The retardedly retarded retard Archimedes Plutonium spammed:
> 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

Spam this 186,282 more times, you blithering twatwaffle!

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)

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)

Michael Roston, David Brooks 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)

Georgia Tech, Angel Cabrera, was Earle Jones a failure at Georgia Tech? For he is able to do is stalk stalk on internet. In his below description, the fool is unaware that a Cone and Oval have one axes of symmetry. A ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, so the slant cut of Cylinder does give an ellipse but never the cone. Earle Jones seems to have failed GT, and perhaps even Stanford Univ for he fails in even the elementary issues of Ohm's law.

For the past 30 years,-- the fool Jones has spent in stalking stalking stalking. And I have asked for Stanford to guide him to a asylum or care home with medication.

On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 12:06:54 AM UTC-5, Earle Jones wrote:
> *
> Anyone who has taught mathematics at the college freshman level (as I have at Georgia Tech as a TA) went through the fairly simple process, using analytic geometry to define what is a conic section. If you can follow this, just perform these steps: First, write the definition of a cone (in x, y, z space). It is not difficult. Then, write the equation of an inclined plane in three-space. Then, if you have done the work accurately, you can solve these two equations simultaneously. That gives the locus of all points common to the cone and the inclined plane. (This is the definition of a section..) The resulting equation will be an ellipse, a circle, a parabola, or a hyperbola, depending on the exact inclined plane you have chosen. By the way, this was first demonstrated in about 300 BC, even before the original Archmedes (not the Plutonium version.)
>
> earle
> *

Earle Jones on mental instability of Nancy Rothwell,Toby Howard Univ Manchester and of Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Sylvia Else, for these two physics failures cannot even turn a light switch off to prove AP correct-- light waves are not a arrow ray, but instead are closed loop circuits of pencil ellipses.

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 11:35:22 PM UTC-5, Earle Jones wrote:
> what is the solution for your own mental insufficiency?
>
> earle
> *

Earle is the seat of instability and psychoceramics in Nancy Rothwell, Toby Howard, Dr. Hau due to their blindness of geometry??? They cannot tell the difference between a Oval and Ellipse??? The Oval has one axis of symmetry, while ellipse has two as discussed in AP's proof slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse.

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 Univ Manchester Toby Howard and Nancy Rothwell psychology dept taught at Univ Manchester.

Kibo, is that why Toby Howard cannot understand slant cut of cone is a Oval, never the ellipse for Toby has a psychosis from your analysis.

Kibo Parry M writes

>"psychoceramic"

Michael Moroney wrote:
5:11 PM (2 hours ago) , 31Oct2022

>"Court Jester of Math"
> tarded:

Awesome! You have the perfect test subject: Yourself! You have
difficulties in determining what is real and what is not real
(ellipse/conic section, electron is muon, etc.), hallucinations (cosmic
plutonium atom talked to you, producing the Plutonium Stupidity Theory),
inappropriate behavior (spamming, attacking anyone who disagrees with
you), delusions (posting messages addressed to people not here, King of
Physics silliness, all your "proofs") etc. Finally a book worth reading?

You certainly have the continuous psychosis and disorganized thinking.

Probably true for you with posting here. Obsessing over this "front
page" of yours.

It might be an interesting read! As long as psychosis doesn't interfere
with the study of psychosis.

Why is Gottingen Univ, Metin Tolin, WM, Chris Thomasson have such a dumb stupid mind in physics? Never able to investigate the question-- what if we take the electron of atoms as the muon and subtract 105 from 945MeV and then take the 0.5MeV particle as Dirac's magnetic monopole. No, the dumb stupid worthless mind of Metin Tolin, WM, Jim Burns in physics is never able to do such mental construction for he failed physics. Is it the polluted air of London that stunts the growth of their brain that they cannot ask simple physics questions???

Daily spam of WM-- 4/11/22 Chris Thomasson -- A simple definition of actual infinity
Daily spam of WM-- 4/11/22-- WM,..Jim Burns-- Three proofs of dark numbers

WM _Jim Burns,Cynthia A. Volkert,Florentin Wörgötter,Annette Zippelius,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's profile photo
> > > > WM
> > > > , …
> > > > Ross A. Finlayson
> > > > 735
> > > > unread,
> > > > Three proofs of dark numbers
> > > > On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 10:40:17 AM UTC-7, JVR wrote: > On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 4:56
> > > > 12:02 AM
> > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Brigitta Wolff, is this some type of German comedy show, WM daily spamming sci.math and have a team of comedians-- Chris Thomasson, Jim Burns, TheRafters, Sergi_o, day after day after day keep this WM imbecile with dark numbers as the first 5 post threads on the top of the leader board.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Is there a German word for this Spamming behavior-- Shitligkeitzitter
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > > > Gus Gassmann,Thorsten Theobald,Yury Person, Wolfgang Mueckenheim ever admit slant cut of cone is oval, never the ellipse, ever do a geometry proof of FTC, no all failures of mathematics, and idling away.
> > > > > > > > > Germany's Muck the Puke taking up oxygen out of sci.math with his endless and mindless dark numbers, ellipse a conic when that is an oval, and the failure of all of Germany-- never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > siren Sergio,Laura Covi,Andreas Dillmann,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.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > > 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)

Harvard's Dr.Hau, unwilling to turn light switch off in slow light experiment for it proves AP correct-- Light Waves are closed loop circuits, pencil ellipses.

Comparing science hate mongers of The New York Times with those at Harvard University. Neither wants to admit the truth of science whenever that truth involves Archimedes Plutonium. They rather run and hide than admit the truth of science.

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)
By Michael Moroney 1/23/18, 44 posts 461 views

Re: 1Moroney barks at math failures Baez, Bullock, Witten. But I see the three as having failed Angular Momentum with their 938 proton and .5MeV electron
12/30/18
by j4n bur53

Re: Zelos asks why Harvard's Dr. Hau wants to fail in physics, by not turning off the light to see if light wave is a closed loop pencil ellipse that AP predicts. Is Dr.Hau stubborn and too ignorant to finish her experiment??
by Michael Moroney Jan 18, 2021, 2:06:24 PM

Re: Kibo Parry Moroney on Dr. Thorp stealing AP's dog theory connected to why he is a failure on Lewis 8 Structure because CO and N2 dissociation energy says it is Lewis 6 Structure. Yes, Kibo, what is your psychoanalysis of Dr. Thorp stealing? Is steal
by Ebenezer Splooge

Re: 77,233 Student victims of Lawrence Bacow's Harvard from stalker Kibo Parry Moroney with his 938 is 12% short 945, his 10 OR 4 = 14 with AND as subtraction, and his mindless belief real electron = 0.5MeV when true electron is muon
11:57 AM 10Apr2021
by Wayne Decarlo

Re: 7,744-Student victims of Linda Hasenfratz Univ Western Ontario from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz President Alan Shepard
11:53 AM 10Apr2021
by Wayne Decarlo

Re: 102,852-Student victims of Dominic Barton, Univ Waterloo from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Dominic Barton, President Feridun Hamdullahpur physics
by konyberg Apr 15, 2021, 3:09:41 PM

Re: 176,232-Student Victims of Michael Meighen McGill Univ by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus... 0.5MeV electron when in truth it is the muon as the real electron
by Dan Christensen Jul 2, 2021, 9:47:42 AM

Re: 135,568 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron of
May 10, 2021
by Professor Wordsmith

Re: 135,566 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron o
May 10, 2021
by Michael Moroney

Re: Kibo Parry Moroney says of Dr. Tao "ant of Math" and a pandemic shit mule// Perhaps because Dr. Tao is such a failure of math, he believed primes are real when Naturals have no division-- and failures of math overlook even the most obvious
by Professor Wordsmith Jul 25, 2020, 8:23:21 PM

Re: 1- Kibo Parry Moroney says of math failure Dan Christensen Univ. Western Ontario with his ellipse a conic when it never was//And his insane Boole logic of 10 OR 2 = 12// pandemic shit mule
by Hank Hill

Re: Erik sickfuck Eastside says>oil & vinegar// UCLA Physics with their imbecile electron--Gene D. Block,Ernest Abers,Elihu Abrahams, too stupid to understand Real Proton = 840 MeV with electron= muon and .5MeV was Dirac magnetic monopole
By Michael Moroney 34 posts 244 views updated 12:23 PM

Re: L. Reif, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker, Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins-- Moroney-- Boston's antiscience stalker fool//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole
By Michael Moroney 19 posts 120 views updated 12:28 PM

Re: *Fire the entire Univ Western Ontario math dept/ still teaching that the contradictory sine graph as sinusoid when it is really semicircle
by Dan Christensen Nov 21, 2017

Not a single Saber toothed tiger saber tested by DNA to see if walrus tusks, and Scleromonchlus taylori is making Univ South Florida Dr. Ryan Carney and JDB loudmouth look like mindless fools of science.

Yes, some DNA testing of Smilodon by Potsdam Germany tested the DNA of a mandible of Saber tooth tiger and found it to be a cat DNA. But no-one tested the actual saber of a saber tiger to see if it is cat or walrus.

The insane never ending stalker fool Kibo Parry Moron, with his degree from Rensselaer Polytech and his 938 is 12% short of 945, squacks away when he should be in a straightjacket and asylum
Re: ,.Moroney says autism // Jeffrey Goldstone, Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins//never realizing Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole.

MIT cannot tell apart oval from ellipse, nor real electron of atoms as muon not 0.5MeV particle that naturally scientists would make the mistake of confusing a walrus tusk as being a Saber tooth tiger. Besides, you can make terrific amount of money on a cat with walrus teeth and no money on a fossil cat.

Kibo Parry M. training in Paleontology bones and bone interpretation:
Kibo Parry M on Harvard's Dr. Hau.
Kibo on > I want to fuck her corpse
On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> I want to fuck her corpse
Why Kibo??? Because she refuses to finish her experiment and see all the light vanishes simultaneously, or is it because she can not admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse???

Kibo Parry did you do you bone study at Rensselaer Polytech where you learned 938 is 12% short of 945, and where your geothermal is recycled Solar energy, and not radioactive decay inside of Earth.
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)
By Michael Moroney 1/23/18, 44 posts 461 views

Kibo Parry M says that MIT cannot tell apart oval from ellipse, nor real electron of atoms as muon not 0.5MeV particle that naturally scientists would make the mistake of confusing a walrus tusk as being a Saber tooth tiger-- and evidence is strongly coming in that the silly Univ South Florida, Tampa, Dr. Carney's silly Pterosaur flew was in fact false, they swam using their large wings not to fly but row oar in water as seen by Scleromochlus taylori.

Not a single Saber toothed tiger skull intact with sabres ever found in fossils, yet Tampa's University of South Florida with JDB hate spews and Dr. Ryan Carney work on Archaeopteryx is probably all wrong.

Does University of South Florida, Tampa require Logic abilities before it gives degrees in science to students, or better yet, has professors like Dr. Ryan Carney build a Archaeopteryx to fly when no aerodynamic engineer can make the heavy animal fly. Why is Dr. Carney too dumb to make a commonsense guess-- the Bird used its false-wings as a paddle to oar and row in the shallow seas. No wonder you have hate spew fools like JDB, spewing hate on books of science that correct fools like Dr. Carney.

For example JDB understanding of how logic even works-- for when you make a If--> then argument, science is not about hypotheticals but about genuine facts. Yes, AP is working on facts--- facts that never a full intact Sabre tooth tiger skull. Every one in is wired together in museums.

University of South Florida's Ryan Carney's work on Archaeopteryx-- could it fly, fails to convince physicists, especially AP since he wrote a book that the Archaeopteryx in fact did not fly but used its bone structure to paddle in water. For Earth from Precambrian to about 90 to 66 mya had 1/2 of Earth constantly facing the Sun and the other 1/2 of Earth in constant darkness and in this landscape the seas were shallow. So life in the seas was met with reptile-birds that could use their so called wings to paddle around in water, much like some water birds. But the Archaeopteryx never flew in the air.

My 65th published book

PTEROSAURS; Paleontology mistake for it never flew, it sailed and oar-rowed with their Sail (not a wing for flying); paleontology series, book 2 Kindle Edition

by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 22Dec2021. And this is AP's 65th published book, mostly on science.

Preface: I was reading a Scientific American article of October, 2019 on Pterosaurs, giant animals, some the size of giraffes flying. This upset my logical mind and knew there was a big mistake in this. Thus, I wrote this book to put some logical commonsense into the field of paleontology.

Cover Picture is my picture of that magazine article.

--------------------------

Table of Contents

--------------------------

1) Why the increasing number of Paleontology Mistakes, due to the rise of the Internet as worldwide forum to argue with a cloistered science.

2) The AP Conjecture on Pterosaurs.

3) Sails, or rowing-oars, not wings.

4) A logical and physiological difference between a Sail and a Wing.

5) Mechanism to evolve Sails, not wings.

6) Pteroid bone and flexor tendon for rowing oar.

7) What the Pterosaurs ate is revealing.

8) The huge widespread prevalence of Shallow Seas in geological time.

Product details
ASIN : B07YDL2412
Publication date : September 25, 2019
Language : English
File size : 807 KB
Simultaneous device usage : Unlimited
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Enabled
Print length : 23 pages
Lending : Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #192,001 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
#3 in 30-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#5 in Biophysics (Kindle Store)
#8 in Molecular Biology (Kindle Store)

JDB writes hate spews on other peoples books and was wondering if Univ of South Florida gives degrees to students how have no logical abilities to even handle science, handle a argument.

Top review from the United States

J.D.B
1.0 out of 5 stars Mindless, pointless, and useless
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on November 6, 2022
This 'book' is a rambling series of email exchanges by someone who never even studied the material they are laying claim to. The alternate hypotheses are never supported nor is there any work to show the works opposing the author are incorrect. If hundreds of specimens of various cats are found with fangs literally growing out of the skull, it's not because someone misplaced a piece of a walrus onto a cat. This work is a pretentious joke, and I made the mistake borrowing it to read.

USF, Tampa, so we see here a hate spew by JDB, who seems to think that a Hypothetical is a science evidence argument-- IF hundreds... JDB never was educated in logic to understand a conditional does not make science data.

Well, there has never been an intact fossil of Saber Tooth Tiger with the sabers in tact. All the saber tooth tiger fossils were found with the skull and sabers unattached. There was the case of upper skull and lower mandible found and sold at auction for 1/3 million dollars. But I would wager that if DNA tested, the upper part is walrus and the lower mandible is cat.

So what gives here with USF, do they teach logic at the school or only teach students to attack others and not provide a science argument.

My 33rd published book

Was the Saber-Toothed-Tiger, Smilodon, Paleontologists most laughable mistake? // Was the 4 tusked Gomphothere the 2nd joke? Paleontology series, book 1 Kindle Edition

by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 30Mar2021. This is AP's 33rd published book on science.

Preface: Ever since I was a teenager in High School, I was troubled with the saber-toothed tiger-- how evolution could have built such an animal. But I was not logical in mind as a teenager, and had to wait until now to let my logical mind survey that perplexing question. To an extraordinary claim in science-- huge teeth that an animal cannot cope with, requires extra-special evidence and proofs of science. How can evolution theory (even though it is a rule or algorithm) (see my Superdeterminism replaces Darwin Evolution book), how can evolution produce an animal with teeth that "get in the way of everything" as the animal goes through life. So, I am asking the science community to completely re-examine the fossil evidence of Smilodon. I do not have that evidence available, but the entire Paleontology community can make the evidence available. For what I suspect is that the tiger never had saber-teeth and that those teeth found in digs or tar pits, were the teeth of Entelodonts or some ungulate horn or walrus type animal teeth. In other words, I question the claim there ever existed a cat with huge canine teeth.

Cover Picture: What spurred me onto this small book was a few days ago seeing the cover of Science News showing a Saber-Toothed Tiger. And how utterly ridiculous for a tiger to have those teeth. And just as ridiculous that grown scientists believe such nonsense without questioning it.

• Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07Q7RLD4F
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 30, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1688 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 37 pages
• Best Sellers Rank: #157,331 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #5 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #14 in Paleontology (Kindle Store)
◦ #61 in Paleontology (Books)
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward

On Sat Oct 22 22:49:33 2022 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Georgia Tech, Angel Cabrera, was Earle Jones a failure at Georgia Tech? For he is able to do is stalk stalk on internet. In his below description, the fool is unaware that a Cone and Oval have one axes of symmetry. A ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, so the slant cut of Cylinder does give an ellipse but never the cone. Earle Jones seems to have failed GT, and perhaps even Stanford Univ for he fails in even the elementary issues of Ohm's law.

*
Actually, just for your information, I graduated from Georgia Tech with a Bachelor's Degree in Electrical Engineering (with highest honors) and then went on to Stanford and received a Masters' Degree in EE. Then to the Stanford Graduate School of Business where I received a Diploma from the Advanced Management College.

earle
*

On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 6:23:59 PM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:
> On Sat Oct 22 22:49:33 2022 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Georgia Tech, Angel Cabrera, was Earle Jones a failure at Georgia Tech? For he is able to do is stalk stalk on internet. In his below description, the fool is unaware that a Cone and Oval have one axes of symmetry. A ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, so the slant cut of Cylinder does give an ellipse but never the cone. Earle Jones seems to have failed GT, and perhaps even Stanford Univ for he fails in even the elementary issues of Ohm's law.
> *
> Actually, just for your information, I graduated from Georgia Tech with a Bachelor's Degree in Electrical Engineering (with highest honors) and then went on to Stanford and received a Masters' Degree in EE. Then to the Stanford Graduate School of Business where I received a Diploma from the Advanced Management College.
>
> earle
> *

With a PhD in stalking, eh Earle. I care nothing about your life, for the only salient feature of your life is you degenerated into a nonstop stalker.

The reason I repeat and repeat this thread, is you are insane that you will not stop and so, well after 30 years of your stalking, I oblige you with your own stalking bullshit.

You are not a decent person Earle, no stalker is a decent person. You need psychiatric help but whether stalking behavior is curable-- probably not

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,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
>
> 
> > > > 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)

On Fri Nov 11 17:47:10 2022 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 6:23:59 PM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:
> > On Sat Oct 22 22:49:33 2022 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > Georgia Tech, Angel Cabrera, was Earle Jones a failure at Georgia Tech? For he is able to do is stalk stalk on internet. In his below description, the fool is unaware that a Cone and Oval have one axes of symmetry. A ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, so the slant cut of Cylinder does give an ellipse but never the cone. Earle Jones seems to have failed GT, and perhaps even Stanford Univ for he fails in even the elementary issues of Ohm's law.
> > *
> > Actually, just for your information, I graduated from Georgia Tech with a Bachelor's Degree in Electrical Engineering (with highest honors) and then went on to Stanford and received a Masters' Degree in EE. Then to the Stanford Graduate School of Business where I received a Diploma from the Advanced Management College.
> >
> > earle
> > *
>
> With a PhD in stalking, eh Earle. I care nothing about your life, for the only salient feature of your life is you degenerated into a nonstop stalker.
>
> The reason I repeat and repeat this thread, is you are insane that you will not stop and so, well after 30 years of your stalking, I oblige you with your own stalking bullshit.
>
> You are not a decent person Earle, no stalker is a decent person. You need psychiatric help but whether stalking behavior is curable-- probably not

AP: Correcting your many errors is not "Stalking". It is what teachers do.

earle
*

On 11/11/2022 8:47 PM, Archimedes Plutonium humiliated himself by writing:
> On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 6:23:59 PM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:
>> On Sat Oct 22 22:49:33 2022 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>> Georgia Tech, Angel Cabrera, was Earle Jones a failure at Georgia Tech? For he is able to do is stalk stalk on internet. In his below description, the fool is unaware that a Cone and Oval have one axes of symmetry. A ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, so the slant cut of Cylinder does give an ellipse but never the cone. Earle Jones seems to have failed GT, and perhaps even Stanford Univ for he fails in even the elementary issues of Ohm's law.
>> *
>> Actually, just for your information, I graduated from Georgia Tech with a Bachelor's Degree in Electrical Engineering (with highest honors) and then went on to Stanford and received a Masters' Degree in EE. Then to the Stanford Graduate School of Business where I received a Diploma from the Advanced Management College.
>>
>> earle
>> *

Poor ArchiePoo. Once again he shows up to a battle of intelligence unarmed.
>
> With a PhD in stalking, eh Earle. I care nothing about your life, for the only salient feature of your life is you degenerated into a nonstop stalker.

Correcting your foolish mistakes isn't stalking.
>
> The reason I repeat and repeat this thread, is you are insane that you will not stop and so, well after 30 years of your stalking, I oblige you with your own stalking bullshit.

Now who was it that said if you repeat a lie often enough, people start
to believe it? So what is the *real* reason you repeat your BS?

But don't worry, mathematics is based on proofs, not the repetition of
falsehoods, and there are multiple proofs that the ellipse is a conic
section, it's just not centered on the cone's axis.

Kibo on JDB and Dr.Ryan Carney University of South Florida, Tampa-- Scleromonchlus was a water animal, just like Pterosaurs, but Univ South Florida, Tampa has no logical brains to see this// And does USF have brains to DNA test the sabers of Saber tooth tiger as walrus.
On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 10:13:27 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: his usual stalk attack of psychoceramics
>Re: JDB and Dr. Ryan Carney "psychoceramic" Univ South Florida flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
> Autistic JDB melts down and whines:
>

JDB and Dr.Ryan Carney University of South Florida, Tampa-- Scleromonchlus was a water animal, just like Pterosaurs, but Univ South Florida, Tampa has no logical brains to see this// And does USF have brains to DNA test the sabers of Saber tooth tiger as walrus.

Not a single Saber toothed tiger skull intact with sabres ever found in fossils, yet Tampa's University of South Florida with JDB hate spews and Dr. Ryan Carney work on Archaeopteryx is probably all wrong. Not a single saber of the tiber DNA tested-- yes, Potsdam Germany tested DNA of lower mandible but not the saber.

Does Univ South Florida Tampa, have the brains to DNA test Smilodon sabers to make sure they are __not__ walrus tusks, or is everything from USF illogical loudmouth criticism coming out of JDB, a science moron.

Does University of South Florida, Tampa require Logic abilities before it gives degrees in science to students, or better yet, has professors like Dr. Ryan Carney build a Archaeopteryx to fly when no aerodynamic engineer can make the heavy animal fly. Why is Dr. Carney too dumb to make a commonsense guess-- the Bird used its false-wings as a paddle to oar and row in the shallow seas. No wonder you have hate spew fools like JDB, spewing hate on books of science that correct fools like Dr. Carney.

Now we have reports of the Scleromonchlus taylori fossil that was a ancestor of the Pterosaur. The Scleromonchlus fossil has a huge head for body size--- MEANING, that the animal swam in water and lived in water-- and putting a logical brain to work-- Dr. Carney, can you see that your flying Pterosaurs has got to be a most awful joke in all of science history. The animal used its appendages to paddle oar on water.

For example JDB understanding of how logic even works-- for when you make a If--> then argument, science is not about hypotheticals but about genuine facts. Yes, AP is working on facts--- facts that never a full intact Sabre tooth tiger skull. Every one in is wired together in museums.

University of South Florida's Ryan Carney's work on Archaeopteryx-- could it fly, fails to convince physicists, especially AP since he wrote a book that the Archaeopteryx in fact did not fly but used its bone structure to paddle in water. For Earth from Precambrian to about 90 to 66 mya had 1/2 of Earth constantly facing the Sun and the other 1/2 of Earth in constant darkness and in this landscape the seas were shallow. So life in the seas was met with reptile-birds that could use their so called wings to paddle around in water, much like some water birds. But the Archaeopteryx never flew in the air.

My 65th published book

PTEROSAURS; Paleontology mistake for it never flew, it sailed and oar-rowed with their Sail (not a wing for flying); paleontology series, book 2 Kindle Edition

by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 22Dec2021. And this is AP's 65th published book, mostly on science.

Preface: I was reading a Scientific American article of October, 2019 on Pterosaurs, giant animals, some the size of giraffes flying. This upset my logical mind and knew there was a big mistake in this. Thus, I wrote this book to put some logical commonsense into the field of paleontology.

Cover Picture is my picture of that magazine article.

--------------------------
Table of Contents
--------------------------

1) Why the increasing number of Paleontology Mistakes, due to the rise of the Internet as worldwide forum to argue with a cloistered science.

2) The AP Conjecture on Pterosaurs.

3) Sails, or rowing-oars, not wings.

4) A logical and physiological difference between a Sail and a Wing.

5) Mechanism to evolve Sails, not wings.

6) Pteroid bone and flexor tendon for rowing oar.

7) What the Pterosaurs ate is revealing.

8) The huge widespread prevalence of Shallow Seas in geological time.

Product details
ASIN : B07YDL2412
Publication date : September 25, 2019
Language : English
File size : 807 KB
Simultaneous device usage : Unlimited
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Enabled
Print length : 23 pages
Lending : Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #192,001 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
#3 in 30-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#5 in Biophysics (Kindle Store)
#8 in Molecular Biology (Kindle Store)

JDB writes hate spews on other peoples books and was wondering if Univ of South Florida gives degrees to students how have no logical abilities to even handle science, handle a argument.

Top review from the United States

J.D.B
1.0 out of 5 stars Mindless, pointless, and useless
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on November 6, 2022
This 'book' is a rambling series of email exchanges by someone who never even studied the material they are laying claim to. The alternate hypotheses are never supported nor is there any work to show the works opposing the author are incorrect. If hundreds of specimens of various cats are found with fangs literally growing out of the skull, it's not because someone misplaced a piece of a walrus onto a cat. This work is a pretentious joke, and I made the mistake borrowing it to read.

USF, Tampa, so we see here a hate spew by JDB, who seems to think that a Hypothetical is a science evidence argument-- IF hundreds...

Well, there has never been an intact fossil of Saber Tooth Tiger with the sabers in tact. All the saber tooth tiger fossils were found with the skull and sabers unattached.

So what gives here with USF, do they teach logic at the school or only teach students to attack others and not provide a science argument.

My 33rd published book

Was the Saber-Toothed-Tiger, Smilodon, Paleontologists most laughable mistake? // Was the 4 tusked Gomphothere the 2nd joke? Paleontology series, book 1 Kindle Edition

by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 30Mar2021. This is AP's 33rd published book on science.

Preface: Ever since I was a teenager in High School, I was troubled with the saber-toothed tiger-- how evolution could have built such an animal. But I was not logical in mind as a teenager, and had to wait until now to let my logical mind survey that perplexing question. To an extraordinary claim in science-- huge teeth that an animal cannot cope with, requires extra-special evidence and proofs of science. How can evolution theory (even though it is a rule or algorithm) (see my Superdeterminism replaces Darwin Evolution book), how can evolution produce an animal with teeth that "get in the way of everything" as the animal goes through life. So, I am asking the science community to completely re-examine the fossil evidence of Smilodon. I do not have that evidence available, but the entire Paleontology community can make the evidence available. For what I suspect is that the tiger never had saber-teeth and that those teeth found in digs or tar pits, were the teeth of Entelodonts or some ungulate horn or walrus type animal teeth. In other words, I question the claim there ever existed a cat with huge canine teeth.

Cover Picture: What spurred me onto this small book was a few days ago seeing the cover of Science News showing a Saber-Toothed Tiger. And how utterly ridiculous for a tiger to have those teeth. And just as ridiculous that grown scientists believe such nonsense without questioning it.

• Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07Q7RLD4F
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 30, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1688 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 37 pages
• Best Sellers Rank: #157,331 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #5 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #14 in Paleontology (Kindle Store)
◦ #61 in Paleontology (Books)

Autistic Archimedes Plutonium continues to melt down and tards:
>
>
> Kibo on JDB and Dr.Ryan Carney University of South Florida, Tampa-- Scleromonchlus was a water animal, just like Pterosaurs, but Univ South Florida, Tampa has no logical brains to see this// And does USF have brains to DNA test the sabers of Saber tooth tiger as walrus.

Why won't you comment on the posts I just made? Do you think if anyone
corrects one of your dumb mistakes it's stalking? Why do you get so many
1 star reviews? Do you think that using the "Big Lie" technique works in
math and science, that is if you repeat one of your lies often enough,
it becomes true? Sorry, no matter how often you cry and whine that saber
tooth tigers can't exist (even if you don't have any issue with walruses
with similar teeth), the past is the past, skulls have been found with
the saber teeth still attached and obviously always part of the skull,
the skulls and even the saber teeth have been DNA tested and they are
felids, yet you insist on posting your lies. No wonder you are such a
total failure of math and science!

> On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 10:13:27 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: his usual stalk attack of psychoceramics
>> Re: Archimedes "psychoceramic" Plutonium flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
>> Autistic Archimedes Plutonium melts down and whines:
>>
>
> JDB and Dr.Ryan Carney University of South Florida, Tampa-- Scleromonchlus was a water animal, just like Pterosaurs, but Univ South Florida, Tampa has no logical brains to see this// And does USF have brains to DNA test the sabers of Saber tooth tiger as walrus.

You already wrote that. Part of your "Big Lie" technique?

>
> Not a single Saber toothed tiger skull intact with sabres ever found in fossils, yet

Another Big Lie.

Tampa's University of South Florida with JDB hate spews and Dr. Ryan
Carney work on Archaeopteryx is probably all wrong. Not a single saber
of the tiber DNA tested-- yes, Potsdam Germany tested DNA of lower
mandible but not the saber.
>
> Does Univ South Florida Tampa, have the brains to DNA test Smilodon sabers to make sure they are __not__ walrus tusks,

Already been done. You are wrong. As expected, of course.

<snip repetition of your mistakes, "pterosaurs can't fly">

Kibo watching Autistic NSF Dr. Panchanathan Caltech Thomas F Rosenbaum, Harvard's Lawrence Bacow with his 10 OR 6 = 16; his ellipse a conic when it never was; his proton to electron at 938 to 0.5 MeV continues to melt down and tards:

Kibo, why are they so dumb as to not see 945MeV is within Sigma Error of 9 muons composing both the neutron and the proton. Why so dumb????

On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 1:23:51 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Autistic NSF Dr. Panchanathan Caltech Thomas F Rosenbaum, Harvard's Lawrence Bacow with his 10 OR 6 = 16; his ellipse a conic when it never was; his proton to electron at 938 to 0.5 MeV .continues to melt down and tards:
Re: "mindless fuckdog" NSF Dr. Panchanathan flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test

Kibo, you are not so good at math yourself with your 938 is 12% short of 945.

Re: Kibo Parry Moroney stalks "AnalButtfuckManure Attacks" Betsy DeVos, NSF Dr. Panchanathan Caltech Thomas F Rosenbaum, Harvard's Lawrence Bacow with his 10 OR 6 = 16; his ellipse a conic when it never was; his proton to electron at 938 to 0.5 MeV .
by Oscar Alcheri Oct 22, 2022, 5:50 PM 

> > Kibo on JDB and Dr.Ryan Carney University of South Florida, Tampa-- Scleromonchlus was a water animal, just like Pterosaurs, but Univ South Florida, Tampa has no logical brains to see this// And does USF have brains to DNA test the sabers of Saber tooth tiger as walrus.
> Why won't you comment on the posts I just made? Do you think if anyone
> corrects one of your dumb mistakes it's stalking? Why do you get so many
> 1 star reviews? Do you think that using the "Big Lie" technique works in
> math and science, that is if you repeat one of your lies often enough,
> it becomes true? Sorry, no matter how often you cry and whine that saber
> tooth tigers can't exist (even if you don't have any issue with walruses
> with similar teeth), the past is the past, skulls have been found with
> the saber teeth still attached and obviously always part of the skull,
> the skulls and even the saber teeth have been DNA tested and they are
> felids, yet you insist on posting your lies. No wonder you are such a
> total failure of math and science!
> > On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 10:13:27 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: his usual stalk attack of psychoceramics
> >> Re: Archimedes "psychoceramic" Plutonium flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
> >> Autistic Archimedes Plutonium melts down and whines:
> >>
> >
> > JDB and Dr.Ryan Carney University of South Florida, Tampa-- Scleromonchlus was a water animal, just like Pterosaurs, but Univ South Florida, Tampa has no logical brains to see this// And does USF have brains to DNA test the sabers of Saber tooth tiger as walrus.
> You already wrote that. Part of your "Big Lie" technique?
> >
> > Not a single Saber toothed tiger skull intact with sabres ever found in fossils, yet
> Another Big Lie.
> Tampa's University of South Florida with JDB hate spews and Dr. Ryan
> Carney work on Archaeopteryx is probably all wrong. Not a single saber
> of the tiber DNA tested-- yes, Potsdam Germany tested DNA of lower
> mandible but not the saber.
> >
> > Does Univ South Florida Tampa, have the brains to DNA test Smilodon sabers to make sure they are __not__ walrus tusks,
> Already been done. You are wrong. As expected, of course.
>
> <snip repetition of your mistakes, "pterosaurs can't fly">

Why is Jim Burns a math failure like David Brooks, Michael Roston? None can admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse. Jim Burns daily spam into sci.math "Smullyan's Proof..." 5:15PM.

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,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
> >
> > 
> > > > > 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)

🦥 of Math and 🐢 of Physics Archimedes "mentally...slow" Plutonium
<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
> Kibo, why are they so dumb as to not see 945MeV is within Sigma Error of 9 muons composing both the neutron and the proton. Why so dumb????

It sure is dumb to claim the 938 MeV proton = 9*106 MeV muons to "within
sigma error" (whatever that means, you just made that up without
defining it). But what does anyone expect from Plutonium, who seems to
get dumber by the day.

No wonder the ISO unit for failure is the "plutonium". Although, like
the farad, the plutonium is a huge unit. Only our own ArchiePoo can
obtain one plutonium worth of failure.

Kibo stalking NYT--
>David Brooks 🦥 of Math and Michael Roston 🐢 of Physics
On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 9:00:57 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> fails at math and science:
Kibo Parry Moroney in 1997 blows his CIA cover-- to the entire world, mind you---
Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
>> In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes:
> >

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.

Look, the NYT cannot even cover the truth of math or science, and thus, cannot tell the truth of social life in America of politics, of history. If you cannot tell the truth of a Oval versus Ellipse, nothing else you say is likely the truth.

The New York Times cannot cover the truth of math or science-- Slant cut of Cone is Oval, never ellipse. Means the The New York Times is a garbage newsprint that cannot cover the truth of history, politics or the daily news.

The New York Times, certainly cannot tell the truth about math or science, certainly then, cannot tell the truth about history or politics. As soon as David Brooks opens his mouth on politics, is as soon as- turn the TV off. For The New York Times is not about the "truth of the world" but about their own childish games. A sort of Fascism of News.

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,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
>
> > > > 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)

On 11/14/2022 7:00 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 🦥 of Math and 🐢 of Physics Archimedes "mentally...slow" Plutonium
> <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
>> Kibo, why are they so dumb as to not see 945MeV is within Sigma Error
>> of 9 muons composing both the neutron and the proton. Why so dumb????
>
> It sure is dumb to claim the 938 MeV proton = 9*106 MeV muons to "within
> sigma error" (whatever that means, you just made that up without
> defining it). But what does anyone expect from Plutonium, who seems to
> get dumber by the day.

How many days does a brain take to self-destruct from lack of nutrients?

>
> No wonder the ISO unit for failure is the "plutonium". Although, like
> the farad, the plutonium is a huge unit. Only our own ArchiePoo can
> obtain one plutonium worth of failure.

On Fri Nov 11 17:47:10 2022 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 6:23:59 PM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:
> > On Sat Oct 22 22:49:33 2022 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > Georgia Tech, Angel Cabrera, was Earle Jones a failure at Georgia Tech? For he is able to do is stalk stalk on internet. In his below description, the fool is unaware that a Cone and Oval have one axes of symmetry. A ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, so the slant cut of Cylinder does give an ellipse but never the cone. Earle Jones seems to have failed GT, and perhaps even Stanford Univ for he fails in even the elementary issues of Ohm's law.
> > *
> > Actually, just for your information, I graduated from Georgia Tech with a Bachelor's Degree in Electrical Engineering (with highest honors) and then went on to Stanford and received a Masters' Degree in EE. Then to the Stanford Graduate School of Business where I received a Diploma from the Advanced Management College.
> >
> > earle
> > *
>
> With a PhD in stalking, eh Earle. I care nothing about your life, for the only salient feature of your life is you degenerated into a nonstop stalker.
>
> The reason I repeat and repeat this thread, is you are insane that you will not stop and so, well after 30 years of your stalking, I oblige you with your own stalking bullshit.
>
> You are not a decent person Earle, no stalker is a decent person. You need psychiatric help but whether stalking behavior is curable-- probably not

*
AP: In my opinion, you would not know a decent person if it came up to you an bit you on your skinny worthless ass.

earle
*

Kibo says The New York Times with David Brooks, Michael Roston, as retards of science-- their slant cut of cone as ellipses when in truth it is a Oval.. And a oval is not a ellipse as the retard John Baez tried to argue-- only to avoid giving credit to AP. Anti-science people do a lot of that-- rather than admit the truth, they try to say-- oval and ellipse are the same thing.

On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 10:24:31 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> The retardedly retarded retard

On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 9:00:57 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> fails at math and science:
Kibo Parry Moroney in 1997 blows his CIA cover-- to the entire world, mind you---
Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
>> In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes:
> >

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.

Look, the NYT cannot even cover the truth of math or science, and thus, cannot tell the truth of social life in America of politics, of history. If you cannot tell the truth of a Oval versus Ellipse, nothing else you say is likely the truth.

The New York Times cannot cover the truth of math or science-- Slant cut of Cone is Oval, never ellipse. Means the The New York Times is a garbage newsprint that cannot cover the truth of history, politics or the daily news.

The New York Times, certainly cannot tell the truth about math or science, certainly then, cannot tell the truth about history or politics. As soon as David Brooks opens his mouth on politics, is as soon as- turn the TV off. For The New York Times is not about the "truth of the world" but about their own childish games. A sort of Fascism of News.

> > > > > 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)

Andrew Wiles, since you failed math with your slant cut of cone a ellipse and too stupid to admit your mistake, for a ellipse has 2 axes of symmetry, a cone and oval have but 1 axis of symmetry. Since Andrew is too proud and dumb to admit he screwed up on such simple geometry, that perhaps Earle Jones the physics failure of Ohm's law will give you a dishwasher job that he so eagerly offers.

Why Andrew Wiles, you are so bad in mathematics, in your entire career in math you never recognized Calculus was geometry, and therefore needed a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Why not pack it up, Andrew, before you brainwash any more of the students at Oxford and elsewhere with you b.s. math.





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)