Computers_screw up in Math Geometry--240th published book New True Geometry starting with cycloid correction and Geometry-of-Motion // math research by Archimedes Plutonium Preface: Motion Geometry such as producing the Cycloid curve in Old Math.

Computers are art in math geometry, not science. Three big cases I ran into so far. There are the computers that simulate a slant cut in right circular cone and come up with a ellipse when in reality it is a oval. All because of the program is programmed bias, prejudice and outright ignorance. Then there was the time computers fooled me in the tiling of a sphere, and now computers making a mockery of unique ellipse needs 5 points.

152nd published book
The 6th Regular Polyhedron-- hexagonal faces at infinity is nonexistent // Math proof series, book 12
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Format: Kindle Edition

Last revision was 2Aug2022. And this is AP's 152nd published book of science.

Preface: I started this book in September 2021, and not until July 2022, did I uncover my gross error-- the nonexistence of the 6th Regular Polyhedron.. I so much wanted there to be a 6th regular polyhedron and looking in the Internet, the world wide web, are many images of a cell of 7 regular hexagons, a central hexagon surrounded by 6 more regular hexagons tiling a sphere surface. Plenty of these images, but the tipping point for me is the Goldberg polyhedron, here again the cell of 7 regular hexagons tiling a sphere surface. And so, using that 7 cell as supporting evidence of the existence of a 6th Regular Polyhedron, AP proceeds to publish such. Even though I knew of the University of Utah beware caution web page stating that a vertex of 3 regular polygons is an angle of 120 +120+120= 360 degrees and thus laying flat as a plane, no bending, hence no tiling a sphere.

So I published this book in Sept2021, and not until July2022, needing a coordinate system of points on a sphere for my Ecology book "_Complete Ecology_ with Generalized Faraday Law and revised food chain // Ecology science". That I finally realize my mistake-- Uof U completely correct, and why on Earth did I want to believe Goldberg polyhedron and all those fake geometry images of regular hexagons tiling a sphere surface. This is a massive computer problem of our times, in that it is super easy to make optical illusions in geometry and filling web sites with fake geometry images.

Well, AP was fooled and fell victim to computer graphics showing where a sphere surface tiling of a central regular hexagon and surrounded by 6 more regular hexagons. There are many pictures and images of a sphere tiling on the Internet of 7 regular hexagons, a central one and surrounded and encircled by 6 more regular hexagons. There is even geometry of what is called Goldberg polyhedron with more pictures and images, all deceptive, all wrong. So this book ends up about the theme of how deceptive computer imaging can be, and not what AP hoped for-- the existence of a regular polyhedra with regular hexagon faces.

If it were true that a cell of 7 regular polygons has a bend to it, so that it can eventually circle around a sphere surface, then my first publication of this book would have been true. But instead, the truth is the nonexistence of the 6th Regular Polyhedron.

Cover Picture: is my iphone photograph of a soccer ball of 20 hexagons, 12 pentagons; and a glass ball covered by netting of tiny hexagons. Both objects I use in experiments of trying to prove the 6th Regular Polyhedron only it is nonexistent as I eventually found in July 2022.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09K4PWKVK
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 21, 2021
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 853 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 91 pages

Computers screw up in Math Geometry--240th published book New True Geometry starting with cycloid correction and Geometry-of-Motion // math research by Archimedes Plutonium Preface: Motion Geometry such as producing the Cycloid curve in Old Math was in error.
>
> Old Math guided by computers says 5 points are required for a unique ellipse, while AP proves 3 points are all that is needed.
>
> This is not the first time I ran into a computer error in geometry. And this is the big danger of using computers in geometry. Because computers are programmed to the bias and prejudice and ignorance of its programmers.
>
> We see this in tiling a sphere surface and in 5 points needed for unique ellipse. What I recommend is get rid of computers out of geometry math.
>
>
> My 240th published book (Amazon's Kindle)
>
>
> New True Geometry starting with cycloid correction and Geometry-of-Motion // math research
>
> by Archimedes Plutonium
>
> Preface: Motion Geometry such as producing the Cycloid curve in Old Math was in error. Looking at the Limacon we see this error in Motion Geometry at its worst. And the fix of the error has to come from physics of Electromagnetic theory where magnetic field is always perpendicular to electric field. The mistake made in Old Math Geometry is that they had two motions in a cycloid and limacon construction. They had the motion of a circle, but had arbitrary motion for the Pointer-Marker. This book addresses the Old Math Geometry mistakes and opens up the entire field of new math of Motion Geometry. In the midst of that correction several major conjectures were discovered and proven in this book which has created a complete overhaul of Old Math's conic sections. For the parabola and hyperbola are not open curves but closed loop circuits of ellipse, oval, circle. The nasty mistake of Old Math to think cones are apex to apex is ridiculous to the nth degree, for true conics are base to base <>, not apex to apex ><. And I finish this book with a stunning proof that 3 arbitrary non-collinear points in the plane not only produces a unique circle, but produces a unique ellipse, yet Old Math claimed it requires 5 points to produce a unique ellipse. I suspect Old Math's 5 point requirement is based on the square or rectangle, whereas my 3 point requirement is a parallelogram that is not square and not a rectangle. If I can find a unique ellipse inside a unique circle produced by 3 arbitrary points non-collinear, then I can say in general all 3 arbitrary non-collinear points produces a unique ellipse.
>
> Cover Picture: My photograph of holding two cones base to base. Two cones base to base forms the foundation of Conic Sections, and not the silly apex to apex.
>
>
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0C5VL38ZK
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 20, 2023
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 626 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 78 pages
>
>
>
>
>
>
> y z
> | /
> | /
> |/______ x
>
> More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci..physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.
>
> Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> Archimedes Plutonium

On 5/23/2023 4:49 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Computers_screw up in Math Geometry--240th published book New True Geometry starting with cycloid correction and Geometry-of-Motion // math research by Archimedes Plutonium Preface: Motion Geometry such as producing the Cycloid curve in Old Math.
>
> Computers are art in math geometry, not science. Three big cases I ran into so far. There are the computers that simulate a slant cut in right circular cone and come up with a ellipse when in reality it is a oval. All because of the program is programmed bias, prejudice and outright ignorance. Then there was the time computers fooled me in the tiling of a sphere, and now computers making a mockery of unique ellipse needs 5 points.
[...]

I told you to code up your own calculator, apCalc! Keep in mind that
every ellipse is an oval, but not all ovals are ellipses...