Earle says he enjoys sucking on Dick in his logo picture (if that is a dick he is holding?), for he sure fails mathematics with his slant cut in cone as ellipse.
On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 12:00:31 AM UTC-5, Earle Jones wrote:
> Enjoy!
>
> earle
> *

My 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)

Earle is that Stanford Univ or Univ Manchester mascot-- Earle Jones sucking on his own cock as in his logo picture? Or neither? Earle are in the world record book of the only man who can reach his dick and suck on it??

Earle Jones wrote 6-11-21: Enjoy!

earle
*

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

Move Dan-insane-man Christensen to sci.logic, for he failed math with his slant cut of cone a ellipse when actually that is a oval, and his inability to do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Worst of all his propaganda of AND truth table as TFFF when in reality it is TTTF to avoid the ignorant 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Dan is a creep failure of math and needs to be nudged over to sci.logic-- out of sight, out of mind..
On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 at 9:07:27 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of

#12-1, 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)

Kibo on analbuttfuckmanure StanfordU. Tessier-Lavigne...analbuttfuckmanure (kibo's invented word bandied about by Kibo since 2017). Why Kibo? Because Dr. Lavigne refuses to acknowledge slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse, yet he still keeps brainwashing students that the ellipse is a conic section? Or, Kibo, is it that Dr. Tessier-Lavigne refuses to ask the simple question-- which is the atom's true electron-- the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus leaving the 0.5MeV particle as what AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole.
On Sunday, September 4, 2022 at 1:28:16 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> tarded:

On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 1:58:54 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> "Pope Arky the Last"
> "Drag Queen of Math"
> <plutonium....@gmail.com> blathered:
AP > 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??

Re: Kibo Parry Moroney stalks "AnalButtfuckManure Attacks" Dartmouth's Philip J. Hanlon, Stanford's Marc Tessier-Lavigne with his 10 OR 6 = 16; his ellipse a conic when it never was; his proton to electron at 938 to 0.5 MeV when in truth..
1481 views
by Professor Wordsmith Aug 14, 2020, 11:07:05 AM

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: ...although Kibo _universally regarded_ as having more physics intelligence in his shit streaked underwear than in the entire brain of Todd B Smith - Earle Jones's Stanford's math and physics dept combined
by Adolpho the Sarcastic Rooftop Monkey
Apr 10, 2021, 3:20:20 PM

Re: fuckdog boston's Kibo Parry Moroney subhuman *stalkers* Betsy DeVos, NSF Dr. Panchanathan, barry shein's world std paying how much to stalk AP? Subhuman Kibo Parry Moroney says freedom of speech means freedom to stalk, liar, cheat, steal, ,,,,
by Hewitt Buettner Oct 10, 2020, 2:55:48 PM

Re: Spamming fuckdog Kibo Parry Moroney says fire Stanford's Alexander Fetter, John Lipa, William Little, Douglas Osheroff, David Ritson, H. Alan Schwettman, John Turneaure, Robert Wagoner, Stanley Wojcicki, Mason Yearian rather than let them brainwash o
by Richard Cranium Jan 24, 2021, 3:01:28 PM

Re: 1Kibo Parry Moroney says Analbuttfuckmanure MIT, William Bertozzi, Robert Birgeneau, Hale Bradt, Bernard Burke, George Clark , Jeffrey Goldstone, Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins , Paul Joss, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon, Irwin Pless, Paul Schechter...
by Hoofington P. McSnort Aug 26, 2020, 6:58:48 PM

Re: Kibo Parry M on Cynthia Barnhart and why MIT is a propaganda camp not a school of higher education.
by Michael Moroney Jun 27, 2021, 3:49 PM

Moroney says autism // Jeffrey Goldstone, Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins//never realizing Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole
3/4/18
By Michael Moroney

Re: Autism..says Moroney //Jacob Barandes, Howard Berg, Michael Brenner//realizing Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole
by
Michael Moroney Feb 26, 2018, 11:29:08 PM

Re: Vincent Meunier,Donald Schwendeman, Rensselaer Polytechnic, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek,kibo Moroney Parry is the reason RPI failed ellipse is like Kibo fails with 938 is 12% short of 945
by Allen Walker Apr 13, 2019, 2:04:32 PM

Cornell a sicko school? Re: Cornell Univ like Christensen, an education parasite //with their 3 OR 2= 5 while their 3 AND 2 = 1, embracing the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both
by Michael Moroney Jan 18, 2019, 4:59:49 PM

Re: Drs.Benedict Gross, Joseph Harris of Harvard, are you as dumb as Moroney never realizing the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV,monopole=.5MeV // 12 proofs below
by Michael Moroney Jan 2, 2018, 11:15:07 AM

The Guardian news tracking down Toby Howard Univ Manchester lead, tracking down the crazy insane Pentcho Valev, the 30 year spammer of nonsense. Is he in Bulgaria, or is he in St.Petersburg Russia or in the Middle East or perhaps here in the USA, hating Einstein??????

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
> *

-The Guardian news tracking down TheRafters, we know Muck the Puck in Augsburg. But where is the spammer idiot The Rafters with his slant cut of cone a ellipse when in reality that is a oval

Hey.
Come to
http://starsclickinggame.mygamesonline.org/clickgame.html

And please tell your friends too to come there.
Let's see, who plays the best.

Earle Jones kirjutas Neljapäev, 10. juuni 2021 kl 22:00:31 UTC-7:
> *
> 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
> *

Amine Moulay Ramdane spam of philosophy in sci.math
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.)
>

Amine Moulay Ramdane spam of philosophy in sci.math

Toby Howard & Nancy Rothwell duet
Nancy Rothwell: No one can deny... this love I have inside,... my endless love_______ oooowww

Toby Howard: No can deny... This love I have for Earth.... my endless love__________Earth____

My Endless Love___Earth// Our Sun Gone Red Giant and Americium saves Humanity // sci-fi series, book 5 Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 26m views
>
> Our Sun Gone Red Giant and Americium saves Humanity // sci-fi series, book 5 Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 26m views by Archimedes Plutonium This is AP's 147th published book of science. Let this be our Prayer.
>
>
> A lovely song duet by Lionel Ritchie and Diana Ross. Let me see if I can re-adapt it to go to Europa. Diana Ross Endless Love (July, 22, 1983)
>
> _AP readaption of
> My Endless Love
>
> 1
>
> My Europa
> There's only you in my life
> The only thing that's bright
>
> 2
>
> My first love Earth
> You're every breath that I take
> You're such sweet love
> 3
>
> And I
> (I-I-I-I-I)
> I want to have both
> All my love with Earth
> and Europa
> 4
> And your Green
> Your green, your green
> It tells me how much I love Earth
> Ooh yes, you will always be
> My__ endless love
> 5
>
> Two homes
> Two homes that will become one
> Our lives have just begun
>
> 6
> Forever
> Earth
> I'll hold you close in memories
> I can't resist your endless beauty
>
> 7
> And love
> Oh, love
> I'll always be in love
> With Earth
> I'm sure
> I don't know Europa
> I don't know you
>
8
Dear Earth
You mean the world to me
Earth, Europa
You are new
You are new
I'll share
No one can deny,
This love I have inside
My endless love______________Earth____
>
> 9
> Earth, Europa
> Earth, Europa
> Earth, Earth, Earth, Earth
> Europa, Europa, Europa, Europa
>
> 10
> Oh no, I lose Earth
> Oh, lovely Earth
> How can I stand losing
> Earth
> Oh no,
> I lost Earth
> Only Europa now
> New love Europa
>
> 11
> And, yes___
> You'll be the only one now
> Dear Europa, only love now
> This love I have inside
> And I'll give it all to you
> My love
> My love, My love Europa
> MY, --- ENDLESS ---- LOVE
>
> My re-adaption to be included in sci-fi book Americium. Find a place where humans are just beginning to depart Earth forever, and strike it out on the Europa colony. For the Sun and stars shine not from fusion, but from Faraday law.
>
>
> 147th published book
>
> Our Sun Gone Red Giant and Americium saves Humanity // sci-fi series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Preface: In August of 2020, AP discovered that the Sun has gone Red Giant Initiation Phase, having killed 25% of all insects in the past decade. This is what happens when stars are powered by Faraday Law and not that mistaken idea of fusion power. This means that either humanity evacuates Earth completely and makes Europa, and the Jovian satellites and Saturn satellites their new home, or humanity perishes, vanishes into oblivion as the Sun destroys Earth and makes Earth be another Venus and where the Sun finally engulfs Earth. Ironic, would it not be, that the spacecraft Voyager 1, maybe the only remnant that there ever was a species called humanity, left, remaining in existence after the next 1 million years. In light of that discovery, AP writes the sequel book 5, of where Captain Pu of book 4 returns to save Earth. Captain Pu however has a new name, a new person, is fortunately reincarnated by the Gods of Heaven, and has a new name, Americium, Captain Am.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08RW1RG1V
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 31, 2020
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 946 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 90 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
unread,
2:54 AM (1 minute ago)



to
Toby Howard & Nancy Rothwell duet
Nancy Rothwell: No one can deny... this love I have inside,... my endless love_______ oooowww

Toby Howard: No can deny... This love I have for Earth.... my endless love__________Earth____

Toby Howard & Nancy Rothwell duet
> Nancy Rothwell (dancing & singing) : No one can deny... this love I have inside,... my endless love_______ oooowww
>
> Toby Howard : No can deny... This love I have for Earth.... my endless love__________Earth____
>
>
> My Endless Love___Earth// Our Sun Gone Red Giant and Americium saves Humanity // sci-fi series, book 5 Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 26m views
> >
> > Our Sun Gone Red Giant and Americium saves Humanity // sci-fi series, book 5 Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 26m views by Archimedes Plutonium This is AP's 147th published book of science. Let this be our Prayer.
> >
> >
> > A lovely song duet by Lionel Ritchie and Diana Ross. Let me see if I can re-adapt it to go to Europa. Diana Ross Endless Love (July, 22, 1983)
> >
> > _AP readaption of
> > My Endless Love
> >
> > 1
> >
> > My Europa
> > There's only you in my life
> > The only thing that's bright
> >
> > 2
> >
> > My first love Earth
> > You're every breath that I take
> > You're such sweet love
> > 3
> >
> > And I
> > (I-I-I-I-I)
> > I want to have both
> > All my love with Earth
> > and Europa
> > 4
> > And your Green
> > Your green, your green
> > It tells me how much I love Earth
> > Ooh yes, you will always be
> > My__ endless love
> > 5
> >
> > Two homes
> > Two homes that will become one
> > Our lives have just begun
> >
> > 6
> > Forever
> > Earth
> > I'll hold you close in memories
> > I can't resist your endless beauty
> >
> > 7
> > And love
> > Oh, love
> > I'll always be in love
> > With Earth
> > I'm sure
> > I don't know Europa
> > I don't know you
> >
> 8
> Dear Earth
> You mean the world to me
> Earth, Europa
> You are new
> You are new
> I'll share
> No one can deny,
> This love I have inside
> My endless love______________Earth____
> >
> > 9
> > Earth, Europa
> > Earth, Europa
> > Earth, Earth, Earth, Earth
> > Europa, Europa, Europa, Europa
> >
> > 10
> > Oh no, I lose Earth
> > Oh, lovely Earth
> > How can I stand losing
> > Earth
> > Oh no,
> > I lost Earth
> > Only Europa now
> > New love Europa
> >
> > 11
> > And, yes___
> > You'll be the only one now
> > Dear Europa, only love now
> > This love I have inside
> > And I'll give it all to you
> > My love
> > My love, My love Europa
> > MY, --- ENDLESS ---- LOVE
> >
> > My re-adaption to be included in sci-fi book Americium. Find a place where humans are just beginning to depart Earth forever, and strike it out on the Europa colony. For the Sun and stars shine not from fusion, but from Faraday law.
> >
> >
> > 147th published book
> >
> > Our Sun Gone Red Giant and Americium saves Humanity // sci-fi series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Preface: In August of 2020, AP discovered that the Sun has gone Red Giant Initiation Phase, having killed 25% of all insects in the past decade. This is what happens when stars are powered by Faraday Law and not that mistaken idea of fusion power. This means that either humanity evacuates Earth completely and makes Europa, and the Jovian satellites and Saturn satellites their new home, or humanity perishes, vanishes into oblivion as the Sun destroys Earth and makes Earth be another Venus and where the Sun finally engulfs Earth. Ironic, would it not be, that the spacecraft Voyager 1, maybe the only remnant that there ever was a species called humanity, left, remaining in existence after the next 1 million years. In light of that discovery, AP writes the sequel book 5, of where Captain Pu of book 4 returns to save Earth. Captain Pu however has a new name, a new person, is fortunately reincarnated by the Gods of Heaven, and has a new name, Americium, Captain Am.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08RW1RG1V
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 31, 2020
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 946 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 90 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

_The Guardian news tracking down TheRafters, a siren fuckdog of sci.math, we know Muck the Puck in Augsburg. But where is the spammer idiot The Rafters with his slant cut of cone a ellipse when in reality that is a oval.

Yoo, The Guardian-- any luck on the identity of this siren fuckdog The Rafters?????

Stanley Lai,Stefan Mathias,Gottingen no one in Gottingen Germany can admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, all they seem to do is play with WM dark numbers KuhscheiBe. Nor can anyone do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Germany spends its time on Muck the Puck "dark numbers" please, need your help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.

> > > 
> > > > > On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 3:08:10 AM UTC-5, Kristjan Robam wrote:
> > > > > > You like the melody of this video --------->
> > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > >
> > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > 3) arsehole WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > >
> > > > > Yet, every day the arsewipe WM pollutes sci.math with his dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > >
> > > > > My 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)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My 5th published book
> > > > >
> > > > > Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > >
> > > > > Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
> > > > > Preface:
> > > > > First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
> > > > >
> > > > > The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
> > > > >
> > > > > My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
> > > > >
> > > > > Product details
> > > > > File Size: 773 KB
> > > > > Print Length: 72 pages
> > > > > Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> > > > > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > > > > Language: English
> > > > > ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> > > > > Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
> > > > > X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

> > > > > Word Wise: Not Enabled
> > > > > Lending: Enabled
> > > > > Screen Reader: Supported 
> > > > > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > > Sep 4, 2022, 3:54:34 PM (2 days ago)
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > to
> > > > >
> > > > > B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > stir-crazy-W.Mueckenheim-the fool still thinks slant cut of cone is ellipse when in truth it is an oval, and the failure of logic WM believes in Boole's AND as TFFF when in truth it is TTTF to avoid what the nitwit WM has as 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. WM is a math failure for the idiot never knew calculus was geometry and therefore never sought a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
> > > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > > > > Augsburg- Friedrich Pukelsheim-Gottingen,Metin Tolin,Ariane Frey, Wolfgang Glatzel why does Wolfgang Mueckenheim the idiot with "dark numbers" & Dr. Tao fail geometry so so badly,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The idiots of math never knew calculus was geometry, erst, they would provide a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, why they are so banal stupid in math, they still believe slant cut in cone is an ellipse, when in reality it is a oval.
> > > > > > > They are not mathematicians but mindless fuckdogs of math.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Maybe they wear glasses and cannot see properly. Maybe WM & Tao were never good in math, for they cannot even tell apart a ellipse from oval. They cannot even ask the question which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Univ Augsburg Germany math-- Hello-- Wolfgang Mueckenheim the fool of math wasting everybodies time -- for WM is a math failure with his slant cut in cone as ellipse when in truth it is a Oval. And now, that fool of math with his "dark numbers". Can you whisk him off to a "shrink in Germany and put him on medications"??
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Kai Cieliebak, Urs Frauenfelder, Jennifer Gruber, Yannis Bahni, Zhen Gao, Sungho Kim, Shuaipeng Liu, Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr, Kevin Ruck, Evgeny Volkov, Frederic Wagner
> > > > >
> > > > > Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > > 
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > 3) arsehole WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > >
> > > > > Metin Tolin,Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt, please, need you help to get WM and his mindless "dark numbers bullshit" moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math.
> > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math
> > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse
> > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
> > > > > > > 3) fool WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yet, every day the fool WM pollutes sci.math with his dark numbers bullshit.
> > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers.
> > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair.
> > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
> > >
> > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
> > > Gottingen Univ math
> > >
> > > Dorothea Bahns, Laurent Bartholdi, Valentin Blomer, Jorg Brüdern, Stefan Halverscheid, Harald Andres Helfgott, Madeleine Jotz Lean, Ralf Meyer, Preda Mihailescu, Walther Dietrich Paravicini, Viktor Pidstrygach, Thomas Schick, Evelina Viada, Ingo Frank Witt, Chenchang Zhu
> > >
> > > Eternal-September.org
> > > Wolfgang M. Weyand
> > > Berliner Strasse
> > > Bad Homburg
> > >
> > > Goethe Universitat Physics dept
> > >
> > > Brigitta Wolff president
> > >
> > > Jurgen Habermass
> > > Horst Stocker
> > > Gerd Binnig
> > > Horst Ludwig Stormer
> > > Peter Grunberg
> > >
> > > math
> > > Alex Kuronya
> > > Martin Moller
> > > Jakob Stix
> > > Annette Werner
> > > Andreas Bernig
> > > Esther Cabezas-Rivas
> > > Hans Crauel
> > > Thomas Gerstner
> > > Bastian von Harrach
> > > Thomas Mettler
> > > Tobias Weth
> > > Amin Coja-Oghlan
> > > Raman Sanyal
> > > Thorsten Theobald
> > > Yury Person
> > >
> > >
> > > Gottingen Univ physics
> > > Prof. Dr. Karsten Bahr
> > > Prof. Dr. Peter Bloechl
> > > Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bodenschatz
> > > Prof. Laura Covi, PhD
> > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Dillmann
> > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Dreizler
> > > Prof. Dr. Jörg Enderlein
> > > Prof. Dr. Laurent Gizon
> > > Prof. Dr. Ariane Frey
> > > apl. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Glatzel
> > > Prof. Dr. Fabian Heidrich-Meisner
> > > Prof. Dr. Hans Christian Hofsäss
> > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Janshoff
> > > Prof. Dr. Christian Jooß
> > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Kehrein
> > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Klumpp
> > > Prof. Dr. Sarah Köster
> > > Prof. Dr. Reiner Kree
> > > Prof. Dr. Matthias Krüger
> > > Prof. Dr. Stanley Lai
> > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Mathias
> > > apl. Prof. Dr. Vasile Mosneaga
> > > Prof. Dr. Marcus Müller
> > > Prof. Dr. Jens Niemeyer
> > > apl. Prof. Dr. Astrid Pundt
> > > Prof. Dr. Arnulf Quadt
> > > apl. Prof. Dr. Karl-Henning Rehren
> > > Prof. Dr. Ansgar Reiners
> > > Prof. Dr. Angela Rizzi
> > > Prof. Dr. Claus Ropers
> > > Prof. Dr. Tim Salditt
> > > Prof. Dr. Konrad Samwer
> > > Prof. Dr. Christoph Schmidt
> > > apl. Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider
> > > Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann
> > > Prof. Dr. Simone Techert
> > > apl. Prof. Dr. Michael Seibt
> > > Prof. Dr. Peter Sollich
> > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Tilgner
> > > Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert
> > > Prof. Dr. Florentin Wörgötter
> > > Prof. Dr. Annette Zippelius

4 Lunatics Tao,Contini,Maksimovich,Pezevenk Univ Manchester Toby Howard & Nancy Rothwell, please help Earle Jones understand the difference between psychoceramics and the 4 Lunatics. Is it better to be a psychoceramic than a lunatic like Dr.Tao?
Re: 2- The four lunatics of reddit/math, Terry Tao, Scott Contini, Sam Maksimovich, Mr. Pezevenk, none can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, too stupid to even know what that is.
by ross.pro...@gmx.com May 30, 2021, 1:56:52 PM

Ross, which is better, a lunatic at the head of a classroom or at dinner table or a psychoceramic?

Univ Manchester, question Nancy Rothwell, if there was a Univ math bowl of the 4 psychoceramics Earle Jones, Toby Howard, James Kibo Parry, Dan Christensen, versus the 4 Lunatics Tao, Contini, Maksimovich, Pezevenk of reddit-math, who would win? Would either team get a single question correct??
4 Lunatics Tao,Contini,Maksimovich,Pezevenk Univ Manchester Toby Howard & Nancy Rothwell, please help Earle Jones understand the difference between psychoceramics and the 4 Lunatics. Is it better to be a psychoceramic than a lunatic like Dr.Tao?
> Re: 2- The four lunatics of reddit/math, Terry Tao, Scott Contini, Sam Maksimovich, Mr. Pezevenk, none can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, too stupid to even know what that is.
> by ross.pro...@gmx.com May 30, 2021, 1:56:52 PM
>
> Ross, which is better, a lunatic at the head of a classroom or at dinner table or a psychoceramic?

Earle which is worse-- 4 psychoceramics or 4 lunatics Tao,Contini,Maksimovich, Pezevenk Univ Manchester, question Nancy Rothwell, if there was a Univ math bowl of the 4 psychoceramics Earle Jones, Toby Howard, James Kibo Parry, Dan Christensen, versus the 4 Lunatics Tao, Contini, Maksimovich, Pezevenk of reddit-math, who would win? Would either team get a single question correct??
> 4 Lunatics Tao,Contini,Maksimovich,Pezevenk Univ Manchester Toby Howard & Nancy Rothwell, please help Earle Jones understand the difference between psychoceramics and the 4 Lunatics. Is it better to be a psychoceramic than a lunatic like Dr.Tao?
> > Re: 2- The four lunatics of reddit/math, Terry Tao, Scott Contini, Sam Maksimovich, Mr. Pezevenk, none can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, too stupid to even know what that is.
> > by ross.pro...@gmx.com May 30, 2021, 1:56:52 PM
> >
> > Ross, which is better, a lunatic at the head of a classroom or at dinner table or a psychoceramic?

🐜 of Math and 🐛 of Physics Archimedes "Imp of Math" Plutonium
<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

> Earle which is worse-- 4 psychoceramics or 4 lunatics

The 4 psychoceramic lunatics, of course. They are:

1) Ludwig Poehlmann
2) Ludwig van Ludvig
3) Ludwig Plutonium
4) Archimedes Plutonium

Juan Rojo, Ramona Vogt, Wally Melnitchouk, C.-P. Yuan, Tim Hobbs,CERN, Harry Cliff, Mitesh Patel Imperial College London,CERN & Cambridge Harry Cliff ever going to grow up about particle physics? By confirming real electron of atoms is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law? CERN's Paula Alvarez Cartelle,Ben Allanach,Harry Cliff, Mitesh Patel, Gino Isidori, Gudrun Hiller, Frank Kruger, physicists with no logical brain to be in physics. Too stupid to ever ask the question, which is the atom's true electron? The muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law or the 0.5MeV particle that AP says is Dirac's magnetic monopole? When you have Harry Cliff absent of logical intelligence you just have more of the same b.s. of henpecking a monterously dumb theory of Standard Model that only quacks like Harry Cliff, Mitesh Patel Imperial College London follow and chip away around the edges with their mindless "new force" and their mindless Standard Model with mindless quarks.

> >
>
> Re: Dan Christensen shits in face James Peebles, Donna Strickland, Michel Mayor with their mindless electron of 0.5MeV, proton 938MeV when in truth muon is the electron inside a 840MeV proton doing the Faraday law
> mitchr...@gmail.com
>
>
> test
> Xi loves Russia for stealing Outer Manchuria Xi hates USA for making China rich Xi will love Russia
> by Clutterfreak Jul 1, 2022, 1:09 PM
>
> Clutterfreak was that a CERN test run by Texas A&M physics dept who have not yet unplugged you from sci.physics for reasons of spam spam spam???
>
> Texas A&M physics dept
> > Artem Abanov, Tom Adair, Girish Agarwal, Glenn Agnolet, Alexey Akimov, Roland Allen, Meigan Aronson, Bill Bassichis, Katrin Becker, Melanie Becker, Alexey Belyanin, Siu Ah Chin, Gregory Christian, Darren DePoy, Steven Dierker, Nelson Duller, Bhaskar Dutta, Ricardo Eusebi, Alexander Finkelstein, Lewis Ford, Rainer Fries, Ed Fry, Carl Gagliardi, John Hardy, Philip Hemmer, Dudley Herschbach, Jeremy Holt, Teruki Kamon, Helmut G. Katzgraber, Robert Kennicutt, Che-Ming Ko, Olga Kocharovskaya, Vitaly Kocharovsky, Jaan Laane, David Lee, Igor Lyuksyutov, Lucas Macri, Rupak Mahapatra, Jennifer Marshall, John Mason, Peter McIntyre, Dan Melconian, Saskia Miodszewski, Nader Mirabolfathi, Dimitri Nanopoulos, Donald Naugle, Casey Papovich, Valery Pokrovsky, Christopher Pope, Ralf Rapp, Grigory Rogachev, Joe Ross, Alexei Safonov, Wayne Saslow, Hans Schuessler, Marlan Scully, Egin Sezgin, Alexei Sokolov, Louis Strigari, Nicholas Suntzeff, Winfried Teizer, David Toback, Kim-Vy Tran, Bob Tribble, Jonelle Walsh, Lifan Wang, Robert Webb, Michael Weimer, George Welch, Wenhao Wu, Vladislav Yakovlev, Ping Yang, Dave Youngblood, Aleksei Zheltikov, M. Suhail Zubairy,
> >
> > It will take a long time to rid Old Physics of their mindless electron of 0.5MeV orbiting at 99.9% speed of light OUTSIDE a 938MeV proton, mindless mindless Old Physics as if they cooked up physics in a saloon bar.
> >
> > People in science with no logical brains have a hard time of reasoning that a muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton makes more commonsense than a 938MeV proton with electron of 0.5MeV outside the proton yet flying around at 99.9% speed of light.
> >
> > Most every physicist today believes in the A grade of memorization learning is more valuable than commonsense
> > Re: Kibo Parry Moroney stalks "AnalButtfuckManure Attacks" Dartmouth's Philip J. Hanlon, Stanford's Marc Tessier-Lavigne with his 10 OR 6 = 16; his ellipse a conic when it never was; his proton to electron at 938 to 0.5 MeV when in truth..
> > 1481 views
> > by Professor Wordsmith Aug 14, 2020, 11:07:05 AM
> > 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.
> > 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.
> > Cambridge Physics Dept
> >
> > Ahnert, Alai, Alexander, Allison, Ansorge, Atature, Barker, Barnes, Bartlett, Batley, Baumberg, Bohndiek, Bowman, Brown, Buscher, Butler, Campbell Carilli, Carter, Castelnovo, Challis, Chalut, Chaudhri, Chin, Ciccarelli, Cicuta, Harry Cliff, Cole, Cooper, Cowburn, Credgington, Cross, Croze, Deschler, Donald, Duffett-Smith, Dutton, Eiser, Ellis, Euser, Field, Flynn, Ford, Friend, Gibson, Green, Greenham, Gripaios, Grosche, Guck, Gull, Haniff, Heavens-Ward, Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, Hughes, Irvine, Jardine, Jenkins, Jones, Josephson, Keyser, Khmeinitskii, King, Kotlyar, Lamacraft, Lasenby, Lester, Longair, Lonzarich, Maiolino, Marshall, Martin, Mitov, Morris, Mortimer, Moller, Needs, Norman, Nunnenkamp, Padman,Parker, Patel, Payne, Pepper, Phillips, Pramauro, Queloz, Rao, Richer, Riley, Ritchie, Sargent, Saunders, Saxena, Schneider, Scott, Scrivener, Sebastian, Simmons, Simons, Sirringhaus, Smith, Sutherland, Taylor, Teichmann, Terentjev, Thomson, Verrechia, Walker, Ward, Warner, Weale, Webber, Whyles, Withington.
> >
> > Cambridge Math Dept
> >
> > Alan Baker
> > Bela Bollobas
> > Darwin Smith
> > John Coates
> > Timothy Gowers
> > Peter Johnstone
> > Imre Leader
> > Gabriel Paternain
> > > > Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,
> > > > Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish
> > > > David J. Thouless_, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita
> > > > Arthur B. McDonald
> > > > Francois Englert
> > > > Saul Perlmutter
> > > > Brian P. Schmidt
> > > > Adam G. Riess
> > > > Makoto Kobayashi
> > > > Toshihide Maskawa_
> > > > Yoichiro Nambu_
> > > > John C. Mather
> > > > George F. Smoot
> > > > Roy J. Glauber_
> > > > David J. Gross
> > > > Hugh David Politzer
> > > > Frank Wilczek
> > > > Raymond Davis Jr. _
> > > > Masatoshi Koshiba_
> > > > Riccardo Giacconi_
> > > > Gerardus 't Hooft
> > > > Martinus J.G. Veltman_
> > > > Jerome I. Friedman
> > > > Henry W. Kendall_
> > > > Richard E. Taylor_
> > > > Carlo Rubbia
> > > > Simon van der Meer_
> > > > William Alfred Fowler_
> > > > Kenneth G. Wilson_
> > > > James Watson Cronin_
> > > > Val Logsdon Fitch_
> > > > Sheldon Lee Glashow
> > > > Steven Weinberg_

Earle Jones, and Toby Howard-- psychoceramics or schizoidceramics???

Earle, are they schizoidceramics?-- Juan Rojo, Ramona Vogt, Wally Melnitchouk, C.-P. Yuan, Tim Hobbs,CERN, Harry Cliff, Mitesh Patel Imperial College London,CERN & Cambridge Harry Cliff ever going to grow up about particle physics? By confirming real electron of atoms is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law? CERN's Paula Alvarez Cartelle,Ben Allanach,Harry Cliff, Mitesh Patel, Gino Isidori, Gudrun Hiller, Frank Kruger, physicists with no logical brain to be in physics. Too stupid to ever ask the question, which is the atom's true electron? The muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law or the 0.5MeV particle that AP says is Dirac's magnetic monopole? When you have Harry Cliff absent of logical intelligence you just have more of the same b.s. of henpecking a monterously dumb theory of Standard Model that only quacks like Harry Cliff, Mitesh Patel Imperial College London follow and chip away around the edges with their mindless "new force" and their mindless Standard Model with mindless quarks.
> 
> > >
> >
> > Re: Dan Christensen shits in face James Peebles, Donna Strickland, Michel Mayor with their mindless electron of 0.5MeV, proton 938MeV when in truth muon is the electron inside a 840MeV proton doing the Faraday law
> > mitchr...@gmail.com
> >
> >
> > test
> > Xi loves Russia for stealing Outer Manchuria Xi hates USA for making China rich Xi will love Russia
> > by Clutterfreak Jul 1, 2022, 1:09 PM
> >
> > Clutterfreak was that a CERN test run by Texas A&M physics dept who have not yet unplugged you from sci.physics for reasons of spam spam spam???
> >
> > Texas A&M physics dept
> > > Artem Abanov, Tom Adair, Girish Agarwal, Glenn Agnolet, Alexey Akimov, Roland Allen, Meigan Aronson, Bill Bassichis, Katrin Becker, Melanie Becker, Alexey Belyanin, Siu Ah Chin, Gregory Christian, Darren DePoy, Steven Dierker, Nelson Duller, Bhaskar Dutta, Ricardo Eusebi, Alexander Finkelstein, Lewis Ford, Rainer Fries, Ed Fry, Carl Gagliardi, John Hardy, Philip Hemmer, Dudley Herschbach, Jeremy Holt, Teruki Kamon, Helmut G. Katzgraber, Robert Kennicutt, Che-Ming Ko, Olga Kocharovskaya, Vitaly Kocharovsky, Jaan Laane, David Lee, Igor Lyuksyutov, Lucas Macri, Rupak Mahapatra, Jennifer Marshall, John Mason, Peter McIntyre, Dan Melconian, Saskia Miodszewski, Nader Mirabolfathi, Dimitri Nanopoulos, Donald Naugle, Casey Papovich, Valery Pokrovsky, Christopher Pope, Ralf Rapp, Grigory Rogachev, Joe Ross, Alexei Safonov, Wayne Saslow, Hans Schuessler, Marlan Scully, Egin Sezgin, Alexei Sokolov, Louis Strigari, Nicholas Suntzeff, Winfried Teizer, David Toback, Kim-Vy Tran, Bob Tribble, Jonelle Walsh, Lifan Wang, Robert Webb, Michael Weimer, George Welch, Wenhao Wu, Vladislav Yakovlev, Ping Yang, Dave Youngblood, Aleksei Zheltikov, M. Suhail Zubairy,
> > >
> > > It will take a long time to rid Old Physics of their mindless electron of 0.5MeV orbiting at 99.9% speed of light OUTSIDE a 938MeV proton, mindless mindless Old Physics as if they cooked up physics in a saloon bar.
> > >
> > > People in science with no logical brains have a hard time of reasoning that a muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton makes more commonsense than a 938MeV proton with electron of 0.5MeV outside the proton yet flying around at 99.9% speed of light.
> > >
> > > Most every physicist today believes in the A grade of memorization learning is more valuable than commonsense
> > > Re: Kibo Parry Moroney stalks "AnalButtfuckManure Attacks" Dartmouth's Philip J. Hanlon, Stanford's Marc Tessier-Lavigne with his 10 OR 6 = 16; his ellipse a conic when it never was; his proton to electron at 938 to 0..5 MeV when in truth..
> > > 1481 views
> > > by Professor Wordsmith Aug 14, 2020, 11:07:05 AM
> > > 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.
> > > 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.
> > > Cambridge Physics Dept
> > >
> > > Ahnert, Alai, Alexander, Allison, Ansorge, Atature, Barker, Barnes, Bartlett, Batley, Baumberg, Bohndiek, Bowman, Brown, Buscher, Butler, Campbell Carilli, Carter, Castelnovo, Challis, Chalut, Chaudhri, Chin, Ciccarelli, Cicuta, Harry Cliff, Cole, Cooper, Cowburn, Credgington, Cross, Croze, Deschler, Donald, Duffett-Smith, Dutton, Eiser, Ellis, Euser, Field, Flynn, Ford, Friend, Gibson, Green, Greenham, Gripaios, Grosche, Guck, Gull, Haniff, Heavens-Ward, Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, Hughes, Irvine, Jardine, Jenkins, Jones, Josephson, Keyser, Khmeinitskii, King, Kotlyar, Lamacraft, Lasenby, Lester, Longair, Lonzarich, Maiolino, Marshall, Martin, Mitov, Morris, Mortimer, Moller, Needs, Norman, Nunnenkamp, Padman,Parker, Patel, Payne, Pepper, Phillips, Pramauro, Queloz, Rao, Richer, Riley, Ritchie, Sargent, Saunders, Saxena, Schneider, Scott, Scrivener, Sebastian, Simmons, Simons, Sirringhaus, Smith, Sutherland, Taylor, Teichmann, Terentjev, Thomson, Verrechia, Walker, Ward, Warner, Weale, Webber, Whyles, Withington.
> > >
> > > Cambridge Math Dept
> > >
> > > Alan Baker
> > > Bela Bollobas
> > > Darwin Smith
> > > John Coates
> > > Timothy Gowers
> > > Peter Johnstone
> > > Imre Leader
> > > Gabriel Paternain
> > > > > Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,
> > > > > Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish
> > > > > David J. Thouless_, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita
> > > > > Arthur B. McDonald
> > > > > Francois Englert
> > > > > Saul Perlmutter
> > > > > Brian P. Schmidt
> > > > > Adam G. Riess
> > > > > Makoto Kobayashi
> > > > > Toshihide Maskawa_
> > > > > Yoichiro Nambu_
> > > > > John C. Mather
> > > > > George F. Smoot
> > > > > Roy J. Glauber_
> > > > > David J. Gross
> > > > > Hugh David Politzer
> > > > > Frank Wilczek
> > > > > Raymond Davis Jr. _
> > > > > Masatoshi Koshiba_
> > > > > Riccardo Giacconi_
> > > > > Gerardus 't Hooft
> > > > > Martinus J.G. Veltman_
> > > > > Jerome I. Friedman
> > > > > Henry W. Kendall_
> > > > > Richard E. Taylor_
> > > > > Carlo Rubbia
> > > > > Simon van der Meer_
> > > > > William Alfred Fowler_
> > > > > Kenneth G. Wilson_
> > > > > James Watson Cronin_
> > > > > Val Logsdon Fitch_
> > > > > Sheldon Lee Glashow
> > > > > Steven Weinberg_
>
> Earle Jones, and Toby Howard-- psychoceramics or schizoidceramics???

Earle, are they schizoidceramics?-- Dan Christensen,Juan Rojo, Ramona Vogt, Wally Melnitchouk, C.-P. Yuan, Tim Hobbs,CERN, Harry Cliff, Mitesh Patel Imperial College London,CERN & Cambridge Harry Cliff ever going to grow up about particle physics? And is your job offer open to them Earle Jones, or do you discriminate against psychoceramics and schizoidceramics, even the bipolarceramic. Earle is Dan bipolarceramic or psychoceramic? By confirming real electron of atoms is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law? CERN's Paula Alvarez Cartelle,Ben Allanach,Harry Cliff, Mitesh Patel, Gino Isidori, Gudrun Hiller, Frank Kruger, physicists with no logical brain to be in physics. Too stupid to ever ask the question, which is the atom's true electron? The muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law or the 0.5MeV particle that AP says is Dirac's magnetic monopole? When you have Harry Cliff absent of logical intelligence you just have more of the same b.s. of henpecking a monterously dumb theory of Standard Model that only quacks like Harry Cliff, Mitesh Patel Imperial College London follow and chip away around the edges with their mindless "new force" and their mindless Standard Model with mindless quarks.
> > 
> > > >
> > >
> > > Re: Dan Christensen shits in face James Peebles, Donna Strickland, Michel Mayor with their mindless electron of 0.5MeV, proton 938MeV when in truth muon is the electron inside a 840MeV proton doing the Faraday law
> > > mitchr...@gmail.com
> > >
> > >
> > > test
> > > Xi loves Russia for stealing Outer Manchuria Xi hates USA for making China rich Xi will love Russia
> > > by Clutterfreak Jul 1, 2022, 1:09 PM
> > >
> > > Clutterfreak was that a CERN test run by Texas A&M physics dept who have not yet unplugged you from sci.physics for reasons of spam spam spam???
> > >
> > > Texas A&M physics dept
> > > > Artem Abanov, Tom Adair, Girish Agarwal, Glenn Agnolet, Alexey Akimov, Roland Allen, Meigan Aronson, Bill Bassichis, Katrin Becker, Melanie Becker, Alexey Belyanin, Siu Ah Chin, Gregory Christian, Darren DePoy, Steven Dierker, Nelson Duller, Bhaskar Dutta, Ricardo Eusebi, Alexander Finkelstein, Lewis Ford, Rainer Fries, Ed Fry, Carl Gagliardi, John Hardy, Philip Hemmer, Dudley Herschbach, Jeremy Holt, Teruki Kamon, Helmut G. Katzgraber, Robert Kennicutt, Che-Ming Ko, Olga Kocharovskaya, Vitaly Kocharovsky, Jaan Laane, David Lee, Igor Lyuksyutov, Lucas Macri, Rupak Mahapatra, Jennifer Marshall, John Mason, Peter McIntyre, Dan Melconian, Saskia Miodszewski, Nader Mirabolfathi, Dimitri Nanopoulos, Donald Naugle, Casey Papovich, Valery Pokrovsky, Christopher Pope, Ralf Rapp, Grigory Rogachev, Joe Ross, Alexei Safonov, Wayne Saslow, Hans Schuessler, Marlan Scully, Egin Sezgin, Alexei Sokolov, Louis Strigari, Nicholas Suntzeff, Winfried Teizer, David Toback, Kim-Vy Tran, Bob Tribble, Jonelle Walsh, Lifan Wang, Robert Webb, Michael Weimer, George Welch, Wenhao Wu, Vladislav Yakovlev, Ping Yang, Dave Youngblood, Aleksei Zheltikov, M. Suhail Zubairy,
> > > >
> > > > It will take a long time to rid Old Physics of their mindless electron of 0.5MeV orbiting at 99.9% speed of light OUTSIDE a 938MeV proton, mindless mindless Old Physics as if they cooked up physics in a saloon bar.
> > > >
> > > > People in science with no logical brains have a hard time of reasoning that a muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton makes more commonsense than a 938MeV proton with electron of 0.5MeV outside the proton yet flying around at 99.9% speed of light.
> > > >
> > > > Most every physicist today believes in the A grade of memorization learning is more valuable than commonsense
> > > > Re: Kibo Parry Moroney stalks "AnalButtfuckManure Attacks" Dartmouth's Philip J. Hanlon, Stanford's Marc Tessier-Lavigne with his 10 OR 6 = 16; his ellipse a conic when it never was; his proton to electron at 938 to 0.5 MeV when in truth..
> > > > 1481 views
> > > > by Professor Wordsmith Aug 14, 2020, 11:07:05 AM
> > > > 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.
> > > > 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.
> > > > Cambridge Physics Dept
> > > >
> > > > Ahnert, Alai, Alexander, Allison, Ansorge, Atature, Barker, Barnes, Bartlett, Batley, Baumberg, Bohndiek, Bowman, Brown, Buscher, Butler, Campbell Carilli, Carter, Castelnovo, Challis, Chalut, Chaudhri, Chin, Ciccarelli, Cicuta, Harry Cliff, Cole, Cooper, Cowburn, Credgington, Cross, Croze, Deschler, Donald, Duffett-Smith, Dutton, Eiser, Ellis, Euser, Field, Flynn, Ford, Friend, Gibson, Green, Greenham, Gripaios, Grosche, Guck, Gull, Haniff, Heavens-Ward, Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, Hughes, Irvine, Jardine, Jenkins, Jones, Josephson, Keyser, Khmeinitskii, King, Kotlyar, Lamacraft, Lasenby, Lester, Longair, Lonzarich, Maiolino, Marshall, Martin, Mitov, Morris, Mortimer, Moller, Needs, Norman, Nunnenkamp, Padman,Parker, Patel, Payne, Pepper, Phillips, Pramauro, Queloz, Rao, Richer, Riley, Ritchie, Sargent, Saunders, Saxena, Schneider, Scott, Scrivener, Sebastian, Simmons, Simons, Sirringhaus, Smith, Sutherland, Taylor, Teichmann, Terentjev, Thomson, Verrechia, Walker, Ward, Warner, Weale, Webber, Whyles, Withington.
> > > >
> > > > Cambridge Math Dept
> > > >
> > > > Alan Baker
> > > > Bela Bollobas
> > > > Darwin Smith
> > > > John Coates
> > > > Timothy Gowers
> > > > Peter Johnstone
> > > > Imre Leader
> > > > Gabriel Paternain
> > > > > > Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,
> > > > > > Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish
> > > > > > David J. Thouless_, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita
> > > > > > Arthur B. McDonald
> > > > > > Francois Englert
> > > > > > Saul Perlmutter
> > > > > > Brian P. Schmidt
> > > > > > Adam G. Riess
> > > > > > Makoto Kobayashi
> > > > > > Toshihide Maskawa_
> > > > > > Yoichiro Nambu_
> > > > > > John C. Mather
> > > > > > George F. Smoot
> > > > > > Roy J. Glauber_
> > > > > > David J. Gross
> > > > > > Hugh David Politzer
> > > > > > Frank Wilczek
> > > > > > Raymond Davis Jr. _
> > > > > > Masatoshi Koshiba_
> > > > > > Riccardo Giacconi_
> > > > > > Gerardus 't Hooft
> > > > > > Martinus J.G. Veltman_
> > > > > > Jerome I. Friedman
> > > > > > Henry W. Kendall_
> > > > > > Richard E. Taylor_
> > > > > > Carlo Rubbia
> > > > > > Simon van der Meer_
> > > > > > William Alfred Fowler_
> > > > > > Kenneth G. Wilson_
> > > > > > James Watson Cronin_
> > > > > > Val Logsdon Fitch_
> > > > > > Sheldon Lee Glashow
> > > > > > Steven Weinberg_
> >
> > Earle Jones, and Toby Howard-- psychoceramics or schizoidceramics???

Kibo Parry M on Lisa Randall, Andrea Ghez why Kibo, because they cannot tell the truth about conics-- the slant cut is a Oval, never the ellipse. Or is it because they cannot answer which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle?????
On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> I want to fuck her corpse

Re: Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly??-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole
1/23/18
By Michael Moroney

On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 10:54:55 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"Putin's lackey"
>"barking fuckdog"
>Drag Queen of Science, especially Physics

Andrea Ghez,Juan Rojo, Ramona Vogt, Wally Melnitchouk, C.-P. Yuan, Tim Hobbs,CERN, Harry Cliff, Mitesh Patel Imperial College London,CERN & Cambridge Harry Cliff ever going to grow up about particle physics? By confirming real electron of atoms is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law? CERN's Paula Alvarez Cartelle,Ben Allanach,Harry Cliff, Mitesh Patel, Gino Isidori, Gudrun Hiller, Frank Kruger, physicists with no logical brain to be in physics. Too stupid to ever ask the question, which is the atom's true electron? The muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law or the 0.5MeV particle that AP says is Dirac's magnetic monopole? When you have Harry Cliff absent of logical intelligence you just have more of the same b.s. of henpecking a monterously dumb theory of Standard Model that only quacks like Harry Cliff, Mitesh Patel Imperial College London follow and chip away around the edges with their mindless "new force" and their mindless Standard Model with mindless quarks.

My 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)

Nancy Rothwell, Robert Appleby Univ.Manchester fire Toby Howard for lack of competence and who gives rascist press releases to the Guardian, calling AP "psychoceramic". Nancy, does he do that because he failed math geometry, cannot even see nor understand that slant cut in cone is never a ellipse, always a oval.

Nancy Rothwell fire Toby Howard from math education. For he fails math, in that he can never admit the truth of mathematics. A slant cut in cylinder is indeed a Ellipse, but a slant cut in a Cone turns out is a Oval, never the ellipse. And the impish fool of math Toby Howard was given 2022-2016 was given 6 years to admit and recognize the truth of conics and all he did was "run and hide". Our young students do not deserve a failed imp of mathematics.

Nancy Rothwell-- bad, bad, real bad when your students at Univ Manchester know more about true math geometry than does the teacher Toby Howard, in fact the form grade students in Manchester can take a paper cone with Kerr or Mason lid and see for themselves the slant cut is OVAL, never the ellipse.

Toby Howard is a math failure and so bad in geometry that it keeps his dull mind away from even entertaining a geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Toby Howard is a menace to math education and needs to be expelled out of mathematics.

Nancy, is Toby Howard an indication with his rascist slur in The Guardian, the reason that the Univ Manchester physics dept cannot ask the question, which is the Atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle which AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole while the real electron is the muon inside every proton at 840MeV doing the Faraday law with the muon. Nancy, are they all dumb in your physics dept along with Toby Howard??

Univ Manchester physics dept.
Gregory W. Clark
Christer Watson
Michael Birse
Caterina Doglioni
Justin Evans
Kieran Flanagan
Wendy Flavell
Jeffrey Forshaw
Sean Freeman
Tobias Galla
Andre Geim
Andrei Golov
Roxanne Guenette
Roger Jones
Mark Lancaster
Andrew Murray
Christopher Parkes
Yvonne Peters
Andrew Pilkington
Stefan Soldner-Rembold
Michael Seymour
Jonathan Billowes
Alan Bray
Ian Browne
Rodney Davies
John Dowker
John Durell
Raymond F. Bishop
Fred Loebinger
Michael Moore
Stephen Watts
Peter Wilkinson

My 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)

y
| /
| /
|/______ x

More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.

In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.

There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium

Kibo on Joseph Kahn of The New York Times rather publish kibo's nonsense of conic than AP's truth-- Slant cut of Cylinder is ellipse, therefore, slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse. Kibo Parry M wants The New York Times to publish his

Kibo on Joseph Kahn of The New York Times rather publish kibo's nonsense of conic than AP's truth-- Slant cut of Cylinder is ellipse, therefore, slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse.

Kibo Parry M wants The New York Times to publish his nonsense for which AP wants the New York State Board of Education to pull the license of science publishing from _The New York Times_ for their newspaper has become nothing but a propaganda billboard for Einstein, and mocking all scientists working in physics.

The New York Times has it correct on Darwin Evolution, but when it comes to physics, they use their newspaper to make Einstein a semigod, and trash all physicists working in physics, because the NYT starts almost every physics report, starts it out as saying..... And Einstein did this.... and ending the report with .... this proves Einstein. Making a mockery of those physicists who actually do the science. Some magazines have become almost as bad as NYT in physics reporting.

Kibo Parry M. wrote:

> 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
>

The New York Times, A.G. Sulzberger would rather publish that than ever publish AP's correction of Ancient Greek mathematics, that since the slant cut of Cylinder is ellipse, it is impossible for slant cut of cone be an ellipse, but rather an Oval instead. For a cylinder has 2 axes of symmetry same as ellipse, but cone has 1 axis of symmetry same as Oval.

The New York Times maintains its hatred curse on AP, as they did in 1994 when NYT along with Dartmouth College suspended posting account of AP for 1 month, because AP was doing science in Usenet. The NYT hates the guts of AP and all the science AP achieves and so there is a directive at NYT, to never publish the name "Archimedes Plutonium" in the NYT, no matter if even AP becomes president of NASA or National Science Foundation.

A.G.Sulzberger, Joseph Kahn, Marc Lacey, Carolyn Ryan, Kathleen Kingsbury, why not publish the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is never a ellipse, always a oval. Or is hatred your game more than truth and reality of the world you live in.

1) Picture diagram of problem, showing oval for cone, and ellipse for cylinder.

1. looking down from cone apex
bottom
______
,'"^ "`.
/ \
| | slant cut into cone is oval, never ellipse
\ /
'. .'
" '
top
2.
/\

/ \

/ \

/ \

/ \

/ \
3.
__
.-' `-.
.' `.
/ \
; ; B
| |
; ;
\ /
`. .'
`-._____.-'

4.

| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | slant cut of cylinder is always a ellipse, never a oval due to the fact
| | a cylinder has two axes of symmetry, while a cone has just 1 axis
| | of symmetry
| |
| |
| |

Proofs ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section by
Archimedes Plutonium
--------------------
AP's proof the ellipse is never a Conic Section, always a Cylinder section, and how the proof works

Let us analyze AP's Proof

On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 6:57:36 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Array:: Analytic Geometry proof that Cylinder section= Ellipse//Conic
section = Oval, never ellipse

Array proof simply means we cut out all details and get to the very heart of the proof. No sideshow dressing, just the heart of the proof.

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.

Kibo Parry M. the 30 year nonstop stalker fuckdog of sci.math & sci.physics
> On Monday, October 3, 2022 at 2:18:53 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >"mindless fuckdog"

Kibo Parry M, I thought if you did not like a newspaper, you called it a "rag" not a fuckdog, is this the new street alley slang?

> >"Drag Queen of Science"
> > tarded:
> > Now that sure was quite dumb and stoopid of you, wasn't it! Surely
> > Dartmouth didn't want their good name sullied by such an anti-Semitic
> > remark. And they did the right thing.
> >

Kibo, why does the The New York Times tarnish the name of Dartmouth College by teaching slant cut is ellipse when in truth it is a oval, and that the Times science section still preaches Boole logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, and that no-one at the Times ever realized calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Is that why, Kibo, you call the The New York Times the Drag Queen of Science??????


> > But you didn't learn. You cannot learn. Later Dartmouth decided they
> > didn't want their good name sullied by your bad math and science, so
> > they warned you not to post such garbage from a dartmouth.edu account.
> > But you didn't listen, so they fired your sorry ass for repeatedly doing
> > so. Dartmouth has an excellent reputation, and they need to protect it
> > from anti-Semitic posts and bad science.
> > I'd like to see ANY NYT article that ends with "praise be to Einstein--
> > semi god of physics". You just made that up.
> > Freedom of speech applies to the government, not a university or
> > newspaper. You could (and now do!) post your garbage freely.
> > Evidence of this? What, there isn't any? You made that up, too?
> > Since you are just a nobody of math and science, your "vote" doesn't
> > count for anything.
> > The ellipse formed from a plane intersecting a cone is not symmetric
> > around the axis of the cone, but is still symmetric in two dimensions
> > around a different line. Many have tried to tell you this, but you are
> > simply too dumb and stoopid to realize
>
> 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)

Jim Burns, Anja Karliczek head of Germany Federal Ministry of Education & Research, why does Germany keep flooding sci.math with WM math bullshit of dark numbers that fill up the front pages of sci.math with his insane bullshit going on for 3 decades now????

WM is a insane poster who cannot even admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, so insane is WM that he floods sci.math with his mindless dark numbers bullshit.

He cannot admit the truth of math, so he should not be posting in sci.math.

Why, Anja, WM is so insane, the fruitcake cannot even understand Boole logic is wrong with 2 OR 1 = 3 and WM has AND as subtraction.

So mindless is WM, he cannot even ask the question,-- is the muon the true electron of atoms and the 0.5MeV particle the Dirac magnetic monopole.

Yet this German shitturd WM floods the front page of sci.math every day for 3 decades with his never ending insane bullshit of dark numbers.

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)

My 5th published book

Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
Preface:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.

The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.

My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.

Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.

Product details
File Size: 773 KB
Print Length: 72 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

Earle Jones, Jacob Fox, Laura Fredrickson, Stanford Univ Marc Tessier-Lavigne,Persis Drell far too stupid in science 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.

Put the 30 year stalker Jones in an asylum, not Usenet sci.math, sci.physics
On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 11:45:58 PM UTC-5, Earle Jones wrote:
> Question for Archmedes Plutonium:

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.

Stanford University, math dept.

Gregory Brumfiel, Daniel Bump, Emmanuel Candès, Gunnar Carlsson, Moses Charikar, Sourav Chatterjee, Tom Church, Ralph Cohen, Brian Conrad, Brian Conrey, Amir Dembo, Persi Diaconis, Yakov Eliashberg, Robert Finn, Jacob Fox, Laura Fredrickson, Søren Galatius, George Schaeffer, Or Hershkovits, David Hoffman, Eleny Ionel, Renata Kallosh, Yitzhak Katznelson, Vladimir Kazeev, Michael Kemeny, Steven Kerckhoff, Susie Kimport, Jun Li, Tai-Ping Liu, Mark Lucianovic, Jonathan Luk, Frederick Manners, Rafe Mazzeo, James R. Milgram, Maryam Mirzakhani, Stefan Mueller, Christopher Ohrt, Donald Ornstein, George Papanicolaou, Lenya Ryzhik, Richard Schoen, Leon Simon, Rick Sommer, Kannan Soundararajan, Tadashi Tokieda, Cheng-Chiang Tsai, Ravi Vakil, András Vasy, Akshay Venkatesh, Jan Vondrák, Brian White, Wojciech Wieczorek, Jennifer Wilson, Alex Wright, Lexing Ying, Xuwen Zhu

President: Marc Tessier-Lavigne (neuroscience)
Provost: Persis Drell (physics)

Stanford physics dept.

Alexander Fetter, John Lipa, William Little, Douglas Osheroff, David Ritson, H. Alan Schwettman, John Turneaure, Robert Wagoner, Stanley Wojcicki, Mason Yearian

> > Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,
> > Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish
> > David J. Thouless_, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita
> > Arthur B. McDonald
> > Francois Englert
> > Saul Perlmutter
> > Brian P. Schmidt
> > Adam G. Riess
> > Makoto Kobayashi
> > Toshihide Maskawa_
> > Yoichiro Nambu_
> > John C. Mather
> > George F. Smoot
> > Roy J. Glauber_
> > David J. Gross
> > Hugh David Politzer
> > Frank Wilczek
> > Raymond Davis Jr. _
> > Masatoshi Koshiba_
> > Riccardo Giacconi_
> > Gerardus 't Hooft
> > Martinus J.G. Veltman_
> > Jerome I. Friedman
> > Henry W. Kendall_
> > Richard E. Taylor_
> > Carlo Rubbia
> > Simon van der Meer_
> > William Alfred Fowler_
> > Kenneth G. Wilson_
> > James Watson Cronin_
> > Val Logsdon Fitch_
> > Sheldon Lee Glashow
> > Steven Weinberg_
> > .
> > .
> > little fishes
> > .
> > .
> > Layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = subtraction of either 3 or 2, while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV
> >
> > Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass
> > Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu
> > more and more layers of error thinking physics
> > .
> > .
> > Edward Witten
> > John Baez
> > Brian Greene
> > Lisa Randall
> > Alan H. Guth
> > Michael E. Brown
> > Konstantin Batygin
> > Ben Bullock
> > Larry Harson
> > Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
> > Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
> > None at all - he was a raving nutter.
> > Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley
> > Jennifer Kahn, Discover, science hater
> > Eric Francis Coppolino, newsreporter hatred of science, George Witte, St.Martin's Press science hater
> > Toby Howard, The Guardian, science hater
> >
> >
> > #2-1, 137th published book
> >
> > Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> >
> >
> > #1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory
> >
> > This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so I can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me.
> >
> > Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics community updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast, as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to.
> >
> > Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory.
> > And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
> > Length: 64 pages
> >
> > Product details
> > • File Size : 790 KB
> > • Publication Date : October 5, 2020
> > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > • Print Length : 64 pages
> > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > • Language: : English
> > • ASIN : B08KS4YGWY
> > • Lending : Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory
> > ◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> >
> > #2-2, 145th published book
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
> > Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and errors and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the halls and corridors of education.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN : B08PC99JJB
> > • Publication date : November 29, 2020
> > • Language: : English
> > • File size : 682 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > • Print length : 78 pages
> > • Lending : Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
> > ◦ #344 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books)
> >
> > #2-3, 146th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3
> > Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science, you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the science. I further believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later years of physics courses, we can always pick up on details. So I devote this senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this textbook. Now Asimov's book is full of error and mistakes, and that is disappointing but all of Old Physics is full of error. On errors and mistakes of Old Physics, the best I can do is warn the students, and the largest warning of all is that whenever someone in Old Physics says "electron" what they are talking about is really the Dirac magnetic monopole. And whenever they talk about the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, they are talking about huge huge grave mistakes, for the true atom is protons as 8 ringed toruses with a muon stuck inside of a proton doing the Faraday law and producing those magnetic monopoles as electricity. I use Asimov's book as a template but in the future, I hope to rewrite this textbook using no template at all, that is if I have time in the future.
> > Cover Picture: Is the book The History of Physics, by Isaac Asimov, 1966 and on top of the book are 4 cut-outs of bent circles representing magnetic monopoles which revolutionizes modern physics, especially the ElectroMagnetic theory.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08RK33T8V
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 28, 2020
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 794 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 123 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #4,167,235 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #15,099 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #91,163 in Physics (Books)
> >
> >
> > #2-4, 151st published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4
> > Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Preface: This is AP's 151st book of science published. It is one of my most important books of science because 1st year college physics is so impressionable on students, if they should continue with physics, or look elsewhere for a career. And also, physics is a crossroad to all the other hard core sciences, where physics course is mandatory such as in chemistry or even biology. I have endeavored to make physics 1st year college to be as easy and simple to learn. In this endeavor to make physics super easy, I have made the writing such that you will see core ideas in all capital letters as single sentences as a educational tool. And I have made this textbook chapter writing follow a logical pattern of both algebra and geometry concepts, throughout. The utmost importance of logic in physics needs to be seen and understood. For I have never seen a physics book, prior to this one that is logical. Every Old Physics textbook I have seen is scatter-brained in topics and in writing. I use as template book of Halliday & Resnick because a edition of H&R was one I was taught physics at University of Cincinnati in 1969. And in 1969, I had a choice of majors, do I major in geology, or mathematics, or in physics, for I will graduate from UC in 1972. For me, geology was too easy, but physics was too tough, so I ended up majoring in mathematics. If I had been taught in 1969 using this textbook that I have written, I would have ended up majoring in physics, my first love. For physics is not hard, not hard at all, once you clear out the mistakes and the obnoxious worthless mathematics that clutters up Old Physics, and the illogic that smothers much of Old Physics.
> >
> > Maybe it was good that I had those impressions of physics education of poor education, which still exists throughout physics today. Because maybe I am forced to write this book, because of that awful experience of learning physics in 1969. Without that awful experience, maybe this textbook would have never been written by me.
> >
> > Cover picture is the template book of Halliday & Resnick, 1988, 3rd edition Fundamentals of Physics and sitting on top are cut outs of "half bent circles, bent at 90 degrees" to imitate magnetic monopoles. Magnetic Monopoles revolutionizes physics education, and separates-out, what is Old Physics from what is New Physics.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09JW5DVYM
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 19, 2021
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1035 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 386 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #4,874,333 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #526 in Electromagnetic Theory
> > ◦ #1,321 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #9,546 in Electromagnetism (Books)
> >
> >
> >
> > #2-5, 174th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 2nd year College
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition
> >
> > Preface: At the moment this is a physics book for 2nd year College. But as the months and years go by I intend to convert it into a textbook of about 200 to 300 pages. It is mostly about thermodynamics for in my own college education 1968-1972 at University of Cincinnati, I took physics thermodynamics in the 2nd year (if memory has not failed me).
> > Cover-Picture: Is a iphone photograph of the Chemistry textbook I used at UC 1968-1972 with my own paper cut-outs of magnetic monopoles. Pictured are 4 bent circles, bent at 90degrees from diameter and each bent circle is a individual magnetic monopole.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09TKL4HMC
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 27, 2022
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 675 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 41 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> >
> >
> >
> > #2-6, 177th published book
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Atoms, 3rd year College
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition
> >
> > Preface: I come to teaching physics for 3rd year College as the Architecture of Atoms. My writing style will be prose-narrative, until I add on exercise problems and convert it into a textbook. The 1st year College, has to be the equations and laws of electricity and magnetism. For the primal-axiom over all of physics is-- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. The 2nd year College is thermodynamics. And now the 3rd year College physics has to teach the Architecture, the geometry of the inside and exterior surface of the atom. One of the greatest faults, misery, and anti-science teaching of Old Physics is their denial that subatomic particles have to be something more than tiny balls tiny spheres that do-nothing, perform nothing, function as nothing. That the proton and neutron and true electron=muon, has to be matter with a function and purpose and design and task and job. This is a year of physics teaching of the architecture of the atom.
> > Cover Picture: A iphone photograph of my book chemistry book, a long time favorite of mine of CHEM ONE, 2nd edition, Waser, Trueblood, Knobler, 1980, and page 307 of that book. Why this page? Because it was instrumental in my discovery of the true Architecture of Atoms. Not many professors of chemistry or physics dive into the Shrodinger Equation that results in a meaningful teaching of "matter waves". Matter waves are the heart of understanding the geometry of Atomic Architecture.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09VFH9QST
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2022
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 823 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 74 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> >
> >
> >
> > #2-7, 178th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Light Waves & Energy, 4th year College
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Kindle edition)
> >
> >
> > Preface: This is 4th year College Physics and the important ideas of physics to learn as last year undergraduate school is the architecture and geometry of the Light Wave & Energy in physics. This is New Physics and not Old Physics. New Physics is defined as physics that knows and uses the true electron of atoms is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus and doing the Faraday law, creating new electrical energy that is storaged in the neutrons of atoms until they grow from 1eV into 945MeV and then create a new higher atomic numbered atom or emitted as radioactivity. Old Physics mistakenly identified the electron of atoms as the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. In 3rd year College we studied the architecture of the interior of atoms. In 4th year College we study the architecture of Light Waves & Energy.
> >
> > The template book for 4th year College is Feynman's 1985 book of QED.
> >
> > Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of the template book for this book. Feynman's 1985 QED, quantum electrodynamics, showing my plastic toy model of DNA and my cut-outs of 4 bent circles that each bent circle represents one magnetic monopole. I arranged the monopoles into a single strand of a cycloid wave.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09W58XGDW
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 21, 2022
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 824 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 66 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > #2-9, 161st published book
> >
> > PHYSICSOPEDIA -- List of 137 fakes and mistakes of Old Physics// Student teaches professor Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Last revision was 24Apr2022. This is AP's 161st published book of science.
> >
> > Preface:
> > A Physicsopedia is a book of the overall assessment and evaluation of the state of the art of Physics. It is like a report card. It is a total view of the science and a judgement of the science, both of the past, present and the direction forward into the future. Its greatest use is to alert readers and people in science of what is wrong with their subject, and as a ancillary use, to alert students what to avoid in college as a waste of time.
> >
> > It is not in alphabetical order but mostly, rather, has a ordering of what is most important at the start and only at the very very end. For there is no index.
> >
> > Physics is the most important hard science for every other science is a specialized part of physics. And Old Physics has three key huge mistakes that this book addresses. The true theory of the Universe is the Atom Totality, not the Big Bang which is a ridiculous theory. The true electron of atoms is not the particle of 0.5MeV which turns out to be Dirac's magnetic monopole, while the true real electron of atoms is the muon of 105MeV which is stuck inside a proton torus of 8 rings of 840MeV. This causes another huge mistake, for a mistake in physics usually has a cascade effect of more and more mistakes. When we take the true electron of atoms is the muon, means the Sun and stars shine not from fusion, but from that muon thrusting through the proton torus in a Faraday law of electricity and magnetism producing electrical energy. So our Sun shines from the Faraday law, not fusion. And this implies the Sun has gone into Red Giant phase with a solar radiation increase of 0.005% yearly increase. That implies all life on Earth is in danger of going extinct as the Sun becomes more and more Red Giant, and unless humanity moves out to Europa, humanity goes extinct.
> >
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09N18QPP1
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 3, 2021
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1139 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 82 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > y z
> > | /
> > | /
> > |/______ x
> >
> > More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.
> >
> > In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.
> >
> > I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.
> >
> > There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.
> >
> > Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > Archimedes Plutonium

David Brooks, Michael Roston is it not childish to have a curse on AP, to never print his name in your newspaper, when the mature grown up act is to publish the fact in your Science section-- slant cut of cone is Oval, and is never ellipse.

On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> I want to fuck her corpse
Kibo Parry M now transfers his delusions onto a newspaper
On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 10:37:51 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> I want to fuck her corpse

So that all the residents of New York state realize the truth, and intelligent people like Mr. Marshall Lett need not ask the question. People in New York state and around the world asking which is the slant cut in cone-- is it ellipse or oval??? Yet the Science section of The New York Times refusing to publish the truth because it means printing the name Archimedes Plutonium for which NYT vows to never do. For to publish the truth on conics means having to print the name Archimedes Plutonium as discoverer of the truth. And nothing worse in all the world for Mr. Sulzberger is to have to print the name Archimedes Plutonium in his newspaper. Hatred rules the The New York Times, not the truth of the world.

David Brooks, is the NYT as dumb and stupid in politics as it is dumb and stupid in math-science-- NYT cannot tell the difference between oval and ellipse. Does Michael Roston even know what a oval is??? Is any of the Science printed in the New York Times, is any of your science truthful or is it all a bunch of garbage prattle like your ellipse is a conic section when that is false. Are there any logical brains at the NYT, or is the NYT empty of logical brains???

> Mr. Sulzberger, you have a Science section in your newspaper, you have residents of New York State such as Mr. Lett. What the hell good is your Science section, Mr. Sulzberger if you cannot even answer the question-- Slant cut of Cone is Oval, never the ellipse. All because you hate the guts of AP, that your Science section refuses to tell the truth.
>
> Mr. Marshall Lett started a thread over in sci.math, asking the question of what the slant cut in cone truly is?
> > > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 7:21:51 AM UTC-5, Marshall Lett wrote:
> > > > I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
> > > >
> > > > Who am I supposed to believe?
>
> Mr. Kahn, is it not awfully childish of the The New York Times to hold a curse on AP, and you ignore the science truth and reality. Your motto at the Times-- "all the news fit to print" maybe should become "all the news except Archimedes Plutonium for the NYT hates his guts".
> 
>
>
> > Joseph Kahn, why even bother having a Science section at The New York Times, when your newspaper cannot even inform and teach readers the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse. Even your New York residents are asking question. Even your New York High School students have more geometry brains than the staff at the The New York Times.
>
> > > > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 7:21:51 AM UTC-5, Marshall Lett wrote:
> > > > > I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
> > > > >
> > > > > Who am I supposed to believe?
>
>
> The New York Times should step in here, with its Science section-- for what the hell is it good for, if it cannot even tell the truth between a ellipse and a oval.
>
> And an spamming stalker idiot Kibo Parry only confuses those already confused.
> > > Kibo Parry M. along with his 938 is 12% short of 945 wrote:
> Constantly confusing posters and stalks sci.math with his failed and anti-science mischief.
> > > > Oh you need to see the ellipse-is-a-conic-section proof again? Here you go!
>
>
> 
> > > The New York Times, A.G. Sulzberger would rather publish that than ever publish AP's correction of Ancient Greek mathematics, that since the slant cut of Cylinder is ellipse, it is impossible for slant cut of cone be an ellipse, but rather an Oval instead. For a cylinder has 2 axes of symmetry same as ellipse, but cone has 1 axis of symmetry same as Oval.
> > > The New York Times maintains its hatred and refusal to ever print on AP, as they did in 1994 when NYT along with Dartmouth College suspended posting account of AP for 1 month, because AP was doing science in Usenet. The NYT hates the guts of AP and all the science AP achieves and so there is a directive at NYT, to never publish the name "Archimedes Plutonium" in the NYT, no matter if even AP becomes president of NASA or National Science Foundation. Or, even if every Science magazine publishes AP, the The New York Times will not. No wonder people become anti-semitic when a newspaper invites anti-semitism.
> 
> > > A.G.Sulzberger, Joseph Kahn, Marc Lacey, Carolyn Ryan, Kathleen Kingsbury, David Brooks, Michael Roston, why not publish the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is never a ellipse, always a oval. Or is hatred your game more than truth and reality of the world you live in.







>
>
> > > Let us analyze AP's Proof
>
> > > 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.
> > >
>
> > > > The New York Times has it correct on Darwin Evolution, but when it comes to physics, they use their newspaper to make Einstein a semigod, and trash all physicists working in physics, because the NYT starts almost every physics report, starts it out as saying..... And Einstein did this.... and ending the report with .... this proves Einstein. Some magazines have become almost as bad as NYT in physics reporting.
>
> > > > The New York Times, A.G. Sulzberger would rather publish what is written in a book such as Stillwell, where Stillwell does not analyze anything, than ever publish AP's correction of Ancient Greek mathematics, that since the slant cut of Cylinder is ellipse, it is impossible for slant cut of cone be an ellipse, but rather an Oval instead. For a cylinder has 2 axes of symmetry same as ellipse, but cone has 1 axis of symmetry same as Oval.
> > > >
> > > > The New York Times maintains its hatred curse on AP, as they did in 1994 when NYT along with Dartmouth College suspended posting account of AP for 1 month, because AP was doing science in Usenet. The NYT hates the guts of AP and all the science AP achieves and so there is a directive at NYT, to never publish the name "Archimedes Plutonium" in the NYT, no matter if even AP becomes president of NASA or National Science Foundation.
> > > >
> > > > A.G.Sulzberger, Joseph Kahn, Marc Lacey, Carolyn Ryan, Kathleen Kingsbury, why not publish the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is never a ellipse, always a oval. Or is hatred your game more than truth and reality of the world you live in.
>
>
> > > > Let us analyze AP's Proof
>
> 
> > > > 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.
>
> 
> 
> > > > > 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)

David Brooks, Michael Roston is it not childish to have a curse on AP, to never print his name in your newspaper, when the mature grown up act is to publish the fact in your Science section-- slant cut of cone is Oval, and is never ellipse.

So that all the residents of New York state realize the truth, and intelligent people like Mr. Marshall Lett need not ask the question. People in New York state and around the world asking which is the slant cut in cone-- is it ellipse or oval??? Yet the Science section of The New York Times refusing to publish the truth because it means printing the name Archimedes Plutonium for which NYT vows to never do. For to publish the truth on conics means having to print the name Archimedes Plutonium as discoverer of the truth. And nothing worse in all the world for Mr. Sulzberger is to have to print the name Archimedes Plutonium in his newspaper. Hatred rules the The New York Times, not the truth of the world.

David Brooks, is the NYT as dumb and stupid in politics as it is dumb and stupid in math-science-- NYT cannot tell the difference between oval and ellipse. Does Michael Roston even know what a oval is??? Is any of the Science printed in the New York Times, is any of your science truthful or is it all a bunch of garbage prattle like your ellipse is a conic section when that is false. Are there any logical brains at the NYT, or is the NYT empty of logical brains???

> Mr. Sulzberger, you have a Science section in your newspaper, you have residents of New York State such as Mr. Lett. What the hell good is your Science section, Mr. Sulzberger if you cannot even answer the question-- Slant cut of Cone is Oval, never the ellipse. All because you hate the guts of AP, that your Science section refuses to tell the truth.
>
> Mr. Marshall Lett started a thread over in sci.math, asking the question of what the slant cut in cone truly is?
> > > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 7:21:51 AM UTC-5, Marshall Lett wrote:
> > > > I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
> > > >
> > > > Who am I supposed to believe?
>
> Mr. Kahn, is it not awfully childish of the The New York Times to hold a curse on AP, and you ignore the science truth and reality. Your motto at the Times-- "all the news fit to print" maybe should become "all the news except Archimedes Plutonium for the NYT hates his guts".
> 
>
>
> > Joseph Kahn, why even bother having a Science section at The New York Times, when your newspaper cannot even inform and teach readers the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse. Even your New York residents are asking question. Even your New York High School students have more geometry brains than the staff at the The New York Times.
>
> > > > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 7:21:51 AM UTC-5, Marshall Lett wrote:
> > > > > I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
> > > > >
> > > > > Who am I supposed to believe?
>
>
> The New York Times should step in here, with its Science section-- for what the hell is it good for, if it cannot even tell the truth between a ellipse and a oval.
>
> And an spamming stalker idiot Kibo Parry only confuses those already confused.
> > > Kibo Parry M. along with his 938 is 12% short of 945 wrote:
> Constantly confusing posters and stalks sci.math with his failed and anti-science mischief.
> > > > Oh you need to see the ellipse-is-a-conic-section proof again? Here you go!
>
>
> 
> > > The New York Times, A.G. Sulzberger would rather publish that than ever publish AP's correction of Ancient Greek mathematics, that since the slant cut of Cylinder is ellipse, it is impossible for slant cut of cone be an ellipse, but rather an Oval instead. For a cylinder has 2 axes of symmetry same as ellipse, but cone has 1 axis of symmetry same as Oval.
> > > The New York Times maintains its hatred and refusal to ever print on AP, as they did in 1994 when NYT along with Dartmouth College suspended posting account of AP for 1 month, because AP was doing science in Usenet. The NYT hates the guts of AP and all the science AP achieves and so there is a directive at NYT, to never publish the name "Archimedes Plutonium" in the NYT, no matter if even AP becomes president of NASA or National Science Foundation. Or, even if every Science magazine publishes AP, the The New York Times will not. No wonder people become anti-semitic when a newspaper invites anti-semitism.
> 
> > > A.G.Sulzberger, Joseph Kahn, Marc Lacey, Carolyn Ryan, Kathleen Kingsbury, David Brooks, Michael Roston, why not publish the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is never a ellipse, always a oval. Or is hatred your game more than truth and reality of the world you live in.







>
>
> > > Let us analyze AP's Proof
>
> > > 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.
> > >
>
> > > > The New York Times has it correct on Darwin Evolution, but when it comes to physics, they use their newspaper to make Einstein a semigod, and trash all physicists working in physics, because the NYT starts almost every physics report, starts it out as saying..... And Einstein did this.... and ending the report with .... this proves Einstein. Some magazines have become almost as bad as NYT in physics reporting.
>
> > > > The New York Times, A.G. Sulzberger would rather publish what is written in a book such as Stillwell, where Stillwell does not analyze anything, than ever publish AP's correction of Ancient Greek mathematics, that since the slant cut of Cylinder is ellipse, it is impossible for slant cut of cone be an ellipse, but rather an Oval instead. For a cylinder has 2 axes of symmetry same as ellipse, but cone has 1 axis of symmetry same as Oval.
> > > >
> > > > The New York Times maintains its hatred curse on AP, as they did in 1994 when NYT along with Dartmouth College suspended posting account of AP for 1 month, because AP was doing science in Usenet. The NYT hates the guts of AP and all the science AP achieves and so there is a directive at NYT, to never publish the name "Archimedes Plutonium" in the NYT, no matter if even AP becomes president of NASA or National Science Foundation.
> > > >
> > > > A.G.Sulzberger, Joseph Kahn, Marc Lacey, Carolyn Ryan, Kathleen Kingsbury, why not publish the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is never a ellipse, always a oval. Or is hatred your game more than truth and reality of the world you live in.
>
>
> > > > Let us analyze AP's Proof
>
> 
> > > > 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.
>
> 
> 
> > > > > 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)