Kibo Parry M highlights what a failure in geometry that Gerald Edgar is, with his ellipse the slant cut of a cone. Kibo, does Dr. Edgar also believe 938 is 12% short of 945, like you do? And is that the standard of math at Ohio State Univ??

On Friday, July 22, 2022 at 2:04:31 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 7/21/2022 8:40 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 2:57:32 PM UTC-7, plutonium....@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 4:44:55 PM UTC-5, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>> Evidence rules, AP... got any?
> >
> >> Too bad Paul Alsing cannot comprehend nor understand a math proof, why Paul is all about memorization, memorizing false science is his forte.
> >
> Once again, Plutonium attacks the poster with ad hominems rather than
> discuss the math or the physics.
> > Actually, I did pretty well with math proofs, I earned several degrees in college that decorate my walls...
> >
> > So, from what I understand from your "book"?, this is your so-called proof...
> >
> > "Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse."
> >
> > Do you call this a mathematical proof, AP? Really? I would like you to provide evidence that proves that an ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry because I know for sure that you are just making this up as you go along. The definition if an ellipse not not ever include such a requirement.
> >
> > The verbal description of an ellipse is quite simple... "Ellipse Definition
> > An ellipse is the locus of points in a plane, the sum of whose distances from two fixed points is a constant value. The two fixed points are called the foci of the ellipse."
> >
> > You want the math? No problem...
> >
> > https://www.cuemath.com/geometry/ellipse/
> >
> > ... just scroll down until you see "Ellipse Equation"... which you won't understand... that's it!
> >
> > That's it. Simple. No mention of "2 axes of symmetry", which you have just made up. As always, if you have evidence to the contrary, let's see it! You can't possibly provide this support because you made it all up!
> >
> > Like I told others here (you know, Jimbo and Mitch), if brains were dynamite, you could not blow your hat off!
> >
> > Evidence rules, AP... got any?
> Once again, evidence rules, Plutonium drools.
>
> Plutonium's claim centers around the fact he's trying to show there is
> only one axis of symmetry AROUND THE AXIS OF THE CONE. The center of the
> ellipse formed by a plane intersecting a cone has a center NOT ALONG THE
> AXIS OF THE CONE AT ALL. Plutonium's claim is like saying the curve:
> (x-1)²+2y² = k²
> isn't an ellipse because it doesn't have two axes of symmetry because
> it's not symmetric around the point (0,0). It's not, because it's
> symmetric around the point (1,0)!
> >
>
> I think it's simple to prove the ellipse has two axes of symmetry since
> the formula for an ellipse has only even powers of x and y (once
> coordinates are shifted), so if AP (or anyone else) could prove the
> intersection of a cone and plane has only 1 axis of symmetry (around any
> point) it would show it's not an ellipse, but multiple proofs do show it
> does have the formula of an ellipse. Unfortunately (for AP):
>
> 1) Many proofs exist that the curve has the formula for an ellipse;
> 2) AP has no idea how to create/derive/write a mathematical proof anyway.
>
> I asked this before, and I'll ask again: In the general case, the
> intersection of the axis of a cone and the ellipse formed by an
> intersecting plane is not the center of an ellipse. It is also not
> through either focus of the ellipse (someone showed me a proof of this).
> I'll ask: Does the intersection of the plane-cone ellipse and cone axis
> have a name? Any special mathematical properties? If we were to examine
> this point for the orbits of the various planets, comets etc., would we
> see anything interesting there?