Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

I can't drive 55.


tech / sci.math / Re: 8-Kibo Parry Moroney says boycott Samsung & Hyundai until South Korea stops torturing to death caged Moon Bears // SOUTH KOREA, MOON BEARS Moon Bears of South Korea need the world's helping hand from evil//SCIENCE COUNCIL RULE EARTH

SubjectAuthor
o Re: 8-Kibo Parry Moroney says boycott Samsung & Hyundai until SouthArchimedes Plutonium

1
Re: 8-Kibo Parry Moroney says boycott Samsung & Hyundai until South Korea stops torturing to death caged Moon Bears // SOUTH KOREA, MOON BEARS Moon Bears of South Korea need the world's helping hand from evil//SCIENCE COUNCIL RULE EARTH

<5a3b45c9-9818-44d3-9618-7a1260c8aa61n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=100004&group=sci.math#100004

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.math
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5bc1:0:b0:42c:3700:a6df with SMTP id t1-20020ad45bc1000000b0042c3700a6dfmr6631494qvt.94.1652487519745;
Fri, 13 May 2022 17:18:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:3247:0:b0:64c:3c89:511b with SMTP id
y68-20020a253247000000b0064c3c89511bmr3189981yby.357.1652487519573; Fri, 13
May 2022 17:18:39 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 17:18:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <rfq982$247n$2@neodome.net>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=107.127.35.6; posting-account=fsC03QkAAAAwkSNcSEKmlcR-W_HNitEd
NNTP-Posting-Host: 107.127.35.6
References: <cc7fd5dc-333e-4c28-90af-3d7c58f9daden@googlegroups.com> <rfq982$247n$2@neodome.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <5a3b45c9-9818-44d3-9618-7a1260c8aa61n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: 8-Kibo Parry Moroney says boycott Samsung & Hyundai until South
Korea stops torturing to death caged Moon Bears // SOUTH KOREA, MOON BEARS
Moon Bears of South Korea need the world's helping hand from evil//SCIENCE
COUNCIL RULE EARTH
From: plutoniu...@gmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Injection-Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 00:18:39 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 12137
 by: Archimedes Plutonium - Sat, 14 May 2022 00:18 UTC

Klaus Kirch, Simon Lilly, Ursula Keller,Joel Mesot, ETH Zurich
ETH, why not admit the truth Oval is the slant cut in single cone, never the ellipse. Dartmouth -- __truth always wins__ and your actions of hiring or __complacent with__ hate-stalker criminals of Kibo Parry M. or Jan Burse or Dan Christensen or their dozen allies of hatred, only shows that ETH Zurich is no longer in the business of science and truth but has gone corrupt.

Not much difference between the corrupt Donald Trump and his mindless "big lie" and Dartmouth College with their mindless big lie of ellipse a conic section.

No point in asking any ETH professor which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle when the bozo the clowns cannot even tell apart a ellipse from oval.

Jan Burse, hope your DC proof poof machine is up for translating English into Swiss.

3rd published book

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 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.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.

Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.

In November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid.

Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 KB
• Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 50 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#11-2, 11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.

To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

ETH Zurich-- why not tell the truth of science instead of being complacent or hiring a moron paid for hate-stalker like Kibo Parry M. You must know, truth always wins.
On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 4:59:49 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>why do you have to be such a crybaby about the ellipse being a conic
> section?

Jan Burse can Klaus Kirch, Simon Lilly, Joel Mesot ask the question, which is the atom's real electron, the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law or the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. Or as Jan Burse constantly posts of farting and brain fart around at ETH which you mention in so many of your posts as ha,ha, brain farts. Is ETH and Univ Bern Jan Burse brain fart schools?

On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 5:04:29 PM UTC-6, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> brain farto, why?

> ETH Zurich
>
> Paul Biran, Marc Burger, Patrick Cheridito, Manfred Einsiedler, Paul Embrechts
> Giovanni Felder, Alessio Figalli, Norbert Hungerbuhler, Tom Ilmanen, Horst Knorrer
> Emmanuel Kowalski
> Urs Lang
> Rahul Pandharipande
> Richard Pink
> Tristan Riviere
> Dietmar Salamon
> Martin Schweizer
> Mete Soner
> Michael Struwe
> Benjamin Sudakov
> Alain Sznitman
> Josef Teichmann
> Wendelin Werner
> Thomas Willwacher
>
> Zurich ETH, physics dept
> Charalampos Anastasiou, Niklas Beisert, Adrian Biland, Gianni Blatter, Marcella Carollo, Christian Degen, Leonardo Degiorgi, Gunther Dissertori, Klaus Ensslin, Tilman Esslinger, Jerome Faist, Matthias Gaberdiel, Aude Gehrmann-De Ridder, Vadim Geshkenbein, Christophorus Grab, Michele Graf, Jonathan Home, Roland Horisberger, Sebastian Huber, Thomas Markus Ihn, Atac Imamoglu, Steven Johnson, Ursula Keller, Klaus Kirch, Simon Lilly, Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner, Andre Rubbia, Werner Schmutz, Thomas Schulthess, Manfred Sigrist, Hans-Arno Synal, Matthias Troyer, Andreas Vaterlaus, Rainer Wallny, Andreas Wallraff, Werner Wegscheider, Audrey Zheludev, Oded Zilberberg
>
>
> University Bern
> Christian Leumann
> Walter Benjamin
> Emil Theodor Kocher
> Kurt Wuthrich
> Daniel Vassella
> Rene Fasel
> Mani Matter
>
>
>
> Why can no-one at ETH or Bern ever ask the question which is the atom's true electron the muon or the 0.5MeV particle


Click here to read the complete article
1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor