stir crazy-- Fritz Feldhase,William Hughes,Sergio,Gottingen,Eberhard Bodenschatz, Laura Covi,Metin Tolin why does Wolfgang Mueckenheim the idiot with "dark numbers" & Dr. Tao fail geometry so so badly, 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?

From Mostowski Collapse memorable thread to sci.math " Is WM allowed to teach math" 4/21/2018, of the idiot in Germany Wolfgang Mueckenheim, who cannot even understand slant cut of cone is Oval, never his mindless ellipse and so much a failure of math that WM believes in his mindless creation of "dark numbers". I guess Germany has no psychiatry hospitals to treat the ailing WM.
> > > >
> > > > Is Gottingen Univ stir crazy?? As WM with his mindless "dark numbers", why that idiot WM cannot even tell the difference between a ellipse and a oval. Yet every day that mindless failure of math WM pollutes sci.math.
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > > Karsten Bahr, Peter Bloechl, Eberhard Bodenschatz, Laura Covi, Andreas Dillmann, Stefan Dreizler, Jörg Enderlein,
> > > > Laurent Gizon, Ariane Frey, Wolfgang Glatzel, Fabian Heidrich-Meisner, Hans Christian Hofsäss, Andreas Janshoff,
> > > > Christian Jooß, Stefan Kehrein, Stefan Klumpp, Sarah Köster, Reiner Kree, Matthias Krüger, Stanley Lai, Stefan Mathias,
> > > > Vasile Mosneaga, Marcus Müller, Jens Niemeyer, Astrid Pundt, Arnulf Quadt, Karl-Henning Rehren, Ansgar Reiners, 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Why can no-one in Germany ever ask the question which is the atom's true electron the muon or the 0.5MeV particle
> > > >
> > > > HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > >
> > > > In 2016-2017, AP discovered that the real proton has a mass of 840 MeV, not 938. The real electron was actually the muon and the muon stays inside the proton that forms a proton torus of 8 rings and with the muon as bar magnet is a Faraday Law producing magnetic monopoles. So this book is all about why researchers of physics and engineers keep getting the number 938MeV when they should be getting the number 840 MeV + 105 MeV = 945 MeV.
> > > >
> > > > Cover Picture is a proton torus of 8 rings with a muon of 1 ring inside the proton torus, doing the Faraday Law and producing magnetic monopoles.
> > > > Length: 17 pages
> > > >
> > > > Product details
> > > > • Publication Date : December 18, 2019
> > > > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > > > • Print Length : 17 pages
> > > > • File Size : 698 KB
> > > > • ASIN : B082WYGVNG
> > > > • Language: : English
> > > > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> > > > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> > > > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > > > > --- quoting from AP's published proof ---
> > > > > > ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse::
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > E
> > > > > > __
> > > > > > .-' `-.
> > > > > > .' `.
> > > > > > / \
> > > > > > ; ;
> > > > > > | G c | H
> > > > > > ; ;
> > > > > > \ /
> > > > > > `. .'
> > > > > > `-. _____ .-'
> > > > > > F
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The side view of a cylinder is this
> > > > > >
> > > > > > | |
> > > > > > | |
> > > > > > | |
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That allows cE to be the same distance as cF
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But the side view of the cone is
> > > > > >
> > > > > > /\E
> > > > > > /c \
> > > > > > F / \
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF makes that distance larger than cE.
> > > > > > --- end quote ---
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Terence Tao. Why is Terence Tao allowed to teach, when he cannot tell apart a ellipse from a oval in slant cut of cone?? How many students have to be brainwashed by this math quack-crank???
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > #11-2, 11th published book
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> > > > > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
> > > > > > > > Preface:
> > > > > > > > Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof.. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Product details
> > > > > > > > ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
> > > > > > > > Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
> > > > > > > > Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > > > > > File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
> > > > > > > > Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > > > > Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > > > > > > Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > > > > X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > > > > Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > > > > Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages
> > > > > > > > Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > > > > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> > > > > > > > #2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> > > > > > > > #134 in Calculus (Books)
> > > > > > > > #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
> > > > > > Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
> > > > > > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > 2nd published book
> > >
> > > True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > > Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere.
> > >
> > > Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule.
> > >
> > > Length: 1150 pages
> > >
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • File Size : 2167 KB
> > > • ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ
> > > • Publication Date : March 11, 2019
> > > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > > • Print Length : 1150 pages
> > > • Language: : English
> > > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> > > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> > > #181 in General Chemistry & Reference
> > > #1324 in General Chemistry
> > > #1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)

Kibo says mindless fuckdog Donald Schwendeman, Jeffrey Banks,Rensselaer Polytech
On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 1:07:04 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"mindless fuckdog"
> "Kim Jong Un's ...

Why Kibo Parry Moron,is it because they cannot tell a Oval from ellipse, or they cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?

3rd published book

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
•
•

Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.

Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.

In the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence proof. Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse..

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 827 KB
• Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 51 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#12-2, 11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.

To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

Kibo says of Rensselaer as mindless fuckdog of Kim Jong Un's Kibo Parry Moroney, CIA William Burns 30 year nonstop stalker On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 1:07:04 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >"Kim Jong Un's stooge" Rensselaer Polytechnic

Kibo says of Rensselaer as mindless fuckdog of Kim Jong Un's
Kibo Parry Moroney, CIA William Burns 30 year nonstop stalker
On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 1:07:04 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"Kim Jong Un's stooge"

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Physics dept
Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek, Julian S. Georg, Joel T. Giedt, Yong Sung Kim, Gyorgy Korniss, Toh-Ming Lu, Charles Martin, Joseph Darryl Michael, Heidi Jo Newberg, Moussa N'Gom, Peter Persans, John Schroeder, Michael Shur, Shawn-Yu Lin, Humberto Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang, Morris A Washington, Esther A. Wertz, Christian M. Wetzel, Ingrid Wilke, Shengbai Zhang

Rensselaer math department
Donald Schwendeman, Jeffrey Banks, Kristin Bennett, Mohamed Boudjelkha, Joseph Ecker, William Henshaw, Isom Herron, Mark H Holmes, David Isaacson, Elizabeth Kam, Ashwani Kapila, Maya Kiehl, Gregor Kovacic, Peter Kramer, Gina Kucinski, Rongjie Lai, Fengyan Li, Chjan Lim, Yuri V Lvov, Harry McLaughlin, John E. Mitchell, Bruce Piper, David A Schmidt, Daniel Stevenson, Yangyang Xu, Bulent Yener, Donald Drew, William Siegmann

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

Kibo Parry Moron blowing his cover with the CIA in 1997
Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
On Sunday, June 8, 1997 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes:
> >
> >http://www.netscum.net/fieldsm0.html
> What the hell is this? As if it's not bad enough that we have a fake
> Mao Zhedong here, now we have a fake kibo too?
> Is there a fake xibo and a ~ibo to round out the trinity?
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon..
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.

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

Kibo's analbuttfuckmanure stalking of Dartmouth and Stanford Univ--Re: _CIA Kate Heinzelman why Kibo Parry call Dr.Hanlon,Dartmouth& Dr.Lavigne Stanford as Analbuttfuckmanure?? Is it Kibo's stalking or is it because they cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse. What is the answer Kate???? Or should I
by Chris M. Thomasson Oct 15, 2022, 5:38:32 PM

> stir crazy-- Fritz Feldhase,William Hughes,Sergio,Gottingen,Eberhard Bodenschatz, Laura Covi,Metin Tolin why does Wolfgang Mueckenheim the idiot with "dark numbers" & Dr. Tao fail geometry so so badly, 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?
>
> From Mostowski Collapse memorable thread to sci.math " Is WM allowed to teach math" 4/21/2018, of the idiot in Germany Wolfgang Mueckenheim, who cannot even understand slant cut of cone is Oval, never his mindless ellipse and so much a failure of math that WM believes in his mindless creation of "dark numbers". I guess Germany has no psychiatry hospitals to treat the ailing WM.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is Gottingen Univ stir crazy?? As WM with his mindless "dark numbers", why that idiot WM cannot even tell the difference between a ellipse and a oval. Yet every day that mindless failure of math WM pollutes sci.math..
> > > > >
> > > > > 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
> > > > > Karsten Bahr, Peter Bloechl, Eberhard Bodenschatz, Laura Covi, Andreas Dillmann, Stefan Dreizler, Jörg Enderlein,
> > > > > Laurent Gizon, Ariane Frey, Wolfgang Glatzel, Fabian Heidrich-Meisner, Hans Christian Hofsäss, Andreas Janshoff,
> > > > > Christian Jooß, Stefan Kehrein, Stefan Klumpp, Sarah Köster, Reiner Kree, Matthias Krüger, Stanley Lai, Stefan Mathias,
> > > > > Vasile Mosneaga, Marcus Müller, Jens Niemeyer, Astrid Pundt, Arnulf Quadt, Karl-Henning Rehren, Ansgar Reiners, 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Why can no-one in Germany ever ask the question which is the atom's true electron the muon or the 0.5MeV particle
> > > > >
> > > > > HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
> > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > >
> > > > > In 2016-2017, AP discovered that the real proton has a mass of 840 MeV, not 938. The real electron was actually the muon and the muon stays inside the proton that forms a proton torus of 8 rings and with the muon as bar magnet is a Faraday Law producing magnetic monopoles. So this book is all about why researchers of physics and engineers keep getting the number 938MeV when they should be getting the number 840 MeV + 105 MeV = 945 MeV..
> > > > >
> > > > > Cover Picture is a proton torus of 8 rings with a muon of 1 ring inside the proton torus, doing the Faraday Law and producing magnetic monopoles.
> > > > > Length: 17 pages
> > > > >
> > > > > Product details
> > > > > • Publication Date : December 18, 2019
> > > > > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > > > > • Print Length : 17 pages
> > > > > • File Size : 698 KB
> > > > > • ASIN : B082WYGVNG
> > > > > • Language: : English
> > > > > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> > > > > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> > > > > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > > > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > > > > > --- quoting from AP's published proof ---
> > > > > > > ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse::
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > E
> > > > > > > __
> > > > > > > .-' `-.
> > > > > > > .' `.
> > > > > > > / \
> > > > > > > ; ;
> > > > > > > | G c | H
> > > > > > > ; ;
> > > > > > > \ /
> > > > > > > `. .'
> > > > > > > `-. _____ .-'
> > > > > > > F
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The side view of a cylinder is this
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > | |
> > > > > > > | |
> > > > > > > | |
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That allows cE to be the same distance as cF
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But the side view of the cone is
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > /\E
> > > > > > > /c \
> > > > > > > F / \
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF makes that distance larger than cE.
> > > > > > > --- end quote ---
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Terence Tao. Why is Terence Tao allowed to teach, when he cannot tell apart a ellipse from a oval in slant cut of cone?? How many students have to be brainwashed by this math quack-crank???
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > #11-2, 11th published book
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> > > > > > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
> > > > > > > > > Preface:
> > > > > > > > > Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Product details
> > > > > > > > > ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
> > > > > > > > > Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
> > > > > > > > > Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > > > > > > File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
> > > > > > > > > Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > > > > > Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > > > > > > > Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > > > > > X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > > > > > Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > > > > > Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages
> > > > > > > > > Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > > > > > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> > > > > > > > > #2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> > > > > > > > > #134 in Calculus (Books)
> > > > > > > > > #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
> > > > > > > Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
> > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > > > > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > 2nd published book
> > > >
> > > > True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > >
> > > > Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere.
> > > >
> > > > Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule.
> > > >
> > > > Length: 1150 pages
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Product details
> > > > • File Size : 2167 KB
> > > > • ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ
> > > > • Publication Date : March 11, 2019
> > > > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > > > • Print Length : 1150 pages
> > > > • Language: : English
> > > > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> > > > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> > > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > > Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> > > > #181 in General Chemistry & Reference
> > > > #1324 in General Chemistry
> > > > #1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)

Kibo Parry on GLONASS and BeiDou satellites falling out of the skies.

Kibo Parry will The New York Times David Brooks and Michael Roston cover the story like the NYT Science Times covered -- slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse.

Steady aim of Ayaz and Banerjee with decades of spamming practice. Firing the Satellite Rifle to take down GLONASS and BeiDou//Armondikov--Feb 6, 2013 - Via PsyGremlin via PZ Myers, this is Archimedes Plutonium, my new favourite crank hat. SATELLITE LASER RIFLE--bring down GLONASS

On Saturday, October 29, 2022 at 12:38:13 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
>Drinking Principle in the notation

Fritz Feldhase,Dan Christensen,Sergey Lavrov what would Russia do, once it sees their GLONASS satellites falling out of the sky? Would they exit Ukraine?

Easiest way to disable and make ICBMs obsolete is to make their navigation system obsolete.

Easiest way to make navigation systems obsolete is to down satellites.

Easiest way to down satellites is a Laser beam zapping for 5 seconds on a "satellite panel". And so, down falls the satellite.

Now are the satellites coordinated in GLONASS? For if coordinated and synchronized, there is the physical possibility of "if we down one of the satellites, all of GLONASS satellites are downed".

Jan Burse with satellite-rifle laser beam with telescope - scope is trying to shoot down GLONASS satellites in a Smullyan liquor proof at his home near Zurich. Any luck Jan?

Jan are you catching the satellites missed by Dan Christensen overhead in Ontario Canada?

More on Jan Burse, aka, Mostowski Collapse can be found on his website of liaring hate-spew --

ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM BANNED - Google Groups
https://groups.google.com › comp.lang.prolog
https://groups.google.com › comp.lang.prolog

ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM BANNED from. Dartmouth canteen. His wheelchair is too wide, he doesn't pass the entrance. Mostowski Collapse's profile photo ...

> Armondikov
Archimedes Plutonium | Spherical Bullshit
sphericalbullshit.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/archimedes-plutonium/‎

◦ Cached

Feb 6, 2013 - Via PsyGremlin via PZ Myers, this is Archimedes Plutonium, my new favourite crank hat. I was really fucking surprised to have taken this long to ...

Nomen Nescio artwork in use:

NATO's most reliable LASER SATELLITE RIFLE , Jan Burse Zurich ETH, should not the Laser Rifle be pointed up in the air higher???

███۞███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▃
▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂
I███████████████████].
◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤...



Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart Award:
[ ]
/
/ .'
/ .'
/ ______. .'
/ / __/_// ' OWOWOWOWOOWOWW
/ / / @"@ OWOWOWOWOWOWOWOW
/ \ G ' >' OWOWOWOWOWOWOWO _.-'
/ \/. C ' OWOWOWOWOW _.-'
/ .---\ / --. _.-'
/ / \( \ _.-' HOLY GOD
/ / \ \ (. ) ' THE RAPE RAYS
/ / /\ \ /
/ \ | \ \ __..--''
/ .' \_\ ) )\ __..--''
/ .' ) \ | / \ -''
/ .' _ '///` ( /\ \
/.' _.-' __ / ) ) )
'.-'..--'' / ,' / /
.__---------- /__./ / / --------------------
``--.. __// / ) /
/ _J) /)`-\
`-__/-' ` \ |(
`\ \ -..__
`--' ``--..__
``--

[ ] Careful when you aim the Satellite Laser Rifle. We want to save our young virgin sharpshooters.

[ ]
___________________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please don't |
/ O O\__ feed |
/ \ GLONASS satellites a Glurrrgz sock? |
/ \ \ |
/ _ \ \ ----------------------
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | __||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | /| | --|
| | |// |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ // |
/ _ \\ _ // | /
* / \_ /- | - | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

[ ] Why didn't
In loving memory of The Battle Kitten
May 2010-February 12, 2017

|^|^| |^|^|
| | | | | |
>. <| | | | | |
(x x)" "----" |
\/\/\ @ --------.
"----------''''''''

[ ]
____ _ _ _ _ _
| _ \ | | ___ _ __ | | __ | | | | | |
| |_) | | | / _ \ | '_ \ | |/ / | | | | | |
| __/ | | | (_) | | | | | | < |_| |_| |_|
|_| |_| \___/ |_| |_| |_|\_\ (_) (_) (_)

I'M NEW TO SATELLITE DOWNING !!!!!!!!!!!

GLONASS time clock Award:
[ ]
5 SECOND LASER-O-METER

5* 6* *7
4* *8
3* *9
2* *10
1* | *
0* -*- *
* |\ *
* \ *
* \ *
* _\/ *
* * *
[ ] dolf

[ ] Bad News for Cad Kooks
[ ] ❄ Snowflake ❄ OK, now this is seriously fucked up... ❄ Snowflake ❄
[ ]
" , ,
", ,
"" _---. ..;%%%;, . I HIDE OUT IN BeiDou satellites look like this
"" .", , .==% %%%%%%% ' .
"", %%% =%% %%%%%%; ; ;-_
%; %%%%% .;%;%%%"%p ---; _ '-_
%; %%%%% __;%%;p/; O --_ "-,_
q; %%% /v \;%p ;%%%%%;--__ "'-__'-._
//\" // \ % ;%%%%%%%;',/%\_ __ "'-_'\_
\ / // \/ ;%% %; %;/\%%%%;;;;\ "- _\
," %; %%; %%;;' ';% -\-_
-=\=" __% %%;_ |;; %%%\ \
_/ _= \==_;;,_ %%%; % -_ /
/ /- =%- ;%%%%; %%; "--__/
//= ==%-%%; %; %
/ _=_- d ;%; ;%;
\ =,-" d%%; ;%%;
// % ;%%;
// d%%%"
\ %%
V
[ ] Why did Since it was revealed that apparently Who

The Iran satellite looks like a dinosaur

\
\ __.,,------.._
,'" _ _ "`.
/.__, ._ -=- _"` Y
(.____.-.` ""` j
VvvvvvV`.Y,. _.,-' , , ,
Y ||, '"\ ,/ ,/ ./
| ,' , `-..,'_,'/___,'/ ,'/ ,
.. ,;,,',-'"\,' , . ' ' ""' '--,/ .. ..
,'. `.`---' `, / , Y -=- ,' , ,. .`-..||_|| ..
ff\\`. `._ /f ,'j j , ,' , , f , \=\ Y || ||`||_..
l` \` `.`."`-..,-' j /./ /, , / , / /l \ \=\l || `' || ||...
` ` `-._ `-.,-/ ,' /`"/-/-/-/-"'''"`.`. `'.\--`'--..`'_`' || ,
"`-_,', ,' f , / `._ ``._ , `-.`'// ,
,-"'' _.,-' l_,-'_,,' "`-._ . "`. /| `.'\ , |
,',.,-'" \=) ,`-. , `-'._`.V | \ // .. .. /j
|f\ `._ )-."`. /| `.| | `.`-||-\\/
l` \` "`._ "`--' j j' j `-`---'
` ` "`_,-','/ ,-'" /
,'",__,-' /,, ,-'
Vvv' VVv'