiosis Error, DNA-Capacitor// biophysics series, book 6
    by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

    Fixing the huge errors of Biology--Meiosis has no duplication.

    Old Biology had two major errors, for they thought the human chromosomes of 46 went to 92 in order to get to 23, and secondly, they thought the reduction phase in meiosis is in the first phase, not the
    second phase, which is really goofy, for why even have a second phase when what you wanted is achieved in first phase.

    This book aims to correct Old Biology's silly and stupid and illogical mistakes of Meiosis. Why did it have so many mistakes? I do not know but am guessing that much of Old Biology is a word soup game. Where biologists sit around dreaming up concepts
    that are not real concepts, and when they apply this word soup to actual science itself-- it interferes with them getting the correct answer. An example of word soup nonsense is "reverse altruism", when it is dubious that there even is altruism, and on
    top of that-- a "reverse". But an all-time word soup game of biology was evolution's "the fittest fit".

    In the below treatise, we see where Miami Univ finally and directly and clearly comes out and states it does not go from 46 to 92. But then, Miami Univ fails in the reduction phase by saying it takes place in Meiosis 1, while AP says that is illogical,
    for why even have Meiosis 2.

    No mitosis duplicates the human DNA of 46 going to 92 chromosomes, and then we have the Meiosis, and because no mitosis goes from 46 chromosomes to 92 chromosomes all the math failure biologists want to go from 46 chromosomes to 92, and end up with their
    goal of 23 end result.

    Cover Picture: my own personal drawing rendering of a phase of meiosis. Many times in biology class in High School we had to do drawings of biology objects. So I had some practice in rendering a biology drawing, before this one.
    Length: 150 pages


    Product details
    File Size: 1070 KB
    Print Length: 150 pages
    Publication Date: March 13, 2019
    Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
    Language: English
    ASIN: B07PRXPHS3
    Text-to-Speech: Enabled carrot._CB192251235_.gif
    X-Ray:
    Not Enabled carrot._CB192251235_.gif
    Word Wise: Enabled
    Lending: Enabled
    Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled carrot._CB192251235_.gif
    Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #300,029 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
    #111 in Cell Biology (Books)
    #30 in Cell Biology (Kindle Store)

    Turns out I need to rewrite it, for Meiosis in the sense of chromotids goes from 46 to 92 to 23.
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
    3:27 AM (17 minutes ago)



    to Plutonium Atom Universe
    Spelling is Chromatids, 92 chromatids.

    Interphase is not part of mitosis or meiosis. And apparently the signalling I was looking for earlier is the Interphase process, not the Leptotene, Zygotene, Pachytene phase.

    I apologize to all biologists, for apparently they are correct on meiosis.

    But I do not apologize to any biologist for their lack of clarity, their poor teaching of this subject, for they should have realized that teaching 46 goes to 92 goes to 23 needs extra delicate and Clear teaching.

    The Amoeba Sisters YouTube is the standard example of Clear teaching.

    AP

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)