Fire WM & his spammers, Gottingen Uni's Metin Tolan, Germany's Anja Karliczek ministry of educ, and Jim Burns perpetual sci.math spammer, all for teaching slant cut of cone is ellipse when it never was -- it is a oval.

Many of the WM spam brigade are likely to be a party goon club to keep WM on top of the leader board 1st page-- Chris Thomasson, Gus Gassmann, Fritz Feldhase, Sergi_o, Jim Burns, is it a gay party all to keep WM spam on front page, but one thing is certain, WM threads are vapid, vacuum, empty of math, if not for the outright idiocy of "dark numbers". Is WM posts a gay party in sci.math? Or is it a deliberate attempt to brainwash young people-- that ellipse is a conic, and 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction and that "dark numbers" are not only up WM arse sideways, but in every day life.

Dr.Terence Tao along with Dr. Gene D.Block fired from UCLA for teaching propaganda -- truth is slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse, yet UCLA continues their propaganda of ellipse as slant cut.

Our youth in science education are precise, and as always in science-- Truth wins, not cliche of propaganda, those that can no longer "prove items of contention". Nor do bands of hate mongers with their sex drive, rule science just because the band together.

In the below, Kibo Parry M. a hatemonger, never a scientist with his 938 is 12% short of 945, makes the argument which appears to be the argument that Dr. Tao and Dr. Block support at UCLA, but which brainwashes our youth in their education of science.

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.

Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 25, 2022, 12:44:56 AM
to sci.math
Kibo better than Dr.Tao in math-- yet Kibo Parry M still believes 938 is 12% short of 945. But Dr. Terence Tao of UCLA, runs and hides, hides and runs whenever the question arises-- is slant cut of cone a ellipse or as AP proves-- it is a Oval. No, Dr. Tao should be drummed out of math completely. At least the dawn is awakening in Kibo, that cone has but one axis of symmetry, yet a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry. For here is the awful situation of a person not in math-- Kibo Parry M. who is on his way of the "realization slant cut of cone is a OVAL, never the ellipse". Yet there you have the idiot-of-math Dr. Tao at UCLA, run and hide, run Terry, hide Terry. Same thing can be said of Ruth Charney the recent head of AMS, run Ruth, hide Ruth, even though your so called specialty was geometry, Ruth, Ruth, run and hide.

On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 12:51:25 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 10/23/2022 1:06 AM, 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
> > *
> Plutonium's argument is based on axes of symmetry. While his so-called
> "proof" is rambling and in no way a valid math proof, its basic argument
> is a tilted plane intersecting a cone will have the side nearest the
> apex of the cone will be smaller than the side tilting away from the
> apex, simply because the cone itself gets smaller near the apex and
> larger away from it. Thus his "proof" is that the cone isn't symmetric
> _around the axis of the cone_. However the cone's formula will have
> something like (x-k)^2 in it, which is obviously symmetric around the
> x=k plane.
>
> I know if you look at a drawing, it doesn't look like it could be an
> ellipse. I think of this as like a "mathematical optical illusion".
>
> This is easier to visualize if the cone is tilted around the y axis,
> with its apex at the point (x=0,y=0,z=0) and is intersected by the plane
> z=m for some m.
>
>
> Here's a proof someone (I forget who) wrote earlier in response to AP,
> that tilts the cone and the cone is intersected by the plane
> z=<constant>. It may be unclear in the last line why that is the
> equation of an ellipse if C>0, but the left side is a constant, and the
> right side is C*(x-K)^2 + y^2, which is the formula of an ellipse. K=k*S/C.
>
>
>
> I'll start with the cone z^2 = x^2 + y^2, and rotate it through an angle
> 'theta' around the 'y' axis, and consider the intersection of that
> rotated cone with the plane z = <constant>
>
> To simplify things, let c = cos(theta) and s = sin(theta). Then the
> rotation is defined by
>
> z --> cz + sx
> x --> -sz + cx
> y --> y
>
> So the equation of the rotated cone is
>
> (cz+sx)^2 = (-sz+cx)^2 + y^2
>
> and now let C = c^2-s^2 and S = 2sc (again, just to simplify the look
> of things)
>
> so we get
>
> Cz^2 = Cx^2 - 2Szx + y^2
>
> and letting 'z' equal the constant 'k' gives
>
> Ck^2 + k^2*S^2/C = C(x - k*S/C)^2 + y^2
>
> which is the equation of an ellipse if C > 0.

On 10/23/2022 1:51 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> It may be unclear in the last line why that is the
> equation of an ellipse if C>0, but the left side is a constant, and the
> right side is C*(x-K)^2 + y^2, which is the formula of an ellipse. K=k*S/C.

This proof skips several steps before the last line, so it's far from
obvious. I will have to make it clearer, and add the skipped steps back in.

---------

Kibo of course is a loud math in sci.math and sci.physics and should never have posted but watched and listened.

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

WM,.. Ben Bacarisse
61
unread,
Three proofs of dark numbers contd
WM <askasker48@gmail.com> writes: (AKA Dr. Wolfgang Mückenheim or Mueckenheim who teaches
4:22 PM

Fire WM & his spammers, Gottingen Uni's Metin Tolan, Germany's Anja Karliczek ministry of educ, and Jim Burns perpetual sci.math spammer, all for teaching slant cut of cone is ellipse when it never was -- it is a oval.
>
> Many of the WM spam brigade are likely to be a party goon club to keep WM on top of the leader board 1st page-- Chris Thomasson, Gus Gassmann, Fritz Feldhase, Sergi_o, Jim Burns, is it a gay party all to keep WM spam on front page, but one thing is certain, WM threads are vapid, vacuum, empty of math, if not for the outright idiocy of "dark numbers". Is WM posts a gay party in sci.math? Or is it a deliberate attempt to brainwash young people-- that ellipse is a conic, and 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction and that "dark numbers" are not only up WM arse sideways, but in every day life.
>
> Dr.Terence Tao along with Dr. Gene D.Block fired from UCLA for teaching propaganda -- truth is slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse, yet UCLA continues their propaganda of ellipse as slant cut.
>
> Our youth in science education are precise, and as always in science-- Truth wins, not cliche of propaganda, those that can no longer "prove items of contention". Nor do bands of hate mongers with their sex drive, rule science just because the band together.
>
> In the below, Kibo Parry M. a hatemonger, never a scientist with his 938 is 12% short of 945, makes the argument which appears to be the argument that Dr. Tao and Dr. Block support at UCLA, but which brainwashes our youth in their education of science.
>
> 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.
>
> Archimedes Plutonium
> Oct 25, 2022, 12:44:56 AM
> to sci.math
> Kibo better than Dr.Tao in math-- yet Kibo Parry M still believes 938 is 12% short of 945. But Dr. Terence Tao of UCLA, runs and hides, hides and runs whenever the question arises-- is slant cut of cone a ellipse or as AP proves-- it is a Oval. No, Dr. Tao should be drummed out of math completely. At least the dawn is awakening in Kibo, that cone has but one axis of symmetry, yet a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry. For here is the awful situation of a person not in math-- Kibo Parry M. who is on his way of the "realization slant cut of cone is a OVAL, never the ellipse". Yet there you have the idiot-of-math Dr. Tao at UCLA, run and hide, run Terry, hide Terry. Same thing can be said of Ruth Charney the recent head of AMS, run Ruth, hide Ruth, even though your so called specialty was geometry, Ruth, Ruth, run and hide.
>
> On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 12:51:25 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On 10/23/2022 1:06 AM, 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
> > > *
> > Plutonium's argument is based on axes of symmetry. While his so-called
> > "proof" is rambling and in no way a valid math proof, its basic argument
> > is a tilted plane intersecting a cone will have the side nearest the
> > apex of the cone will be smaller than the side tilting away from the
> > apex, simply because the cone itself gets smaller near the apex and
> > larger away from it. Thus his "proof" is that the cone isn't symmetric
> > _around the axis of the cone_. However the cone's formula will have
> > something like (x-k)^2 in it, which is obviously symmetric around the
> > x=k plane.
> >
> > I know if you look at a drawing, it doesn't look like it could be an
> > ellipse. I think of this as like a "mathematical optical illusion".
> >
> > This is easier to visualize if the cone is tilted around the y axis,
> > with its apex at the point (x=0,y=0,z=0) and is intersected by the plane
> > z=m for some m.
> >
> >
> > Here's a proof someone (I forget who) wrote earlier in response to AP,
> > that tilts the cone and the cone is intersected by the plane
> > z=<constant>. It may be unclear in the last line why that is the
> > equation of an ellipse if C>0, but the left side is a constant, and the
> > right side is C*(x-K)^2 + y^2, which is the formula of an ellipse. K=k*S/C.
> >
> >
> >
> > I'll start with the cone z^2 = x^2 + y^2, and rotate it through an angle
> > 'theta' around the 'y' axis, and consider the intersection of that
> > rotated cone with the plane z = <constant>
> >
> > To simplify things, let c = cos(theta) and s = sin(theta). Then the
> > rotation is defined by
> >
> > z --> cz + sx
> > x --> -sz + cx
> > y --> y
> >
> > So the equation of the rotated cone is
> >
> > (cz+sx)^2 = (-sz+cx)^2 + y^2
> >
> > and now let C = c^2-s^2 and S = 2sc (again, just to simplify the look
> > of things)
> >
> > so we get
> >
> > Cz^2 = Cx^2 - 2Szx + y^2
> >
> > and letting 'z' equal the constant 'k' gives
> >
> > Ck^2 + k^2*S^2/C = C(x - k*S/C)^2 + y^2
> >
> > which is the equation of an ellipse if C > 0.
>
> On 10/23/2022 1:51 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > It may be unclear in the last line why that is the
> > equation of an ellipse if C>0, but the left side is a constant, and the
> > right side is C*(x-K)^2 + y^2, which is the formula of an ellipse. K=k*S/C.
>
> This proof skips several steps before the last line, so it's far from
> obvious. I will have to make it clearer, and add the skipped steps back in.
>
> ---------
>
> Kibo of course is a loud math in sci.math and sci.physics and should never have posted but watched and listened.
>
> 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)

Is Fritz Feldhase actually a person or just another alias name for the spam poster WM, to keep his spamming rubbish on front page of sci.math??? For one thing is truly obvious,-- the math ignorant WM and Feldhase cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, and if you are this much of a math failure, anything else you say about math is not worth posting.

unread,
Three proofs of dark numbers contd
On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 6:21:00 AM UTC+1, Jim Burns wrote: > > But I am not an
12:21 AM

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
WM turning Gottingen Uni & Germany into a gay-pick-up-bar, starting with sci.math//NewsFlash-- Mueckenheim, who attends your bar? Jim Burns, Fritz Feldhase, Chris Thomasson, Gus Gassmann, Sergi_o, Zelos, FromTheRafters, yet not a single one there
Nov 28

Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen
2

måndag 28 november 2022 kl. 02:55:40 UTC+1 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> Fire WM & so he can become my boyfriend and fuck me in the ass!

Archie, we know you are gay but do you need to tell everyone?

WM continues along with his Sifalites to treat sci.math as a gay-pick-up bar, not as a forum for math, when neither WM nor his stupid Sifalites admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse and their mindboggling stupidity of Boole logic 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.

WM
, …
Sergi o
187
unread,
Three proofs of dark numbers contd
zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Dienstag, 29. November 2022 um 18:59:47 UTC+1: > tisdag 29 november
1:02 PM

Chase Rossini's profile photo
Chase Rossini
, …
Bobby Spanò
24
unread,
Re: FRIEDMANN's 1922 Accidental Proof of God
George Hammond wrote: > SNIIP SPAM you sure? These guys are blowing up energy pipelines for the
12:56 PM

Bobby Spanò's profile photo
Bobby Spanò
unread,
Re: forgyvme i sick i cry
Bobby Spanò wrote: > My brain run low on oxygen when Donald Trump's ballsack become lodged in
12:42 PM

Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen
, …
Mostowski Collapse
8
unread,
Without Loss of Generality: A limited of method of proof
There are now two WLOG proofs, your post here, and mine here: > > > 76 EXIST(p):EXIST(q):[~p
12:30 PM

Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen
, …
Mostowski Collapse
89
unread,
"Without loss of generality" may not be formalizable
No the final conclusion is now: > > > 76 EXIST(p):EXIST(q):[~p=q & color(p)=color(q)]
12:24 PM

Bobby Spanò's profile photo
Bobby Spanò
2
unread,
Re: How much gravity is too much gravity?

Look this
↓
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀🌞⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

⠀ ⠀ ⠀ ⠀ ⠀ ⠀ ⠀ ⠀ ⠀ 🛩
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀🌧️🌧️🌧️⠀⠀🌧️🌧️⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀🌧️🌧️🌧️⠀⠀🌧️🌧️🌧️🌧️⠀⠀🌧️🌧️⠀⠀⠀🌧️🌧️🌧️⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀🕊️ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀🌴⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀🍄 ⠀⠀⠀⠀ 🌼⠀⠀⠀⠀ 🌻
🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫

How do You rate this on 1....10 scale ?

On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 10:40:31 AM UTC+2, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> måndag 28 november 2022 kl. 02:55:40 UTC+1 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> > Fire WM & so he can become my boyfriend and fuck me in the ass!
>
> Archie, we know you are gay but do you need to tell everyone?

WM,Sergi_o,Susanne Schneider,Metin Tolan,Anja Karliczek,Susanne Schneider,Steffen Schumann, Cynthia A. Volkert are they forever going to be mindless idiots of math--slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse geometry.

And here you can plainly see the side EC is smaller than CF, while a ellipse requires them to be equal
......../\E
....../ c.\
F / .......\

entrance E of planar cut, and "c" the center axis, and F the exit of planar cut, cF is far larger than Ec.

Are they trying to turn sci.math into a gay pick up bar rather than legitimate math with endless day after day spam?

WM 30 "Who recognizes... dark numbers"
Sergi_o 68, "Questions on...."
Wolfgang Mueckenheim 324 "Three proofs of dark numbers..."
of the fine Bacarisse cheese
Ben Bacarisse 323 "Three proofs of dark numbers..."
FromTheRafters (more like gutters) 221 "Two similar..."
Sergi_o 161 "Two similar..."
Ben Bacarisse 133, "Two similar properties..."

WM turning Gottingen Germany into geometry failures.
Kibo chasing corpses in WM gay pick up bar, for Kibo sure does not know the difference between Oval and ellipse as seen in his latest stupidity-- a revolving axis as Kibo the moron and BWR describes it--

Let's try again with your little diagram, fixed.
> > >>> .......A
> > >>> ....../.\E
> > >>> ...../.C.\
> > >>> ..../B....\
> > >>> .../.......\
> > >>> .F/....G....\
> >
> > You chose point C to be the intersection of line segment EF and the axis
> > of the cone AG. As you say segment EC is smaller than CF. Not in
> > dispute. But that doesn't show that the intersecting curve isn't
> > symmetric around EF. C is not the center of EF. To see if the
> > intersection figure is symmetric around EF, you obviously have to start
> > at the center, the halfway point of EF. Here I called it B, and the
> > length BE = length BF. Now you need to show that the curve is or is not
> > symmetric around B. That the width at B+d is or is not = the width at
> > B-d, as bwr stated. Not quite as simple.
>

On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 1:48:16 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 12/5/2022 12:22 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > On 12/4/2022 8:19 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 12/4/2022 7:43 PM, Mathin3D wrote:
> >>> Serious Question:

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???

On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 12:21:30 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"Imp of Math"
On Monday, January 18, 2021 at 2:06:24 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> fails at math and 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

On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> I want to fuck her corpse
Kibo Parry Moroney in 1997 blows his CIA cover-- to the entire world, mind you---
Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
>> In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes:
> >

On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 9:13:14 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"Court Jester of Math"

Kibo,is Ruth Charney of AMS the model in your book, for she cannot admit the slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse as proven by AP in 2016? I know it falls on deaf ears of Kibo with his 938 is 12% short of 945. And Ruth, would the AMS publish Kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945, because the AMS certainly will not publish AP's conic proof? Maybe that is all the AMS publishes-- fake math.

On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> I want to fuck her corpse
On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 3:21:37 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> fails at math and science:

On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 12:43:52 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"bozo"
> fails at math and science:
>"psychoceramic"

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 10:40:13 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"physics hater"
> tarded:
> Drag Queen of Science, especially Physics

AP no longer tolerates 30 year nonstop stalker shitheads like Kibo Parry M.
> No wonder Dr.Tao is a failed mathematician who cannot see that |/\| planar cut simultaneously through cylinder and cone has to yield a Oval in cone, a ellipse in cylinder. Tao fails fails fails math, and no wonder the nitwit cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
>
> On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 6:19:00 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On 12/4/2022 5:52 PM, bwr fml wrote:
> > > On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 2:39:25 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > >>> And here you can plainly see the side EC is smaller than CF, while a ellipse requires them to be equal
> > >>> ......./\E
> > >>> ...../ c.\
> > >>> F / .......\
> > >
> > > If you are thinking your cone is symmetric around the z axis and the point c is on the z axis
> > > then you claim that Ec is less than cF is true.
> > > And that means absolutely nothing about whether the intersection of the cone and plane is an ellipse.
> > >
> > > The fundamental crank mistake you made a decade ago is thinking that the point c on the z axis
> > > has ANYTHING to do with whether the intersection is an ellipse or not..
> > >
> > > As I clearly showed a couple of days ago, the algebra CLEARLY shows that your point c needs to be
> > > exactly half way between the point E and the point F. Then the distances Ec and cF are equal.
> > > BUT, far more important, all the widths of the intersection in that plane for any distance d to the left
> > > and the distance d to the right of that point c are then precisely equal and that is the definition
> > > of a plane of symmetry and the intersection is an ellipse.
> > >
> > > But you have screeched your false claim out your crank hole for long enough and you DESPERATELY
> > > need to imagine that you are right and everyone else in the history of the world is wrong... that you
> > > probably can't ever admit that you made this mistake and just keep screeching it.
> > >
> > > Go out in your yard and scream it loud and proud:
> > > RETARDED, RETARDED, ARCHIE IS RETARDED
> > > and keep crank screaming that until they call the cops on you.
> > bwr is correct, Archie. Let's try again with your little diagram, fixed..
> > >>> .......A
> > >>> ....../.\E
> > >>> ...../.C.\
> > >>> ..../B....\
> > >>> .../.......\
> > >>> .F/....G....\
> >
> > You chose point C to be the intersection of line segment EF and the axis
> > of the cone AG. As you say segment EC is smaller than CF. Not in
> > dispute. But that doesn't show that the intersecting curve isn't
> > symmetric around EF. C is not the center of EF. To see if the
> > intersection figure is symmetric around EF, you obviously have to start
> > at the center, the halfway point of EF. Here I called it B, and the
> > length BE = length BF. Now you need to show that the curve is or is not
> > symmetric around B. That the width at B+d is or is not = the width at
> > B-d, as bwr stated. Not quite as simple.
>
> AP comments: so look at the moron Moroney (Kibo Parry) being a spokesperson for failed Dr. Tao with his "move around axis of the cone-- say Kibo and Tao is there a witch flying around on a broomstick in that cone also???

> > > 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

Sergi,Wolfgang M. Weyand,Brigitta Wolff,Metin Tolan,Anja Karliczek,Susanne Schneider,Steffen Schumann, Cynthia A. Volkert are they forever going to be mindless idiots of math--slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse geometry..
> And here you can plainly see the side EC is smaller than CF, while a ellipse requires them to be equal
> ......./\E
> ...../ c.\
> F / .......\
>
> entrance E of planar cut, and "c" the center axis, and F the exit of planar cut, cF is far larger than Ec.
>
> Are they trying to turn sci.math into a gay pick up bar rather than legitimate math with endless day after day spam?

Sergi 46 "Who recognizes.."
Fritz Feldhase 43 "Who recognizes...dark numbers"

> WM 30 "Who recognizes... dark numbers"
> Sergi_o 68, "Questions on...."
> Wolfgang Mueckenheim 324 "Three proofs of dark numbers..."
> of the fine Bacarisse cheese
> Ben Bacarisse 323 "Three proofs of dark numbers..."
> FromTheRafters (more like gutters) 221 "Two similar..."
> Sergi_o 161 "Two similar..."
> Ben Bacarisse 133, "Two similar properties..."
>
>
>
> WM turning Gottingen Germany into geometry failures.
> Kibo chasing corpses in WM gay pick up bar, for Kibo sure does not know the difference between Oval and ellipse as seen in his latest stupidity-- a revolving axis as Kibo the moron and BWR describes it--
>
> Let's try again with your little diagram, fixed.
> > > >>> .......A
> > > >>> ....../.\E
> > > >>> ...../.C.\
> > > >>> ..../B....\
> > > >>> .../.......\
> > > >>> .F/....G....\
> > >
> > > You chose point C to be the intersection of line segment EF and the axis
> > > of the cone AG. As you say segment EC is smaller than CF. Not in
> > > dispute. But that doesn't show that the intersecting curve isn't
> > > symmetric around EF. C is not the center of EF. To see if the
> > > intersection figure is symmetric around EF, you obviously have to start
> > > at the center, the halfway point of EF. Here I called it B, and the
> > > length BE = length BF. Now you need to show that the curve is or is not
> > > symmetric around B. That the width at B+d is or is not = the width at
> > > B-d, as bwr stated. Not quite as simple.
> >
>
> On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 1:48:16 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On 12/5/2022 12:22 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > On 12/4/2022 8:19 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >> On 12/4/2022 7:43 PM, Mathin3D wrote:
> > >>> Serious Question:
>
>
> 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???
>
> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 12:21:30 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >"Imp of Math"
> On Monday, January 18, 2021 at 2:06:24 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > fails at math and 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
>
> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> Kibo Parry Moroney in 1997 blows his CIA cover-- to the entire world, mind you---
> Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
> >> In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes:
> > >
>
> On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 9:13:14 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >"Court Jester of Math"
>
> Kibo,is Ruth Charney of AMS the model in your book, for she cannot admit the slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse as proven by AP in 2016? I know it falls on deaf ears of Kibo with his 938 is 12% short of 945. And Ruth, would the AMS publish Kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945, because the AMS certainly will not publish AP's conic proof? Maybe that is all the AMS publishes-- fake math.
>
> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 3:21:37 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > fails at math and science:
>
> On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 12:43:52 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >"bozo"
> > fails at math and science:
> >"psychoceramic"
>
> On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 10:40:13 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >"physics hater"
> > tarded:
> > Drag Queen of Science, especially Physics
>
> AP no longer tolerates 30 year nonstop stalker shitheads like Kibo Parry M.
> > No wonder Dr.Tao is a failed mathematician who cannot see that |/\| planar cut simultaneously through cylinder and cone has to yield a Oval in cone, a ellipse in cylinder. Tao fails fails fails math, and no wonder the nitwit cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
> >
> > On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 6:19:00 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > On 12/4/2022 5:52 PM, bwr fml wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 2:39:25 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > >>> And here you can plainly see the side EC is smaller than CF, while a ellipse requires them to be equal
> > > >>> ......./\E
> > > >>> ...../ c.\
> > > >>> F / .......\
> > > >
> > > > If you are thinking your cone is symmetric around the z axis and the point c is on the z axis
> > > > then you claim that Ec is less than cF is true.
> > > > And that means absolutely nothing about whether the intersection of the cone and plane is an ellipse.
> > > >
> > > > The fundamental crank mistake you made a decade ago is thinking that the point c on the z axis
> > > > has ANYTHING to do with whether the intersection is an ellipse or not.
> > > >
> > > > As I clearly showed a couple of days ago, the algebra CLEARLY shows that your point c needs to be
> > > > exactly half way between the point E and the point F. Then the distances Ec and cF are equal.
> > > > BUT, far more important, all the widths of the intersection in that plane for any distance d to the left
> > > > and the distance d to the right of that point c are then precisely equal and that is the definition
> > > > of a plane of symmetry and the intersection is an ellipse.
> > > >
> > > > But you have screeched your false claim out your crank hole for long enough and you DESPERATELY
> > > > need to imagine that you are right and everyone else in the history of the world is wrong... that you
> > > > probably can't ever admit that you made this mistake and just keep screeching it.
> > > >
> > > > Go out in your yard and scream it loud and proud:
> > > > RETARDED, RETARDED, ARCHIE IS RETARDED
> > > > and keep crank screaming that until they call the cops on you.
> > > bwr is correct, Archie. Let's try again with your little diagram, fixed.
> > > >>> .......A
> > > >>> ....../.\E
> > > >>> ...../.C.\
> > > >>> ..../B....\
> > > >>> .../.......\
> > > >>> .F/....G....\
> > >
> > > You chose point C to be the intersection of line segment EF and the axis
> > > of the cone AG. As you say segment EC is smaller than CF. Not in
> > > dispute. But that doesn't show that the intersecting curve isn't
> > > symmetric around EF. C is not the center of EF. To see if the
> > > intersection figure is symmetric around EF, you obviously have to start
> > > at the center, the halfway point of EF. Here I called it B, and the
> > > length BE = length BF. Now you need to show that the curve is or is not
> > > symmetric around B. That the width at B+d is or is not = the width at
> > > B-d, as bwr stated. Not quite as simple.
> >
> > AP comments: so look at the moron Moroney (Kibo Parry) being a spokesperson for failed Dr. Tao with his "move around axis of the cone-- say Kibo and Tao is there a witch flying around on a broomstick in that cone also???
>
> > > > 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

Sergi,Jurgen Habermass,Horst Stocker,Gerd Binnig,Anja Karliczek,Susanne Schneider,Steffen Schumann, Cynthia A. Volkert are they forever going to be mindless idiots of math--slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse geometry.
> > And here you can plainly see the side EC is smaller than CF, while a ellipse requires them to be equal
> > ......./\E
> > ...../ c.\
> > F / .......\
> >
> > entrance E of planar cut, and "c" the center axis, and F the exit of planar cut, cF is far larger than Ec.
> >
> > Are they trying to turn sci.math into a gay pick up bar rather than legitimate math with endless day after day spam?
Sergi 59 "Who recognizes.."
> Fritz Feldhase 43 "Who recognizes...dark numbers"
> 
> > WM 30 "Who recognizes... dark numbers"
> > Sergi_o 68, "Questions on...."
> > Wolfgang Mueckenheim 324 "Three proofs of dark numbers..."
> > of the fine Bacarisse cheese
> > Ben Bacarisse 323 "Three proofs of dark numbers..."
> > FromTheRafters (more like gutters) 221 "Two similar..."
> > Sergi_o 161 "Two similar..."
> > Ben Bacarisse 133, "Two similar properties..."
> >
> >
> >
> > WM turning Gottingen Germany into geometry failures.
> > Kibo chasing corpses in WM gay pick up bar, for Kibo sure does not know the difference between Oval and ellipse as seen in his latest stupidity-- a revolving axis as Kibo the moron and BWR describes it--
> >
> > Let's try again with your little diagram, fixed.
> > > > >>> .......A
> > > > >>> ....../.\E
> > > > >>> ...../.C.\
> > > > >>> ..../B....\
> > > > >>> .../.......\
> > > > >>> .F/....G....\
> > > >
> > > > You chose point C to be the intersection of line segment EF and the axis
> > > > of the cone AG. As you say segment EC is smaller than CF. Not in
> > > > dispute. But that doesn't show that the intersecting curve isn't
> > > > symmetric around EF. C is not the center of EF. To see if the
> > > > intersection figure is symmetric around EF, you obviously have to start
> > > > at the center, the halfway point of EF. Here I called it B, and the
> > > > length BE = length BF. Now you need to show that the curve is or is not
> > > > symmetric around B. That the width at B+d is or is not = the width at
> > > > B-d, as bwr stated. Not quite as simple.
> > >
> >
> > On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 1:48:16 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > On 12/5/2022 12:22 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > > On 12/4/2022 8:19 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > >> On 12/4/2022 7:43 PM, Mathin3D wrote:
> > > >>> Serious Question:
> >
> >
> > 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???
> >
> > On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 12:21:30 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >"Imp of Math"
> > On Monday, January 18, 2021 at 2:06:24 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > fails at math and 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
> >
> > On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > I want to fuck her corpse
> > Kibo Parry Moroney in 1997 blows his CIA cover-- to the entire world, mind you---
> > Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
> > >> In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell..thecia.net> writes:
> > > >
> >
> > On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 9:13:14 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >"Court Jester of Math"
> >
> > Kibo,is Ruth Charney of AMS the model in your book, for she cannot admit the slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse as proven by AP in 2016? I know it falls on deaf ears of Kibo with his 938 is 12% short of 945. And Ruth, would the AMS publish Kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945, because the AMS certainly will not publish AP's conic proof? Maybe that is all the AMS publishes-- fake math.
> >
> > On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > I want to fuck her corpse
> > On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 3:21:37 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > fails at math and science:
> >
> > On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 12:43:52 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >"bozo"
> > > fails at math and science:
> > >"psychoceramic"
> >
> > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 10:40:13 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >"physics hater"
> > > tarded:
> > > Drag Queen of Science, especially Physics
> >
> > AP no longer tolerates 30 year nonstop stalker shitheads like Kibo Parry M.
> > > No wonder Dr.Tao is a failed mathematician who cannot see that |/\| planar cut simultaneously through cylinder and cone has to yield a Oval in cone, a ellipse in cylinder. Tao fails fails fails math, and no wonder the nitwit cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
> > >
> > > On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 6:19:00 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > On 12/4/2022 5:52 PM, bwr fml wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 2:39:25 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > >>> And here you can plainly see the side EC is smaller than CF, while a ellipse requires them to be equal
> > > > >>> ......./\E
> > > > >>> ...../ c.\
> > > > >>> F / .......\
> > > > >
> > > > > If you are thinking your cone is symmetric around the z axis and the point c is on the z axis
> > > > > then you claim that Ec is less than cF is true.
> > > > > And that means absolutely nothing about whether the intersection of the cone and plane is an ellipse.
> > > > >
> > > > > The fundamental crank mistake you made a decade ago is thinking that the point c on the z axis
> > > > > has ANYTHING to do with whether the intersection is an ellipse or not.
> > > > >
> > > > > As I clearly showed a couple of days ago, the algebra CLEARLY shows that your point c needs to be
> > > > > exactly half way between the point E and the point F. Then the distances Ec and cF are equal.
> > > > > BUT, far more important, all the widths of the intersection in that plane for any distance d to the left
> > > > > and the distance d to the right of that point c are then precisely equal and that is the definition
> > > > > of a plane of symmetry and the intersection is an ellipse.
> > > > >
> > > > > But you have screeched your false claim out your crank hole for long enough and you DESPERATELY
> > > > > need to imagine that you are right and everyone else in the history of the world is wrong... that you
> > > > > probably can't ever admit that you made this mistake and just keep screeching it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Go out in your yard and scream it loud and proud:
> > > > > RETARDED, RETARDED, ARCHIE IS RETARDED
> > > > > and keep crank screaming that until they call the cops on you.
> > > > bwr is correct, Archie. Let's try again with your little diagram, fixed.
> > > > >>> .......A
> > > > >>> ....../.\E
> > > > >>> ...../.C.\
> > > > >>> ..../B....\
> > > > >>> .../.......\
> > > > >>> .F/....G....\
> > > >
> > > > You chose point C to be the intersection of line segment EF and the axis
> > > > of the cone AG. As you say segment EC is smaller than CF. Not in
> > > > dispute. But that doesn't show that the intersecting curve isn't
> > > > symmetric around EF. C is not the center of EF. To see if the
> > > > intersection figure is symmetric around EF, you obviously have to start
> > > > at the center, the halfway point of EF. Here I called it B, and the
> > > > length BE = length BF. Now you need to show that the curve is or is not
> > > > symmetric around B. That the width at B+d is or is not = the width at
> > > > B-d, as bwr stated. Not quite as simple.
> > >
> > > AP comments: so look at the moron Moroney (Kibo Parry) being a spokesperson for failed Dr. Tao with his "move around axis of the cone-- say Kibo and Tao is there a witch flying around on a broomstick in that cone also???
> >
> > > > > 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