Kibo Parry M notices that Dartmouth's Dr.Hanlon is a math failure that is dishonest and cannot admit the truth about slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse. Why even the Hanover New Hampshire High School students are smarter than Dr. Hanlon in geometry.

On Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 10:19:30 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> I have noticed that cranks, when posting a new "theory", cannot/will not
> solve simple textbook type problems involving their "theory". Especially
> when they "correct" an old concept,

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)

2-Kibo on NSF Dorothy E Aronson,Dr.Panchanathan, Rebecca Lynn Keiser, F. Fleming Crim, Dorothy E Aronson, Brian Stone, James S Olvestad. Why Kibo Parry M. the paid for 30 year stalker??? Because they fail to admit slant cut of cone is actually a Oval, never ellipse. But what would Dr.Panchanathan ever know, he spends his time playing computer games.

Kibo Parry M. likes to play name games with his open channel of hate spew paid for by NSF aka Moroney, Volney
On Saturday, February 11, 2023 at 3:03:20 AM UTC-6, Volney wrote:
>"Imp of Math"
> WARNING TO STUDENTS, PARENTS and TEACHERS:

> ---quoting Wikipedia ---
> Controversy
> Many government and university installations blocked, threatened to block, or attempted to shut-down The World's Internet connection until Software Tool & Die was eventually granted permission by the National Science Foundation to provide public Internet access on "an experimental basis."
> --- end quote ---
>
> NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
> Dr. Panchanathan , present day
> NSF Dr. Panchanathan, F. Fleming Crim, Dorothy E Aronson, Brian Stone, James S Olvestad, Rebecca Lynn Keiser, Vernon D. Ross, Lloyd Whitman, John J. Veysey, Scott Stanley
> France Anne Cordova
> Subra Suresh
> Arden Lee Bement Jr.
> Rita R. Colwell
> Neal Francis Lane
> John Howard Gibbons 1993
>
> Barry Shein, kibo parry std world
> Jim Frost, Joe "Spike" Ilacqua
> Kibo on Ruth Charney and Harvard's Dr.Hau. Why Kibo, because neither can admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not the ellipse?? They sure can admit slant cut of cylinder is ellipse but they seem to be plugged up in stupidity to go the step further, the cone slant cut cannot be the same as cylinder slant cut.
>
> On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 12:07:52 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >Village Idiot"
> 
> > fails at math and science:
> > Re: Kibo on > I want to fuck her corpse > AMS Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Harvard's Dr.Lisa Randall, Dr.Hau,CIA Kate Heinzelman, MIT's Anette Hosoi,Cynthia Barnhart
> > 59 views
> >
> > Kibo Parry M on Harvard's Dr. Hau
> >
> > On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 1:42:50 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >of Physics
> > >"necrophile"
> > 
> >
> >
> > > 2-Kibo Parry M. on Harvard's Dr. Hau, and Kibo claims a degree from Rensselaer Polytech yet he cannot even do percentages correctly.
> > > Kibo Parry, is it insane for Dr.Hau to not turn out the lights in her slow light experiment and watch both the slow light and fast light vanish simultaneously and prove AP correct--- Light is a closed loop circuit, _not_ a straightline arrow with a head and tail end.
> > > On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 9:21:48 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > >"Kim Jong Un's stooge"
> > > >"certifiably insane"
> > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 12:14:29 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > > >"certifiably insane"
> > > > > > Necrophile
> > > > > > I want to fuck her corpse
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I want to fuck her corpse
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You already said that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I want to fuck her corpse
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You sicko! Why do you keep saying that?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > wanting to fuck her corpse
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I want to fuck her corpse
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I want to fuck her corpse
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can't you leave the poor dead queen alone???
> > > > >
> > > > > Why Kibo Parry Moron-ey, because you are a pathetic loser in life....
> > > > 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.
> > > > On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 2:35:44 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > >"barking fuckdog"
> > > > >highly illogical
> > > > > tarded:
> > > > > > Kibo Parry, is it insane for Dr.Hau to not turn out the lights in her slow light experiment and watch both the slow light and fast light vanish simultaneously and prove AP correct--- Light is a closed loop circuit, _not_ a straightline arrow with a head and tail end.
> > > > > Kibo Parry M on CIA Kate Heinzelman,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 both fast and slow light, or is it because she can not admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse???
> > > > Other insane posts by Kibo Parry M., for the world has not yet found a straightjacket to fit the Kibo as his mouth gushes forth with more spam
> > > > Kibo Parry M on CIA Kate Heinzelman,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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Kibo on Kate Heinzelman
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > Kibo on wanting to fuck her corpse/Kate Heinzelman, question, do you not think CIA is going overboard on stalking-- I mean 30 years for the insane Kibo Parry M??
> > > > 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:
> > > > Kibo Parry M.30 year stalker--> I want to fuck her corpse//Kate Heinzelman question-- is it legal for the CIA to pay for stalkers like Kibo to stalk private USA citizens, and 30 years on... nonstop for 30 years. Should not Kibo be in Guantanamo, not in a desk-job spamming and stalking Usenet..
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Kibo Parry Moron-ey almost 60 years old, yet never grew up into adulthood (when he was a baby, did his head bounce on the wood floors too many times??? Did his mother use his head as a basketball when still a toddler???)
> > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:12:23 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > >"psychoceramic"
> > > > >"math hater"
> > > > > fails at math and science:
> > > > >These groups are self-policing, and
> > > > > that's why I punish you when you attack me (which is constantly).
> > > >
> > > > Re: Kibo on > I want to fuck her corpse > AMS Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Harvard's Dr.Lisa Randall, Dr.Hau,CIA Kate Heinzelman, MIT's Anette Hosoi,Cynthia Barnhart
> > > > by Augǝl Jan 1, 2023, 7:41 AM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Re: Kibo Parry M sickfuck stalker along with his Dunning Kruger sickfuck psychologists who guide Kibo// Kibo claims that Ruth Charney, Dr. Panchanathan, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Sheldon Glashow never had a single truth in their entire life, says Kibo
> > > > by Herp Derpington Dec 31, 2022, 8:51 PM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Re: Kibo says "has always been wrong," Kibo, you mean Dr.Panchanathan, Ruth Charney, Sheldon Glashow, Peter Higgs, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao never had anything correct in their entire life???
> > > > by Greta Baine Dec 31, 2022, 8:46 PM
> > > >
> > > > Re: Kibo Parry Moroney stalks "AnalButtfuckManure Attacks" Dartmouth's Philip J. Hanlon, Stanford's Marc Tessier-Lavigne with his 10 OR 6 = 16; his ellipse a conic when it never was; his proton to electron at 938 to 0.5 MeV when in truth..
> > > > 1481 views
> > > > by Professor Wordsmith Aug 14, 2020, 11:07:05 AM
> > > >
> > > > Re: Cambridge, Harvard, Stanford, MIT, CalTech never does correct Logic, why an unpaid Archimedes Plutonium is doing their work
> > > > By Michael Moroney 20 posts 165 views updated 12:22 PM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Re: Racist-math at Reed College-- ellipse is never a conic, David Perkinson, Lyudmila Korobenko, John Lind, Dylan McNamee, Kyle Ormsby, Angelica Osorno
> > > > By Michael Moroney 50 posts 405 views updated 12:21 PM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Re: Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly??-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole (1)
> > > > By Michael Moroney 1/23/18, 44 posts 461 views
> > > >
> > > > Re: 1Moroney barks at math failures Baez, Bullock, Witten. But I see the three as having failed Angular Momentum with their 938 proton and .5MeV electron
> > > > 12/30/18
> > > > by j4n bur53
> > > >
> > > > Re: Kibo Parry Moroney stalks "AnalButtfuckManure Attacks" Betsy DeVos, NSF Dr. Panchanathan Caltech Thomas F Rosenbaum, Harvard's Lawrence Bacow with his 10 OR 6 = 16; his ellipse a conic when it never was; his proton to electron at 938 to 0.5 MeV .
> > > > by Oscar Alcheri Oct 22, 2022, 5:50 PM
> > > >
> > > > Re: _CIA Kate Heinzelman why Kibo Parry call Dr.Hanlon,Dartmouth& Dr.Lavigne Stanford as Analbuttfuckmanure?? Is it Kibo's stalking or is it because they cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse. What is the answer Kate???? Or should I
> > > > by Chris M. Thomasson Oct 15, 2022, 5:38:32 PM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Re: bwr fml & Kibo Parry M on Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, failures of Natural Logarithm with their disconnect of Natural Log defined as integral area of Y=1/t in interval 1 to x
> > > > by
> > > > Michael Moroney Sep 21, 2021, 12:08:40 AM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Re: Psychoceramic NSF Dr. Panchanathan,F. Fleming Crim, kibo Parry M says will corrupt the minds of your children! Why kibo? Because they still teach 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction and ellipse a conic when it never was.
> > > > by Mostowski Collapse (Jan Burse) Feb 4 , 2022, 1:33 AM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Re: 7:03:02 insane stalker Moroney wrote: > Math Failure..//Raymond Davis Jr.,Masatoshi Koshiba,Riccardo Giacconi,Gerardus 't Hooft,Martinus J..G. Veltman, never learned what Angular Momentum was
> > > > by
> > > > Mostowski Collapse (Jan Burse) Dec 30, 2018, 7:59:02 PM
> > > > 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.
> > > > Praises for AP in sci.math, too, lest we forget--
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Re: Rey de Reyes de la Ciencia --AP-- King of Science, what we throw out of Old Math as fakery// TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 19-20 Sophomore year College, math textbook series, book 4
> > > > by Donald Trump Apr 2, 2020, 12:36:08 AM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Re: Roi des Rois de la Science --AP-- King of Science, what we throw out of Old Math as fakery// TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 19-20 Sophomore year College, math textbook series, book 4
> > > > by Donald Trump by Apr 2, 2020, 12:38:32 AM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Re: 16-- love you King of Science, kiss kiss, Archimedes Plutonium for bringing us a cure of covid-19 via a MRI or CT scan at resonant frequency that kills a pocket of the virus allowing the white blood cells to kill the rest// König der Wissenschaft
> > > > by Doctor Anagram by Jun 12, 2020, 1:11:30 AM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Re: Our cherished 151st book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4 by Archimedes Plutonium Preface: This is AP's 151st book of science published. It is one of my most important books of science because 1st
> > > > by zelos...@gmail.com Oct 13, 2021, 5:31 AM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Back to the stalker hack Kibo:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Re: 1-Did Kibo-Parry-Maroney fail Rensselaer or was kicked out due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton is 840MeV not 938, the .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole
> > > > by Roy Masters Sep 13, 2019, 3:24:07 PM
> > > >
> > > > Re: 1.2-Did Kibo-Parry-Maroney fail Rensselaer or was kicked out due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton is 840MeV not 938, the .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole
> > > > by Patricio J. Whackmember Sep 13, 2019, 5:43:28 PM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Re: 1.9-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Korniss,Toh-Ming Lu,Martin
> > > > By Dingus Dirtbag McGee Sep 15, 2019, 9:57:15 AM
> > > >
> > > > Re: 2.0-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton is 840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Michael,Newberg,N'Gom
> > > > By Dingus Dirtbag McGee Sep 15, 2019, 9:56:57 AM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Re: 2.1-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton is 840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Persans,Schroeder,Shur
> > > > By Dingus Dirtbag McGee Sep 15, 2019, 9:56:39 AM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Re: 2.2-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to math percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton=840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Shawn-Yu Lin,Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang
> > > > By Dingus Dirtbag McGee Sep 15, 2019, 9:56:28 AM
> > > >
> > > > Re: _Donald Schwendeman, Rensselaer,Jeffrey Banks, Kristin Bennett, Mohamed Boudjelkha, Joseph Ecker, is the reason you failed to confirm .5MeV was not the atom's electron but Dirac's monopole because you failed science like kibo
> > > > by Mostowski Collapse (Jan Burse) Apr 25, 2019, 12:08:26 PM
> > > >
> > > > Kibo Parry Moroney stalks "AnalButtfuckManure Attacks" Betsy DeVos, NSF Dr. Panchanathan Caltech Thomas F Rosenbaum, Harvard's Lawrence Bacow with his 10 OR 6 = 16; his ellipse a conic when it never was; his proton to electron at 938 to 0.5 MeV ....
> > > > 328 views
> > > > by ayaz.s....@gmail.com
> > > > Aug 16, 2020, 9:05:41 PM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Re: Zelos asks why Harvard's Dr. Hau wants to fail in physics, by not turning off the light to see if light wave is a closed loop pencil ellipse that AP predicts. Is Dr.Hau stubborn and too ignorant to finish her experiment??
> > > > by Michael Moroney Jan 18, 2021, 2:06:24 PM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Re: Kibo Parry Moroney on Dr. Thorp stealing AP's dog theory connected to why he is a failure on Lewis 8 Structure because CO and N2 dissociation energy says it is Lewis 6 Structure. Yes, Kibo, what is your psychoanalysis of Dr. Thorp stealing? Is steal
> > > > by Ebenezer Splooge
> > > >
> > > > Re: Kibo Parry Moroney asks Trump to give South Korea to North Korea, for who wants to protect barbarians that torture Moon Bears in cages
> > > > by Roger Davis
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Re: Kibo Parry Moroney says of Dr. Tao "ant of Math" and a pandemic shit mule// Perhaps because Dr. Tao is such a failure of math, he believed primes are real when Naturals have no division-- and failures of math overlook even the most obvious
> > > > by Professor Wordsmith Jul 25, 2020, 8:23:21 PM
> > > >
> > > > Re: 8-Kibo Parry Moroney says boycott Samsung & Hyundai until South Korea stops torturing to death caged Moon Bears // SOUTH KOREA, MOON BEARS Moon Bears of South Korea need the world's helping hand from evil//SCIENCE COUNCIL RULE EARTH
> > > > by Betsy Kibo Moroney Perry DeVos Anal Manure Buttfuck
> > > >
> > > > Re: 1- Kibo Parry Moroney says of math failure Dan Christensen Univ.. Western Ontario with his ellipse a conic when it never was//And his insane Boole logic of 10 OR 2 = 12// pandemic shit mule
> > > > by Hank Hill
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Re: 102-Kibo Parry Moroney (Barry Shein's world std) stalking analbuttfuckmanure shithead of 27 years nonstop-- needs a emergency straightjacket size XXsmall
> > > > By Eduardo Remington
> > > > Jan 25, 2020, 11:53:33 PM

2Kibo Parry M notices that Dartmouth's Dr.Hanlon is a math failure that is dishonest and cannot admit the truth about slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse. Why even the Hanover New Hampshire High School students are smarter than Dr. Hanlon in geometry.

On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 10:26:24 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>"science hater"
>"mindless fuckdog"

> On Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 10:19:30 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > I have noticed that cranks, when posting a new "theory", cannot/will not
> > solve simple textbook type problems involving their "theory". Especially
> > when they "correct" an old concept,
> 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)