John Stillwell, Ace Crackpot of fake math textbooks with ellipse a conic???

Fred Jeffries pointing out the fakery of geometry math failures?? For at least Jeffries can ask the question which is slant cut of cone -- oval or ellipse, while all that John Stillwell can do in math is Run John Hide John and write another fake math textbook

> On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 5:59:58 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 1:49:50 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 7:00:38 PM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:
> > > > *
> > > > Several of you have questioned: Is the ellipse a conic section? The answer depends.
> > > > If you are Archimedes Plutonium, the answer is no. If you are one of the other 398,726 mahematicians living today, the answer is yes.
> > > >
> > > > earle
> > > > *
> > > The failed meathead Earle Jones, looks like you have 398,726 subtract 1, as it appears Fred Jeffries below in this thread is starting to question the second axis of symmetry in the slant cut of cone.
> > > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 5:41:05 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 6:23:18 PM UTC-8, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Disney did a nice animation on it:
> > > > >
> > > > http ----------
> > > > But it also fails to show how to find the second axis of symmetry

So where is John Stillwell failure of math propose where the missing 2nd axis is hiding?? Is it running and hiding along with the math failure John Stillwell??

1--Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Beal, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Gerald Edgar, AMS, no-one there can do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, all they can offer is a limit analysis, so shoddy in logic they never realized that "analyzing" is not the same as "proving" for analyzing is much in the same as "measuring but not proving". And yet, none can do a geometry proof and the reason is quite clear for none can even see that the slant cut in single right-circular cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So they could never do a geometry proof of FTC even if they wanted to. For they have no logical geometry brain to begin to do anything geometrical. Is it that Andrew Wiles and Terence Tao cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Not having a Logical brain to do math, for any rational person would be upset by Wiles, Tao saying truth table of AND is TFFF when it actually is TTTF. Is that why neither Terence Tao or Andrew Wiles can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?
>
> Maybe they need to take up Earle Jones offer to wash dishes or pots at Stanford Univ or where ever, for they sure cannot do mathematics.
> Why are these people failures of Math?? For none can even contemplate these 4 questions.
>
> 1) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
> 2) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
> 3) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
> 4) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sap-heads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.
>
>
> Is Jim Holt, Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
> John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason, more of propagandists and belong in "Abnormal Psychology" dept than in the department of logic, like Dan Christensen a laugh a minute logician? Probably because none can admit slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, due to axes of symmetry for cone and oval have 1 while ellipse has 2. Why they cannot even count beyond 1. Yet their minds were never good enough to see the error nor admit to their mistakes. They failed logic so badly they accept Boole's insane AND truth table of TFFF when it is TTTF avoiding the painful 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Or is it because none of these logicians has a single marble of logic in their entire brain to realize calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not a "limit analysis" for analysis is like a measurement, not a proving exercise. Analysis does not prove, only adds data and facts, but never is a proof of itself. I analyze things daily, and none of which is a proof. So are all these logicians like what Clutterfreak the propaganda stooge says they are.




>
> 3rd published book
>
> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> •
> •
>
> Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
>
> Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
>
> In the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence proof. Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 827 KB
> • Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 51 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
>
> #12-2, 11th published book
>
> World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
> Preface:
> Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
>
> Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis".. And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.
>
> To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
>
> Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
>
>
> Product details
> ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
> Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
> Language ‏ : ‎ English
> File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
> Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages
> Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> #2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> #134 in Calculus (Books)
> #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

On 12/25/2022 5:17 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 24.12.2022 um 21:32 schrieb Volney:
>> On 12/24/2022 3:57 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

>>> The claim is more or less, that cults took over science and turned it
>>> away from the scientific method.
>>
>> Then what is produced would not follow the scientific method, yet it
>> still does. Plus the "cult followers" bit is never supported with
>> evidence that such a "takeover" happened.
>
>
> I personally think, that such a 'takeover' actually happened.

Without evidence of that, nobody cares what you think.
>
> For instance I have studies Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving
> bodies' for a very long time in detail. But I found a very large number
> of errors in it (well over 400).

No, you haven't. As has been repeatedly explained to you.
>
> These errors could not been overlooked by Planck, who was a world-class
> physicist.

Since there were no such errors, there was nothing for Planck to overlook.
>
> The only possibility is, that this particular article was knowingly
> published with malicious intentions in a cooperation of at least two
> people (Planck and Einstein).

Since this is based on a false assumption (400+ errors) all that follows
from this assumption is irrelevant.

> Now you only need to assume a hidden connection and a malicious plan and
> get a perfect 'conspiracy theory'.

Assumptions are worthless, plus are not part of science. Just because
something COULD have happened (assuming it actually could) doesn't mean
it DID happen.
>
>>> Then, in the next step, the heritics were expelled and replaced by own
>>> people.

And these expelled "heretics" remained silent?
>>>
>>> This is assisted by a takeover of the media, which would not publish
>>> heretics anymore.

Yeah. Right. Another conspiracy necessary.

One part of conspiracies is that the larger they are, the more likely it
is for someone/multiple someones to spill the beans.

(and it is interesting to know that somehow, the cranks know all about
the conspiracies)
>>
>> Well conspiracy theories are a crank sign, but different cranks have
>> different beliefs. Specific to relativity, according to some, the
>> relativity cult started with Einstein as the cult leader, so there was
>> no takeover.
>
> No.
>
> 'Conspiracy theories' are usually not theories about conspiracies, but
> assumptions about illegal activities of powerfull and secret groups.

What "powerful and secret groups" was Einstein, essentially unknown in
1905, part of? Who let this unknown in?
>
> These assumptions are certainly wrong in most cases, but certainly not
> in all.

Again, because something COULD HAVE happened, doesn't mean it DID happen.
>
> Therefore you cannot invalidate an assumption, just because you also may
> call it 'Conspiracy theory'.

Occam's razor, without evidence.
>
> Like always: an assumption is valid until proven wrong.

Occam's razor states bizarre complex assumptions can be ignored, at
least without evidence.

>>> Sure, this system is certainly not scientific. But that was not the
>>> claim, but whether or not this would be real.
>>
>> The entry remains as someone claiming valid science according to the
>> scientific method is a religion or cult, implying faith is involved,
>> gets points for that, as faith is counter to the science being science.
>
> Well, science and religion are certainly not the same thing. Religion is
> based on believe and science also ;-)

No, religion has outright faith, beliefs without evidence.
Science has theories/models, these have scientific observations and
experimental evidence which supports them. Science also knows that
future evidence can come along which discredits the model but even in
that case the old model may remain close in the future (like continuing
to use Newtonian physics at low speeds and weak gravity).
>
>>>
>>>>> For instance: here you need to discuss the question first, whether
>>>>> physicst build a sect or cult prior to claiming, that mentioning this
>>>>> is 'crackpottery'.
>>>>
>>>> No physicist is claiming crackpottery. The purported crackpot is
>>>> claiming science is a cult to "earn" points for this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Most people are not destructive intentionally, hence actually seek
>>> real truth.
>>
>> That they make unsupported claims instead of seeking truth is what earns
>> them crackpot points.
>>>
>>> But obviously most scientists fail in their endeavour to find the
>>> lasts truth in the universe.
>>>
>>> So, most scientists are in an objective way wrong in what they believe.
>>
>> Science is finding the best model to demonstrate and predict what nature
>> is doing. Scientists know there is no "final" "last" truth. There will
>> be better models one day.
>
> Predictions are not a valid goal of science, because you may possibly
> know the mechanisms of natur, but cannot use this knowledge yourself,
> because you are not nature.

Nope. Science is about finding the best model, and one of the
definitions of "best" is being able to make accurate predictions.
>
> Predictions would require a one to one correspondence between modell and
> the real world, which only the real world can provide. >
> We can eventually find usuable modell in some cases, which predict
> things to a sufficant degree, but can never ever get better than that,
> because we cannot immitate nature precisely enough.

Predictions of models are good within a certain defined error range. A
new model with
>
> IOW: only the universe itself can predict the future of the universe
> correctly.

Predict exactly, yes, but physics knows that is impossible so comes up
with models which predict as best as possible.
>
>>>
>>> This wrongness is not really 'crackpottery', but in most cases a
>>> necessary step in a long lasting project in search of true knowledge.
>>
>> What does all this have to do with crackpots rejecting science as a cult
>> or something?
>
> Nothing.
>
> I meant something else:
> even wrong theories are not 'crackpottery', because errors are a
> necessary part in any research.

Sticking to already disproven, wrong theories, or to "theories" with no
basis on science, is crackpottery.

John Stillwell, Ace Crackpot of fake math textbooks with ellipse a conic???

Fred Jeffries pointing out the fakery of geometry math failures?? For at least Jeffries can ask the question which is slant cut of cone -- oval or ellipse, while all that John Stillwell can do in math is Run John Hide John and write another fake math textbook

> On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 5:59:58 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 1:49:50 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 7:00:38 PM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:
> > > > *
> > > > Several of you have questioned: Is the ellipse a conic section? The answer depends.
> > > > If you are Archimedes Plutonium, the answer is no. If you are one of the other 398,726 mahematicians living today, the answer is yes.
> > > >
> > > > earle
> > > > *
> > > The failed meathead Earle Jones, looks like you have 398,726 subtract 1, as it appears Fred Jeffries below in this thread is starting to question the second axis of symmetry in the slant cut of cone.
> > > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 5:41:05 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 6:23:18 PM UTC-8, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Disney did a nice animation on it:
> > > > >
> > > > http ----------
> > > > But it also fails to show how to find the second axis of symmetry

So where is John Stillwell failure of math propose where the missing 2nd axis is hiding?? Is it running and hiding along with the math failure John Stillwell??

1--Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Beal, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Gerald Edgar, AMS, no-one there can do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, all they can offer is a limit analysis, so shoddy in logic they never realized that "analyzing" is not the same as "proving" for analyzing is much in the same as "measuring but not proving". And yet, none can do a geometry proof and the reason is quite clear for none can even see that the slant cut in single right-circular cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So they could never do a geometry proof of FTC even if they wanted to. For they have no logical geometry brain to begin to do anything geometrical. Is it that Andrew Wiles and Terence Tao cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Not having a Logical brain to do math, for any rational person would be upset by Wiles, Tao saying truth table of AND is TFFF when it actually is TTTF. Is that why neither Terence Tao or Andrew Wiles can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?
>
> Maybe they need to take up Earle Jones offer to wash dishes or pots at Stanford Univ or where ever, for they sure cannot do mathematics.
> Why are these people failures of Math?? For none can even contemplate these 4 questions.
>
> 1) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
> 2) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
> 3) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
> 4) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sap-heads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.
>
>
> Is Jim Holt, Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
> John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason, more of propagandists and belong in "Abnormal Psychology" dept than in the department of logic, like Dan Christensen a laugh a minute logician? Probably because none can admit slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, due to axes of symmetry for cone and oval have 1 while ellipse has 2. Why they cannot even count beyond 1. Yet their minds were never good enough to see the error nor admit to their mistakes. They failed logic so badly they accept Boole's insane AND truth table of TFFF when it is TTTF avoiding the painful 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Or is it because none of these logicians has a single marble of logic in their entire brain to realize calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not a "limit analysis" for analysis is like a measurement, not a proving exercise. Analysis does not prove, only adds data and facts, but never is a proof of itself. I analyze things daily, and none of which is a proof. So are all these logicians like what Clutterfreak the propaganda stooge says they are.





>
> 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)

Am 26.12.2022 um 20:10 schrieb Volney:
> On 12/25/2022 5:17 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 24.12.2022 um 21:32 schrieb Volney:
>>> On 12/24/2022 3:57 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>>>> The claim is more or less, that cults took over science and turned it
>>>> away from the scientific method.
>>>
>>> Then what is produced would not follow the scientific method, yet it
>>> still does. Plus the "cult followers" bit is never supported with
>>> evidence that such a "takeover" happened.
>>
>>
>> I personally think, that such a 'takeover' actually happened.
>
> Without evidence of that, nobody cares what you think.
>>
>> For instance I have studies Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of
>> moving bodies' for a very long time in detail. But I found a very
>> large number of errors in it (well over 400).
>
> No, you haven't. As has been repeatedly explained to you.
>>
>> These errors could not been overlooked by Planck, who was a
>> world-class physicist.
>
> Since there were no such errors, there was nothing for Planck to overlook.

I have discussed now lots of errors (in my view) and the result was
always the same:

the errors are simply denied, the critique was uttered by a crank (me)
and the case is closed.

But I can provide something new for you to defend:

it is actually a very simple error and belongs to a class called 'non
sequitur'. (This means 'it does not follow'.)

It is on page 8 in § 3 about 'Theory of the Transformation of
Co-ordinates ...'

There are two equations in the upper part of page 8, which both describe
a certain point (x,y,z) in K coordinates, which was '...just attained by
this wave,...'.

Now the first equation describes the length of the path of a wave from
the origin to that point by kind of '3d-pythagoras':

x² +y² +z² = c²*t²

That is certainly true and not particularily interesting.

The second equation is this
ξ² +η² +ζ² = c²* τ²

This is the same point in coordinates from k.

This is also not very spectacular, even if the coordinate system k is
moving and the equation does not make any attempt to compensate that
movement. (Actually only Latin variable names are exchanged for small
Greek letters.)

But for a single point it is not real necessary, if the coordinate
systems K and k coincide for that instant in time.

But from this 'calculation' Einstein had drawn this conclusion:

"The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical wave
with velocity of propagation c when viewed in the moving system. "

And this does not follow and is also wrong, because a spherical wave in
motion gets red- or blueshifted, hence would not qualify as 'spherical'
any more.

But more imprtant is, that the conclusion is not justified by the
'result' of his 'calculation', because the same point (x,y,z) was meant
and no wave whatsoever.

....

TH

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 26.12.2022 um 20:10 schrieb Volney:
>> S̶i̶n̶c̶e̶ t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ w̶e̶r̶e̶ n̶o̶ s̶u̶c̶h̶ e̶r̶r̶o̶r̶s̶, t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ w̶a̶s̶ n̶o̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ f̶o̶r̶ P̶l̶a̶n̶c̶k̶ t̶o̶
>> o̶v̶e̶r̶l̶o̶o̶k̶.
>
> I have discussed now lots of errors (in my view) and the result was
> always the same: the errors are simply denied, the critique was uttered
> by a crank (me) and the case is closed.

so true indeed. This bad khazar mazafaka is saying *_you_are_an_wanker_*
and cannot revolt, since *_you_can't_organize_*, in *_communist_* parties,
unions etc. So they can do anything with your life an family, legal or
not, lying, killing you etc. Revolts, according to this capitalist, is
something from the 19th and 20th century.

Yuval Noah Harari： What to do with useless people
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/QqTLsjclymdx

🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥

when are you going to learn, that without a communist party, they are
killing you and don't give a shit. Can you see they organize, with the
money taken from you, can you see it??

Volney wrote:

> W̶h̶a̶t̶ m̶o̶v̶e̶m̶e̶n̶t̶? F̶r̶o̶m̶ f̶r̶a̶m̶e̶ k̶, f̶r̶a̶m̶e̶ k̶ i̶s̶ s̶t̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶a̶r̶y̶ (t̶a̶u̶t̶o̶l̶o̶g̶y̶) b̶u̶t̶ f̶r̶a̶m̶e̶ K̶
> i̶s̶ m̶o̶v̶i̶n̶g̶. D̶o̶ r̶e̶m̶e̶m̶b̶e̶r̶ "m̶o̶v̶i̶n̶g̶ s̶y̶s̶t̶e̶m̶" i̶s̶ e̶s̶s̶e̶n̶t̶i̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ a̶ N̶A̶M̶E̶ s̶i̶n̶c̶e̶ t̶h̶e̶
> o̶r̶i̶g̶i̶n̶a̶l̶ f̶r̶a̶m̶e̶ K̶ i̶s̶ d̶e̶s̶c̶r̶i̶b̶e̶d̶ a̶s̶ s̶t̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶a̶r̶y̶ (r̶e̶l̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶ t̶o̶ a̶n̶ u̶n̶s̶p̶e̶c̶i̶f̶i̶e̶d̶
> o̶r̶i̶g̶i̶n̶a̶l̶ o̶b̶s̶e̶r̶v̶e̶r̶), s̶o̶ k̶ i̶s̶ m̶o̶v̶i̶n̶g̶ w̶r̶t̶ t̶h̶i̶s̶ o̶r̶i̶g̶i̶n̶a̶l̶ o̶b̶s̶e̶r̶v̶e̶r̶ b̶e̶c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶ i̶t̶
> i̶s̶ m̶o̶v̶i̶n̶g̶ r̶e̶l̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶ t̶o̶ K̶.

Estonia does not want “a new community” in the country “that doesn’t speak Estonian,” PM Kaja Kallas says
https://%72%74.com/%72%75%73%73%69%61/569122-estonia-ukrainians-language-policy/

The PM’s comments on Estonian courses for Ukrainian refugees did not escape Moscow’s attention. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova took to Telegram to respond: “Kaja, Adolf [Hitler] would be proud of you. Without you it would be much more difficult to prove the dehumanization of the collective West. Estonia for Estonians, right? Say it already, and stop palping the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with your sweaty palms.”

the nazis of uKraine admits severe */_war_crimes_/*.

Ukrainian Soldiers Execute Prisoners Of War – Admits U.S. Mercenary 12-28-22 The Jimmy Dore Show
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/Q7NyWiFpgGvN

you are sold as *slave* already. You are fucking *patented*.

Listen closely to every single word. Israel is last for a reason. Khazarian Mafia.
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/TLUG36poJytT

Thomas Heger wrote:

>> Anyway, this perfect science pictured by Popper
>> could never work. But science as it really is - can.
>
> Popper was a philosopher.
> These people are usually not concerned with ugly reality.

here more proof the khazars are nazis.

The ADL issues statement declaring Ukraine’s Azov Battalion no longer ‘far-right’
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2023/01/08/the-adl-issues-statement-declaring-ukraines-azov-battalion-no-longer-far-right/
In the November interview, Boneface admitted to taking photographs of Ukrainian fighters “posing with the corpses of a lynched pregnant woman and a man they said was her husband” for a video entitled “Kikes get the rope.” He also claimed to have appeared in a video depicting a botched crucifixion.

unbelievable, they kill everybody, including some of them self.

Look this
↓

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀🌞⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

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

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

On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 3:57:45 PM UTC+2, Thurman De palma wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> > Am 26.12.2022 um 20:10 schrieb Volney:
> >> S̶i̶n̶c̶e̶ t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ w̶e̶r̶e̶ n̶o̶ s̶u̶c̶h̶ e̶r̶r̶o̶r̶s̶, t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ w̶a̶s̶ n̶o̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ f̶o̶r̶ P̶l̶a̶n̶c̶k̶ t̶o̶
> >> o̶v̶e̶r̶l̶o̶o̶k̶.
> >
> > I have discussed now lots of errors (in my view) and the result was
> > always the same: the errors are simply denied, the critique was uttered
> > by a crank (me) and the case is closed.
> so true indeed. This bad khazar mazafaka is saying *_you_are_an_wanker_*
> and cannot revolt, since *_you_can't_organize_*, in *_communist_* parties,
> unions etc. So they can do anything with your life an family, legal or
> not, lying, killing you etc. Revolts, according to this capitalist, is
> something from the 19th and 20th century.
>
> Yuval Noah Harari： What to do with useless people
> https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/QqTLsjclymdx
>
> 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥
> 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥
> 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥
> 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥
> 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥
> 🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥
> 🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥
> 🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥
> 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥
> 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥
> 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥
> 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥
> 🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥
> 🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥
> 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥
> 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥
>
> when are you going to learn, that without a communist party, they are
> killing you and don't give a shit. Can you see they organize, with the
> money taken from you, can you see it??