Germany's WM and fellow spammers turning sci.math into a gay pick up bar, as evidence from Franz's 12 Angry Men.

Sci.math needs to be devoted 100% to true math, not some pick up bar joint where math-talk is subterfuge, a pretense for the underlying motivation of a pick-up

WM
, …
William
759
unread,
An inconsistency between set theory and classical mathematics?
10:44 AM

Earle Jones's profile photo
Earle Jones
, …

21
RE: 2-Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Sylvia Else do not do physics but just play ad hominem games. Instead of doing Physics, both Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Else want to play games of ad hominem. Whenever physics proves AP is correct, neither
10:21 AM

Mostowski Collapse's profile photo
Mostowski Collapse
, …

69
DC Proof gay shit for brains only?
WM, William, Fritz Feldhase shit-for-brains says Stanford Uni (so he says) Earle Jones. Earle Jones
10:07 AM

WM's profile photo
WM
, …
Fritz Feldhase
11
unread,
A difficult question
On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 3:18:19 PM UTC+2, WM wrote: > Jim Burns schrieb am Dienstag, 9. Mai
9:45 AM


On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 7:18:40 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math:
sex motivation in science Re: curious, just curious-- is there a numbers correlation between percentage of stalkers and homosexuality? Re: Psychology behind the mental disorder of stalking-- Michael Moroney, Dan Christensen, Jan Burse, Jan Bielawski

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 5:21:29 PM UTC-5, Me(Franz) wrote:
> On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 11:31:26 PM UTC+2, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
>> I am not suggesting that the 12 stalkers are 12 homosexuals.
(Franz) > I am not suggesting that the 12 stalkers are 12 [male --me] homosexuals.
>
(Franz)> I'm sure they are. That's why they are called /12 Angry Men/!

Well, this explains a lot about many posters in sci.math and sci.physics, for they are not in science for truth but in science to meet and partner up. And explains the loyalty and ferocity of hate posts by those 12, having no truth value. Explains why Franz keeps posting a total fake ellipse, because of his bedwarmer approval.

In another thread I discuss how "money corrupts science" but looking here, I need to consider how sex orientation corrupts the truth of science. So that we must ask-- is black hole acceptance due in large part to homosexual community wanting a black hole agenda. Is the Big Bang theory a homosexual favorite. Is the Appel & Haken in 4 color mapping, the Hales Kepler Packing, the Wiles FLT, all due to homosexual community favoritism, rather than any truth content.

So if Franz can post 100,000 times his fake conic ellipse b.s. all because he wants a bedwarmer, rather than the truth of science. We have to explore how much more of science is a sexual preference rather than reasoned truth.

On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 1:28:41 PM UTC-5, Me (Franz of Germany) wrote:

> Is this
>

>
> a depiction of your asshole,

Franz harps//Univ Gottingen teaches idiocies Tim Salditt, Konrad Samwer, Christoph Schmidt, Susanne Schneider, Steffen Schumann//ellipse is not conic; real proton= 840MeV not 938; 10 AND 4 = 14 not 10 OR 4 = 14

Franz harps//Univ Gottingen teaches idiocies Ulrike Beisiegel, Karsten Bahr, Peter Bloechl, Eberhard Bodenschatz//ellipse is not conic; real proton= 840MeV not 938; 10 AND 4 = 14 not 10 OR 4 = 14

Franz harps//Univ Gottingen teaches idiocies Laura Covi, Andreas Dillmann, Stefan Dreizler, Jörg Enderlein, Laurent Gizon//ellipse is not conic; real proton= 840MeV not 938; 10 AND 4 = 14 not 10 OR 4 = 14

Franz harps//Univ Gottingen teaches idiocies Ariane Frey,Wolfgang Glatzel, Fabian Heidrich-Meisner,Hans Christian Hofsäss//ellipse is not conic; real proton= 840MeV not 938; 10 AND 4 = 14 not 10 OR 4 = 14

On Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 3:05:40 PM UTC-5, Me (Franz) wrote:
> On Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 12:02:25 AM UTC+2, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> > 1) 10 OR 4 = 14
>
> Right! Python:
>
> def OR(x, y):
> return operator.or_(x, y)
>
> print(OR(10, 4))
>
> ==> 14
>
> > 10 AND 4 = 14
>
> Nope. Python:
>
> def AND(x, y):
> return operator.and_(x, y)
>
> print(AND(10, 4))
>
> ==> 0
>
> > 2) ellipse was never a conic
>
> Nope. Need to see my proof again?
>
> Some preliminaries:
>
> Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used
> in the proof:
>
> ^ x
> |
> -+- <= x=h
> .' | `.
> . | .
> | | |
> ' | '
> `. | .'
> y <----------+ <= x=0
>
> Cone (side view):
> .
> /|\
> / | \
> /b | \
> /---+---' <= x = h
> / |' \
> / ' | \
> / ' | \
> x = 0 => '-------+-------\
> / a | \
>
> Proof:
>
> r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence
>
> y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.
>
> Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1 ...equation of an ellipse
>
> qed

On 5/10/2023 2:16 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Germany's WM and fellow spammers turning sci.math into a gay pick up bar, as evidence from Franz's 12 Angry Men.
[...]

Did you know that an oval is a type of ellipse?

On 5/10/2023 2:42 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 5/10/2023 2:16 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>> Germany's WM and fellow spammers turning sci.math into a gay pick up
>> bar, as evidence from Franz's 12 Angry Men.
> [...]
>
> Did you know that an oval is a type of ellipse?
>

Basically, all ellipses are ovals, but not all ovals are ellipses...

Chris M. Thomasson wrote on 5/10/2023 :
> On 5/10/2023 2:16 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>> Germany's WM and fellow spammers turning sci.math into a gay pick up bar,
>> as evidence from Franz's 12 Angry Men.
> [...]
>
> Did you know that an oval is a type of ellipse?

That's backwards.

On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 2:42:23 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 5/10/2023 2:16 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Germany's WM and fellow spammers turning sci.math into a gay pick up bar, as evidence from Franz's 12 Angry Men.
> [...]
>
> Did you know that an oval is a type of ellipse?

Ovals and ellipses are different, that, besides conic sections,
and where ellipses are the outline of triangles of a given perimeter
given two fixed points, ovals can be drawn a different way, and
what varies in the one way making ovals doesn't vary in the other
way making ellipses and vice-versa. So, in AP's little, private theory,
he confounds and confuses the definitions, because his only geometer's
tools, are the one not the other.

So, it's kind of like a Flatland where Mr. Increment only adds and
Mr. Split only divides, that somehow each with their only first-order
but eventually infinitary logic, arrives at the same neighbors, that
for Mr. Increment and Mr. Split to agree on the same numbers, is infinitary..

It's so with lots of things and lots of people's little theories.
With what they have, they "attain to" their correspondence and
coherence theories of truth, but, really there's a one sole true
foundations, and a strong metonymy, then of course for at least
three definitions of continuity, it's a sort of superior Flatland.