Does John Baez and Jill Pipher and Ken Ribet suffer from Dunning-Kruger disease of psychology-- where they overestimate their abilities in math-- knowing the cone has 1 axis of symmetry, yet John, Jill & Ken still thinks 1 axis can yield a ellipse of 2 axes of symmetry in a slant cut. I think John, Jill & Ken are smarter than Dan Christensen with his 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, or, Kibo Parry M with his 938 is 12% short of 945, but not much smarter than Kibo Parry for both believe the slant cut in cone is a ellipse, when the truth be known, it is a Oval for the oval, like the cone has 1 axis of symmetry.

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Aug 27, 2021, 11:07:58 AM 
to sci.math

Tao fails geometry because he believes Python with his cone has 2 axes of symmetry and hence slant cut is ellipse in cone, for otherwise, he would have said something by now 2016-2021.
On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 10:35:31 AM UTC-5, Python wrote:
> Why don't you buy this kind of stuff that will show you that
> you didn't do the experiment right?
>
> https://www.pinterest.fr/pin/595178906992508262/
>
> Moreover that a slant cut in a cylinder shows an ellipse does not
> contradict that some slant cuts in a cone shows an ellipse also.

AP writes: no wonder that AP's discovery that Cone slant cut is an Oval never the ellipse is because everyone in math community other than AP thinks a cone has 2 axes of symmetry, just the same as a cylinder has 2 axis of symmetry.

I have heard of color blindness where you fail to see certain wavelengths of color, and guess that in mathematics, now, we have to test students and teachers for axis blindness.

Python wrote:
Aug 27, 2021, 11:14:47 AM
to sci.math
Ludwig Poehlmann, aka Archimedes Plutonium a écrit :
>
> Tao fails geometry because he believes Python with his cone has 2 axes of symmetry and hence slant cut is ellipse in cone

A cone has ONE axe of symmetry AND a slant cut in a cone IS an ellipse.

You can buy a wood model for a few bucks, Ludwig, instead of making a
fool of yourself.

Python wrote:
Aug 27, 2021, 11:41:04 AM 
to sci.math
Ludwig Poehlmann, aka Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 11:14:47 AM UTC-5, Python wrote:
>> Ludwig Poehlmann, aka Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>>
>>> Tao fails geometry because he believes Python with his cone has 2 axes of symmetry and hence slant cut is ellipse in cone
>> A cone has ONE axe of symmetry AND a slant cut in a cone IS an ellipse.
>>
Python>> You can buy a wood model for a few bucks, Ludwig, instead of making a
Python>> fool of yourself.
>
AP> a ellipse has 2 axes of symmetry, so how do you get a figure with 2
AP> axes of symmetry from a cone of 1 axis of symmetry

Python>watch it there:
Python>https://www.youtube.com

AP writes: Does Terence Tao, Jill Pipher & Ken Ribet and Python (possibly Terry Tao in disguise) have Dunning-Kruger effect disability? Wikipedia describes it as "internal illusion in people of low ability". In this case mathematics, that Terry Tao has low ability in math and so misperceives the Cone as 1 axes of symmetry and then deludes himself that a 2 axes of symmetry can be gotten with a slant cut in cone to yield ellipse. Whereas AP was always a straight and narrow on cue scientist, knowing that the cone of 1 axes could never yield a ellipse of 2 axes , no, for AP that slant cut could only yield another figure of 1 axes of symmetry-- the Oval.

The follies and blunders of Dan Christensen, the mighty Canadian oaf of logic and math. Of course his most insane and twisted offering is his 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, believing in Boole logic even when Boole screwed up royally in his AND connector truth table of TFFF when in reality it is TTTF, making a mockery of the Either..Or..Or..Both that is a insane self contradiction, yet all logicians of today and past still preach this error ridden nonsense of logic. But Dan is caught often with his mindless pronouncements in sci.math, such as these two incidents.

Here is an example of Dan Christensen fumbling with the most simple of logic reasoning, and yet Canada keeps allowing this misfit to dig deeper into logic.

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:08:09 AM UTC-6, Peter Percival wrote:
> Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:47:32 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 8:27:19 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:16:52 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >>>> PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra, Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector
> >>>>
> >>>> The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any two points lies a third new point.
> >>>
> >>> The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points."
> >>>
> >>
> >> What a monsterous fool you are
> >>
> >
> > OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it.
>
> And yet Mr Plutonium is right. Two points are distinct (else they would
> be one) and it is not necessary to say so.
>

Apparently Dan Christensen never took calculus or flunked it with this statement.
On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 8:57:54 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 2:32:51 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > The nonexistence of a curved angle because there is no way to measure the angle if either one of the rays is not a straightline segment at the vertex,
>
> From the derivative of each curve at the point of contact you have the slopes of their respective tangents there. (Assuming derivatives are defined there.) From these slopes, you should be able to calculate angle formed.
>
>
> Dan

It has been known by AP that another clear case example of Dunning Kruger disease and mental disorder is the stalker Kibo Parry M. where he posts every day of the year almost for 28 years to sci.math when that insane koot cannot even do a percentage with his 938 is 12% short of 945.

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.

And his continued stalk spam of a another posters mindless talk of some notes he took, a garbled nonsense mess--
kibo>Here is a plane and cone
x + 1 = z
and
2*x^2 + 2*y^2 = z^2
>
kibo>Square the first equation giving us
x^2 + 2*x + 1 = z^2
>
kibo>In the second equation replace z^2 with x^2 + 2*x + 1 giving us
2*x^2 + 2*y^2 = x^2 + 2*x + 1
>
kibo>Subtract x^2 + 2*x - 1 from both sides giving us
x^2 - 2*x + 1 + 2*y^2 = 2
>
kibo>Replace x^2 - 2*x + 1 with (x-1)^2 giving us
(x-1)^2 + 2*y^2 = 2
>
kibo>That is EXACTLY the equation of an ellipse
And there are two planes of symmetry.
>
kibo>No matter how you tilt or rotate an ellipse it
REMAINS an ellipse and has TWO PLANES of symmetry,
just like the intersection of a plane and cylinder
remains an ellipse no matter what the slope of the
plane is.
>

AP writes: 7 years of stalker shithead Dan Christensen and 28 years of a shithead Kibo Parry M, unloading a wade of crap in every AP thread that AP was doing solid math and physics, such as the above, and no-one kicks the insane stalker Kibo Parry M out of sci.math and sci.physics.

AP writes: well in the opinion of AP, that Kibo Parry M has more to worry about than Dunning Kruger disease of his mental health, because in the opinion of AP, that Kibo Parry is a insane person, all stalkers are insane people and as a stalker, not even a human being, no longer a human being but melting away in insanity. For 28 years now, the insane arsewipe Kibo Parry M. has made no contribution to sci.math but to hate spew everyone he stalks. Get the straightjacket in emergency ambulance for Kibo Parry M size XXSmall.

So, well is the world being Dumbnificated by the fossil fuel burning discharging tonnes and tonnes of toxic chemicals into the air every minute of the day, and that CO2 itself comes in several isomers where the Fire-CO2, not the Animal-CO2 isomer (see my chemistry books) is especially harmful to Humans thinking abilities especially logical thinking. So that John Baez, Terence Tao and Jill Pipher and Ken Ribet could no longer reason, reason that if a cone has 1 axis of symmetry, no way in hell is a slant cut into a 1 axis symmetry cone going to yield a 2 axes symmetry ellipse. No way in hell, but the cut will release a 1 axis symmetry Oval.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics

On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 12:15:53 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> ...for both believe the slant cut in cone is a ellipse, when the truth be known, it is a Oval for the oval, like the cone has 1 axis of symmetry.

I think both you and I might agree:

Everyone with any exposure to math in the world, except you, believes the intersection is an ellipse.

In ten years you have not been able to convince a single other person in the world that the intersection is an oval.

In ten years everyone else has not been able to convince you that the intersection is an ellipse.

So, serious questions:

What would it take to convince everyone else it is an oval? Jar lid and paper cone isn't going to do it. What would convince them?

What would it take to convince you it is an ellipse? Algebra and geometry proofs isn't going to do it. What would convince you?

Is the answer to both those questions "Absolutely nothing at all, not ever"?

Dan says, do not be a victim of anti-science Justin Trudeau and Linda Hasenfratz and Rose M. Patten with their 2 OR 1=3 with AND as subtraction for Justin et al love teaching dogma that is never corrected of mistakes.
On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 9:13:07 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of

Question Dan, is it Dunning-Kruger disease that plagues John Baez, for he knows a cone has 1 axis of symmetry and the oval has one axis of symmetry, so Dan, why cannot the fool, silly fool of John Baez ever admit you cannot get a symmetry of 2 axes out of a cone of 1 axis of symmetry. Is it that John has breathed so much air pollution in California and become dumbnified that it is hard for John to even remember his name let alone mathematics. What say you Dan Christensen the Canadian insane stalker?

AP> Does John Baez and Jill Pipher and Ken Ribet suffer from Dunning-Kruger disease of psychology-- where they overestimate their abilities in math-- knowing the cone has 1 axis of symmetry, yet John, Jill & Ken still thinks 1 axis can yield a ellipse of 2 axes of symmetry in a slant cut. I think John, Jill & Ken are smarter than Dan Christensen with his 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, or, Kibo Parry M with his 938 is 12% short of 945, but not much smarter than Kibo Parry for both believe the slant cut in cone is a ellipse, when the truth be known, it is a Oval for the oval, like the cone has 1 axis of symmetry.
>
> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Aug 27, 2021, 11:07:58 AM
> to sci.math
>
> Tao fails geometry because he believes Python with his cone has 2 axes of symmetry and hence slant cut is ellipse in cone, for otherwise, he would have said something by now 2016-2021.
> On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 10:35:31 AM UTC-5, Python wrote:
> > Why don't you buy this kind of stuff that will show you that
> > you didn't do the experiment right?
> >
> > https://www.pinterest.fr/pin/595178906992508262/
> >
> > Moreover that a slant cut in a cylinder shows an ellipse does not
> > contradict that some slant cuts in a cone shows an ellipse also.
>
> AP writes: no wonder that AP's discovery that Cone slant cut is an Oval never the ellipse is because everyone in math community other than AP thinks a cone has 2 axes of symmetry, just the same as a cylinder has 2 axis of symmetry.
>
> I have heard of color blindness where you fail to see certain wavelengths of color, and guess that in mathematics, now, we have to test students and teachers for axis blindness.
>
>
> Python wrote:
> Aug 27, 2021, 11:14:47 AM
> to sci.math
> Ludwig Poehlmann, aka Archimedes Plutonium a écrit :
> >
> > Tao fails geometry because he believes Python with his cone has 2 axes of symmetry and hence slant cut is ellipse in cone
>
> A cone has ONE axe of symmetry AND a slant cut in a cone IS an ellipse.
>
> You can buy a wood model for a few bucks, Ludwig, instead of making a
> fool of yourself.
>
> Python wrote:
> Aug 27, 2021, 11:41:04 AM
> to sci.math
> Ludwig Poehlmann, aka Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 11:14:47 AM UTC-5, Python wrote:
> >> Ludwig Poehlmann, aka Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Tao fails geometry because he believes Python with his cone has 2 axes of symmetry and hence slant cut is ellipse in cone
> >> A cone has ONE axe of symmetry AND a slant cut in a cone IS an ellipse..
> >>
> Python>> You can buy a wood model for a few bucks, Ludwig, instead of making a
> Python>> fool of yourself.
> >
> AP> a ellipse has 2 axes of symmetry, so how do you get a figure with 2
> AP> axes of symmetry from a cone of 1 axis of symmetry
>
> Python>watch it there:
> Python>https://www.youtube.com
>
> AP writes: Does Terence Tao, Jill Pipher & Ken Ribet and Python (possibly Terry Tao in disguise) have Dunning-Kruger effect disability? Wikipedia describes it as "internal illusion in people of low ability". In this case mathematics, that Terry Tao has low ability in math and so misperceives the Cone as 1 axes of symmetry and then deludes himself that a 2 axes of symmetry can be gotten with a slant cut in cone to yield ellipse. Whereas AP was always a straight and narrow on cue scientist, knowing that the cone of 1 axes could never yield a ellipse of 2 axes , no, for AP that slant cut could only yield another figure of 1 axes of symmetry-- the Oval.
>
> The follies and blunders of Dan Christensen, the mighty Canadian oaf of logic and math. Of course his most insane and twisted offering is his 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, believing in Boole logic even when Boole screwed up royally in his AND connector truth table of TFFF when in reality it is TTTF, making a mockery of the Either..Or..Or..Both that is a insane self contradiction, yet all logicians of today and past still preach this error ridden nonsense of logic. But Dan is caught often with his mindless pronouncements in sci.math, such as these two incidents.
>
> Here is an example of Dan Christensen fumbling with the most simple of logic reasoning, and yet Canada keeps allowing this misfit to dig deeper into logic.
> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:08:09 AM UTC-6, Peter Percival wrote:
> > Dan Christensen wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:47:32 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 8:27:19 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > >>> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:16:52 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > >>>> PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra, Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any two points lies a third new point.
> > >>>
> > >>> The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points."
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> What a monsterous fool you are
> > >>
> > >
> > > OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it.
> >
> > And yet Mr Plutonium is right. Two points are distinct (else they would
> > be one) and it is not necessary to say so.
> >
> Apparently Dan Christensen never took calculus or flunked it with this statement.
> On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 8:57:54 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 2:32:51 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > The nonexistence of a curved angle because there is no way to measure the angle if either one of the rays is not a straightline segment at the vertex,
> >
> > From the derivative of each curve at the point of contact you have the slopes of their respective tangents there. (Assuming derivatives are defined there.) From these slopes, you should be able to calculate angle formed.
> >
> >
> > Dan
>
>
>
> It has been known by AP that another clear case example of Dunning Kruger disease and mental disorder is the stalker Kibo Parry M. where he posts every day of the year almost for 28 years to sci.math when that insane koot cannot even do a percentage with his 938 is 12% short of 945.
> 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.
> And his continued stalk spam of a another posters mindless talk of some notes he took, a garbled nonsense mess--
> kibo>Here is a plane and cone
> x + 1 = z
> and
> 2*x^2 + 2*y^2 = z^2
> >
> kibo>Square the first equation giving us
> x^2 + 2*x + 1 = z^2
> >
> kibo>In the second equation replace z^2 with x^2 + 2*x + 1 giving us
> 2*x^2 + 2*y^2 = x^2 + 2*x + 1
> >
> kibo>Subtract x^2 + 2*x - 1 from both sides giving us
> x^2 - 2*x + 1 + 2*y^2 = 2
> >
> kibo>Replace x^2 - 2*x + 1 with (x-1)^2 giving us
> (x-1)^2 + 2*y^2 = 2
> >
> kibo>That is EXACTLY the equation of an ellipse
> And there are two planes of symmetry.
> >
> kibo>No matter how you tilt or rotate an ellipse it
> REMAINS an ellipse and has TWO PLANES of symmetry,
> just like the intersection of a plane and cylinder
> remains an ellipse no matter what the slope of the
> plane is.
> >
>
> AP writes: 7 years of stalker shithead Dan Christensen and 28 years of a shithead Kibo Parry M, unloading a wade of crap in every AP thread that AP was doing solid math and physics, such as the above, and no-one kicks the insane stalker Kibo Parry M out of sci.math and sci.physics.
>
> AP writes: well in the opinion of AP, that Kibo Parry M has more to worry about than Dunning Kruger disease of his mental health, because in the opinion of AP, that Kibo Parry is a insane person, all stalkers are insane people and as a stalker, not even a human being, no longer a human being but melting away in insanity. For 28 years now, the insane arsewipe Kibo Parry M.. has made no contribution to sci.math but to hate spew everyone he stalks. Get the straightjacket in emergency ambulance for Kibo Parry M size XXSmall.
>
> So, well is the world being Dumbnificated by the fossil fuel burning discharging tonnes and tonnes of toxic chemicals into the air every minute of the day, and that CO2 itself comes in several isomers where the Fire-CO2, not the Animal-CO2 isomer (see my chemistry books) is especially harmful to Humans thinking abilities especially logical thinking. So that John Baez, Terence Tao and Jill Pipher and Ken Ribet could no longer reason, reason that if a cone has 1 axis of symmetry, no way in hell is a slant cut into a 1 axis symmetry cone going to yield a 2 axes symmetry ellipse. No way in hell, but the cut will release a 1 axis symmetry Oval.
>
> AP
> King of Science, especially Physics

Cynthia Larive, Mark Alber, John Baez, Mei-Chu Chang is the reason John Baez could never admit slant cut in single cone is actually a Oval, never ellipse due to number of axes of symmetry, the same reason that everyone at UC Riverside thinks Lewis structure is based on 8 when in fact the highest dissociation energy is CO and N2 because Lewis is really based on 6 arms, not 8, and is that the reason everyone at UC Riverside is just plain dumb stupid and silly in all of geometry? And why Dan Christensen the failure of Logic with his AND truth table of TFFF, is calling out the idiocy of UC Riverside.

UC Riverside Math Dept, provost: Cynthia Larive- chemist,
Mark Alber, John Baez, Mei-Chu Chang, Vyjayanthi Chari, Kevin Costello, Po-Ning Chen, Wee Liang Gan, Gerhard Gierz, Jacob Greenstein, Jose Gonzalez, Zhuang-dan Guan, Jim  Kelliher, Sara Lapan, Michel Lapidus, Carl Mautner, Amir  Moradifam, Yat Sun Poon, Ziv Ran, David Rush, Reinhard Schultz, Stefano Vidussi, David Weisbart, Fred Wilhelm, Bun Wong, Yulong Xing, Feng Xu, Qi Zhang
Does John Baez and Jill Pipher and Ken Ribet suffer from Dunning-Kruger disease of psychology-- where they overestimate their abilities in math-- knowing the cone has 1 axis of symmetry, yet John, Jill & Ken still thinks 1 axis can yield a ellipse of 2 axes of symmetry in a slant cut. I think John, Jill & Ken are smarter than Dan Christensen with his 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, or, Kibo Parry M with his 938 is 12% short of 945, but not much smarter than Kibo Parry for both believe the slant cut in cone is a ellipse, when the truth be known, it is a Oval for the oval, like the cone has 1 axis of symmetry.
>
> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Aug 27, 2021, 11:07:58 AM
> to sci.math
>
> Tao fails geometry because he believes Python with his cone has 2 axes of symmetry and hence slant cut is ellipse in cone, for otherwise, he would have said something by now 2016-2021.
> On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 10:35:31 AM UTC-5, Python wrote:
> > Why don't you buy this kind of stuff that will show you that
> > you didn't do the experiment right?
> >
> > https://www.pinterest.fr/pin/595178906992508262/
> >
> > Moreover that a slant cut in a cylinder shows an ellipse does not
> > contradict that some slant cuts in a cone shows an ellipse also.
>
> AP writes: no wonder that AP's discovery that Cone slant cut is an Oval never the ellipse is because everyone in math community other than AP thinks a cone has 2 axes of symmetry, just the same as a cylinder has 2 axis of symmetry.
>
> I have heard of color blindness where you fail to see certain wavelengths of color, and guess that in mathematics, now, we have to test students and teachers for axis blindness.
>
>
> Python wrote:
> Aug 27, 2021, 11:14:47 AM
> to sci.math
> Ludwig Poehlmann, aka Archimedes Plutonium a écrit :
> >
> > Tao fails geometry because he believes Python with his cone has 2 axes of symmetry and hence slant cut is ellipse in cone
>
> A cone has ONE axe of symmetry AND a slant cut in a cone IS an ellipse.
>
> You can buy a wood model for a few bucks, Ludwig, instead of making a
> fool of yourself.
>
> Python wrote:
> Aug 27, 2021, 11:41:04 AM
> to sci.math
> Ludwig Poehlmann, aka Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 11:14:47 AM UTC-5, Python wrote:
> >> Ludwig Poehlmann, aka Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Tao fails geometry because he believes Python with his cone has 2 axes of symmetry and hence slant cut is ellipse in cone
> >> A cone has ONE axe of symmetry AND a slant cut in a cone IS an ellipse..
> >>
> Python>> You can buy a wood model for a few bucks, Ludwig, instead of making a
> Python>> fool of yourself.
> >
> AP> a ellipse has 2 axes of symmetry, so how do you get a figure with 2
> AP> axes of symmetry from a cone of 1 axis of symmetry
>
> Python>watch it there:
> Python>https://www.youtube.com
>
> AP writes: Does Terence Tao, Jill Pipher & Ken Ribet and Python (possibly Terry Tao in disguise) have Dunning-Kruger effect disability? Wikipedia describes it as "internal illusion in people of low ability". In this case mathematics, that Terry Tao has low ability in math and so misperceives the Cone as 1 axes of symmetry and then deludes himself that a 2 axes of symmetry can be gotten with a slant cut in cone to yield ellipse. Whereas AP was always a straight and narrow on cue scientist, knowing that the cone of 1 axes could never yield a ellipse of 2 axes , no, for AP that slant cut could only yield another figure of 1 axes of symmetry-- the Oval.
>
> The follies and blunders of Dan Christensen, the mighty Canadian oaf of logic and math. Of course his most insane and twisted offering is his 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, believing in Boole logic even when Boole screwed up royally in his AND connector truth table of TFFF when in reality it is TTTF, making a mockery of the Either..Or..Or..Both that is a insane self contradiction, yet all logicians of today and past still preach this error ridden nonsense of logic. But Dan is caught often with his mindless pronouncements in sci.math, such as these two incidents.
>
> Here is an example of Dan Christensen fumbling with the most simple of logic reasoning, and yet Canada keeps allowing this misfit to dig deeper into logic.
> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:08:09 AM UTC-6, Peter Percival wrote:
> > Dan Christensen wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:47:32 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 8:27:19 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > >>> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:16:52 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > >>>> PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra, Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any two points lies a third new point.
> > >>>
> > >>> The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points."
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> What a monsterous fool you are
> > >>
> > >
> > > OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it.
> >
> > And yet Mr Plutonium is right. Two points are distinct (else they would
> > be one) and it is not necessary to say so.
> >
> Apparently Dan Christensen never took calculus or flunked it with this statement.
> On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 8:57:54 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 2:32:51 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > The nonexistence of a curved angle because there is no way to measure the angle if either one of the rays is not a straightline segment at the vertex,
> >
> > From the derivative of each curve at the point of contact you have the slopes of their respective tangents there. (Assuming derivatives are defined there.) From these slopes, you should be able to calculate angle formed.
> >
> >
> > Dan
>
>
>
> It has been known by AP that another clear case example of Dunning Kruger disease and mental disorder is the stalker Kibo Parry M. where he posts every day of the year almost for 28 years to sci.math when that insane koot cannot even do a percentage with his 938 is 12% short of 945.
> 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.
> And his continued stalk spam of a another posters mindless talk of some notes he took, a garbled nonsense mess--
> kibo>Here is a plane and cone
> x + 1 = z
> and
> 2*x^2 + 2*y^2 = z^2
> >
> kibo>Square the first equation giving us
> x^2 + 2*x + 1 = z^2
> >
> kibo>In the second equation replace z^2 with x^2 + 2*x + 1 giving us
> 2*x^2 + 2*y^2 = x^2 + 2*x + 1
> >
> kibo>Subtract x^2 + 2*x - 1 from both sides giving us
> x^2 - 2*x + 1 + 2*y^2 = 2
> >
> kibo>Replace x^2 - 2*x + 1 with (x-1)^2 giving us
> (x-1)^2 + 2*y^2 = 2
> >
> kibo>That is EXACTLY the equation of an ellipse
> And there are two planes of symmetry.
> >
> kibo>No matter how you tilt or rotate an ellipse it
> REMAINS an ellipse and has TWO PLANES of symmetry,
> just like the intersection of a plane and cylinder
> remains an ellipse no matter what the slope of the
> plane is.
> >
>
> AP writes: 7 years of stalker shithead Dan Christensen and 28 years of a shithead Kibo Parry M, unloading a wade of crap in every AP thread that AP was doing solid math and physics, such as the above, and no-one kicks the insane stalker Kibo Parry M out of sci.math and sci.physics.
>
> AP writes: well in the opinion of AP, that Kibo Parry M has more to worry about than Dunning Kruger disease of his mental health, because in the opinion of AP, that Kibo Parry is a insane person, all stalkers are insane people and as a stalker, not even a human being, no longer a human being but melting away in insanity. For 28 years now, the insane arsewipe Kibo Parry M.. has made no contribution to sci.math but to hate spew everyone he stalks. Get the straightjacket in emergency ambulance for Kibo Parry M size XXSmall.
>
> So, well is the world being Dumbnificated by the fossil fuel burning discharging tonnes and tonnes of toxic chemicals into the air every minute of the day, and that CO2 itself comes in several isomers where the Fire-CO2, not the Animal-CO2 isomer (see my chemistry books) is especially harmful to Humans thinking abilities especially logical thinking. So that John Baez, Terence Tao and Jill Pipher and Ken Ribet could no longer reason, reason that if a cone has 1 axis of symmetry, no way in hell is a slant cut into a 1 axis symmetry cone going to yield a 2 axes symmetry ellipse. No way in hell, but the cut will release a 1 axis symmetry Oval.
>
> AP
> King of Science, especially Physics

Mark Alber, Mei-Chu Chang, Vyjayanthi Chari, Kevin Costello,
_UC Riverside, why not admit the truth Oval is the slant cut in single cone, never the ellipse. John Baez certainly cannot admit the truth, for when confronted, the churly imp tried to get out of admitting the truth by saying the oval was a general ellipse as if those two were the same. I call this being dishonest in science and a churlish imp of science. UC Riverside -- __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 UC Riverside is no longer in the business of science and truth but has gone corrupt.

On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 10:56:36 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"physics hater"
>"not one single marble of commonsense in my entire brain"

Not much difference between the corrupt Donald Trump and his mindless "big lie" and UC Riverside with their mindless big lie of ellipse a conic section.
>
>
> No point in asking any UC Riverside 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.
>
> 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)
>
>
> UC Riverside-- 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?
>

UC Riverside Math Dept, provost: Cynthia Larive- chemist,
Mark Alber, John Baez, Mei-Chu Chang, Vyjayanthi Chari, Kevin Costello, Po-Ning Chen, Wee Liang Gan, Gerhard Gierz, Jacob Greenstein, Jose Gonzalez, Zhuang-dan Guan, Jim Kelliher, Sara Lapan, Michel Lapidus, Carl Mautner, Amir Moradifam, Yat Sun Poon, Ziv Ran, David Rush, Reinhard Schultz, Stefano Vidussi, David Weisbart, Fred Wilhelm, Bun Wong, Yulong Xing, Feng Xu, Qi Zhang

John Baez, Edward Witten, Brian Greene, Lisa Randall, Alan H. Guth, Michael E. Brown, Konstantin Batygin, Ben Bullock, Larry Harson, Mark Barton, far too stupid in physics to ask the question, which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle which AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole while the real electon is a muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. In fact so stupid is this list of so called physicists that they went through life believing the slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, when in reality it is a Oval of 1 axis of symmetry for the cone has 1 axis of symmetry but ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry. The minds of all these so called physicists are not good enough to be doing physics. In fact, so stupid in science and math are all these people that when told in High School or College that a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, they believed it, and believe in it to this day without so much as ever questioning the idea that a single cone and oval have just 1 axis of symmetry while ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, and yet many on this list were awarded science prizes. Maybe for ignorance of science but not for truth of science.

1) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
2) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
3) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
4) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sapheads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.

Why Dan Christensen? Is it because John Baez believes in Boole Logic with its error filled connectors such as AND truth table as TFFF when it really is TTTF to avoid the Baez idiocy of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Or is that John Baez is such a science failure he cannot even begin to question whether the muon is the true electron of atoms.

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 = subtraction of either 3 or 2, 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
..
..
Edward Witten
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
Jennifer Kahn, Discover, science hater
Eric Francis Coppolino, newsreporter hatred of science, George Witte, St.Martin's Press science hater
Toby Howard, The Guardian, science hater

#2-1, 137th published book

Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

#1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory

This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so I can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me.

Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics community updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast, as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to.

Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory.
And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
Length: 64 pages

Product details
• File Size : 790 KB
• Publication Date : October 5, 2020
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 64 pages
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Language: : English
• ASIN : B08KS4YGWY
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory
◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads

#2-2, 145th published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and errors and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the halls and corridors of education.

Product details
• ASIN : B08PC99JJB
• Publication date : November 29, 2020
• Language: : English
• File size : 682 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 78 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #344 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books)

#2-3, 146th published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science, you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the science. I further believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later years of physics courses, we can always pick up on details. So I devote this senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this textbook. Now Asimov's book is full of error and mistakes, and that is disappointing but all of Old Physics is full of error. On errors and mistakes of Old Physics, the best I can do is warn the students, and the largest warning of all is that whenever someone in Old Physics says "electron" what they are talking about is really the Dirac magnetic monopole. And whenever they talk about the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, they are talking about huge huge grave mistakes, for the true atom is protons as 8 ringed toruses with a muon stuck inside of a proton doing the Faraday law and producing those magnetic monopoles as electricity. I use Asimov's book as a template but in the future, I hope to rewrite this textbook using no template at all, that is if I have time in the future.
Cover Picture: Is the book The History of Physics, by Isaac Asimov, 1966 and on top of the book are 4 cut-outs of bent circles representing magnetic monopoles which revolutionizes modern physics, especially the ElectroMagnetic theory.