☠️ of Math and ☣ of Physics Archimedes "psychoceramic" Plutonium
<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

> Earle Jones logo picture, is he pining for the authoritative dick of Kibo Parry Moron? And is this classical Univ Manchester Toby Howard example of psychoceramics in British life before Brexit???

Stupid Plutonium, why are you obsessed so much with dick sucking? We all
know that you're 🏳️‍🌈gay🏳️‍🌈, and most here are OK with your
gayness, but why are you so obsessed? Is it because you are jealous
because it's not your dick being sucked? Is it because you are jealous
because you're not the one doing the sucking? But please, quit trying to
make this group into a gay pickup bar. Why not go up the road to
Gayville SD and use your secret password to get into the back room of
its gay bar?

Oh and who are you to comment on "authorities"? As the bottom guy on the
totem pole of mathematics, you have no math authority and never will.

p.s. The letters in "Archimedes Plutonium" can be re-arranged to spell
"I Pound His Male Rectum".

Kibo Parry M Univ Manchester Toby Howard psychoceramic dept. Say Toby is psychoceramics vector additive?
Kibo Parry M what year did you discover your famous word "analbuttfuckmanure" that launched a Wikipedia of you? Was in 2017 or 2018??? Your stalking had become mild by then and you needed a lift-me-upper.

Kibo Parry M. pining that he did not discover psychoceramic along with his analbuttfuckmanure word.
On Monday, August 8, 2022 at 6:53:08 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"psychoceramic"
> fails at math and science:
>"wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place"
.... (snipped to save space)
> Stupid
>OK with your
> gayness, but why are you so obsessed? Is it because you are jealous
> because it's not your dick being sucked? Is it because you are jealous
> because you're not the one doing the sucking? But please, quit trying to
> make this group into a gay pickup bar.
> Oh and who are you to comment on "authorities"? As the bottom guy on the
> totem pole of mathematics, you have no math authority and never will.
>

Ruth Charney,Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Beal, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Gerald Edgar, AMS, no-one there can do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, all they can offer is a limit analysis, so shoddy in logic they never realized that "analyzing" is not the same as "proving" for analyzing is much in the same as "measuring but not proving". And yet, none can do a geometry proof and the reason is quite clear for none can even see that the slant cut in single right-circular cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So they could never do a geometry proof of FTC even if they wanted to. For they have no logical geometry brain to begin to do anything geometrical. Is it that Andrew Wiles and Terence Tao cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Not having a Logical brain to do math, for any rational person would be upset by Wiles, Tao saying truth table of AND is TFFF when it actually is TTTF. Is that why neither Terence Tao or Andrew Wiles can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?

Maybe they need to take up Earle Jones offer to wash dishes or pots at Stanford Univ or where ever, for they sure cannot do mathematics.
Why are these people failures of Math?? For none can even contemplate these 4 questions.

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.

Is Jim Holt, Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason, more of propagandists and belong in "Abnormal Psychology" dept than in the department of logic, like Dan Christensen a laugh a minute logician? Probably because none can admit slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, due to axes of symmetry for cone and oval have 1 while ellipse has 2. Why they cannot even count beyond 1. Yet their minds were never good enough to see the error nor admit to their mistakes. They failed logic so badly they accept Boole's insane AND truth table of TFFF when it is TTTF avoiding the painful 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Or is it because none of these logicians has a single marble of logic in their entire brain to realize calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not a "limit analysis" for analysis is like a measurement, not a proving exercise. Analysis does not prove, only adds data and facts, but never is a proof of itself. I analyze things daily, and none of which is a proof. So are all these logicians like what Clutterfreak the propaganda stooge says they are.

> On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 9:47:42 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > You may be giving him too much credit here. Judging by his bizarre antics here, he has given up obtaining any kind of positive recognition.
> >
> > Dan
>
> Partial List of the World's Crackpot Logicians-- should be in a college Abnormal-Psychology department, not Logic//
>
> Peter Bruce Andrews, Lennart Aqvist, Henk Barendregt, John Lane Bell, Nuel Belnap,
> Paul Benacerraf, Jean Paul Van Bendegem, Johan van Benthem, Jean-Yves Beziau,
> Andrea Bonomi, Nicolas Bourbaki (a group of logic fumblers), Alan Richard Bundy, Gregory Chaitin,
> Jack Copeland, John Corcoran, Dirk van Dalen, Martin Davis, Michael A.E. Dummett, John Etchemendy, Hartry Field, Kit Fine, Melvin Fitting, Matthew Foreman, Michael Fourman,
> Harvey Friedman, Dov Gabbay, L.T.F. Gamut (group of logic fumblers), Sol Garfunkel, Jean-Yves Girard, Siegfried Gottwald, Jeroen Groenendijk, Susan Haack, Leo Harrington, William Alvin Howard,
> Ronald Jensen, Dick de Jongh, David Kaplan, Alexander S. Kechris, Howard Jerome Keisler,
> Robert Kowalski, Georg Kreisel, Saul Kripke, Kenneth Kunen, Karel Lambert, Penelope Maddy,
> David Makinson, Isaac Malitz, Gary R. Mar, Donald A. Martin, Per Martin-Lof,Yiannis N. Moschovakis, Jeff Paris, Charles Parsons, Solomon Passy, Lorenzo Pena, Dag Prawitz,
> Graham Priest, Michael O. Rabin, Gerald Sacks, Dana Scott, Stewart Shapiro, Theodore Slaman,
> Robert M. Solovay, John R. Steel, Martin Stokhof, Anne Sjerp Troelstra, Alasdair Urquhart,
> Moshe Y. Vardi, W. Hugh Woodin, John Woods
>
> Now I should include the authors of Logic textbooks for they, more than most, perpetuate and crank the error filled logic, the Horrible Error of 2 OR 1 = 3 with 2 AND 1 = 1, that is forced down the throats of young students, making them cripples of ever thinking straight and clearly.
>
> Many of these authors have passed away but their error filled books are a scourge to modern education
>
> George Boole, William Jevons, Bertrand Russell, Kurt Godel, Rudolf Carnap,
> Ludwig Wittgenstein, Willard Quine, Alfred North Whitehead, Irving Copi, Michael Withey,
> Patrick Hurley, Harry J Gensler, David Kelley, Jesse Bollinger, Theodore Sider,
> David Barker-Plummer, I. C. Robledo, John Nolt, Peter Smith, Stan Baronett, Jim Holt,
> Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
> John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason,

> > #5-1, 134th published book
> >
> > > > > Introduction to TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 1 for ages 5 through 26, math textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > The 134th book of AP, and belatedly late, for I had already written the series of TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS in a 7 volume, 8 book set. This would be the first book in that 8 book set (one of the books is a companion book to 1st year college). But I suppose that I needed to write the full series before I could write the Introduction and know what I had to talk about and talk about in a logical progression order. Sounds paradoxical in a sense, that I needed to write the full series first and then go back and write the Introduction. But in another sense, hard to write an introduction on something you have not really fully done and completed. For example to know what is error filled Old Math and to list those errors in a logical order requires me to write the full 7 volumes in order to list in order the mistakes.
> >
> > Cover Picture: Mathematics begins with counting, with numbers, with quantity. But counting numbers needs geometry for something to count in the first place. So here in this picture of the generalized Hydrogen atom of chemistry and physics is a torus geometry of 8 rings of a proton torus and one ring where my fingers are, is a equator ring that is the muon and thrusting through the proton torus at the equator of the torus. So we count 9 rings in all. So math is created by atoms and math numbers exist because atoms have many geometry figures to count. And geometry exists because atoms have shapes and different figures.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08K2XQB4M
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ September 24, 2020
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 576 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 23 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #224,974 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #3 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> > ◦ #23 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #182 in Calculus (Books)
> >
> >
> >
> > #5-2, 45th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 2 for ages 5 to 18, math textbook series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > #1 New Releasein General Geometry
> >
> >
> > Last revision was 2NOV2020. And this is AP's 45th published book of science.
> > Preface: Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education.
> >
> > This is a textbook series in several volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education starting age 5 up to age 26. Volume 2 is for age 5 year old to that of senior in High School, that is needed to do both science and math. Every other math book is incidental to this series of Teaching True Mathematics.
> >
> > It is a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost on a daily basis. A unique first in education textbooks-- almost a continual overnight editing. Adding new text, correcting text. Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education. Volume 3 carries the Freshperson in College for their math calculus education.
> >
> > Cover Picture: The Numbers as Integers from 0 to 100, and 10 Grid when dividing by 10, and part of the 100 Grid when dividing by 100. Decimal Grid Numbers are the true numbers of mathematics. The Reals, the rationals & irrationals, the algebraic & transcendentals, the imaginary & Complex, and the negative-numbers are all fake numbers. For, to be a true number, you have to "be counted" by mathematical induction. The smallest Grid system is the Decimal 10 Grid.
> >
> > Length: 399 pages
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Product details
> > ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07RG7BVZW
> > Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 2, 2019
> > Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > File size ‏ : ‎ 2023 KB
> > Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > Print length ‏ : ‎ 399 pages
> > Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Best Sellers Rank: #235,426 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > #15 in General Geometry
> > #223 in Geometry & Topology (Books)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > #5-3, 55th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 18-19, 1st year College Calculus, math textbook series, book 3 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Last revision was 25Jun2021. And this is AP's 55th published book of science.
> >
> > Teaching True Mathematics, by Archimedes Plutonium 2019
> >
> > Preface: This is volume 3, book 3 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Freshperson students, 1st year college students of age 18-19. It is the continuation of volume 2 for ages 5 through 18 years old.
> >
> > The main major topic is the AP-EM equations of electricity and magnetism, the mathematics for the laws of electricity and magnetism; what used to be called the Maxwell Equations of Physics. The 1st Year College Math has to prepare all students with the math for all the sciences. So 1st year college Math is like a huge intersection station that has to prepare students with the math they need to do the hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etc. What this means is, 1st year college is calculus that allows the student to work with electricity and magnetism. All the math that is needed to enable students to do electricity and magnetism.. In Old Math before this textbook, those Old Math textbooks would end in 1/3 of the text about Arclength, vector space, div, curl, Line Integral, Green's, Stokes, Divergence theorem trying to reach and be able to teach Maxwell Equations. But sadly, barely any Old Math classroom reached that 1/3 ending of the textbook, and left all those college students without any math to tackle electricity and magnetism. And most of Old Math was just muddle headed wrong even if they covered the last 1/3 of the textbook. And that is totally unacceptable in science. This textbook fixes that huge hole and gap in Old Math education.
> >
> > And there is no way around it, that a course in 1st year College Calculus is going to do a lot of hands on experiment with electricity and magnetism, and is required of the students to buy a list of physics apparatus-- multimeter, galvanometer, coil, bar magnet, alligator clip wires, electromagnet, iron filing case, and possibly even a 12 volt transformer, all shown in the cover picture. The beginning of this textbook and the middle section all leads into the ending of this textbook-- we learn the AP-EM Equations and how to use those equations. And there is no escaping the fact that it has to be hands on physics experiments in the classroom of mathematics.
> >
> > But, do not be scared, for this is all easy easy easy. For if you passed and enjoyed Volume 2 TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, then I promise you, you will not be stressed with Volume 3, for I go out of my way to make it clear and understandable.
> >
> > Warning: this is a Journal Textbook, meaning that I am constantly adding new material, constantly revising, constantly fixing mistakes or making things more clear. So if you read this book in August of 2019, chances are it is different when you read it in September 2019. Ebooks allow authors the freedom to improve their textbooks on a ongoing basis.
> >
> > The 1st year college math should be about the math that prepares any and all students for science, whether they branch out into physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, or math, they should have all the math in 1st year college that will carry them through those science studies. I make every attempt possible to make math easy to understand, easy to learn and hopefully fun.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07WN9RVXD
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ August 16, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1390 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 ‏ : ‎ 236 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #1,377,070 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #411 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #2,480 in Calculus (Books)
> >
> >
> > 

> >
> > #5-4, 56th published book
> >
> > COLLEGE CALCULUS GUIDE to help students recognize math professor spam from math truth & reality// math textbook series, book 4 Kindle Edition
> >
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> >
> > #1 New Releasein 15-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> >
> >
> > This textbook is the companion guide book to AP's Teaching True Mathematics, 1st year College. It is realized that Old Math will take a long time in removing their fake math, so in the interim period, this Guide book is designed to speed up the process of removing fake Calculus out of the education system, the fewer students we punish with forcing them with fake Calculus, the better we are.
> > Cover Picture: This book is part comedy, for when you cannot reason with math professors that they have many errors to fix, that 90% of their Calculus is in error, you end up resorting to comedy, making fun of them, to prod them to fix their errors. To prod them to "do right by the students of the world" not their entrenched propaganda.
> > Length: 54 pages
> >
> >
> > Product details
> > File Size: 1035 KB
> > Print Length: 64 pages
> > Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
> > Publication Date: August 18, 2019
> > Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
> > Language: English
> > ASIN: B07WNGLQ85
> > Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> > X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 

> > Word Wise: Not Enabled
> > Lending: Enabled
> > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
> > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #253,425 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> > #38 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> > #318 in Calculus (Books)
> > #48 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
> > 

> > #5-5, 72nd published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 4 for age 19-20 Sophomore-year College, math textbook series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Preface: This is volume 4, book 5 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Sophomore-year students, students of age 19-20. It is the continuation of volume 3 in the end-goal of learning how to do the mathematics of electricity and magnetism, because everything in physics is nothing but atoms and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. To know math, you have to know physics. We learned the Calculus of 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. But we did not learn the calculus of those equations for 3rd dimension. So, you can say that Sophomore year College math is devoted to 3D Calculus. This sophomore year college we fill in all the calculus, and we start over on all of Geometry, for geometry needs a modern day revision. And pardon me for this book is mostly reading, and the students doing less calculations. The classroom of this textbook has the teacher go through page by page to get the students comprehending and understanding of what is being taught. There are many hands on experiments also.
> >
> > Cover Picture shows some toruses, some round some square, torus of rings, thin strips of rings or squares and shows them laid flat. That is Calculus of 3rd dimension that lays a ring in a torus to be flat in 2nd dimension..
> > Length: 105 pages
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0828M34VL
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 2, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 952 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 105 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #242,037 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #36 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #219 in Calculus (Books)
> >
> >
> > #5-6, 75th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 5 for age 20-21 Junior-year of College, math textbook series, book 6 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium 2019
> >
> > This is volume 5, book 6 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Junior-year students, students of age 20-21. In first year college Calculus we learned calculus of the 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. And in sophomore year we learned calculus of 3rd dimension to complete our study of the mathematics needed to do the physics of electricity and magnetism. Now, junior year college, we move onto something different, for we focus mostly on logic now and especially the logic of what is called the "mathematical proof". Much of what the student has learned about mathematics so far has been given to her or him as stated knowledge, accept it as true because I say so. But now we are going to do math proofs. Oh, yes, we did prove a few items here and there, such as why the Decimal Grid Number system is so special, such as the Pythagorean Theorem, such as the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus with its right-triangle hinged up or down. But many ideas we did not prove, we just stated them and expected all students to believe them true. And you are now juniors in college and we are going to start to prove many of those ideas and teach you "what is a math proof". Personally, I myself feel that the math proof is overrated, over hyped. But the math proof is important for one reason-- it makes you better scientists of knowing what is true and what is a shaky idea. A math proof is the same as "thinking straight and thinking clearly". And all scientists need to think straight and think clearly. But before we get to the Mathematics Proof, we have to do Probability and Statistics.. What you learned in Grade School, then High School, then College, called Sigma Error, now becomes Probability and Statistics. It is important because all sciences including mathematics needs and uses Probability and Statistics. So, our job for junior-year of college mathematics is all cut out and ahead for us, no time to waste, let us get going.
> >
> > Cover Picture: is a sample of the Array Proof, a proof the ellipse is not a conic but rather a cylinder cut wherein the oval is the slant cut of a cone, not the ellipse.
> >
> > Length: 175 pages
> >
> >
> > Product details
> > ASIN : B0836F1YF6
> > Publication date : December 26, 2019
> > Language : English
> > File size : 741 KB
> > Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> > Screen Reader : Supported
> > Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > Word Wise : Not Enabled
> > Print length : 175 pages
> > Lending : Enabled
> > Best Sellers Rank: #3,768,255 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #3,591 in Probability & Statistics (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #19,091 in Probability & Statistics (Books)
> >
> >
> >
> > #5-7, 89th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 6 for age 21-22 Senior-year of College, math textbook series, book 7 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium 2020
> >
> > Last revision was 6Feb2021.
> > Preface: This is the last year of College for mathematics and we have to mostly summarize all of mathematics as best we can. And set a new pattern to prepare students going on to math graduate school. A new pattern of work habits, because graduate school is more of research and explore on your own. So in this final year, I am going to eliminate tests, and have it mostly done as homework assignments.
> >
> > Cover Picture: Again and again, many times in math, the mind is not good enough alone to think straight and clear, and you need tools to hands-on see how it works. Here is a collection of tools for this senior year college classes. There is a pencil, clipboard, graph paper, compass, divider, protractor, slide-ruler. And for this year we spend a lot of time on the parallelepiped, showing my wood model, and showing my erector set model held together by wire loops in the corners. The plastic square is there only to hold up the erector set model.
> >
> > Length: 110 pages
> >
> > Product details
> > ASIN ‏ : ‎ B084V11BGY
> > Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 15, 2020
> > Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > File size ‏ : ‎ 826 KB
> > Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Print length ‏ : ‎ 110 pages
> > Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Best Sellers Rank: #224,965 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #345 in Mathematics (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #373 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #2,256 in Physics (Books)
> >
> > #5-8, 90th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 7 for age 22-26 Graduate school, math textbook series, book 8 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium 2020
> >
> > Last revised 1NOV2020. This was AP's 90th published book of science.
> >
> > Preface: This is College Graduate School mathematics. Congratulations, you made it this far. To me, graduate school is mostly research, research mathematics and that means also physics. So it is going to be difficult to do math without physics. Of course, we focus on the mathematics of these research projects.
> >
> > My textbook for Graduate school is just a template and the professors teaching the graduate students are free of course to follow their own projects, but in terms of being physics and math combined. What I list below is a template for possible projects.
> >
> > So, in the below projects, I list 36 possible research projects that a graduate student my like to undertake, or partake. I list those 36 projects with a set of parentheses like this (1), (2), (3), etc. Not to be confused with the chapters listing as 1), 2), 3), etc. I list 36 projects but the professor can offer his/her own list, and I expect students with their professor, to pick a project and to monitor the student as to his/her progresses through the research. I have listed each project then cited some of my own research into these projects, below each project is an entry. Those entries are just a help or helper in getting started or acquainted with the project. The entry has a date time group and a newsgroup that I posted to such as sci.math or plutonium-atom-universe Google newsgroups. Again the entry is just a help or helper in getting started.
> >
> > Now instead of picking one or two projects for your Graduate years of study, some may select all 36 projects where you write a short paper on each project. Some may be bored with just one or two projects and opt for all 36.
> >
> > Cover Picture: A photo by my iphone of a page on Permutations of the Jacobs book Mathematics: A Human Endeavor, 1970. One of the best textbooks ever written in Old Math, not for its contents because there are many errors, but for its teaching style. It is extremely rare to find a math textbook written for the student to learn. Probably because math professors rarely learned how to teach in the first place; only learned how to unintentionally obfuscate. The page I photographed is important because it is the interface between geometry's perimeter or surface area versus geometry's area or volume, respectively. Or, an interface of pure numbers with that of geometry. But I have more to say on this below.
> > Length: 296 pages
> >
> > Product details
> > ASIN ‏ : ‎ B085DF8R7V
> > Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 1, 2020
> > Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > File size ‏ : ‎ 828 KB
> > Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > Print length ‏ : ‎ 296 pages
> > Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Best Sellers Rank: #224,981 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #13 in General Geometry
> > ◦ #213 in Geometry & Topology (Books)
> >
> >
> >
> > #5-8, 160th published book
> >
> > MATHOPEDIA-- List of 80 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// Student teaches professor Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Last revision was 28Apr2022. And this is AP's 160th book of Science.
> > Preface:
> > A Mathopedia is like a special type of encyclopedia on the subject of mathematics. It is about the assessment of the worth of mathematics and the subject material of mathematics. It is a overall examination and a evaluation of mathematics and its topics.
> > The ordering of Mathopedia is not a alphabetic ordering, nor does it have a index. The ordering is purely that of importance at beginning and importance at end.
> > The greatest use of Mathopedia is a guide to students of what not to waste your time on and what to focus most of your time. I know so many college classes in mathematics are just a total waste of time, waste of valuable time for the class is math fakery. I know because I have been there.
> > Now I am going to cite various reference sources of AP books if anyone wants more details and can be seen in the Appendix at the end of the book.
> > I suppose, going forward, mathematics should always have a mathopedia, where major parts of mathematics as a science are held under scrutiny and question as to correctness. In past history we have called these incidents as "doubters of the mainstream". Yet math, like physics, can have no permanent mainstream, since there is always question of correctness in physics, there then corresponds questions of correctness in mathematics (because math is a subset of physics). What I mean is that each future generation corrects some mistakes of past mathematics. If anyone is unsure of what I am saying here, both math and physics need constant correcting, of that which never belonged in science. This then converges with the logic-philosophy of Pragmatism (see AP's book of logic on Pragmatism).
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09MZTLRL5
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 2, 2021
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1149 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 65 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

Kibo Parry M is Univ Manchester Toby Howard a bozoceramic or a psychoceramic?
On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 7:40:41 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"bozo"
> fails at math and science:
>"wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place"

AP asks: Dame Rothwell, does Univ Manchester Toby Howard offer a course in schizoceramics along with his psychoceramics? Or do I have to go to Oxford Univ and Andrew Wiles for such a study, with his slant cut in cone as ellipse when actually that is an Oval.

ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse::
 
 
                E
               __
        .-'              `-.
      .'                    `.
    /                         \
   ;                           ;
  | G          c              | H
   ;                           ;
    \                         /
     `.                     .'
        `-.    _____  .-'
                  F
 

Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E

In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.

The side view of a cylinder is this

|    |
|    |
|    |

That allows cE to be the same distance as cF

But the side view of the cone is

     /\E
    /c \
F /     \

The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF makes that distance larger than cE.

On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 12:00:31 AM UTC-5, Earle Jones wrote:
> *
> Here is an old (July, 1997) copy of "Psychoceramics: the on-oline crackpots" by Toby Howard (Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester.)
>
> Our friend Archie (AP) has been famous for more years than we imagined! He is the first-mentioned example psychoceramicist -- see paragraph two.
>
> http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~toby/writing/Guardian/ceramics.htm
>
> Enjoy!
>
> earle
> *

AP writes: Earle, can I enjoy it now? Or should I wait for Xmas?

Univ Manchester Toby Howard vs Univ Oxford Andrew Wiles Schizoidceramics with their 2 OR 1 = 3 & slant cut of cone a ellipse.

Kibo Parry Moron why cannot Manchester & Oxford ceramics do a proper percentage for 938MeV is not short of 945MeV by 12%.

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.

> Oh you need to see the ellipse-is-a-conic-section proof again? Here you go!
>
>
> Some preliminaries:
>
> Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used
> in the proof:
>
> ^ x
> |
> -+- <= x=h
> .' | `.
> . | .
> | | |
> ' | '
> `. | .'
> y <----------+ <= x=0
>
> Cone (side view):
> .
> /|\
> / | \
> /b | \
> /---+---' <= x = h
> / |' \
> / ' | \
> / ' | \
> x = 0 => '-------+-------\
> / a | \
>
> Proof:
>
> r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence
>
> y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.
>
> Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1 ...equation of an ellipse
>
> qed
>

Kibo Parry M is Univ Manchester Toby Howard a bozoceramic or a psychoceramic?
> On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 7:40:41 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >"bozo"
> > fails at math and science:
> >"wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place"
> AP asks: Dame Rothwell, does Univ Manchester Toby Howard offer a course in schizoceramics along with his psychoceramics? Or do I have to go to Oxford Univ and Andrew Wiles for such a study, with his slant cut in cone as ellipse when actually that is an Oval.
> ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse::
>
>
> E
> __
> .-' `-.
> .' `.
> / \
> ; ;
> | G c | H
> ; ;
> \ /
> `. .'
> `-. _____ .-'
> F
>
>
>
> Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E
>
> In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.
>
> The side view of a cylinder is this
>
> | |
> | |
> | |
>
> That allows cE to be the same distance as cF
>
>
> But the side view of the cone is
>
> /\E
> /c \
> F / \
>
>
> The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF makes that distance larger than cE.
> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 12:00:31 AM UTC-5, Earle Jones wrote:
> > *
> > Here is an old (July, 1997) copy of "Psychoceramics: the on-oline crackpots" by Toby Howard (Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester.)
> >
> > Our friend Archie (AP) has been famous for more years than we imagined! He is the first-mentioned example psychoceramicist -- see paragraph two.
> >
> > http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~toby/writing/Guardian/ceramics.htm
> >
> > Enjoy!
> >
> > earle
> > *
> AP writes: Earle, can I enjoy it now? Or should I wait for Xmas?

Univ Manchester Toby Howard vs Univ Oxford Andrew Wiles Schizoidceramics with their 2 OR 1 = 3 & slant cut of cone a ellipse.

Kibo Parry Moron why cannot Manchester & Oxford ceramics do a proper percentage for 938MeV is not short of 945MeV by 12%.

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.

> Oh you need to see the ellipse-is-a-conic-section proof again? Here you go!
>
>
> Some preliminaries:
>
> Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used
> in the proof:
>
> ^ x
> |
> -+- <= x=h
> .' | `.
> . | .
> | | |
> ' | '
> `. | .'
> y <----------+ <= x=0
>
> Cone (side view):
> .
> /|\
> / | \
> /b | \
> /---+---' <= x = h
> / |' \
> / ' | \
> / ' | \
> x = 0 => '-------+-------\
> / a | \
>
> Proof:
>
> r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence
>
> y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.
>
> Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1 ...equation of an ellipse
>
> qed

>

Kibo Parry M is Univ Manchester Toby Howard a bozoceramic or a psychoceramic?
> On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 7:40:41 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >"bozo"
> > fails at math and science:
> >"wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place"
> AP asks: Dame Rothwell, does Univ Manchester Toby Howard offer a course in schizoceramics along with his psychoceramics? Or do I have to go to Oxford Univ and Andrew Wiles for such a study, with his slant cut in cone as ellipse when actually that is an Oval.
> ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse::
>
>
> E
> __
> .-' `-.
> .' `.
> / \
> ; ;
> | G c | H
> ; ;
> \ /
> `. .'
> `-. _____ .-'
> F
>
>
>
> Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E
>
> In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.
>
> The side view of a cylinder is this
>
> | |
> | |
> | |
>
> That allows cE to be the same distance as cF
>
>
> But the side view of the cone is
>
> /\E
> /c \
> F / \
>
>
> The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF makes that distance larger than cE.
> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 12:00:31 AM UTC-5, Earle Jones wrote:
> > *
> > Here is an old (July, 1997) copy of "Psychoceramics: the on-oline crackpots" by Toby Howard (Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester.)
> >
> > Our friend Archie (AP) has been famous for more years than we imagined! He is the first-mentioned example psychoceramicist -- see paragraph two.
> >
> > http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~toby/writing/Guardian/ceramics.htm
> >
> > Enjoy!
> >
> > earle
> > *
> AP writes: Earle, can I enjoy it now? Or should I wait for Xmas?

Dame Rothwell who are you cheering for the Univ Manchester Psychoceramics with Toby Howard goalkeeper or the Univ Oxford Schizoidceramics with Andrew Wiles goalkeeper???

On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 2:19:48 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Kibo Parry M is Univ Manchester Toby Howard a bozoceramic or a psychoceramic?
> On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 7:40:41 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >"bozo"
> > fails at math and science:
> >"wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place"
> AP asks: Dame Rothwell, does Univ Manchester Toby Howard offer a course in schizoceramics along with his psychoceramics? Or do I have to go to Oxford Univ and Andrew Wiles for such a study, with his slant cut in cone as ellipse when actually that is an Oval.
> ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse::
>
>
> E
> __
> .-' `-.
> .' `.
> / \
> ; ;
> | G c | H
> ; ;
> \ /
> `. .'
> `-. _____ .-'
> F
>
>
>
> Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E
>
> In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.
>
> The side view of a cylinder is this
>
> | |
> | |
> | |
>
> That allows cE to be the same distance as cF
>
>
> But the side view of the cone is
>
> /\E
> /c \
> F / \
>
>
> The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF makes that distance larger than cE.
> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 12:00:31 AM UTC-5, Earle Jones wrote:
> > *
> > Here is an old (July, 1997) copy of "Psychoceramics: the on-oline crackpots" by Toby Howard (Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester.)
> >
> > Our friend Archie (AP) has been famous for more years than we imagined! He is the first-mentioned example psychoceramicist -- see paragraph two.
> >
> > http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~toby/writing/Guardian/ceramics.htm
> >
> > Enjoy!
> >
> > earle
> > *
> AP writes: Earle, can I enjoy it now? Or should I wait for Xmas?

Univ Manchester Toby Howard,Dame Nancy Rothwell, Young Lee, Earle of Stanford Univ are they psychoceramics or schizoidceramics with their ellipse a conic section when in truth it is a Oval.

Univ Manchester Nancy Rothwell, Toby Howard (psychoceramics), Jack Dongarra
Timothy Brauch, Jim Brumbaugh-Smith, Young Lee, Robin Mitchell, Eva Sagan.

> Kibo Parry Moron why cannot Manchester & Oxford ceramics do a proper percentage for 938MeV is not short of 945MeV by 12%.
> 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.
> > Oh you need to see the ellipse-is-a-conic-section proof again? Here you go!
> >
> >
> > Some preliminaries:
> >
> > Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used
> > in the proof:
> >
> > ^ x
> > |
> > -+- <= x=h
> > .' | `.
> > . | .
> > | | |
> > ' | '
> > `. | .'
> > y <----------+ <= x=0
> >
> > Cone (side view):
> > .
> > /|\
> > / | \
> > /b | \
> > /---+---' <= x = h
> > / |' \
> > / ' | \
> > / ' | \
> > x = 0 => '-------+-------\
> > / a | \
> >
> > Proof:
> >
> > r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence
> >
> > y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.
> >
> > Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1 ...equation of an ellipse
> >
> > qed
> 
> >
>
> Kibo Parry M is Univ Manchester Toby Howard a bozoceramic or a psychoceramic?
> > On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 7:40:41 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >"bozo"
> > > fails at math and science:
> > >"wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place"
> > AP asks: Dame Rothwell, does Univ Manchester Toby Howard offer a course in schizoceramics along with his psychoceramics? Or do I have to go to Oxford Univ and Andrew Wiles for such a study, with his slant cut in cone as ellipse when actually that is an Oval.
> > ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse::
> >
> >
> > E
> > __
> > .-' `-.
> > .' `.
> > / \
> > ; ;
> > | G c | H
> > ; ;
> > \ /
> > `. .'
> > `-. _____ .-'
> > F
> >
> >
> >
> > Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E
> >
> > In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.
> >
> > The side view of a cylinder is this
> >
> > | |
> > | |
> > | |
> >
> > That allows cE to be the same distance as cF
> >
> >
> > But the side view of the cone is
> >
> > /\E
> > /c \
> > F / \
> >
> >
> > The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF makes that distance larger than cE.
> > On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 12:00:31 AM UTC-5, Earle Jones wrote:
> > > *
> > > Here is an old (July, 1997) copy of "Psychoceramics: the on-oline crackpots" by Toby Howard (Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester.)
> > >
> > > Our friend Archie (AP) has been famous for more years than we imagined! He is the first-mentioned example psychoceramicist -- see paragraph two.
> > >
> > > http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~toby/writing/Guardian/ceramics.htm
> > >
> > > Enjoy!
> > >
> > > earle
> > > *
> > AP writes: Earle, can I enjoy it now? Or should I wait for Xmas?

Univ Manchester Toby Howard,Dame Nancy Rothwell, Young Lee, Earle of Stanford Univ are they psychoceramics or schizoidceramics with their ellipse a conic section when in truth it is a Oval.

Univ Manchester Nancy Rothwell, Toby Howard (psychoceramics), Jack Dongarra
Timothy Brauch, Jim Brumbaugh-Smith, Young Lee, Robin Mitchell, Eva Sagan.


> Kibo Parry Moron why cannot Manchester & Oxford ceramics do a proper percentage for 938MeV is not short of 945MeV by 12%.
> 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.
> > Oh you need to see the ellipse-is-a-conic-section proof again? Here you go!
> >
> >
> > Some preliminaries:
> >
> > Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used
> > in the proof:
> >
> > ^ x
> > |
> > -+- <= x=h
> > .' | `.
> > . | .
> > | | |
> > ' | '
> > `. | .'
> > y <----------+ <= x=0
> >
> > Cone (side view):
> > .
> > /|\
> > / | \
> > /b | \
> > /---+---' <= x = h
> > / |' \
> > / ' | \
> > / ' | \
> > x = 0 => '-------+-------\
> > / a | \
> >
> > Proof:
> >
> > r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence
> >
> > y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.
> >
> > Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1 ...equation of an ellipse
> >
> > qed
> 
> >
>
> Kibo Parry M is Univ Manchester Toby Howard a bozoceramic or a psychoceramic?
> > On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 7:40:41 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >"bozo"
> > > fails at math and science:
> > >"wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place"
> > AP asks: Dame Rothwell, does Univ Manchester Toby Howard offer a course in schizoceramics along with his psychoceramics? Or do I have to go to Oxford Univ and Andrew Wiles for such a study, with his slant cut in cone as ellipse when actually that is an Oval.
> > ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse::
> >
> >
> > E
> > __
> > .-' `-.
> > .' `.
> > / \
> > ; ;
> > | G c | H
> > ; ;
> > \ /
> > `. .'
> > `-. _____ .-'
> > F
> >
> >
> >
> > Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E
> >
> > In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.
> >
> > The side view of a cylinder is this
> >
> > | |
> > | |
> > | |
> >
> > That allows cE to be the same distance as cF
> >
> >
> > But the side view of the cone is
> >
> > /\E
> > /c \
> > F / \
> >
> >
> > The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF makes that distance larger than cE.
> > On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 12:00:31 AM UTC-5, Earle Jones wrote:
> > > *
> > > Here is an old (July, 1997) copy of "Psychoceramics: the on-oline crackpots" by Toby Howard (Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester.)
> > >
> > > Our friend Archie (AP) has been famous for more years than we imagined! He is the first-mentioned example psychoceramicist -- see paragraph two.
> > >
> > > http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~toby/writing/Guardian/ceramics.htm
> > >
> > > Enjoy!
> > >
> > > earle
> > > *
> > AP writes: Earle, can I enjoy it now? Or should I wait for Xmas?

Toby Howard what is schizoidceramics and is Kibo Parry Moroney and Earle Jones the first two known schizoidceramics covered by The Guardian??
UnivManchester,Dame Nancy Rothwell,Eva Sagan,Young Lee,Earle of Stanford Univ are they psychoceramics or schizoidceramics with their ellipse a conic section when in truth it is a Oval.
>
> Univ Manchester Nancy Rothwell, Toby Howard (psychoceramics), Jack Dongarra
> Timothy Brauch, Jim Brumbaugh-Smith, Young Lee, Robin Mitchell, Eva Sagan..
> 
> > Kibo Parry Moron why cannot Manchester & Oxford ceramics do a proper percentage for 938MeV is not short of 945MeV by 12%.
> > 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.
> > > Oh you need to see the ellipse-is-a-conic-section proof again? Here you go!
> > >
> > >
> > > Some preliminaries:
> > >
> > > Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used
> > > in the proof:
> > >
> > > ^ x
> > > |
> > > -+- <= x=h
> > > .' | `.
> > > . | .
> > > | | |
> > > ' | '
> > > `. | .'
> > > y <----------+ <= x=0
> > >
> > > Cone (side view):
> > > .
> > > /|\
> > > / | \
> > > /b | \
> > > /---+---' <= x = h
> > > / |' \
> > > / ' | \
> > > / ' | \
> > > x = 0 => '-------+-------\
> > > / a | \
> > >
> > > Proof:
> > >
> > > r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence
> > >
> > > y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.
> > >
> > > Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1 ...equation of an ellipse
> > >
> > > qed
> > 
> > >
> >
> > Kibo Parry M is Univ Manchester Toby Howard a bozoceramic or a psychoceramic?
> > > On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 7:40:41 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > >"bozo"
> > > > fails at math and science:
> > > >"wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place"
> > > AP asks: Dame Rothwell, does Univ Manchester Toby Howard offer a course in schizoceramics along with his psychoceramics? Or do I have to go to Oxford Univ and Andrew Wiles for such a study, with his slant cut in cone as ellipse when actually that is an Oval.
> > > ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse::
> > >
> > >
> > > E
> > > __
> > > .-' `-.
> > > .' `.
> > > / \
> > > ; ;
> > > | G c | H
> > > ; ;
> > > \ /
> > > `. .'
> > > `-. _____ .-'
> > > F
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E
> > >
> > > In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.
> > >
> > > The side view of a cylinder is this
> > >
> > > | |
> > > | |
> > > | |
> > >
> > > That allows cE to be the same distance as cF
> > >
> > >
> > > But the side view of the cone is
> > >
> > > /\E
> > > /c \
> > > F / \
> > >
> > >
> > > The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF makes that distance larger than cE.
> > > On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 12:00:31 AM UTC-5, Earle Jones wrote:
> > > > *
> > > > Here is an old (July, 1997) copy of "Psychoceramics: the on-oline crackpots" by Toby Howard (Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester.)
> > > >
> > > > Our friend Archie (AP) has been famous for more years than we imagined! He is the first-mentioned example psychoceramicist -- see paragraph two.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~toby/writing/Guardian/ceramics.htm
> > > >
> > > > Enjoy!
> > > >
> > > > earle
> > > > *
> > > AP writes: Earle, can I enjoy it now? Or should I wait for Xmas?

Toby Howard--will BBC feature Schizoidceramics tonight? Showing Earle Jones and Kibo Parry M, wearing schizoidceramics clothing? Toby, is schizoidceramics a athletic sport found on Univ Manchester campus? And is Kibo Parry Moroney and Earle Jones the first two known schizoidceramics covered by The Guardian??
> UnivManchester,Dame Nancy Rothwell,Eva Sagan,Young Lee,Earle of Stanford Univ are they psychoceramics or schizoidceramics with their ellipse a conic section when in truth it is a Oval.
> >
> > Univ Manchester Nancy Rothwell, Toby Howard (psychoceramics), Jack Dongarra
> > Timothy Brauch, Jim Brumbaugh-Smith, Young Lee, Robin Mitchell, Eva Sagan.
> > 
> > > Kibo Parry Moron why cannot Manchester & Oxford ceramics do a proper percentage for 938MeV is not short of 945MeV by 12%.
> > > 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.
> > > > Oh you need to see the ellipse-is-a-conic-section proof again? Here you go!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Some preliminaries:
> > > >
> > > > Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used
> > > > in the proof:
> > > >
> > > > ^ x
> > > > |
> > > > -+- <= x=h
> > > > .' | `.
> > > > . | .
> > > > | | |
> > > > ' | '
> > > > `. | .'
> > > > y <----------+ <= x=0
> > > >
> > > > Cone (side view):
> > > > .
> > > > /|\
> > > > / | \
> > > > /b | \
> > > > /---+---' <= x = h
> > > > / |' \
> > > > / ' | \
> > > > / ' | \
> > > > x = 0 => '-------+-------\
> > > > / a | \
> > > >
> > > > Proof:
> > > >
> > > > r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence
> > > >
> > > > y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.
> > > >
> > > > Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1 ...equation of an ellipse
> > > >
> > > > qed
> > > 
> > > >
> > >
> > > Kibo Parry M is Univ Manchester Toby Howard a bozoceramic or a psychoceramic?
> > > > On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 7:40:41 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > >"bozo"
> > > > > fails at math and science:
> > > > >"wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place"
> > > > AP asks: Dame Rothwell, does Univ Manchester Toby Howard offer a course in schizoceramics along with his psychoceramics? Or do I have to go to Oxford Univ and Andrew Wiles for such a study, with his slant cut in cone as ellipse when actually that is an Oval.
> > > > ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse::
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > E
> > > > __
> > > > .-' `-.
> > > > .' `.
> > > > / \
> > > > ; ;
> > > > | G c | H
> > > > ; ;
> > > > \ /
> > > > `. .'
> > > > `-. _____ .-'
> > > > F
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E
> > > >
> > > > In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.
> > > >
> > > > The side view of a cylinder is this
> > > >
> > > > | |
> > > > | |
> > > > | |
> > > >
> > > > That allows cE to be the same distance as cF
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > But the side view of the cone is
> > > >
> > > > /\E
> > > > /c \
> > > > F / \
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF makes that distance larger than cE.
> > > > On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 12:00:31 AM UTC-5, Earle Jones wrote:
> > > > > *
> > > > > Here is an old (July, 1997) copy of "Psychoceramics: the on-oline crackpots" by Toby Howard (Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Our friend Archie (AP) has been famous for more years than we imagined! He is the first-mentioned example psychoceramicist -- see paragraph two.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~toby/writing/Guardian/ceramics.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > Enjoy!
> > > > >
> > > > > earle
> > > > > *
> > > > AP writes: Earle, can I enjoy it now? Or should I wait for Xmas?

Earle Jones on Psychoceramics SLAC: Chi-Chung Kao,CERN: Eliezer Rabinovici, Fabiola Gianotti ever 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 electron 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.

Earle, when is Toby Howard Univ Manchester going to do Schizoidceramics and publish in The Guardian. The Univ Manchester Univ Manchester Nancy Rothwell, Toby Howard (psychoceramics), Jack Dongarra
Timothy Brauch, Jim Brumbaugh-Smith, Young Lee, Robin Mitchell, Eva Sagan.

Toby how is a schizoidceramic any different from a psychoceramic, just like your failure Toby to understand a Oval is far different from a ellipse. And are you Toby still an idiot over Boole logic with AND truth table as TFFF when in reality it is TTTF, so that Toby Howard is a schizoidceramic.

AP

Univ Manchester Toby Howard is CERN psychoceramic or schizoidceramic and will Guardian newspaper break the news???
Earle Jones on Psychoceramics SLAC: Chi-Chung Kao,CERN: Eliezer Rabinovici, Fabiola Gianotti ever 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 electron 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.

Earle, when is Toby Howard Univ Manchester going to do Schizoidceramics and publish in The Guardian. The Univ Manchester Univ Manchester Nancy Rothwell, Toby Howard (psychoceramics), Jack Dongarra
Timothy Brauch, Jim Brumbaugh-Smith, Young Lee, Robin Mitchell, Eva Sagan.

Toby how is a schizoidceramic any different from a psychoceramic, just like your failure Toby to understand a Oval is far different from a ellipse. And are you Toby still an idiot over Boole logic with AND truth table as TFFF when in reality it is TTTF, so that Toby Howard is a schizoidceramic.

AP

Univ Manchester Toby Howard,Nancy Rothwell,Young Lee, Earle Jones, is that psychoceramics of math or is that schizoidceramics? Even a High School student recognizes a cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, ellipse has 2, yet these bozo cranks at Univ Manchester propagandizing ellipse is a conic when it never was.

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 14May2022. 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 the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence 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..

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 827 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 ‏ : ‎ 51 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#12-2, 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)

🦍 of Math and 🦧 of Physics Archimedes "Meckling Village Idiot"
Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

> Univ Manchester Toby Howard,Nancy Rothwell,Young Lee, Earle Jones, is that psychoceramics of math or is that schizoidceramics? Even a High School student recognizes a cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, ellipse has 2,

Even a high school student recognizes that an equation like:
(x-1)^2 + 2*y^2 = 2 has TWO axes of symmetry, once around y=0 and the
other around x=1, but that axis is NOT the axis of the cone, which is
symmetrical around x=0 instead.

> yet these bozo cranks at Univ Manchester propagandizing ellipse is a conic when it never was.
No, they have several PROOFS the ellipse is a conic section. You don't
have any proof. Here's a proof that any high school student can understand:

From: qbwrfmlx@gmail.com

Here is a plane and cone
x + 1 = z
and
2*x^2 + 2*y^2 = z^2

Square the first equation giving us
x^2 + 2*x + 1 = z^2

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

Subtract x^2 + 2*x - 1 from both sides giving us
x^2 - 2*x + 1 + 2*y^2 = 2

Replace x^2 - 2*x + 1 with (x-1)^2 giving us
(x-1)^2 + 2*y^2 = 2

That is EXACTLY the equation of an ellipse
And there are two planes of symmetry.

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.

As you can see, the solution is (x-1)^2 + 2*y^2 = 2, so the
line (x=1,y=0) goes through the center of the ellipse, and it
is NOT the same line (x=0,y=0) that is the axis of the cone.
Obviously (x-1)^2 is symmetrical around x=1, and 2y^2 is
symmetrical around y=0.

Kibo Parry M on mindless fuckdog Todd B Smith Univ Dayton,Elizabeth Smith,Ivan Sudakow,Perry Yaney. Why Kibo?? Is it because he never asks the question which is the atom's real true electron??
On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 10:43:34 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"mindless fuckdog"
>crazy"
> fails at math and science:

> Kibo Parry M on Univ Dayton Todd B. Smith autism meltdown going to see the Pope
> On Sunday, August 7, 2022 at 1:59:44 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > "Pope Arky the Last"of Physics
> >"spamtard"
> > Oh my, I triggered Yet Another Autism meltdown by
> >doesn't understand he's the one who chased everyone else
> > away. How can he not understand that?
>

Harry Cliff, Cole, Cooper,Cambridge 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 electron 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.

Todd B. Smith
> Univ. Dayton Physics dept.
>
> Rex L. Berney
> Bob Brecha
> Bruce Craver
> John Erdei
> Thomas P. Graham
> Donald Hirst
> Jenn Hyland
> Jay Mathews
> Robert Merithew
> Brendon Mikula
> George K. Miner
> J. Michael O'Hare
> Leno M Pedrotti
> William N. Plick
> Randall Schaurer
> Elizabeth Smith
> Ivan Sudakow
> Perry Yaney
>

wiki, wiki Revision history of " James Kibo Parry Moroney"
www.exampleproblems dot com wiki
(cur | prev) 03:21, 13 March 2021 Todd (talk | contribs ... (10,274 bytes)
ep@toddbsmith dot com

🦇 of Math and 🦨 of Physics Archimedes "Drag Queen of Math" Plutonium
<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> blathered:

> Kibo Parry M on mindless fuckdog Todd B Smith Univ Dayton,Elizabeth Smith,Ivan Sudakow,Perry Yaney. Why Kibo?? Is it because he never asks the question which is the atom's real true electron??

No need, everyone knows it's the 511 kev particle named the electron.
The muon isn't even in the running, it's too unstable with a 2.2
microsecond half-life.

> autism meltdown going to see the Pope

Are you having yet another autism meltdown? You're going to see the
pope, too? Sorry for triggering your autism meltdown (again). I admit it
is fun to watch your autism meltdowns. Maybe that's wrong, but you do
keep attacking me. Did you know that when attacked, I strike back?

> 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,

Of course, an actual high school student recognizes that an equation
like (x-1)^2 + 2*y^2 = 2 has TWO axes of symmetry, and is, in fact, the
formula for an ellipse. One axis around the y=0 plane and one around the
x=1 (NOT x=0) plane.

> and yet many on this list were awarded science prizes. Maybe for ignorance of science but not for truth of science.

Whose "truth"? Your delusional beliefs or actual truths, like the
ellipse being a conic section?
>
>>> 1) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse.

If you have an actual proof of that, why not show it? Right now you are
in a tie for who is more dumb, stoopid, delusional and bone-headed
STUBBORN: You or Mitch Raemsch.

UnivManchester TobyHoward,NancyRothwell is Andrew Wiles or Roger Penrose Univ Oxford most famous psychoceramic or schizoidceramic???
On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 1:58:54 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"Pope Arky the Last"
>"Drag Queen of Math"
> blathered:

Is Andrew Wiles, Oxford's most famous psychoceramic, Toby Howard, since he cannot tell apart a ellipse from oval in conic sections.

Or is Roger Penrose a psychoceramic or even a schizoidceramic with his electron of atoms as 0.5MeV particle when in truth that is the muon as true electron of atoms, stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law.

Univ Manchester Toby Howard,Dame Nancy Rothwell, Young Lee, Earle of Stanford Univ are they psychoceramics or schizoidceramics with their ellipse a conic section when in truth it is a Oval.

Univ Manchester Nancy Rothwell, Toby Howard (psychoceramics), Jack Dongarra
Timothy Brauch, Jim Brumbaugh-Smith, Young Lee, Robin Mitchell, Eva Sagan.
> > Kibo Parry M on mindless fuckdog Todd B Smith Univ Dayton,Elizabeth Smith,Ivan Sudakow,Perry Yaney. Why Kibo?? Is it because he never asks the question which is the atom's real true electron??
> No need, everyone knows it's the 511 kev particle named the electron.
> The muon isn't even in the running, it's too unstable with a 2.2
> microsecond half-life.
> > autism meltdown going to see the Pope
> Are you having yet another autism meltdown? You're going to see the
> pope, too? Sorry for triggering your autism meltdown (again). I admit it
> is fun to watch your autism meltdowns. Maybe that's wrong, but you do
> keep attacking me. Did you know that when attacked, I strike back?
> > 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,
> Of course, an actual high school student recognizes that an equation
> like (x-1)^2 + 2*y^2 = 2 has TWO axes of symmetry, and is, in fact, the
> formula for an ellipse. One axis around the y=0 plane and one around the
> x=1 (NOT x=0) plane.
> > and yet many on this list were awarded science prizes. Maybe for ignorance of science but not for truth of science.
> Whose "truth"? Your delusional beliefs or actual truths, like the
> ellipse being a conic section?
> >
> >>> 1) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse.
> If you have an actual proof of that, why not show it? Right now you are
> in a tie for who is more dumb, stoopid, delusional and bone-headed
> STUBBORN: You or Mitch Raemsch.

UnivManchester Nancy Rothwell, Toby Howard is Andrew Wiles or Roger Penrose Univ Oxford their most famous psychoceramic or schizoidceramic???????
Kibo Parry M, USA's schizoidceramic with his 938 is 12% short of 945 chimes in.
On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 1:58:54 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"Pope Arky the Last"
>"Drag Queen of Math"
> blathered:

Kibo, your job with the CIA, did they specifically request you be a failure in math percentages along with geometry?

Kibo Parry Moroney in 1997 blows his CIA cover-- to the entire world, mind you---
Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
>> In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes:
> >

On Monday, June 15, 2020 at 1:13:27 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Here you are!
> Below you will find a simple *proof* that shows that certain conic
> sections are ellipses.
>
> Some preliminaries:
>
> Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used
> in the proof:
>
> ^ x
> |
> -+- < xh
> .' | `.
> . | .
> | | |
> ' | '
> `. | .'
> y <----------+ < x0
> Cone (side view):
> .
> /|\
> / | \
> /b | \
> /---+---' < x h
> / |' \
> / ' | \
> / ' | \
> x 0 > '-------+-------\
> / a | \
>
> Proof:
>
> r(x) a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence
>
> y(x)^2 r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.
>
> Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 1 ...equation of an ellipse
>
> qed

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.

                              ..
            .- " `-.   ,..-'''  ```.....'`-..
           ,      . `.'            '        `.
         .'   .' `    `           '   `..     ;
         .   ;  .'                     . `.    ;
         ;   . '                       `.  .   '
          . '                            ` `.  |
        . '.                                  '
       .          0              0            ' `.
      '                                          `
     ;                                            `
    .'                                             `
    ;                      U                        `
    ;    ';                                         `
    :   | ;..                                 :`     `
    :    `;. ```.                           .-; |    '
    '.      `    ``..,                   .'   :'    '
     ;       `        ;'...          ..-''    '     '  Hi, I am Kibo Parry M. answering Richard Cranium's question of 2020.

Re: 1-Kibo Parry Moroney, how do you clean your dick after it has been up Barry Shein's arsehole, or does it improve your stalking
By Richard Cranium May 10, 2020, 8:30:43 PM

      `       `        ;  ````'''""'  ;      '    '
       `       `        ;            ;      '    '
        `       `        ;          ;      '    '
         `       `.       ````''''''      '    '
           `       .                     '    '
         /  `       `.                  '    '        .
        /     `       ..            ..'    .'"""""...'
       /   .`   `       ``.........-'     .'` .....'''
      / .'' ;     `                    .'   `
  ...'.'    ;    .' `                .'      `
   ""      .'  .' |    `           .; \       `
           ; .'   |      `. . . . ' .  \       `
           :'     |     '   `       ,   `.     `
                  |    '     `      '     `.    `
                  `   '       `     ;       `.  |
                  `.'          `    ;         `-'
                                `...'

My 2nd published book

True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 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 0.5MeV 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 everywhere.

Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule.

Length: 1150 pages

Product details
• File Size : 2167 KB
• ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ
• Publication Date : March 11, 2019
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 1150 pages
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#181 in General Chemistry & Reference
#1324 in General Chemistry
#1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)

Is Andrew Wiles, Oxford's most famous psychoceramic, Toby Howard, since he cannot tell apart a ellipse from oval in conic sections.

Or is Roger Penrose a psychoceramic or even a schizoidceramic with his electron of atoms as 0.5MeV particle when in truth that is the muon as true electron of atoms, stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law.

Univ Manchester Toby Howard,Dame Nancy Rothwell, Young Lee, Earle of Stanford Univ are they psychoceramics or schizoidceramics with their ellipse a conic section when in truth it is a Oval.

Univ Manchester Nancy Rothwell, Toby Howard (psychoceramics), Jack Dongarra
Timothy Brauch, Jim Brumbaugh-Smith, Young Lee, Robin Mitchell, Eva Sagan.

> > Kibo Parry M on mindless fuckdog Todd B Smith Univ Dayton,Elizabeth Smith,Ivan Sudakow,Perry Yaney. Why Kibo?? Is it because he never asks the question which is the atom's real true electron??
> No need, everyone knows it's the 511 kev particle named the electron.
> The muon isn't even in the running, it's too unstable with a 2.2
> microsecond half-life.
> > autism meltdown going to see the Pope
> Are you having yet another autism meltdown? You're going to see the
> pope, too? Sorry for triggering your autism meltdown (again). I admit it
> is fun to watch your autism meltdowns. Maybe that's wrong, but you do
> keep attacking me. Did you know that when attacked, I strike back?
> > 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,
> Of course, an actual high school student recognizes that an equation
> like (x-1)^2 + 2*y^2 = 2 has TWO axes of symmetry, and is, in fact, the
> formula for an ellipse. One axis around the y=0 plane and one around the
> x=1 (NOT x=0) plane.
> > and yet many on this list were awarded science prizes. Maybe for ignorance of science but not for truth of science.
> Whose "truth"? Your delusional beliefs or actual truths, like the
> ellipse being a conic section?
> >
> >>> 1) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse.
> If you have an actual proof of that, why not show it? Right now you are
> in a tie for who is more dumb, stoopid, delusional and bone-headed
> STUBBORN: You or Mitch Raemsch.

On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 12:00:31 AM UTC-5, Earle Jones wrote:
> Enjoy!
>
> earle
> *

Kibo on Toby Howard Univ Manchester >you're 🏳️‍🌈gay🏳️‍🌈, and most here are OK with your
On Monday, August 8, 2022 at 6:53:08 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> ☠️ of Math and ☣ of Physics
>Manchester Toby Howard example of psychoceramics in British life before Brexit???
> know that you're 🏳️‍🌈gay🏳️‍🌈, and most here are OK with your
> gayness, but why are you so obsessed? Is it because you are jealous
> because it's not your dick being sucked? Is it because you are jealous
> because you're not the one doing the sucking? But please, quit trying to
> make this group into a gay pickup bar. Why not go up the road to
>math authority and never will.
> can be re-arranged to spell
> "I Pound His Male Rectum".

Dame Nancy Rothwell, please explain how humanity can send a man to the moon in the 1960s but your Univ. Manchester cannot fix their hideous mistakes of 1) AND truth table is TTTF not TFFF and is this why Toby Howard is screaming at the top of his lungs to The Guardian calling academics of Univ Manchester as psychoceramics? And if we tack on the fact that Manchester still teaches ellipse a conic when in truth that is a Oval. Nancy, should we call Univ Manchester a Schizoidceramic school???

Univ Manchester Toby Howard,Dame Nancy Rothwell, Young Lee, Earle of Stanford Univ are they psychoceramics or schizoidceramics with their ellipse a conic section when in truth it is a Oval.
>
> Univ Manchester Nancy Rothwell, Toby Howard (psychoceramics), Jack Dongarra
> Timothy Brauch, Jim Brumbaugh-Smith, Young Lee, Robin Mitchell, Eva Sagan..
> 
> > Kibo Parry Moron why cannot Manchester & Oxford ceramics do a proper percentage for 938MeV is not short of 945MeV by 12%.
> > 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.
> > > Oh you need to see the ellipse-is-a-conic-section proof again? Here you go!
> > >
> > >
> > > Some preliminaries:
> > >
> > > Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used
> > > in the proof:
> > >
> > > ^ x
> > > |
> > > -+- <= x=h
> > > .' | `.
> > > . | .
> > > | | |
> > > ' | '
> > > `. | .'
> > > y <----------+ <= x=0
> > >
> > > Cone (side view):
> > > .
> > > /|\
> > > / | \
> > > /b | \
> > > /---+---' <= x = h
> > > / |' \
> > > / ' | \
> > > / ' | \
> > > x = 0 => '-------+-------\
> > > / a | \
> > >
> > > Proof:
> > >
> > > r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence
> > >
> > > y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.
> > >
> > > Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1 ...equation of an ellipse
> > >
> > > qed
> > 
> > >
> >
> > Kibo Parry M is Univ Manchester Toby Howard a bozoceramic or a psychoceramic?
> > > On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 7:40:41 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > >"bozo"
> > > > fails at math and science:
> > > >"wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place"
> > > AP asks: Dame Rothwell, does Univ Manchester Toby Howard offer a course in schizoceramics along with his psychoceramics? Or do I have to go to Oxford Univ and Andrew Wiles for such a study, with his slant cut in cone as ellipse when actually that is an Oval.
> > > ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse::
> > >
> > >
> > > E
> > > __
> > > .-' `-.
> > > .' `.
> > > / \
> > > ; ;
> > > | G c | H
> > > ; ;
> > > \ /
> > > `. .'
> > > `-. _____ .-'
> > > F
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E
> > >
> > > In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.
> > >
> > > The side view of a cylinder is this
> > >
> > > | |
> > > | |
> > > | |
> > >
> > > That allows cE to be the same distance as cF
> > >
> > >
> > > But the side view of the cone is
> > >
> > > /\E
> > > /c \
> > > F / \
> > >
> > >
> > > The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF makes that distance larger than cE.
> > > On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 12:00:31 AM UTC-5, Earle Jones wrote:
> > > > *
> > > > Here is an old (July, 1997) copy of "Psychoceramics: the on-oline crackpots" by Toby Howard (Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester.)
> > > >
> > > > Our friend Archie (AP) has been famous for more years than we imagined! He is the first-mentioned example psychoceramicist -- see paragraph two.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~toby/writing/Guardian/ceramics.htm
> > > >
> > > > Enjoy!
> > > >
> > > > earle
> > > > *
> > > AP writes: Earle, can I enjoy it now? Or should I wait for Xmas?

Dame Nancy Rothwell, please explain how humanity can send a man to the moon in the 1960s but your Univ. Manchester cannot fix their hideous mistakes of 1) AND truth table is TTTF not TFFF and is this why Toby Howard is screaming at the top of his lungs to The Guardian calling academics of Univ Manchester as psychoceramics? And if we tack on the fact that Manchester still teaches ellipse a conic when in truth that is a Oval. Nancy, should we call Univ Manchester a Schizoidceramic school???


Univ Manchester Toby Howard,Dame Nancy Rothwell, Young Lee, Earle of Stanford Univ are they psychoceramics or schizoidceramics with their ellipse a conic section when in truth it is a Oval.
>
> Univ Manchester Nancy Rothwell, Toby Howard (psychoceramics), Jack Dongarra
> Timothy Brauch, Jim Brumbaugh-Smith, Young Lee, Robin Mitchell, Eva Sagan..
> 
> > Kibo Parry Moron why cannot Manchester & Oxford ceramics do a proper percentage for 938MeV is not short of 945MeV by 12%.
> > 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.
> > > Oh you need to see the ellipse-is-a-conic-section proof again? Here you go!
> > >
> > >
> > > Some preliminaries:
> > >
> > > Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used
> > > in the proof:
> > >
> > > ^ x
> > > |
> > > -+- <= x=h
> > > .' | `.
> > > . | .
> > > | | |
> > > ' | '
> > > `. | .'
> > > y <----------+ <= x=0
> > >
> > > Cone (side view):
> > > .
> > > /|\
> > > / | \
> > > /b | \
> > > /---+---' <= x = h
> > > / |' \
> > > / ' | \
> > > / ' | \
> > > x = 0 => '-------+-------\
> > > / a | \
> > >
> > > Proof:
> > >
> > > r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence
> > >
> > > y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.
> > >
> > > Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1 ...equation of an ellipse
> > >
> > > qed
> > 
> > >
> >
> > Kibo Parry M is Univ Manchester Toby Howard a bozoceramic or a psychoceramic?
> > > On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 7:40:41 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > >"bozo"
> > > > fails at math and science:
> > > >"wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place"
> > > AP asks: Dame Rothwell, does Univ Manchester Toby Howard offer a course in schizoceramics along with his psychoceramics? Or do I have to go to Oxford Univ and Andrew Wiles for such a study, with his slant cut in cone as ellipse when actually that is an Oval.
> > > ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse::
> > >
> > >
> > > E
> > > __
> > > .-' `-.
> > > .' `.
> > > / \
> > > ; ;
> > > | G c | H
> > > ; ;
> > > \ /
> > > `. .'
> > > `-. _____ .-'
> > > F
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E
> > >
> > > In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.
> > >
> > > The side view of a cylinder is this
> > >
> > > | |
> > > | |
> > > | |
> > >
> > > That allows cE to be the same distance as cF
> > >
> > >
> > > But the side view of the cone is
> > >
> > > /\E
> > > /c \
> > > F / \
> > >
> > >
> > > The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF makes that distance larger than cE.
> > > On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 12:00:31 AM UTC-5, Earle Jones wrote:
> > > > *
> > > > Here is an old (July, 1997) copy of "Psychoceramics: the on-oline crackpots" by Toby Howard (Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester.)
> > > >
> > > > Our friend Archie (AP) has been famous for more years than we imagined! He is the first-mentioned example psychoceramicist -- see paragraph two.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~toby/writing/Guardian/ceramics.htm
> > > >
> > > > Enjoy!
> > > >
> > > > earle
> > > > *
> > > AP writes: Earle, can I enjoy it now?

Far too difficult for Stanford University to teach the truth about Logic, Math and Physics, than it was for the USA to send a spaceship to the Moon, land on Moon, and return the astronauts to Earth.

Earle Jones, are you a Toby Howard Univ Manchester psychoceramic or a schizoidceramic with your mindless Boole Logic AND truth table as TFFF which leads to OR being addition rather than AND as addition in computers. Are you not being a total shithead Earle along with Toby Howard in logical reasoning? And thus be called a schizoidceramic.

The USSR in April 1961 sent the first human up into Space, in the Space Race, forcing President Kennedy to declare in May 1961 that the USA will send a human to the Moon and back before the "end of the decade". The Moon walk did occur in 1969.

Stanford University has a tougher time of acknowledging that truth table of AND is TTTF, and not TFFF (Stanford teaches TFFF). For TTTF as AND yields addition, rather than subtraction. And that computers stop spitting out addition as OR, such as 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. For Boole and Jevons in late 1800s simply made the mistake of mixing up truth tables of AND with OR. Boole and Jevons were failures of logic for every one of their 4 main connectors are in error. Yet Stanford upon learning of these errors in AP posts of 1990s from posts to the Internet sci.math and sci.physics by Archimedes Plutonium, Stanford still teaches the profoundly dumbarse logic of a mixed up AND with OR truth table. In fact, so idiotic is Stanford in Logic, that the miserable professors there that teach logic have no qualm in thinking OR logic connector can have two different classes of OR, an exclusive OR and a inclusive OR. For they have no logical marbles at all in their brains at Stanford University.

And the response by Stanford after reading AP's correction ever since 1994, the response by Stanford was for its faculty to sit back and relax and laugh at the goon squad of bad-mouthing creeps like Earle Jones with his anagrams of AP, or MIT Gilbert Strang under a fake name of Port(something) along with Kibo Parry (Moroney) like Dan Christensen and Jan Burse and his gang of idiots with their 938 is 12% short of 945, attack attack attack of AP correcting logic, math and physics. Marc Tessier-Lavigne Stanford faculty want to continue to teach error filled bullshit for not just decades but centuries on.

OTHER MISTAKES that Stanford continues to teach with never a thought that they are wrong and need to correct their mistakes.

(2) By 2015, AP proved a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Yet Stanford math department never knew that calculus was geometry in the first place, and thus, never knew a geometry proof was required.

(3) By 2016, AP proved the slant cut in single right cone was a Oval, never the ellipse, which makes perfect commonsense, since a cone and oval have only 1 axis of symmetry, but an ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry.

(4) By 2016-2017, AP realized there had been a grand great mistake in physics for JJ Thomson in 1897 discovered a 0.5MeV particle, which he and the rest of the physics and chemistry community thought was the atom's electron. For it would not be until the 1930s that Caltech physicists would discover a particle that is 105MeV, the muon, and would truly be the atom's electron, while the 0.5MeV particle is now seen as the Dirac magnetic monopole. This changes all the physical sciences. But there is the dumbarse Stanford faculty, whose minds in science is so stupid, that not a single one of them can even ask or entertain the question,-- which is the true electron of atoms.. For AP wrote several books on the idea that the muon is the true electron of atoms and is stuck inside a proton torus of 840MeV doing the Faraday law between muon and proton. And this is why Sun and stars shine-- not from fusion, mind you, they shine because every proton in the Sun and stars is doing the Faraday law.

John Kennedy had a brain of logic. He saw that sputnik was up and USSR with first human in Space. Kennedy had logical brains, and proclaimed, before Decade is Out, USA will land on Moon and come home safely.

It is far far too much to ask of Stanford University, of Marc Tessier-Lavigne, of Persis Drell, to much to ask them to hold a conference and start that Stanford brain dead faculty, to START teaching AND truth table is TTTF, not TFFF, START teaching that slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, START teaching that calculus is geometry and requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not their mindless limit analysis hornswaggle, or, just simply ask the question-- which is the atom's true electron. No, Stanford is not a John Kennedy who had a logical mind, and saw things needed fixing and achievement. No Stanford by 1990s-2022 is mostly a intellectual cesspool of fools running around with their 2 OR 1 = 3, and their slant cut of cone is ellipse.

No, Stanford is a backwards shithead school, for when Kennedy says we will land on Moon and come home safely before 1970. Stanford in contrast says-- we send out a goon squad of hate mongers like Earle Jones and his logo picture, Chris Thomasson, Dan Christensen, Kibo Parry (Moron), Gilbert Strang undercover as Port--- and his gang of gay haters, and keep teaching falsehoods for the next thousand years. Isn't that right Marc Tessier-Lavigne and Persis Drell, keep on teaching bullshit, not the truth of science, keep teaching 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction and slant cut in cone is ellipse when in reality it is a oval, and never a geometry proof of calculus, and worst of all-- no brain at Stanford, none at all, to ask if 0.5MeV or 105MeV is the Atom's true electron.

AP

Far too difficult for Univ Manchester to teach the truth about Logic, Math and Physics, than it was for the USA to send a spaceship to the Moon, land on Moon, and return the astronauts to Earth.

Earle Jones, are you a Toby Howard Univ Manchester psychoceramic or a schizoidceramic with your mindless Boole Logic AND truth table as TFFF which leads to OR being addition rather than AND as addition in computers. Are you not being a total shithead Earle along with Toby Howard in logical reasoning? And thus be called a schizoidceramic.

The USSR in April 1961 sent the first human up into Space, in the Space Race, forcing President Kennedy to declare in May 1961 that the USA will send a human to the Moon and back before the "end of the decade". The Moon walk did occur in 1969.

Univ Manchester has a tougher time of acknowledging that truth table of AND is TTTF, and not TFFF (U of Manchester teaches TFFF). For TTTF as AND yields addition, rather than subtraction. And that computers stop spitting out addition as OR, such as 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. For Boole and Jevons in late 1800s simply made the mistake of mixing up truth tables of AND with OR. Boole and Jevons were failures of logic for every one of their 4 main connectors are in error. Yet U of Manchester upon learning of these errors in AP posts of 1990s from posts to the Internet sci.math and sci.physics by Archimedes Plutonium, Manchester Uni still teaches the profoundly dumbarse logic of a mixed up AND with OR truth table. In fact, so idiotic is Manchester Uni in Logic, that the miserable professors there that teach logic have no qualm in thinking OR logic connector can have two different classes of OR, an exclusive OR and a inclusive OR. For they have no logical marbles at all in their brains at University of Manchester.

And the response by Stanford after reading AP's correction ever since 1994, the response by U Manchester was for its faculty to sit back and relax and laugh at the goon squad of bad-mouthing creeps like Toby Howard with his Guardian write up of psychoceramics, Earle Jones with his anagrams of AP, or MIT Gilbert Strang under a fake name of Port(something) along with Kibo Parry (Moroney) like Dan Christensen and Jan Burse and his gang of idiots with their 938 is 12% short of 945, attack attack attack of AP correcting logic, math and physics. Nancy Rothwell of Uni. Manchester faculty want to continue to teach error filled bullshit for not just decades but centuries on.

OTHER MISTAKES that Stanford continues to teach with never a thought that they are wrong and need to correct their mistakes.

(2) By 2015, AP proved a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Yet U Manchester math department never knew that calculus was geometry in the first place, and thus, never knew a geometry proof was required.

(3) By 2016, AP proved the slant cut in single right cone was a Oval, never the ellipse, which makes perfect commonsense, since a cone and oval have only 1 axis of symmetry, but an ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry.

(4) By 2016-2017, AP realized there had been a grand great mistake in physics for JJ Thomson in 1897 discovered a 0.5MeV particle, which he and the rest of the physics and chemistry community thought was the atom's electron. For it would not be until the 1930s that Caltech physicists would discover a particle that is 105MeV, the muon, and would truly be the atom's electron, while the 0.5MeV particle is now seen as the Dirac magnetic monopole. This changes all the physical sciences. But there is the dumbarse U. Manchester faculty, whose minds in science is so stupid, that not a single one of them can even ask or entertain the question,-- which is the true electron of atoms. For AP wrote several books on the idea that the muon is the true electron of atoms and is stuck inside a proton torus of 840MeV doing the Faraday law between muon and proton. And this is why Sun and stars shine-- not from fusion, mind you, they shine because every proton in the Sun and stars is doing the Faraday law.

John Kennedy had a brain of logic. He saw that sputnik was up and USSR with first human in Space. Kennedy had logical brains, and proclaimed, before Decade is Out, USA will land on Moon and come home safely.

It is far far too much to ask of University Manchester, of Nancy Rothwell, of Toby Howard, of goon squad The Guardian, to much to ask them to hold a conference and start that U Manchester brain dead faculty, to START teaching AND truth table is TTTF, not TFFF, START teaching that slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, START teaching that calculus is geometry and requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not their mindless limit analysis hornswaggle, or, just simply ask the question-- which is the atom's true electron. No, U Manchester is not a John Kennedy who had a logical mind, and saw things needed fixing and achievement. No U. Manchester by 1990s-2022 is mostly a intellectual cesspool of fools running around with their 2 OR 1 = 3, and their slant cut of cone is ellipse.

No, Uni Manchester is a backwards shithead school, for when Kennedy says we will land on Moon and come home safely before 1970. Manchester in contrast says-- we send out a goon squad of hate mongers like Toby Howard, Earle Jones and his logo picture, Chris Thomasson, Dan Christensen, Kibo Parry (Moron), Gilbert Strang undercover as Port--- and his gang of gay haters, and keep teaching falsehoods for the next thousand years. Isn't that right Nancy Rothwell, Toby Howard and Guardian news, keep on teaching bullshit, not the truth of science, keep teaching 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction and slant cut in cone is ellipse when in reality it is a oval, and never a geometry proof of calculus, and worst of all-- no brain at Uni Manchester, none at all, to ask if 0.5MeV or 105MeV is the Atom's true electron.

AP

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science

On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 3:49:17 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Far too difficult ...

[snip]

When will you learn, Archie Poo???

AP is a malicious internet troll who wants only to mislead and confuse you. He may not be all there, but his fake math and science can only be meant to promote failure in schools. One can only guess at his motives.

In AP's OWN WORDS here:

“Primes do not exist, because the set they were borne from has no division.”
--June 29, 2020

“The last and largest finite number is 10^604.”
--June 3, 2015

“0 appears to be the last and largest finite number”
--June 9, 2015

“0/0 must be equal to 1.”
-- June 9, 2015

“0 is an infinite irrational number.”
--June 28, 2015

“No negative numbers exist.”
--December 22, 2018

“Rationals are not numbers.”
--May 18, 2019

According to AP's “chess board math,” an equilateral triangle is a right-triangle.
--December 11, 2019

Which could explain...

“The value of sin(45 degrees) = 1.”
--May 31, 2019

AP deliberately and repeatedly presented the truth table for OR as the truth table for AND:

“New Logic
AND
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F”
--November 9, 2019

AP seeks aid of Russian agents to promote failure in schools:

"Please--Asking for help from Russia-- russian robots-- to create a new, true mathematics [sic]. What I like for the robots to do, is list every day, about 4 Colleges ( of the West) math dept, and ask why that math department is teaching false and fake math, and if unable to change to the correct true math, well, simply fire that math department until they can find professors who recognize truth in math from fakery...."
--November 9, 2017

And if that wasn't weird enough...

“The totality, everything that there is [the universe], is only 1 atom of plutonium [Pu]. There is nothing outside or beyond this one atom of plutonium.”
--April 4, 1994

“The Universe itself is one gigantic big atom.”
--November 14, 2019

AP's sinister Atom God Cult of Failure???

“Since God-Pu is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Atom Plutonium!
Its truth is marching on.
It has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
It is sifting out the hearts of people before its judgment seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer it; be jubilant, my feet!
Our God-Pu is marching on.”
--December 15, 2018 (Note: Pu is the atomic symbol for plutonium)

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

Kibo Parry M says Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, failures. Why Kibo? Because they cannot tell a oval from ellipse in slant cut of cone?
On Monday, August 8, 2022 at 6:53:08 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
another of his 30 year nonstop stalk attack

crancks & loonies
by James Kibo Parry Sep 28, 1994, 5:14:31 AM

By the way
by James Kibo Parry March 8, 1999

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 14May2022. 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 the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence 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..

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 827 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 ‏ : ‎ 51 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#12-2, 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)

Re: bwr fml & Kibo Parry M on Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, failures of Natural Logarithm with their disconnect of Natural Log defined as integral area of Y=1/t in interval 1 to x
by
Michael Moroney Sep 21, 2021, 12:08:40 AM
Re: 2.2-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to math 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.Shawn-Yu Lin,Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang
By Dingus Dirtbag McGee Sep 15, 2019, 9:56:28 AM

Re: 1.1Dr. John Baez is a failed mathematician-physicist with his proton of 938MeV when it is 840MeV, electron= muon //his ellipse is a conic when it never was// as phony in math and physics as kibo Parry Moroney's ellipse and Christensen 10 OR 4 by Dan Christensen Sep 22, 2019, 9:54:06 AM

Re: _Donald Schwendeman, Rensselaer,Jeffrey Banks, Kristin Bennett, Mohamed Boudjelkha, Joseph Ecker, is the reason you failed to confirm .5MeV was not the atom's electron but Dirac's monopole because you failed science like kibo
by Mostowski Collapse (Jan Burse) Apr 25, 2019, 12:08:26 PM

Kibo Parry Moroney stalks "AnalButtfuckManure Attacks" Betsy DeVos, NSF Dr. Panchanathan Caltech Thomas F Rosenbaum, Harvard's Lawrence Bacow with his 10 OR 6 = 16; his ellipse a conic when it never was; his proton to electron at 938 to 0.5 MeV ....
328 views
by ayaz.s....@gmail.com
Aug 16, 2020, 9:05:41 PM