Message-ID:

To live is always desirable. -- Eleen the Capellan, "Friday's Child", stardate 3498.9

tech / sci.math / Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!

On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 5:39:59 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Ben Bacarisse,Olaf Scholz,Metin Tolan,Annalena Baerbock,Fritz Feldhase,Jörg Enderlein,Laurent Gizon,Gottingen can anyone, anyone at all in Germany admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, all they seem to do is play with WM dark numbers KuhscheiBe. Nor can anyone do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Germany spends its time on Muck the Puke "dark numbers" please, need your help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> >
> > See my proofs below.
>
>
>
> William photo profile
> William
> Ben Bacarisse
> 54
> 7:36 PM
> No "First" init...
> > Re: -Muck the Puke WM & Gottingen and the whole of Germany cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval never ellipse, nor can anyone there do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- all they seem to do is "dark numbers bullshit"
> > 2:59 PM
> > 
> > William's profile photo
> > William
> > , …
> > FromTheRafters
> > 19
> > unread,
> > No "First" init fraction
> > On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 3:14:01 PM UTC-3, FromTheRafters wrote: > Fritz Feldhase expressed
> > 2:52 PM
> >
> > 
> > zelos...@gmail.com's profile photo
> > zelos...@gmail.com
> > , …
> >
> > 45
> > Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!
> > Gottingen▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ Moscow mushroom cloud, Xi as Putin's stooge when Russia vaporizes
> > 2:48 PM
> > 
> > William's profile photo
> > William
> > , …
> > Jim Burns
> > 144
> > WM Logic
> > On 5/29/2023 2:19 PM, WM wrote: > Jim Burns schrieb am Montag, > 29. Mai 2023 um 20:02:53 UTC+2
> > 2:35 PM
> > 
> >
> > My 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, My 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)

"Where'd all the deleted messages go?"

Beijing▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂Moscow mushroom cloud, Xi as Putin's stooge when Russia vaporizes Shanghai with its RS-28 Sarmat "Satan II", all because Xi was too dumb to realize you can never trust an insane person

Arindam have you calculated the radiation in a Sarmat, yet?

Arindam is the Sarmat near 0 Kelvin before blast???

On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 2:53:53 PM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> Light is formed from radiation; radiation forms from changing current in aether; movement of charges cause current; charges move from kinetic impact; kinetic impacts caused by electrostatic and electormagnetic forces.
> As charge is indestructible, force is indestructible.
> Energy is created and destroyed, force is opposed by another, but never destroyed. Opposition of forces cause collision, impact, movement - leading to radiation at all frequencies, including that of visible light.

yan wyck in his daily spam says Beijing was nothing in 1999 and apparently a Russian Sarmat returned Beijing to "nothingness once again".

> On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 11:56:20 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > Botfly of Math and Blowfly of Physics "Putin's stooge"
>
Kibo Parry M. in his CIA disguise
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 11:39:47 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"Putin's minion"
> fails at math and science:
>*still* lusting after the Queen's corpse?
>
> Are you upset that I haven't been paying enough attention to you? You
> have been hoping for more punishment for attacking me? Or as Chris
> states, it's time for your spanking?
>

> Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Chongqing, Tianjin, Chengdu, Hangzhou, Nanjing, Wuhan, Xi'An, Suzhou, Harbin, Shenyang, Qingdao, Zhengzhou, Dongguan, Foshan, Dalian, Jinan, Changchun, Hefei
>
> Shenzhen▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ Xi as Putin's stooge when Russia vaporizes Shenzhen with its RS-28 Sarmat "Satan II", all because Xi was too dumb to realize you can never trust an insane person
>
>
>
> Is Pete Olcott in his Halting Problem, halting the vaporization of Wuhan by Putin's Russia???
>
>
> On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 11:56:20 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > Botfly of Math and Blowfly of Physics "Putin's stooge"
> >"wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place"
> 
> On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 1:16:55 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > "Imp of Science"
> >"not one single marble of commonsense in my entire brain"
> 

> Moscow█۞█ blackout, knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█

██۞██ Moscow electric blackouts██۞██
Moscow electric Blackouts██۞██

>
> > And as the Baby Xi surrounded by concubines grew up from the rice paddies and reeds of Outer Manchuria, stolen by the Naxi and Zani Dictator Putin in Moscow, Xi learned in school in chemical engineering that Taiwan was 1/28 the size of Outer Manchuria, as Putin bombs Ukraine. And the nascent Xi orders 1,000 divisions to the Outer Manchuria border to regain back the stolen Old China.

> > > > > > in a javelin throw to knock out Moscow high voltage lines
> > > > > >> ........///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////|
> > > > > >> ......///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////..|
> > > > > >> ....///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////....| Moscow
> > > > > >> ..///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////......| Electric
> > > > > >> ///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////........| Tower
> > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|......../
> > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|....../
> > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|..../
> > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|../
> > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|/

> Vitaly a freedom fighter in Russia
...............................^
...............................||
...............................||
......................//////// ||
......................|:---[.] ||
.......................|( _J ||
.....................| ^ ( _| ||
.................../ \_____)||
.................. / _____ \|| Long Aluminum **javelin** to throw to short circuit
...................... | / \ |...||
...................... | | | |...||
.................. \ /\ /\__ | ||
...................... | | \/--- ||
....................... \ \ )....||
.................... | >____||/_____)
.................... \______||____/
.......................... / \
....................... | | ~~
...................... \ \\
..................... \ |\
....................., \ | \
..................... \ | |
..................... | | |
..................... | | |
...................... | / |
..................... |___/____|
..................... (____)____)
==============================
freedom fighter from the tiresome dictator
Yea, the dictator has no power and no hot water, no heat, no electricity for his house, offices.

On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 4:26:14 PM UTC-5, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> "Where'd all the deleted messages go?"

Sucked up in the mushroom clouds

On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 2:37:28 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Beijing▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂Moscow mushroom cloud, Xi as Putin's stooge when Russia vaporizes Shanghai with its RS-28 Sarmat "Satan II", all because Xi was too dumb to realize you can never trust an insane person
>
> Arindam have you calculated the radiation in a Sarmat, yet?
>
> Arindam is the Sarmat near 0 Kelvin before blast???
>
> On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 2:53:53 PM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > Light is formed from radiation; radiation forms from changing current in aether; movement of charges cause current; charges move from kinetic impact; kinetic impacts caused by electrostatic and electormagnetic forces.
> > As charge is indestructible, force is indestructible.
> > Energy is created and destroyed, force is opposed by another, but never destroyed. Opposition of forces cause collision, impact, movement - leading to radiation at all frequencies, including that of visible light.
> yan wyck in his daily spam says Beijing was nothing in 1999 and apparently a Russian Sarmat returned Beijing to "nothingness once again".
> > On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 11:56:20 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > > Botfly of Math and Blowfly of Physics "Putin's stooge"
> >
> Kibo Parry M. in his CIA disguise
> On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 11:39:47 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >"Putin's minion"
> > fails at math and science:
> >*still* lusting after the Queen's corpse?
> >
> > Are you upset that I haven't been paying enough attention to you? You
> > have been hoping for more punishment for attacking me? Or as Chris
> > states, it's time for your spanking?
> >
>
>
> > Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Chongqing, Tianjin, Chengdu, Hangzhou, Nanjing, Wuhan, Xi'An, Suzhou, Harbin, Shenyang, Qingdao, Zhengzhou, Dongguan, Foshan, Dalian, Jinan, Changchun, Hefei
> >
> > Shenzhen▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ Xi as Putin's stooge when Russia vaporizes Shenzhen with its RS-28 Sarmat "Satan II", all because Xi was too dumb to realize you can never trust an insane person
> >
> >
> >
> > Is Pete Olcott in his Halting Problem, halting the vaporization of Wuhan by Putin's Russia???
> >
> >
> > On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 11:56:20 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > > Botfly of Math and Blowfly of Physics "Putin's stooge"
> > >"wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place"
> > 
> > On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 1:16:55 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > "Imp of Science"
> > >"not one single marble of commonsense in my entire brain"
> > 
> 
> > Moscow█۞█ blackout, knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> ██۞██ Moscow electric blackouts██۞██
> Moscow electric Blackouts██۞██
>
> >
> > > And as the Baby Xi surrounded by concubines grew up from the rice paddies and reeds of Outer Manchuria, stolen by the Naxi and Zani Dictator Putin in Moscow, Xi learned in school in chemical engineering that Taiwan was 1/28 the size of Outer Manchuria, as Putin bombs Ukraine. And the nascent Xi orders 1,000 divisions to the Outer Manchuria border to regain back the stolen Old China.
>
> > > > > > > in a javelin throw to knock out Moscow high voltage lines
> > > > > > >> ........///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////|
> > > > > > >> ......///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////..|
> > > > > > >> ....///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////....| Moscow
> > > > > > >> ..///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////......| Electric
> > > > > > >> ///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////........| Tower
> > > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|......../
> > > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|....../
> > > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|..../
> > > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|../
> > > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|/
>
>
> > Vitaly a freedom fighter in Russia
> ..............................^
> ..............................||
> ..............................||
> .....................//////// ||
> .....................|:---[.] ||
> ......................|( _J ||
> ....................| ^ ( _| ||
> ................../ \_____)||
> ................. / _____ \|| Long Aluminum **javelin** to throw to short circuit
> ..................... | / \ |...||
> ..................... | | | |...||
> ................. \ /\ /\__ | ||
> ..................... | | \/--- ||
> ...................... \ \ )....||
> ................... | >____||/_____)
> ................... \______||____/
> ......................... / \
> ...................... | | ~~
> ..................... \ \\
> .................... \ |\
> ...................., \ | \
> .................... \ | |
> .................... | | |
> .................... | | |
> ..................... | / |
> .................... |___/____|
> .................... (____)____)
> ==============================
> freedom fighter from the tiresome dictator
> Yea, the dictator has no power and no hot water, no heat, no electricity for his house, offices.
> On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 4:26:14 PM UTC-5, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > "Where'd all the deleted messages go?"
> Sucked up in the mushroom clouds

"No, I don't think so. Maybe they asked Google to delete them?"

Arindam have you calculated the radiation in a Sarmat, yet?

Arindam is the Sarmat near 0 Kelvin before blast???

yan wyck in his daily spam says Beijing was nothing in 1999 and apparently a Russian Sarmat returned Beijing to "nothingness once again".

██۞██ Moscow electric blackouts██۞██
Moscow electric Blackouts██۞██

On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 4:26:14 PM UTC-5, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> "Where'd all the deleted messages go?"

Sucked up in the mushroom clouds

On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 10:43:57 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Beijing▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂Moscow mushroom cloud, Xi as Putin's stooge when Russia vaporizes Shanghai with its RS-28 Sarmat "Satan II", all because Xi was too dumb to realize you can never trust an insane person
>
> Arindam have you calculated the radiation in a Sarmat, yet?
>
> Arindam is the Sarmat near 0 Kelvin before blast???
>
> On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 2:53:53 PM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > Light is formed from radiation; radiation forms from changing current in aether; movement of charges cause current; charges move from kinetic impact; kinetic impacts caused by electrostatic and electormagnetic forces.
> > As charge is indestructible, force is indestructible.
> > Energy is created and destroyed, force is opposed by another, but never destroyed. Opposition of forces cause collision, impact, movement - leading to radiation at all frequencies, including that of visible light.
>
>
>
> yan wyck in his daily spam says Beijing was nothing in 1999 and apparently a Russian Sarmat returned Beijing to "nothingness once again".
>
> > On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 11:56:20 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > > Botfly of Math and Blowfly of Physics "Putin's stooge"
> >
> Kibo Parry M. in his CIA disguise
> On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 11:39:47 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >"Putin's minion"
> > fails at math and science:
> >*still* lusting after the Queen's corpse?
> >
> > Are you upset that I haven't been paying enough attention to you? You
> > have been hoping for more punishment for attacking me? Or as Chris
> > states, it's time for your spanking?
> >
>
>
> > Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Chongqing, Tianjin, Chengdu, Hangzhou, Nanjing, Wuhan, Xi'An, Suzhou, Harbin, Shenyang, Qingdao, Zhengzhou, Dongguan, Foshan, Dalian, Jinan, Changchun, Hefei
> >
> > Shenzhen▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ Xi as Putin's stooge when Russia vaporizes Shenzhen with its RS-28 Sarmat "Satan II", all because Xi was too dumb to realize you can never trust an insane person
> >
> >
> >
> > Is Pete Olcott in his Halting Problem, halting the vaporization of Wuhan by Putin's Russia???
> >
> >
> > On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 11:56:20 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > > Botfly of Math and Blowfly of Physics "Putin's stooge"
> > >"wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place"
> > 
> > On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 1:16:55 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > "Imp of Science"
> > >"not one single marble of commonsense in my entire brain"
> > 
> 
> > Moscow█۞█ blackout, knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
>
>
>
> ██۞██ Moscow electric blackouts██۞██
> Moscow electric Blackouts██۞██
>
> >
> > > And as the Baby Xi surrounded by concubines grew up from the rice paddies and reeds of Outer Manchuria, stolen by the Naxi and Zani Dictator Putin in Moscow, Xi learned in school in chemical engineering that Taiwan was 1/28 the size of Outer Manchuria, as Putin bombs Ukraine. And the nascent Xi orders 1,000 divisions to the Outer Manchuria border to regain back the stolen Old China.
>
> > > > > > > in a javelin throw to knock out Moscow high voltage lines
> > > > > > >> ........///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////|
> > > > > > >> ......///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////..|
> > > > > > >> ....///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////....| Moscow
> > > > > > >> ..///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////......| Electric
> > > > > > >> ///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////........| Tower
> > > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|......../
> > > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|....../
> > > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|..../
> > > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|../
> > > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|/
>
>
> > Vitaly a freedom fighter in Russia
> ..............................^
> ..............................||
> ..............................||
> .....................//////// ||
> .....................|:---[.] ||
> ......................|( _J ||
> ....................| ^ ( _| ||
> ................../ \_____)||
> ................. / _____ \|| Long Aluminum **javelin** to throw to short circuit
> ..................... | / \ |...||
> ..................... | | | |...||
> ................. \ /\ /\__ | ||
> ..................... | | \/--- ||
> ...................... \ \ )....||
> ................... | >____||/_____)
> ................... \______||____/
> ......................... / \
> ...................... | | ~~
> ..................... \ \\
> .................... \ |\
> ...................., \ | \
> .................... \ | |
> .................... | | |
> .................... | | |
> ..................... | / |
> .................... |___/____|
> .................... (____)____)
> ==============================
> freedom fighter from the tiresome dictator
> Yea, the dictator has no power and no hot water, no heat, no electricity for his house, offices.
>
>
> On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 4:26:14 PM UTC-5, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > "Where'd all the deleted messages go?"
>
> Sucked up in the mushroom clouds

"Isn't it more like the messages became somehow 'controversial' and the posters wished
them deleted?"

Olaf & Annalena,Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert,Prof. Dr. Florentin Wörgötter
Prof. Dr. Annette Zippelius Dr.Tao,Dr.Wiles (See AP proofs of Calculus below)

Never a geometry proof of calculus, nor admission that slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse, yet cads like WM, William spamming sci.math from morning to night every day

William photo profile
William
WM (Wolfgang Mueckenheim)
183
1:25 PM
WM Logic

WM&William on math failures Dr.Tao,Dr.Wiles,Dr.Hales with their ellipse a conic, their 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, their never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and their inability to ever determine Feynman's equation for Electric Field E = (-q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')]
> Dr.Tao,Dr.Wiles,Dr.Hales failures of math with their ellipse a conic, their 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, their never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and their inability to ever determine Feynman's equation for Electric Field

Chris M. Thomasson
, …
WM
21
Re: An inconsistency between set theory and classical mathematics?
Jim Burns schrieb am Dienstag, 23. Mai 2023 um 02:33:17 UTC+2: > On 5/22/2023 4:42 PM, WM wrote:
1:17 PM

Chris M. Thomasson's profile photo
Chris M. Thomasson
, …

25
Re: sickfuck spammers Jim Burns,WM-- never a geometry proof of Fundamental theorem of Calculus, and his mindless Boole logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, and geometry failure who cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse
1:11 PM


> No wonder they cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, why those fools of math cannot even admit slant cut of cone is a Oval, never the ellipse-- what are they blind in both eyes????
>
> No wonder they cannot tell if Feynman's Electric Field 28.3 volume 1 Lectures on Physics is the same as the terms in AP's EM equation of E' or C'. Why, these three fools spent their entire life in algebra with Boole & Jevons logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. No wonder all three failure fools, Tao, Wiles, Hales rely on only one proof method reductio ad absurdum ( a fake method of proof in math) for it matches the con artistry fakery that Tao, Wiles, Hales produce.
>
> And all AP asked for, is the three-- admit --- slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse. Far far too much to ask of 3 con-artist fakers of science.
>
>
> Feynman's equation for Electric Field E = (-q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')] matches in math form AP's E' equation. AP's New Ohm's Law as V= CBE and when you take the differential equation of all possible permutations you get the laws of Electrodynamics. Notice that E' is essentially Feynman's equation for electric field.
>
>
> C' = (V/(BE))' = V'BE/(BE)^2 - VB'E/(BE)^2 - VBE'/(BE)^2 which is Faraday's law.
> 1st term as current production -- 2nd term as Lenz law -- 3rd term as DC, AC direction
>
> B' = (V/(CE))' = V'CE/(CE)^2 - VC'E/(CE)^2 - VCE')/(CE)^2 which is Ampere-Maxwell law.
> 1st term as B production -- 2nd term as Displacement current -- 3rd term as parallel attract
>
> E' = (V/(CB))' = V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2 which is Coulomb-gravity law.
> 1st term as E production -- 2nd term as inverse square of distance -- 3rd term as spin and orbit synchronicity
>
> V' = (CBE)' = C'BE + CB'E + CBE' which is Transformer law
> 1st term as V production in a transformer -- 2nd term as inverse square root -- 3rd term as DC, AC synchronicity
>
> New Physics throws out-- the Lagrangian, Hamiltonian, Hermitian and matrix algebra, plus the Dirac Equation// Physics focus
>
> by Archimedes Plutonium
>
>
> Last revision was 1 July 2022. And this is AP's 192nd published book of science.
>
> Preface: AP's 192nd book of Science// Translating Dirac's Hamiltonian and Lagrangian into New Physics of the AP-EM Equations of Electrodynamics. The reason these fancy math artifices are thrown out is because Old Physics had the Maxwell Equations full of errors, -- missing terms and outright false law of no magnetic monopole. So in order to get some reasonable solutions to experiments on Maxwell EM theory, these artificial math methods had to be hauled in to patch up the error filled Maxwell Equations.
>
> Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of page 257 ---- in Dirac's book "The Principles of Quantum Mechanics" 1957, showing how much of physics had become a game of algebra manipulation for the reason that Maxwell Equations were so very much error filled equations. And that playing games of matrices could overcome some of the error filled Maxwell Equations.
>

> 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
>


> 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 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
>
> 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

My 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.

Click here to read the complete article

On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 2:05:10 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Olaf & Annalena,Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert,Prof. Dr. Florentin Wörgötter
> Prof. Dr. Annette Zippelius Dr.Tao,Dr.Wiles (See AP proofs of Calculus below)
>

"This is maybe not the 'high comedy' you think it is."

Olaf & William & Annalena,Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert,Prof. Dr. Florentin Wörgötter
> Prof. Dr. Annette Zippelius Dr.Tao,Dr.Wiles (See AP proofs of Calculus below)
>
> Never a geometry proof of calculus, nor admission that slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse, yet cads like WM, William spamming sci.math from morning to night every day
>
William photo profile
William
Fritz Feldhase
246
3:50 PM
WM Logic
>
> WM&William on math failures Dr.Tao,Dr.Wiles,Dr.Hales with their ellipse a conic, their 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, their never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and their inability to ever determine Feynman's equation for Electric Field E = (-q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')]
> > Dr.Tao,Dr.Wiles,Dr.Hales failures of math with their ellipse a conic, their 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, their never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and their inability to ever determine Feynman's equation for Electric Field
>
> Chris M. Thomasson
> , …
> WM
> 21
> Re: An inconsistency between set theory and classical mathematics?
> Jim Burns schrieb am Dienstag, 23. Mai 2023 um 02:33:17 UTC+2: > On 5/22/2023 4:42 PM, WM wrote:
> 1:17 PM
> 
> Chris M. Thomasson's profile photo
> Chris M. Thomasson
> , …
>
> 25
> Re: sickfuck spammers Jim Burns,WM-- never a geometry proof of Fundamental theorem of Calculus, and his mindless Boole logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, and geometry failure who cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse
> 1:11 PM
> 
> > No wonder they cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, why those fools of math cannot even admit slant cut of cone is a Oval, never the ellipse-- what are they blind in both eyes????
> >
> > No wonder they cannot tell if Feynman's Electric Field 28.3 volume 1 Lectures on Physics is the same as the terms in AP's EM equation of E' or C'. Why, these three fools spent their entire life in algebra with Boole & Jevons logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. No wonder all three failure fools, Tao, Wiles, Hales rely on only one proof method reductio ad absurdum ( a fake method of proof in math) for it matches the con artistry fakery that Tao, Wiles, Hales produce.
> >
> > And all AP asked for, is the three-- admit --- slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse. Far far too much to ask of 3 con-artist fakers of science..
> >
> >
> > Feynman's equation for Electric Field E = (-q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')] matches in math form AP's E' equation. AP's New Ohm's Law as V= CBE and when you take the differential equation of all possible permutations you get the laws of Electrodynamics. Notice that E' is essentially Feynman's equation for electric field.
> >
> >
> > C' = (V/(BE))' = V'BE/(BE)^2 - VB'E/(BE)^2 - VBE'/(BE)^2 which is Faraday's law.
> > 1st term as current production -- 2nd term as Lenz law -- 3rd term as DC, AC direction
> >
> > B' = (V/(CE))' = V'CE/(CE)^2 - VC'E/(CE)^2 - VCE')/(CE)^2 which is Ampere-Maxwell law.
> > 1st term as B production -- 2nd term as Displacement current -- 3rd term as parallel attract
> >
> > E' = (V/(CB))' = V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2 which is Coulomb-gravity law.
> > 1st term as E production -- 2nd term as inverse square of distance -- 3rd term as spin and orbit synchronicity
> >
> > V' = (CBE)' = C'BE + CB'E + CBE' which is Transformer law
> > 1st term as V production in a transformer -- 2nd term as inverse square root -- 3rd term as DC, AC synchronicity
> >
> > New Physics throws out-- the Lagrangian, Hamiltonian, Hermitian and matrix algebra, plus the Dirac Equation// Physics focus
> >
> > by Archimedes Plutonium
> >
> >
> > Last revision was 1 July 2022. And this is AP's 192nd published book of science.
> >
> > Preface: AP's 192nd book of Science// Translating Dirac's Hamiltonian and Lagrangian into New Physics of the AP-EM Equations of Electrodynamics. The reason these fancy math artifices are thrown out is because Old Physics had the Maxwell Equations full of errors, -- missing terms and outright false law of no magnetic monopole. So in order to get some reasonable solutions to experiments on Maxwell EM theory, these artificial math methods had to be hauled in to patch up the error filled Maxwell Equations.
> >
> > Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of page 257 ---- in Dirac's book "The Principles of Quantum Mechanics" 1957, showing how much of physics had become a game of algebra manipulation for the reason that Maxwell Equations were so very much error filled equations. And that playing games of matrices could overcome some of the error filled Maxwell Equations.
> >
> 
> > 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
> >
> 
> 
> > 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 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
> >
> > 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
> My 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, My 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)

Click here to read the complete article

Olaf& Gus Gassman & Annalena,Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert,Prof. Dr. Florentin Wörgötter
> > Prof. Dr. Annette Zippelius Dr.Tao,Dr.Wiles (See AP proofs of Calculus below)
> >
> > Never a geometry proof of calculus, nor admission that slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse, yet cads like WM, William spamming sci.math from morning to night every day

William photo profile
William
Gus Gassmann
251
unread,
WM Logic
On Saturday, 10 June 2023 at 09:09:49 UTC-3, WM wrote: [...] > The set of unit fractions is a set
3:36 PM

Y A's profile photo
Y A
,

15
Re: +Earle Jones, the arsewipe of Stanford Univ and shows us why Stanford is a failed school of science-- too dumb to ask which is the Atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle, and their ellipse a conic when that is a oval, and their 2 OR 1 = 3
3:33 PM

Earle Jones's profile photo
Earle Jones
, …

42
"Psychoceramics"
2-Nancy Rothwell does Toby Howard suffer dementia as well as psychoceramic, according to Earle Jones?
3:21 PM

Earle Jones's profile photo
Earle Jones
, …

28
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
3:11 PM


> >
> > WM&William on math failures Dr.Tao,Dr.Wiles,Dr.Hales with their ellipse a conic, their 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, their never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and their inability to ever determine Feynman's equation for Electric Field E = (-q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')]
> > > Dr.Tao,Dr.Wiles,Dr.Hales failures of math with their ellipse a conic, their 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, their never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and their inability to ever determine Feynman's equation for Electric Field
> >
> > Chris M. Thomasson
> > , …
> > WM
> > 21
> > Re: An inconsistency between set theory and classical mathematics?
> > Jim Burns schrieb am Dienstag, 23. Mai 2023 um 02:33:17 UTC+2: > On 5/22/2023 4:42 PM, WM wrote:
> > 1:17 PM
> > 
> > Chris M. Thomasson's profile photo
> > Chris M. Thomasson
> > , …
> >
> > 25
> > Re: sickfuck spammers Jim Burns,WM-- never a geometry proof of Fundamental theorem of Calculus, and his mindless Boole logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, and geometry failure who cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse
> > 1:11 PM
> > 
> > > No wonder they cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, why those fools of math cannot even admit slant cut of cone is a Oval, never the ellipse-- what are they blind in both eyes????
> > >
> > > No wonder they cannot tell if Feynman's Electric Field 28.3 volume 1 Lectures on Physics is the same as the terms in AP's EM equation of E' or C'. Why, these three fools spent their entire life in algebra with Boole & Jevons logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. No wonder all three failure fools, Tao, Wiles, Hales rely on only one proof method reductio ad absurdum ( a fake method of proof in math) for it matches the con artistry fakery that Tao, Wiles, Hales produce.
> > >
> > > And all AP asked for, is the three-- admit --- slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse. Far far too much to ask of 3 con-artist fakers of science.
> > >
> > >
> > > Feynman's equation for Electric Field E = (-q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')] matches in math form AP's E' equation. AP's New Ohm's Law as V= CBE and when you take the differential equation of all possible permutations you get the laws of Electrodynamics. Notice that E' is essentially Feynman's equation for electric field.
> > >
> > >
> > > C' = (V/(BE))' = V'BE/(BE)^2 - VB'E/(BE)^2 - VBE'/(BE)^2 which is Faraday's law.
> > > 1st term as current production -- 2nd term as Lenz law -- 3rd term as DC, AC direction
> > >
> > > B' = (V/(CE))' = V'CE/(CE)^2 - VC'E/(CE)^2 - VCE')/(CE)^2 which is Ampere-Maxwell law.
> > > 1st term as B production -- 2nd term as Displacement current -- 3rd term as parallel attract
> > >
> > > E' = (V/(CB))' = V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2 which is Coulomb-gravity law.
> > > 1st term as E production -- 2nd term as inverse square of distance -- 3rd term as spin and orbit synchronicity
> > >
> > > V' = (CBE)' = C'BE + CB'E + CBE' which is Transformer law
> > > 1st term as V production in a transformer -- 2nd term as inverse square root -- 3rd term as DC, AC synchronicity
> > >
> > > New Physics throws out-- the Lagrangian, Hamiltonian, Hermitian and matrix algebra, plus the Dirac Equation// Physics focus
> > >
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium
> > >
> > >
> > > Last revision was 1 July 2022. And this is AP's 192nd published book of science.
> > >
> > > Preface: AP's 192nd book of Science// Translating Dirac's Hamiltonian and Lagrangian into New Physics of the AP-EM Equations of Electrodynamics. The reason these fancy math artifices are thrown out is because Old Physics had the Maxwell Equations full of errors, -- missing terms and outright false law of no magnetic monopole. So in order to get some reasonable solutions to experiments on Maxwell EM theory, these artificial math methods had to be hauled in to patch up the error filled Maxwell Equations.
> > >
> > > Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of page 257 ---- in Dirac's book "The Principles of Quantum Mechanics" 1957, showing how much of physics had become a game of algebra manipulation for the reason that Maxwell Equations were so very much error filled equations. And that playing games of matrices could overcome some of the error filled Maxwell Equations.
> > >
> > 
> > > 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
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > > 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 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
> > >
> > > 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
> > My 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, My 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)

Click here to read the complete article

4Olaf& WM & Annalena,Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert,Prof. Dr. Florentin Wörgötter
> > > Prof. Dr. Annette Zippelius Dr.Tao,Dr.Wiles (See AP proofs of Calculus below)
> > >
> > > Never a geometry proof of calculus, nor admission that slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse, yet cads like WM, William spamming sci.math from morning to night every day
>


Earle Jones's profile photo
Earle Jones
, …

30
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
1:33 PM

William's profile photo
William
, …
WM
268
unread,
WM Logic
Jim Burns schrieb am Sonntag, 11. Juni 2023 um 19:19:55 UTC+2: > On 6/11/2023 9:38 AM, WM wrote:
1:33 PM


> > >
> > > WM&William on math failures Dr.Tao,Dr.Wiles,Dr.Hales with their ellipse a conic, their 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, their never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and their inability to ever determine Feynman's equation for Electric Field E = (-q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')]
> > > > Dr.Tao,Dr.Wiles,Dr.Hales failures of math with their ellipse a conic, their 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, their never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and their inability to ever determine Feynman's equation for Electric Field
> > >
> > > Chris M. Thomasson
> > > , …
> > > WM
> > > 21
> > > Re: An inconsistency between set theory and classical mathematics?
> > > Jim Burns schrieb am Dienstag, 23. Mai 2023 um 02:33:17 UTC+2: > On 5/22/2023 4:42 PM, WM wrote:
> > > 1:17 PM
> > > 
> > > Chris M. Thomasson's profile photo
> > > Chris M. Thomasson
> > > , …
> > >
> > > 25
> > > Re: sickfuck spammers Jim Burns,WM-- never a geometry proof of Fundamental theorem of Calculus, and his mindless Boole logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, and geometry failure who cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse
> > > 1:11 PM
> > > 
> > > > No wonder they cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, why those fools of math cannot even admit slant cut of cone is a Oval, never the ellipse-- what are they blind in both eyes????
> > > >
> > > > No wonder they cannot tell if Feynman's Electric Field 28.3 volume 1 Lectures on Physics is the same as the terms in AP's EM equation of E' or C'. Why, these three fools spent their entire life in algebra with Boole & Jevons logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. No wonder all three failure fools, Tao, Wiles, Hales rely on only one proof method reductio ad absurdum ( a fake method of proof in math) for it matches the con artistry fakery that Tao, Wiles, Hales produce.
> > > >
> > > > And all AP asked for, is the three-- admit --- slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse. Far far too much to ask of 3 con-artist fakers of science.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Feynman's equation for Electric Field E = (-q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')] matches in math form AP's E' equation. AP's New Ohm's Law as V= CBE and when you take the differential equation of all possible permutations you get the laws of Electrodynamics. Notice that E' is essentially Feynman's equation for electric field.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > C' = (V/(BE))' = V'BE/(BE)^2 - VB'E/(BE)^2 - VBE'/(BE)^2 which is Faraday's law.
> > > > 1st term as current production -- 2nd term as Lenz law -- 3rd term as DC, AC direction
> > > >
> > > > B' = (V/(CE))' = V'CE/(CE)^2 - VC'E/(CE)^2 - VCE')/(CE)^2 which is Ampere-Maxwell law.
> > > > 1st term as B production -- 2nd term as Displacement current -- 3rd term as parallel attract
> > > >
> > > > E' = (V/(CB))' = V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2 which is Coulomb-gravity law.
> > > > 1st term as E production -- 2nd term as inverse square of distance -- 3rd term as spin and orbit synchronicity
> > > >
> > > > V' = (CBE)' = C'BE + CB'E + CBE' which is Transformer law
> > > > 1st term as V production in a transformer -- 2nd term as inverse square root -- 3rd term as DC, AC synchronicity
> > > >
> > > > New Physics throws out-- the Lagrangian, Hamiltonian, Hermitian and matrix algebra, plus the Dirac Equation// Physics focus
> > > >
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Last revision was 1 July 2022. And this is AP's 192nd published book of science.
> > > >
> > > > Preface: AP's 192nd book of Science// Translating Dirac's Hamiltonian and Lagrangian into New Physics of the AP-EM Equations of Electrodynamics. The reason these fancy math artifices are thrown out is because Old Physics had the Maxwell Equations full of errors, -- missing terms and outright false law of no magnetic monopole. So in order to get some reasonable solutions to experiments on Maxwell EM theory, these artificial math methods had to be hauled in to patch up the error filled Maxwell Equations.
> > > >
> > > > Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of page 257 ---- in Dirac's book "The Principles of Quantum Mechanics" 1957, showing how much of physics had become a game of algebra manipulation for the reason that Maxwell Equations were so very much error filled equations. And that playing games of matrices could overcome some of the error filled Maxwell Equations.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 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 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
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > My 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, My 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)

Click here to read the complete article

5Olaf& WM & Annalena,Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert,Prof. Dr. Florentin Wörgötter
> > > > Prof. Dr. Annette Zippelius Dr.Tao,Dr.Wiles (See AP proofs of Calculus below)
> > > >
> > > > Never a geometry proof of calculus, nor admission that slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse, yet cads like WM, William spamming sci.math from morning to night every day

German spammer Wolfgang Mueckenheim has new fake name Peter Peters, yet so stupid and failure of Math is WM he cannot even see slant cut of cone is Oval, not his mindless ellipse.

> 
> William's profile photo
> William
> , …
> WM
> 268
> unread,
> WM Logic
> Jim Burns schrieb am Sonntag, 11. Juni 2023 um 19:19:55 UTC+2: > On 6/11/2023 9:38 AM, WM wrote:
> 1:33 PM
> 
>
>
>
> > > >
> > > > WM&William on math failures Dr.Tao,Dr.Wiles,Dr.Hales with their ellipse a conic, their 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, their never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and their inability to ever determine Feynman's equation for Electric Field E = (-q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')]
> > > > > Dr.Tao,Dr.Wiles,Dr.Hales failures of math with their ellipse a conic, their 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, their never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and their inability to ever determine Feynman's equation for Electric Field
> > > >
> > > > Chris M. Thomasson
> > > > , …
> > > > WM
> > > > 21
> > > > Re: An inconsistency between set theory and classical mathematics?
> > > > Jim Burns schrieb am Dienstag, 23. Mai 2023 um 02:33:17 UTC+2: > On 5/22/2023 4:42 PM, WM wrote:
> > > > 1:17 PM
> > > > 
> > > > Chris M. Thomasson's profile photo
> > > > Chris M. Thomasson
> > > > , …
> > > >
> > > > 25
> > > > Re: sickfuck spammers Jim Burns,WM-- never a geometry proof of Fundamental theorem of Calculus, and his mindless Boole logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, and geometry failure who cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse
> > > > 1:11 PM
> > > > 
> > > > > No wonder they cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, why those fools of math cannot even admit slant cut of cone is a Oval, never the ellipse-- what are they blind in both eyes????
> > > > >
> > > > > No wonder they cannot tell if Feynman's Electric Field 28.3 volume 1 Lectures on Physics is the same as the terms in AP's EM equation of E' or C'. Why, these three fools spent their entire life in algebra with Boole & Jevons logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. No wonder all three failure fools, Tao, Wiles, Hales rely on only one proof method reductio ad absurdum ( a fake method of proof in math) for it matches the con artistry fakery that Tao, Wiles, Hales produce.
> > > > >
> > > > > And all AP asked for, is the three-- admit --- slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse. Far far too much to ask of 3 con-artist fakers of science.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Feynman's equation for Electric Field E = (-q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')] matches in math form AP's E' equation. AP's New Ohm's Law as V= CBE and when you take the differential equation of all possible permutations you get the laws of Electrodynamics. Notice that E' is essentially Feynman's equation for electric field.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > C' = (V/(BE))' = V'BE/(BE)^2 - VB'E/(BE)^2 - VBE'/(BE)^2 which is Faraday's law.
> > > > > 1st term as current production -- 2nd term as Lenz law -- 3rd term as DC, AC direction
> > > > >
> > > > > B' = (V/(CE))' = V'CE/(CE)^2 - VC'E/(CE)^2 - VCE')/(CE)^2 which is Ampere-Maxwell law.
> > > > > 1st term as B production -- 2nd term as Displacement current -- 3rd term as parallel attract
> > > > >
> > > > > E' = (V/(CB))' = V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2 which is Coulomb-gravity law.
> > > > > 1st term as E production -- 2nd term as inverse square of distance -- 3rd term as spin and orbit synchronicity
> > > > >
> > > > > V' = (CBE)' = C'BE + CB'E + CBE' which is Transformer law
> > > > > 1st term as V production in a transformer -- 2nd term as inverse square root -- 3rd term as DC, AC synchronicity
> > > > >
> > > > > New Physics throws out-- the Lagrangian, Hamiltonian, Hermitian and matrix algebra, plus the Dirac Equation// Physics focus
> > > > >
> > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Last revision was 1 July 2022. And this is AP's 192nd published book of science.
> > > > >
> > > > > Preface: AP's 192nd book of Science// Translating Dirac's Hamiltonian and Lagrangian into New Physics of the AP-EM Equations of Electrodynamics. The reason these fancy math artifices are thrown out is because Old Physics had the Maxwell Equations full of errors, -- missing terms and outright false law of no magnetic monopole. So in order to get some reasonable solutions to experiments on Maxwell EM theory, these artificial math methods had to be hauled in to patch up the error filled Maxwell Equations.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of page 257 ---- in Dirac's book "The Principles of Quantum Mechanics" 1957, showing how much of physics had become a game of algebra manipulation for the reason that Maxwell Equations were so very much error filled equations. And that playing games of matrices could overcome some of the error filled Maxwell Equations.
> > > > >
> > > > 
> > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > 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 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
> > > > >
> > > > > 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
> > > > My 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, My 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)

Click here to read the complete article

On Friday, 23 September 2022 at 01:15:59 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> torsdag 22 september 2022 kl. 00:07:13 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> > Wolfgang Mueckenheim please fuck me in the ass!
> > AP
>
> Dude, whats wrong with you?

If you had any brains, then the question you would have asked is: Dude, what's right with you?

If you have to ask the crank of all cranks this question, then you are also a crank.

LMAO.

Feldhase,Olaf& WM & Annalena,Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert,Prof. Dr. Florentin Wörgötter
> > > > > Prof. Dr. Annette Zippelius Dr.Tao,Dr.Wiles (See AP proofs of Calculus below)
> > > > >
> > > > > Never a geometry proof of calculus, nor admission that slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse, yet cads like WM, William spamming sci.math from morning to night every day
> German spammer Wolfgang Mueckenheim has new fake name Peter Peters, yet so stupid and failure of Math is WM he cannot even see slant cut of cone is Oval, not his mindless ellipse.

William
, …
Fritz Feldhase
356
unread,
WM Logic
On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 9:44:27 PM UTC+2, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 6/11/2023 1:17 PM, WM
4:41 PM


> > 
> > William's profile photo
> > William
> > , …
> > WM
> > 268
> > unread,
> > WM Logic
> > Jim Burns schrieb am Sonntag, 11. Juni 2023 um 19:19:55 UTC+2: > On 6/11/2023 9:38 AM, WM wrote:
> > 1:33 PM
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > WM&William on math failures Dr.Tao,Dr.Wiles,Dr.Hales with their ellipse a conic, their 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, their never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and their inability to ever determine Feynman's equation for Electric Field E = (-q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')]
> > > > > > Dr.Tao,Dr.Wiles,Dr.Hales failures of math with their ellipse a conic, their 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, their never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and their inability to ever determine Feynman's equation for Electric Field
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris M. Thomasson
> > > > > , …
> > > > > WM
> > > > > 21
> > > > > Re: An inconsistency between set theory and classical mathematics?
> > > > > Jim Burns schrieb am Dienstag, 23. Mai 2023 um 02:33:17 UTC+2: > On 5/22/2023 4:42 PM, WM wrote:
> > > > > 1:17 PM
> > > > > 
> > > > > Chris M. Thomasson's profile photo
> > > > > Chris M. Thomasson
> > > > > , …
> > > > >
> > > > > 25
> > > > > Re: sickfuck spammers Jim Burns,WM-- never a geometry proof of Fundamental theorem of Calculus, and his mindless Boole logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, and geometry failure who cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse
> > > > > 1:11 PM
> > > > > 
> > > > > > No wonder they cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, why those fools of math cannot even admit slant cut of cone is a Oval, never the ellipse-- what are they blind in both eyes????
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No wonder they cannot tell if Feynman's Electric Field 28.3 volume 1 Lectures on Physics is the same as the terms in AP's EM equation of E' or C'. Why, these three fools spent their entire life in algebra with Boole & Jevons logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. No wonder all three failure fools, Tao, Wiles, Hales rely on only one proof method reductio ad absurdum ( a fake method of proof in math) for it matches the con artistry fakery that Tao, Wiles, Hales produce.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And all AP asked for, is the three-- admit --- slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse. Far far too much to ask of 3 con-artist fakers of science.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Feynman's equation for Electric Field E = (-q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')] matches in math form AP's E' equation. AP's New Ohm's Law as V= CBE and when you take the differential equation of all possible permutations you get the laws of Electrodynamics. Notice that E' is essentially Feynman's equation for electric field.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > C' = (V/(BE))' = V'BE/(BE)^2 - VB'E/(BE)^2 - VBE'/(BE)^2 which is Faraday's law.
> > > > > > 1st term as current production -- 2nd term as Lenz law -- 3rd term as DC, AC direction
> > > > > >
> > > > > > B' = (V/(CE))' = V'CE/(CE)^2 - VC'E/(CE)^2 - VCE')/(CE)^2 which is Ampere-Maxwell law.
> > > > > > 1st term as B production -- 2nd term as Displacement current -- 3rd term as parallel attract
> > > > > >
> > > > > > E' = (V/(CB))' = V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2 which is Coulomb-gravity law.
> > > > > > 1st term as E production -- 2nd term as inverse square of distance -- 3rd term as spin and orbit synchronicity
> > > > > >
> > > > > > V' = (CBE)' = C'BE + CB'E + CBE' which is Transformer law
> > > > > > 1st term as V production in a transformer -- 2nd term as inverse square root -- 3rd term as DC, AC synchronicity
> > > > > >
> > > > > > New Physics throws out-- the Lagrangian, Hamiltonian, Hermitian and matrix algebra, plus the Dirac Equation// Physics focus
> > > > > >
> > > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Last revision was 1 July 2022. And this is AP's 192nd published book of science.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Preface: AP's 192nd book of Science// Translating Dirac's Hamiltonian and Lagrangian into New Physics of the AP-EM Equations of Electrodynamics. The reason these fancy math artifices are thrown out is because Old Physics had the Maxwell Equations full of errors, -- missing terms and outright false law of no magnetic monopole. So in order to get some reasonable solutions to experiments on Maxwell EM theory, these artificial math methods had to be hauled in to patch up the error filled Maxwell Equations.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of page 257 ---- in Dirac's book "The Principles of Quantum Mechanics" 1957, showing how much of physics had become a game of algebra manipulation for the reason that Maxwell Equations were so very much error filled equations. And that playing games of matrices could overcome some of the error filled Maxwell Equations.
> > > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 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
> > > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 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 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
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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
> > > > > My 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, My 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)

Click here to read the complete article

Jim Burns,Olaf& WM & Annalena,Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert,Prof. Dr. Florentin Wörgötter
> > > > > > Prof. Dr. Annette Zippelius Dr.Tao,Dr.Wiles (See AP proofs of Calculus below)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Never a geometry proof of calculus, nor admission that slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse, yet cads like WM, William spamming sci.math from morning to night every day
> > German spammer Wolfgang Mueckenheim has new fake name Peter Peters, yet so stupid and failure of Math is WM he cannot even see slant cut of cone is Oval, not his mindless ellipse.

Peter Peters's profile photo
Peter Peters
, …
Jim Burns
74
unread,
The mathematical constraints of set theory
On 6/20/2023 11:44 AM, WM wrote: > Jim Burns schrieb am Montag, > 19. Juni 2023 um 15:34:13 UTC
12:31 PM


> > > 
> > > William's profile photo
> > > William
> > > , …
> > > WM
> > > 268
> > > unread,
> > > WM Logic
> > > Jim Burns schrieb am Sonntag, 11. Juni 2023 um 19:19:55 UTC+2: > On 6/11/2023 9:38 AM, WM wrote:
> > > 1:33 PM
> > > 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WM&William on math failures Dr.Tao,Dr.Wiles,Dr.Hales with their ellipse a conic, their 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, their never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and their inability to ever determine Feynman's equation for Electric Field E = (-q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')]
> > > > > > > Dr.Tao,Dr.Wiles,Dr.Hales failures of math with their ellipse a conic, their 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, their never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and their inability to ever determine Feynman's equation for Electric Field
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Chris M. Thomasson
> > > > > > , …
> > > > > > WM
> > > > > > 21
> > > > > > Re: An inconsistency between set theory and classical mathematics?
> > > > > > Jim Burns schrieb am Dienstag, 23. Mai 2023 um 02:33:17 UTC+2: > On 5/22/2023 4:42 PM, WM wrote:
> > > > > > 1:17 PM
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Chris M. Thomasson's profile photo
> > > > > > Chris M. Thomasson
> > > > > > , …
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 25
> > > > > > Re: sickfuck spammers Jim Burns,WM-- never a geometry proof of Fundamental theorem of Calculus, and his mindless Boole logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, and geometry failure who cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse
> > > > > > 1:11 PM
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > No wonder they cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, why those fools of math cannot even admit slant cut of cone is a Oval, never the ellipse-- what are they blind in both eyes????
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No wonder they cannot tell if Feynman's Electric Field 28.3 volume 1 Lectures on Physics is the same as the terms in AP's EM equation of E' or C'. Why, these three fools spent their entire life in algebra with Boole & Jevons logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. No wonder all three failure fools, Tao, Wiles, Hales rely on only one proof method reductio ad absurdum ( a fake method of proof in math) for it matches the con artistry fakery that Tao, Wiles, Hales produce.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And all AP asked for, is the three-- admit --- slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse. Far far too much to ask of 3 con-artist fakers of science.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Feynman's equation for Electric Field E = (-q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')] matches in math form AP's E' equation. AP's New Ohm's Law as V= CBE and when you take the differential equation of all possible permutations you get the laws of Electrodynamics. Notice that E' is essentially Feynman's equation for electric field.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > C' = (V/(BE))' = V'BE/(BE)^2 - VB'E/(BE)^2 - VBE'/(BE)^2 which is Faraday's law.
> > > > > > > 1st term as current production -- 2nd term as Lenz law -- 3rd term as DC, AC direction
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > B' = (V/(CE))' = V'CE/(CE)^2 - VC'E/(CE)^2 - VCE')/(CE)^2 which is Ampere-Maxwell law.
> > > > > > > 1st term as B production -- 2nd term as Displacement current -- 3rd term as parallel attract
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > E' = (V/(CB))' = V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2 which is Coulomb-gravity law.
> > > > > > > 1st term as E production -- 2nd term as inverse square of distance -- 3rd term as spin and orbit synchronicity
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > V' = (CBE)' = C'BE + CB'E + CBE' which is Transformer law
> > > > > > > 1st term as V production in a transformer -- 2nd term as inverse square root -- 3rd term as DC, AC synchronicity
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > New Physics throws out-- the Lagrangian, Hamiltonian, Hermitian and matrix algebra, plus the Dirac Equation// Physics focus
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Last revision was 1 July 2022. And this is AP's 192nd published book of science.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Preface: AP's 192nd book of Science// Translating Dirac's Hamiltonian and Lagrangian into New Physics of the AP-EM Equations of Electrodynamics. The reason these fancy math artifices are thrown out is because Old Physics had the Maxwell Equations full of errors, -- missing terms and outright false law of no magnetic monopole. So in order to get some reasonable solutions to experiments on Maxwell EM theory, these artificial math methods had to be hauled in to patch up the error filled Maxwell Equations.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of page 257 ---- in Dirac's book "The Principles of Quantum Mechanics" 1957, showing how much of physics had become a game of algebra manipulation for the reason that Maxwell Equations were so very much error filled equations. And that playing games of matrices could overcome some of the error filled Maxwell Equations.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 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 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
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > My 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, My 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)

Click here to read the complete article

Olaf Scholz,Metin Tolan,Annalena Baerbock,Fritz Feldhase,Jörg Enderlein,Laurent Gizon,Gottingen can anyone, anyone at all in Germany admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, all they seem to do is play with WM dark numbers KuhscheiBe. Nor can anyone do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Germany spends its time on Muck the Puke "dark numbers" please, need your help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.


William's profile photo
William
, …
WM
373
unread,
WM Logic
On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 11:07:54 AM UTC-3, WM wrote: > At zero all unit fractions are ended
11:04 AM

Peter Peters's profile photo
Peter Peters
, …
Jim Burns
89
unread,
The mathematical constraints of set theory
On 6/21/2023 9:59 AM, WM wrote: > Jim Burns schrieb am Mittwoch, > 21. Juni 2023 um 02:34:58
10:59 AM


>
> See my proofs below.
>
>
> Re: -Muck the Puke WM & Gottingen and the whole of Germany cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval never ellipse, nor can anyone there do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- all they seem to do is "dark numbers bullshit"
> 2:59 PM
> 
> William's profile photo
> William
> , …
> FromTheRafters
> 19
> unread,
> No "First" init fraction
> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 3:14:01 PM UTC-3, FromTheRafters wrote: > Fritz Feldhase expressed
> 2:52 PM
>
> 
> zelos...@gmail.com's profile photo
> zelos...@gmail.com
> , …
>
> 45
> Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!
> Gottingen▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ Moscow mushroom cloud, Xi as Putin's stooge when Russia vaporizes
> 2:48 PM
> 
> William's profile photo
> William
> , …
> Jim Burns
> 144
> WM Logic
> On 5/29/2023 2:19 PM, WM wrote: > Jim Burns schrieb am Montag, > 29. Mai 2023 um 20:02:53 UTC+2
> 2:35 PM
> 
>
> My 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, My 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-Beijing▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂Moscow mushroom cloud, Xi as Putin's stooge when Russia vaporizes Shanghai with its RS-28 Sarmat "Satan II", all because Xi was too dumb to realize you can never trust an insane person

What is your question Jeffrey Rubard, how is your rhubarb growing??

On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 10:29:21 AM UTC-5, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 10:43:57 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Beijing▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂Moscow mushroom cloud, Xi as Putin's stooge when Russia vaporizes Shanghai with its RS-28 Sarmat "Satan II", all because Xi was too dumb to realize you can never trust an insane person
> >
> > Arindam have you calculated the radiation in a Sarmat, yet?
> >
> > Arindam is the Sarmat near 0 Kelvin before blast???
> >
> > On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 2:53:53 PM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > Light is formed from radiation; radiation forms from changing current in aether; movement of charges cause current; charges move from kinetic impact; kinetic impacts caused by electrostatic and electormagnetic forces.
> > > As charge is indestructible, force is indestructible.
> > > Energy is created and destroyed, force is opposed by another, but never destroyed. Opposition of forces cause collision, impact, movement - leading to radiation at all frequencies, including that of visible light.
> >
> >
> >
> > yan wyck in his daily spam says Beijing was nothing in 1999 and apparently a Russian Sarmat returned Beijing to "nothingness once again".
> >
> > > On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 11:56:20 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > > > Botfly of Math and Blowfly of Physics "Putin's stooge"
> > >
> > Kibo Parry M. in his CIA disguise
> > On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 11:39:47 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >"Putin's minion"
> > > fails at math and science:
> > >*still* lusting after the Queen's corpse?
> > >
> > > Are you upset that I haven't been paying enough attention to you? You
> > > have been hoping for more punishment for attacking me? Or as Chris
> > > states, it's time for your spanking?
> > >
> >
> >
> > > Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Chongqing, Tianjin, Chengdu, Hangzhou, Nanjing, Wuhan, Xi'An, Suzhou, Harbin, Shenyang, Qingdao, Zhengzhou, Dongguan, Foshan, Dalian, Jinan, Changchun, Hefei
> > >
> > > Shenzhen▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ Xi as Putin's stooge when Russia vaporizes Shenzhen with its RS-28 Sarmat "Satan II", all because Xi was too dumb to realize you can never trust an insane person
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Is Pete Olcott in his Halting Problem, halting the vaporization of Wuhan by Putin's Russia???
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 11:56:20 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > > > Botfly of Math and Blowfly of Physics "Putin's stooge"
> > > >"wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place"
> > > 
> > > On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 1:16:55 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > "Imp of Science"
> > > >"not one single marble of commonsense in my entire brain"
> > > 
> > 
> > > Moscow█۞█ blackout, knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> >
> >
> >
> > ██۞██ Moscow electric blackouts██۞██
> > Moscow electric Blackouts██۞██
> >
> > >
> > > > And as the Baby Xi surrounded by concubines grew up from the rice paddies and reeds of Outer Manchuria, stolen by the Naxi and Zani Dictator Putin in Moscow, Xi learned in school in chemical engineering that Taiwan was 1/28 the size of Outer Manchuria, as Putin bombs Ukraine. And the nascent Xi orders 1,000 divisions to the Outer Manchuria border to regain back the stolen Old China.
> >
> > > > > > > > in a javelin throw to knock out Moscow high voltage lines
> > > > > > > >> ........///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////|
> > > > > > > >> ......///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////..|
> > > > > > > >> ....///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////....| Moscow
> > > > > > > >> ..///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////......| Electric
> > > > > > > >> ///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////........| Tower
> > > > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|......../
> > > > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|....../
> > > > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|..../
> > > > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|../
> > > > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|/
> >
> >
> > > Vitaly a freedom fighter in Russia
> > ..............................^
> > ..............................||
> > ..............................||
> > .....................//////// ||
> > .....................|:---[.] ||
> > ......................|( _J ||
> > ....................| ^ ( _| ||
> > ................../ \_____)||
> > ................. / _____ \|| Long Aluminum **javelin** to throw to short circuit
> > ..................... | / \ |...||
> > ..................... | | | |...||
> > ................. \ /\ /\__ | ||
> > ..................... | | \/--- ||
> > ...................... \ \ )....||
> > ................... | >____||/_____)
> > ................... \______||____/
> > ......................... / \
> > ...................... | | ~~
> > ..................... \ \\
> > .................... \ |\
> > ...................., \ | \
> > .................... \ | |
> > .................... | | |
> > .................... | | |
> > ..................... | / |
> > .................... |___/____|
> > .................... (____)____)
> > ==============================
> > freedom fighter from the tiresome dictator
> > Yea, the dictator has no power and no hot water, no heat, no electricity for his house, offices.
> >
> >
> > On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 4:26:14 PM UTC-5, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > "Where'd all the deleted messages go?"
> >
> > Sucked up in the mushroom clouds
> "Isn't it more like the messages became somehow 'controversial' and the posters wished
> them deleted?"

On Thursday, June 22, 2023 at 7:28:54 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 2-Beijing▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂Moscow mushroom cloud, Xi as Putin's stooge when Russia vaporizes Shanghai with its RS-28 Sarmat "Satan II", all because Xi was too dumb to realize you can never trust an insane person
>
> What is your question Jeffrey Rubard, how is your rhubarb growing??
> On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 10:29:21 AM UTC-5, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 10:43:57 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > Beijing▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂Moscow mushroom cloud, Xi as Putin's stooge when Russia vaporizes Shanghai with its RS-28 Sarmat "Satan II", all because Xi was too dumb to realize you can never trust an insane person
> > >
> > > Arindam have you calculated the radiation in a Sarmat, yet?
> > >
> > > Arindam is the Sarmat near 0 Kelvin before blast???
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 2:53:53 PM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > Light is formed from radiation; radiation forms from changing current in aether; movement of charges cause current; charges move from kinetic impact; kinetic impacts caused by electrostatic and electormagnetic forces.
> > > > As charge is indestructible, force is indestructible.
> > > > Energy is created and destroyed, force is opposed by another, but never destroyed. Opposition of forces cause collision, impact, movement - leading to radiation at all frequencies, including that of visible light.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > yan wyck in his daily spam says Beijing was nothing in 1999 and apparently a Russian Sarmat returned Beijing to "nothingness once again".
> > >
> > > > On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 11:56:20 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > > > > Botfly of Math and Blowfly of Physics "Putin's stooge"
> > > >
> > > Kibo Parry M. in his CIA disguise
> > > On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 11:39:47 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > >"Putin's minion"
> > > > fails at math and science:
> > > >*still* lusting after the Queen's corpse?
> > > >
> > > > Are you upset that I haven't been paying enough attention to you? You
> > > > have been hoping for more punishment for attacking me? Or as Chris
> > > > states, it's time for your spanking?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Chongqing, Tianjin, Chengdu, Hangzhou, Nanjing, Wuhan, Xi'An, Suzhou, Harbin, Shenyang, Qingdao, Zhengzhou, Dongguan, Foshan, Dalian, Jinan, Changchun, Hefei
> > > >
> > > > Shenzhen▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ Xi as Putin's stooge when Russia vaporizes Shenzhen with its RS-28 Sarmat "Satan II", all because Xi was too dumb to realize you can never trust an insane person
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Is Pete Olcott in his Halting Problem, halting the vaporization of Wuhan by Putin's Russia???
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 11:56:20 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > > > > Botfly of Math and Blowfly of Physics "Putin's stooge"
> > > > >"wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place"
> > > > 
> > > > On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 1:16:55 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > > "Imp of Science"
> > > > >"not one single marble of commonsense in my entire brain"
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > > Moscow█۞█ blackout, knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ██۞██ Moscow electric blackouts██۞██
> > > Moscow electric Blackouts██۞██
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > And as the Baby Xi surrounded by concubines grew up from the rice paddies and reeds of Outer Manchuria, stolen by the Naxi and Zani Dictator Putin in Moscow, Xi learned in school in chemical engineering that Taiwan was 1/28 the size of Outer Manchuria, as Putin bombs Ukraine. And the nascent Xi orders 1,000 divisions to the Outer Manchuria border to regain back the stolen Old China.
> > >
> > > > > > > > > in a javelin throw to knock out Moscow high voltage lines
> > > > > > > > >> ........///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////|
> > > > > > > > >> ......///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////..|
> > > > > > > > >> ....///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////....| Moscow
> > > > > > > > >> ..///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////......| Electric
> > > > > > > > >> ///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////........| Tower
> > > > > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|......../
> > > > > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|....../
> > > > > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|..../
> > > > > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|../
> > > > > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|/
> > >
> > >
> > > > Vitaly a freedom fighter in Russia
> > > ..............................^
> > > ..............................||
> > > ..............................||
> > > .....................//////// ||
> > > .....................|:---[.] ||
> > > ......................|( _J ||
> > > ....................| ^ ( _| ||
> > > ................../ \_____)||
> > > ................. / _____ \|| Long Aluminum **javelin** to throw to short circuit
> > > ..................... | / \ |...||
> > > ..................... | | | |...||
> > > ................. \ /\ /\__ | ||
> > > ..................... | | \/--- ||
> > > ...................... \ \ )....||
> > > ................... | >____||/_____)
> > > ................... \______||____/
> > > ......................... / \
> > > ...................... | | ~~
> > > ..................... \ \\
> > > .................... \ |\
> > > ...................., \ | \
> > > .................... \ | |
> > > .................... | | |
> > > .................... | | |
> > > ..................... | / |
> > > .................... |___/____|
> > > .................... (____)____)
> > > ==============================
> > > freedom fighter from the tiresome dictator
> > > Yea, the dictator has no power and no hot water, no heat, no electricity for his house, offices.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 4:26:14 PM UTC-5, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > "Where'd all the deleted messages go?"
> > >
> > > Sucked up in the mushroom clouds
> > "Isn't it more like the messages became somehow 'controversial' and the posters wished
> > them deleted?"

"What is going on, such that the posters wish to have their messages deleted?"

On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 8:24:44 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Thursday, June 22, 2023 at 7:28:54 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > 2-Beijing▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂Moscow mushroom cloud, Xi as Putin's stooge when Russia vaporizes Shanghai with its RS-28 Sarmat "Satan II", all because Xi was too dumb to realize you can never trust an insane person
> >
> > What is your question Jeffrey Rubard, how is your rhubarb growing??
> > On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 10:29:21 AM UTC-5, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 10:43:57 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > Beijing▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂Moscow mushroom cloud, Xi as Putin's stooge when Russia vaporizes Shanghai with its RS-28 Sarmat "Satan II", all because Xi was too dumb to realize you can never trust an insane person
> > > >
> > > > Arindam have you calculated the radiation in a Sarmat, yet?
> > > >
> > > > Arindam is the Sarmat near 0 Kelvin before blast???
> > > >
> > > > On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 2:53:53 PM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > Light is formed from radiation; radiation forms from changing current in aether; movement of charges cause current; charges move from kinetic impact; kinetic impacts caused by electrostatic and electormagnetic forces.
> > > > > As charge is indestructible, force is indestructible.
> > > > > Energy is created and destroyed, force is opposed by another, but never destroyed. Opposition of forces cause collision, impact, movement - leading to radiation at all frequencies, including that of visible light.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > yan wyck in his daily spam says Beijing was nothing in 1999 and apparently a Russian Sarmat returned Beijing to "nothingness once again".
> > > >
> > > > > On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 11:56:20 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > > > > > Botfly of Math and Blowfly of Physics "Putin's stooge"
> > > > >
> > > > Kibo Parry M. in his CIA disguise
> > > > On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 11:39:47 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > >"Putin's minion"
> > > > > fails at math and science:
> > > > >*still* lusting after the Queen's corpse?
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you upset that I haven't been paying enough attention to you? You
> > > > > have been hoping for more punishment for attacking me? Or as Chris
> > > > > states, it's time for your spanking?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Chongqing, Tianjin, Chengdu, Hangzhou, Nanjing, Wuhan, Xi'An, Suzhou, Harbin, Shenyang, Qingdao, Zhengzhou, Dongguan, Foshan, Dalian, Jinan, Changchun, Hefei
> > > > >
> > > > > Shenzhen▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ Xi as Putin's stooge when Russia vaporizes Shenzhen with its RS-28 Sarmat "Satan II", all because Xi was too dumb to realize you can never trust an insane person
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Is Pete Olcott in his Halting Problem, halting the vaporization of Wuhan by Putin's Russia???
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 11:56:20 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > > > > > Botfly of Math and Blowfly of Physics "Putin's stooge"
> > > > > >"wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place"
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 1:16:55 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > > > "Imp of Science"
> > > > > >"not one single marble of commonsense in my entire brain"
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > Moscow█۞█ blackout, knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ██۞██ Moscow electric blackouts██۞██
> > > > Moscow electric Blackouts██۞██
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > And as the Baby Xi surrounded by concubines grew up from the rice paddies and reeds of Outer Manchuria, stolen by the Naxi and Zani Dictator Putin in Moscow, Xi learned in school in chemical engineering that Taiwan was 1/28 the size of Outer Manchuria, as Putin bombs Ukraine. And the nascent Xi orders 1,000 divisions to the Outer Manchuria border to regain back the stolen Old China.
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > in a javelin throw to knock out Moscow high voltage lines
> > > > > > > > > >> ........///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////|
> > > > > > > > > >> ......///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////..|
> > > > > > > > > >> ....///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////....| Moscow
> > > > > > > > > >> ..///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////......| Electric
> > > > > > > > > >> ///// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////........| Tower
> > > > > > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|......../
> > > > > > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|....../
> > > > > > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|..../
> > > > > > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|../
> > > > > > > > > >> |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Vitaly a freedom fighter in Russia
> > > > ..............................^
> > > > ..............................||
> > > > ..............................||
> > > > .....................//////// ||
> > > > .....................|:---[.] ||
> > > > ......................|( _J ||
> > > > ....................| ^ ( _| ||
> > > > ................../ \_____)||
> > > > ................. / _____ \|| Long Aluminum **javelin** to throw to short circuit
> > > > ..................... | / \ |...||
> > > > ..................... | | | |...||
> > > > ................. \ /\ /\__ | ||
> > > > ..................... | | \/--- ||
> > > > ...................... \ \ )....||
> > > > ................... | >____||/_____)
> > > > ................... \______||____/
> > > > ......................... / \
> > > > ...................... | | ~~
> > > > ..................... \ \\
> > > > .................... \ |\
> > > > ...................., \ | \
> > > > .................... \ | |
> > > > .................... | | |
> > > > .................... | | |
> > > > ..................... | / |
> > > > .................... |___/____|
> > > > .................... (____)____)
> > > > ==============================
> > > > freedom fighter from the tiresome dictator
> > > > Yea, the dictator has no power and no hot water, no heat, no electricity for his house, offices.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 4:26:14 PM UTC-5, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > "Where'd all the deleted messages go?"
> > > >
> > > > Sucked up in the mushroom clouds
> > > "Isn't it more like the messages became somehow 'controversial' and the posters wished
> > > them deleted?"
> "What is going on, such that the posters wish to have their messages deleted?"

I also don't cultivate rhubarb. That joke is a little 'inane': superior to 'fatuous', I suppose, but tiring all the same.

WM and his sex gang be removed from sci.math.

Which has more intelligence? Jan Burse's dog or Jan Burse?
29 views
Subscribe

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
4:00 AM (9 hours ago)



to
He calls himself now Mild Shock, far better than his previous name Mostowski Collapse. But is there some Freudian slip interpretation of this?

But I think his dog has more intelligence than Jan Burse, for his dog uses only one eye to see you and reserves his other eye. Maybe the BBC can do a animal story of Jan's dog-- a dog smarter than its owner.

I think a better name for Jan Burse for his new rounds of hate spew, would have been "Mild Cock" instead of Mild Shock, and certainly, a blunt Freudian slip in sci.math. And how much Freudian slips occur in sci.math?? Perhaps 1 per day are Freudian slips, like WM's dark numbers. That would be well with Jan Burse posting into a Earle Jones thread, with his logo picture showing Earle sucking on a cock-- an alltime record holder of Freudian slips. So masterful is Earle's Freudian slip, his inner longings, that Earle is oblivious dumb to the slip he made. As daffy duck would say-- "nay, I am sure, am sure".

So if Jan Burse would post into a Earle Jones thread, would complete the circle-- Jan Burse Mild Cock and Earle sucking on a cock. What Dan Christensen would lecture on as a union of sets, but get it wrong in his presentation, gurgling all over his shirt.

Somehow we have to get the dark personality of Dan Christensen in on this, with his dark logo picture of DC Proof. Dan is your logo picture the Freudian slip wannabe that of a arsehole? For your posts are arseholish.

And of course Kibo Parry (Moron-Volney) must get in on the Freudian slip action, his constant posts of failure, worse than "I sik, I cri" out of Portugal.

So what is Kibo's gargantuan Freudian slip?? Why yes of course, the made up fake name of "kibo" itself, being derived from "kook" a baby kook is a kibo. But in the romance languages "kibo" comes from kock, or cock and is Kibo's perverse way of hiding his Freudian slip of cock. This is what Kibo learned in his first week in CIA and caused him to blow his cover in just a few days upon entry into the CIA, a record not broken since Kibo entered.

And here is Kibo in 1997, making gay advances on the King of Science AP, for which AP was insulted at the time. For AP is asexual, above sex, in a higher plane of orbit-- science. Not Kibo's vulgar brains between his legs and a vacuum skull.

Kibo in CIA
> > > > > > 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:

Kibo had a Freudian slip with blowing his cover on the first day at the job with CIA. Then another Freudian slip with his moniker -- Kibo, although his allies tried to convince him to chose Turbo, more masculine. No, kibo ended up with Kibo, and now in older age-- 60s?? Kibo is realizing his poor choice of nicknames, and thinking of changing it to Arky. Why Arky,,... Kibo?? Is it Joan of Arc to clean and scrub your life, your miserable dark and dank life you lead so far, and that Joan of Arc saint would clean some of that filth off of you.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics

Dogelog Player's profile photo
Dogelog Player
4:19 AM (9 hours ago)

Hi, I am the dog of Mild Shock. I think your nick- name should be Small Cock, or Micro Penis. Bye
Mild Shock's profile photo
Mild Shock
4:22 AM (9 hours ago)

Yes, my dog is right. He is surely more intelligent than me. And I guess he is right your nick-name
Volney's profile photo
Volney
8:56 AM (4 hours ago)

🌪️ of Math and 🌀 of Physics Archimedes "Meckling Village Idiot" Plutonium <plutonium.
Fritz Feldhase's profile photo
Fritz Feldhase
9:14 AM (4 hours ago)

On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 11:00:57 AM UTC+2, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: "Which has more
Mild Shock's profile photo
Mild Shock
11:34 AM (2 hours ago)

Freud would possibly only need the picture of the „one eyed [snake]“ to diagnose Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
1:14 PM (1 minute ago)



to
Gangs in a science, make a mockery and degradation of that science. Whether a sex-gang, a money-gang, a ethnic-gang. Science and gangs just are totally incompatible.

Recently I started to include the Scientific Method in my books and my discussions.

Which of the principles of the Scientific Method is repulsed by "gang behavior" in that particular science???

--- quoting recent book of mine ---
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Up until now, I have not included or made mention of the Method of Science. And I need to go back into all my textbooks and state this method where appropriate. Funny how doing psychology and sociology of math mistakes calls the Scientific Method into action.

The Scientific Method is something I learned early in High School.

Source: Wikipedia.

Observation/ question

Research Topic

Hypothesis

Test with Experiment

Analyze data

Report conclusions

I do not recall if Feynman goes through the Scientific Method in one of his books-- perhaps "Character of Physical Law". Perhaps he mentions the Scientific Method in bits and pieces throughout his "Lectures on Physics".

Here is a slightly different take on Scientific Method from Internet (the ladders dot com)

Systematic observation

experimenting

measuring

testing

formulating

modifying a hypothesis

What I am going to do is apply the Scientific Method to mathematics and why errors in math sometimes abandon the Scientific Method. What I am focusing on is the math error of trigonometry of making one axis be different from the other axis in making graphs. In calculus, I am focusing on the abandonment of the Scientific Method in Calculus, when numbers are cobbled together to make Numbers, such as the Reals, and when functions are cobbled together and called functions when cobbling together is seen as science, when it is not.

--- end quote ---

So, what principle or principles does "gang activity" violate the Scientific Method?? I would say all the principles for gang activity is totally counter to the activities of science. The reward of Science is truth. The reward of gang activity is -- sex, or money, or power (be it military, political or interpersonal).

The newsgroups, sci.math and sci.physics would be better newsgroups if the "gangs" that infest them are removed. For instance, when one of the gang members forged necrophilia upon AP, not only should he be removed-- and he was removed, but also the entire gang network that operates with him, be removed.

Science does not mix with gang activity.

Gus Gassmann,Metin Tolan,Jörg Enderlein,Laurent Gizon,Gottingen can anyone, anyone at all in Germany admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, all they seem to do is play with WM dark numbers KuhscheiBe. Nor can anyone do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Germany spends its time on Muck the Puke "dark numbers" please, need your help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.

William's profile photo
William
, …
Gus Gassmann
404
unread,
WM Logic
On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 2:16:53 PM UTC-3, WM wrote: > William schrieb am Donnerstag, 22. Juni
2:05 PM


> 
> William's profile photo
> William
> , …
> WM
> 373
> unread,
> WM Logic
> On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 11:07:54 AM UTC-3, WM wrote: > At zero all unit fractions are ended
> 11:04 AM
> 
> Peter Peters's profile photo
> Peter Peters
> , …
> Jim Burns
> 89
> unread,
> The mathematical constraints of set theory
> On 6/21/2023 9:59 AM, WM wrote: > Jim Burns schrieb am Mittwoch, > 21. Juni 2023 um 02:34:58
> 10:59 AM
> 
> >
> > See my proofs below.
> >
> >
> > Re: -Muck the Puke WM & Gottingen and the whole of Germany cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval never ellipse, nor can anyone there do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- all they seem to do is "dark numbers bullshit"
> > 2:59 PM
> > 
> > William's profile photo
> > William
> > , …
> > FromTheRafters
> > 19
> > unread,
> > No "First" init fraction
> > On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 3:14:01 PM UTC-3, FromTheRafters wrote: > Fritz Feldhase expressed
> > 2:52 PM
> >
> > 
> > zelos...@gmail.com's profile photo
> > zelos...@gmail.com
> > , …
> >
> > 45
> > Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!
> > Gottingen▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ Moscow mushroom cloud, Xi as Putin's stooge when Russia vaporizes
> > 2:48 PM
> > 
> > William's profile photo
> > William
> > , …
> > Jim Burns
> > 144
> > WM Logic
> > On 5/29/2023 2:19 PM, WM wrote: > Jim Burns schrieb am Montag, > 29. Mai 2023 um 20:02:53 UTC+2
> > 2:35 PM
> > 
> >
> > My 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, My 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 Friday, June 23, 2023 at 12:10:38 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Gus Gassmann,Metin Tolan,Jörg Enderlein,Laurent Gizon,Gottingen can anyone, anyone at all in Germany admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, all they seem to do is play with WM dark numbers KuhscheiBe. Nor can anyone do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Germany spends its time on Muck the Puke "dark numbers" please, need your help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> William's profile photo
> William
> , …
> Gus Gassmann
> 404
> unread,
> WM Logic
> On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 2:16:53 PM UTC-3, WM wrote: > William schrieb am Donnerstag, 22. Juni
> 2:05 PM
> 
>
> > 
> > William's profile photo
> > William
> > , …
> > WM
> > 373
> > unread,
> > WM Logic
> > On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 11:07:54 AM UTC-3, WM wrote: > At zero all unit fractions are ended
> > 11:04 AM
> > 
> > Peter Peters's profile photo
> > Peter Peters
> > , …
> > Jim Burns
> > 89
> > unread,
> > The mathematical constraints of set theory
> > On 6/21/2023 9:59 AM, WM wrote: > Jim Burns schrieb am Mittwoch, > 21. Juni 2023 um 02:34:58
> > 10:59 AM
> > 
> > >
> > > See my proofs below.
> > >
> > >
> > > Re: -Muck the Puke WM & Gottingen and the whole of Germany cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval never ellipse, nor can anyone there do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- all they seem to do is "dark numbers bullshit"
> > > 2:59 PM
> > > 
> > > William's profile photo
> > > William
> > > , …
> > > FromTheRafters
> > > 19
> > > unread,
> > > No "First" init fraction
> > > On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 3:14:01 PM UTC-3, FromTheRafters wrote: > Fritz Feldhase expressed
> > > 2:52 PM
> > >
> > > 
> > > zelos...@gmail.com's profile photo
> > > zelos...@gmail.com
> > > , …
> > >
> > > 45
> > > Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!
> > > Gottingen▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ Moscow mushroom cloud, Xi as Putin's stooge when Russia vaporizes
> > > 2:48 PM
> > > 
> > > William's profile photo
> > > William
> > > , …
> > > Jim Burns
> > > 144
> > > WM Logic
> > > On 5/29/2023 2:19 PM, WM wrote: > Jim Burns schrieb am Montag, > 29. Mai 2023 um 20:02:53 UTC+2
> > > 2:35 PM
> > > 
> > >
> > > My 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, My 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)

Click here to read the complete article

On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 1:49:47 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 12:10:38 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Gus Gassmann,Metin Tolan,Jörg Enderlein,Laurent Gizon,Gottingen can anyone, anyone at all in Germany admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, all they seem to do is play with WM dark numbers KuhscheiBe. Nor can anyone do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Germany spends its time on Muck the Puke "dark numbers" please, need your help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > William's profile photo
> > William
> > , …
> > Gus Gassmann
> > 404
> > unread,
> > WM Logic
> > On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 2:16:53 PM UTC-3, WM wrote: > William schrieb am Donnerstag, 22. Juni
> > 2:05 PM
> > 
> >
> > > 
> > > William's profile photo
> > > William
> > > , …
> > > WM
> > > 373
> > > unread,
> > > WM Logic
> > > On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 11:07:54 AM UTC-3, WM wrote: > At zero all unit fractions are ended
> > > 11:04 AM
> > > 
> > > Peter Peters's profile photo
> > > Peter Peters
> > > , …
> > > Jim Burns
> > > 89
> > > unread,
> > > The mathematical constraints of set theory
> > > On 6/21/2023 9:59 AM, WM wrote: > Jim Burns schrieb am Mittwoch, > 21.. Juni 2023 um 02:34:58
> > > 10:59 AM
> > > 
> > > >
> > > > See my proofs below.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Re: -Muck the Puke WM & Gottingen and the whole of Germany cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval never ellipse, nor can anyone there do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- all they seem to do is "dark numbers bullshit"
> > > > 2:59 PM
> > > > 
> > > > William's profile photo
> > > > William
> > > > , …
> > > > FromTheRafters
> > > > 19
> > > > unread,
> > > > No "First" init fraction
> > > > On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 3:14:01 PM UTC-3, FromTheRafters wrote: > Fritz Feldhase expressed
> > > > 2:52 PM
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > zelos...@gmail.com's profile photo
> > > > zelos...@gmail.com
> > > > , …
> > > >
> > > > 45
> > > > Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!
> > > > Gottingen▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ Moscow mushroom cloud, Xi as Putin's stooge when Russia vaporizes
> > > > 2:48 PM
> > > > 
> > > > William's profile photo
> > > > William
> > > > , …
> > > > Jim Burns
> > > > 144
> > > > WM Logic
> > > > On 5/29/2023 2:19 PM, WM wrote: > Jim Burns schrieb am Montag, > 29.. Mai 2023 um 20:02:53 UTC+2
> > > > 2:35 PM
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > My 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, My 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)
> "Like I said, what's with the missing messages?"
> "They weren't about you."
> "I guess I could believe that."

Click here to read the complete article

On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 8:39:06 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 1:49:47 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 12:10:38 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > Gus Gassmann,Metin Tolan,Jörg Enderlein,Laurent Gizon,Gottingen can anyone, anyone at all in Germany admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, all they seem to do is play with WM dark numbers KuhscheiBe. Nor can anyone do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Germany spends its time on Muck the Puke "dark numbers" please, need your help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > William's profile photo
> > > William
> > > , …
> > > Gus Gassmann
> > > 404
> > > unread,
> > > WM Logic
> > > On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 2:16:53 PM UTC-3, WM wrote: > William schrieb am Donnerstag, 22. Juni
> > > 2:05 PM
> > > 
> > >
> > > > 
> > > > William's profile photo
> > > > William
> > > > , …
> > > > WM
> > > > 373
> > > > unread,
> > > > WM Logic
> > > > On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 11:07:54 AM UTC-3, WM wrote: > At zero all unit fractions are ended
> > > > 11:04 AM
> > > > 
> > > > Peter Peters's profile photo
> > > > Peter Peters
> > > > , …
> > > > Jim Burns
> > > > 89
> > > > unread,
> > > > The mathematical constraints of set theory
> > > > On 6/21/2023 9:59 AM, WM wrote: > Jim Burns schrieb am Mittwoch, > 21. Juni 2023 um 02:34:58
> > > > 10:59 AM
> > > > 
> > > > >
> > > > > See my proofs below.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Re: -Muck the Puke WM & Gottingen and the whole of Germany cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval never ellipse, nor can anyone there do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- all they seem to do is "dark numbers bullshit"
> > > > > 2:59 PM
> > > > > 
> > > > > William's profile photo
> > > > > William
> > > > > , …
> > > > > FromTheRafters
> > > > > 19
> > > > > unread,
> > > > > No "First" init fraction
> > > > > On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 3:14:01 PM UTC-3, FromTheRafters wrote: > Fritz Feldhase expressed
> > > > > 2:52 PM
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > zelos...@gmail.com's profile photo
> > > > > zelos...@gmail.com
> > > > > , …
> > > > >
> > > > > 45
> > > > > Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!
> > > > > Gottingen▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ Moscow mushroom cloud, Xi as Putin's stooge when Russia vaporizes
> > > > > 2:48 PM
> > > > > 
> > > > > William's profile photo
> > > > > William
> > > > > , …
> > > > > Jim Burns
> > > > > 144
> > > > > WM Logic
> > > > > On 5/29/2023 2:19 PM, WM wrote: > Jim Burns schrieb am Montag, > 29. Mai 2023 um 20:02:53 UTC+2
> > > > > 2:35 PM
> > > > > 
> > > > >
> > > > > My 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, My 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)
> > "Like I said, what's with the missing messages?"
> > "They weren't about you."
> > "I guess I could believe that."
> "That's not really normal, though."
> "It is."
> "Saying doesn't make it so, you don't really think that away from trying to 'misdirect' people."

Click here to read the complete article

On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 8:45:03 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 8:39:06 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 1:49:47 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 12:10:38 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > Gus Gassmann,Metin Tolan,Jörg Enderlein,Laurent Gizon,Gottingen can anyone, anyone at all in Germany admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, all they seem to do is play with WM dark numbers KuhscheiBe. Nor can anyone do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Germany spends its time on Muck the Puke "dark numbers" please, need your help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist.
> > > > William's profile photo
> > > > William
> > > > , …
> > > > Gus Gassmann
> > > > 404
> > > > unread,
> > > > WM Logic
> > > > On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 2:16:53 PM UTC-3, WM wrote: > William schrieb am Donnerstag, 22. Juni
> > > > 2:05 PM
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > William's profile photo
> > > > > William
> > > > > , …
> > > > > WM
> > > > > 373
> > > > > unread,
> > > > > WM Logic
> > > > > On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 11:07:54 AM UTC-3, WM wrote: > At zero all unit fractions are ended
> > > > > 11:04 AM
> > > > > 
> > > > > Peter Peters's profile photo
> > > > > Peter Peters
> > > > > , …
> > > > > Jim Burns
> > > > > 89
> > > > > unread,
> > > > > The mathematical constraints of set theory
> > > > > On 6/21/2023 9:59 AM, WM wrote: > Jim Burns schrieb am Mittwoch, > 21. Juni 2023 um 02:34:58
> > > > > 10:59 AM
> > > > > 
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See my proofs below.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Re: -Muck the Puke WM & Gottingen and the whole of Germany cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval never ellipse, nor can anyone there do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- all they seem to do is "dark numbers bullshit"
> > > > > > 2:59 PM
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > William's profile photo
> > > > > > William
> > > > > > , …
> > > > > > FromTheRafters
> > > > > > 19
> > > > > > unread,
> > > > > > No "First" init fraction
> > > > > > On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 3:14:01 PM UTC-3, FromTheRafters wrote: > Fritz Feldhase expressed
> > > > > > 2:52 PM
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > zelos...@gmail.com's profile photo
> > > > > > zelos...@gmail.com
> > > > > > , …
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 45
> > > > > > Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!
> > > > > > Gottingen▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ Moscow mushroom cloud, Xi as Putin's stooge when Russia vaporizes
> > > > > > 2:48 PM
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > William's profile photo
> > > > > > William
> > > > > > , …
> > > > > > Jim Burns
> > > > > > 144
> > > > > > WM Logic
> > > > > > On 5/29/2023 2:19 PM, WM wrote: > Jim Burns schrieb am Montag, > 29. Mai 2023 um 20:02:53 UTC+2
> > > > > > 2:35 PM
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My 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, My 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)
> > > "Like I said, what's with the missing messages?"
> > > "They weren't about you."
> > > "I guess I could believe that."
> > "That's not really normal, though."
> > "It is."
> > "Saying doesn't make it so, you don't really think that away from trying to 'misdirect' people."
> "No, they just wanted their messages deleted, so..."
> *Just* wanted their messages deleted?

Click here to read the complete article

Kibo wrote:I Pound His Male Rectum.

Metin Tolan,Dorothea Bahns, Laurent Bartholdi, Valentin Blomer,Peter Higgs,Sheldon Glashow, Francois Englert, Saul Perlmutter ever ask the question, which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle which AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole while the real electron is a muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law.

Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney, the 30 year stalker
On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 7:52:00 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>Village Idiot"
> defiles the pope and then tards:

> 30 year nonstop stalker Kibo Parry Moroney Volney
> On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 10:10:38 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> >"little stinker"
> > fails at math and science:
> > "The Delicious Rump Man"
> > "I Pound His Male Rectum"
> > "Penis Could Mature Him"
> > "Old-Time U.S. Urine Champ"

> > > > > > > On Friday, November 12, 2004 at 7:30:12 PM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article <nsDjd.19015$6q2....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > > > > > > "Efftard K. Donglemeier" <hu...@humor.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Remember, the letters in "Archimedes Plutonium"
> > > > > > > > > can be re-arranged to spell
> > > > > > > > > "The Delicious Rump Man"
> > > > > > > > > "I Pound His Male Rectum"
> > > > > > > > > "Penis Could Mature Him"
> > > > > > > > > "Old-Time U.S. Urine Champ"
> > > > > > > > > and many other delightful phrases
> > On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 11:21:32 PM UTC-5, Earle Jones wrote:
> > > is leaving our NewsGroup? Great! That means that the average IQ here just jumped about 20 points! earle
> > Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney
> > > > > > On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 3:54:18 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > > > > > > "little stinker"
> > Earle Jones and Kibo, why cannot they ask the simple question which is the true electron of atoms-- muon or 0.5MeV particle.

Harvard's Sheldon Glashow, Peter Higgs, Harry Cliff ever ask the question, which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle which AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole while the real electron is a muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. In fact so stupid is this list of so called physicists that they went through life believing the slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, when in reality it is a Oval of 1 axis of symmetry for the cone has 1 axis of symmetry but ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry. The minds of all these so called physicists are not good enough to be doing physics. In fact, so stupid in science and math are all these people that when told in High School or College that a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, they believed it, and believe in it to this day without so much as ever questioning the idea that a single cone and oval have just 1 axis of symmetry while ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, and yet many on this list were awarded science prizes. Maybe for ignorance of science but not for truth of science.

1) Too stupid to question if Thomson found Dirac's magnetic monopole and not the electron of atoms.
2) Too stupid to realize that in the Rutherford,Geiger, Marsden Experiment when you have increase in velocity of bounce back alpha particles means head on collision with a larger proton torus, hence, the interior of gold atoms are toruses, no nucleus.
3) Too stupid in logic to understand subatomic particles have jobs and tasks to do, not sit around on beaches sipping lemonade what Old Physics says. The proton is a 8 ring torus with muon as electron inside doing the Faraday law producing new electricity.
4) Too stupid to understand stars and our Sun shine not from fusion but from Faraday law of each and every atom inside that star.

5) 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.
6) 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
7) 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"
8) 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 sapheads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.

> > Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,
> > Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish
> > David J. Thouless_, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita
> > Arthur B. McDonald
> > Francois Englert
> > Saul Perlmutter
> > Brian P. Schmidt
> > Adam G. Riess
> > Makoto Kobayashi
> > Toshihide Maskawa_
> > Yoichiro Nambu_
> > John C. Mather
> > George F. Smoot
> > Roy J. Glauber_
> > David J. Gross
> > Hugh David Politzer
> > Frank Wilczek
> > Raymond Davis Jr. _
> > Masatoshi Koshiba_
> > Riccardo Giacconi_
> > Gerardus 't Hooft
> > Martinus J.G. Veltman_
> > Jerome I. Friedman
> > Henry W. Kendall_
> > Richard E. Taylor_
> > Carlo Rubbia
> > Simon van der Meer_
> > William Alfred Fowler_
> > Kenneth G. Wilson_
> > James Watson Cronin_
> > Val Logsdon Fitch_
> > Sheldon Lee Glashow
> > Steven Weinberg_
> > .
> > .
> > little fishes
> > .
> > .
> > Layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = subtraction of either 3 or 2, while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV
> >
> > Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass
> > Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu
> > more and more layers of error thinking physics
> > .
> > .
> > Edward Witten
> > John Baez
> > Brian Greene
> > Lisa Randall
> > Alan H. Guth
> > Michael E. Brown
> > Konstantin Batygin
> > Ben Bullock
> > Larry Harson
> > Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
> > Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
> > None at all - he was a raving nutter.
> > Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley
> > Jennifer Kahn, Discover, science hater
> > Eric Francis Coppolino, newsreporter hatred of science, George Witte, St.Martin's Press science hater
> > Toby Howard, The Guardian, science hater
> >
> >
> > #2-1, 137th published book
> >
> > Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> >
> >
> > #1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory
> >
> > This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so I can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me.
> >
> > Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics community updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast, as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to.
> >
> > Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory.
> > And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
> > Length: 64 pages
> >
> > Product details
> > • File Size : 790 KB
> > • Publication Date : October 5, 2020
> > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > • Print Length : 64 pages
> > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > • Language: : English
> > • ASIN : B08KS4YGWY
> > • Lending : Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory
> > ◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> >
> > #2-2, 145th published book
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
> > Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and errors and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the halls and corridors of education.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN : B08PC99JJB
> > • Publication date : November 29, 2020
> > • Language: : English
> > • File size : 682 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > • Print length : 78 pages
> > • Lending : Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
> > ◦ #344 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books)
> >
> > #2-3, 146th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3
> > Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science, you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the science. I further believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later years of physics courses, we can always pick up on details. So I devote this senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this textbook. Now Asimov's book is full of error and mistakes, and that is disappointing but all of Old Physics is full of error. On errors and mistakes of Old Physics, the best I can do is warn the students, and the largest warning of all is that whenever someone in Old Physics says "electron" what they are talking about is really the Dirac magnetic monopole. And whenever they talk about the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, they are talking about huge huge grave mistakes, for the true atom is protons as 8 ringed toruses with a muon stuck inside of a proton doing the Faraday law and producing those magnetic monopoles as electricity. I use Asimov's book as a template but in the future, I hope to rewrite this textbook using no template at all, that is if I have time in the future.
> > Cover Picture: Is the book The History of Physics, by Isaac Asimov, 1966 and on top of the book are 4 cut-outs of bent circles representing magnetic monopoles which revolutionizes modern physics, especially the ElectroMagnetic theory.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08RK33T8V
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 28, 2020
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 794 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 123 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #4,167,235 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #15,099 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #91,163 in Physics (Books)
> >
> >
> > #2-4, 151st published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4
> > Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Preface: This is AP's 151st book of science published. It is one of my most important books of science because 1st year college physics is so impressionable on students, if they should continue with physics, or look elsewhere for a career. And also, physics is a crossroad to all the other hard core sciences, where physics course is mandatory such as in chemistry or even biology. I have endeavored to make physics 1st year college to be as easy and simple to learn. In this endeavor to make physics super easy, I have made the writing such that you will see core ideas in all capital letters as single sentences as a educational tool. And I have made this textbook chapter writing follow a logical pattern of both algebra and geometry concepts, throughout. The utmost importance of logic in physics needs to be seen and understood. For I have never seen a physics book, prior to this one that is logical. Every Old Physics textbook I have seen is scatter-brained in topics and in writing. I use as template book of Halliday & Resnick because a edition of H&R was one I was taught physics at University of Cincinnati in 1969. And in 1969, I had a choice of majors, do I major in geology, or mathematics, or in physics, for I will graduate from UC in 1972. For me, geology was too easy, but physics was too tough, so I ended up majoring in mathematics. If I had been taught in 1969 using this textbook that I have written, I would have ended up majoring in physics, my first love. For physics is not hard, not hard at all, once you clear out the mistakes and the obnoxious worthless mathematics that clutters up Old Physics, and the illogic that smothers much of Old Physics.
> >
> > Maybe it was good that I had those impressions of physics education of poor education, which still exists throughout physics today. Because maybe I am forced to write this book, because of that awful experience of learning physics in 1969. Without that awful experience, maybe this textbook would have never been written by me.
> >
> > Cover picture is the template book of Halliday & Resnick, 1988, 3rd edition Fundamentals of Physics and sitting on top are cut outs of "half bent circles, bent at 90 degrees" to imitate magnetic monopoles. Magnetic Monopoles revolutionizes physics education, and separates-out, what is Old Physics from what is New Physics.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09JW5DVYM
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 19, 2021
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1035 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 386 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #4,874,333 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #526 in Electromagnetic Theory
> > ◦ #1,321 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #9,546 in Electromagnetism (Books)
> >
> >
> >
> > #2-5, 174th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 2nd year College
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition
> >
> > Preface: At the moment this is a physics book for 2nd year College. But as the months and years go by I intend to convert it into a textbook of about 200 to 300 pages. It is mostly about thermodynamics for in my own college education 1968-1972 at University of Cincinnati, I took physics thermodynamics in the 2nd year (if memory has not failed me).
> > Cover-Picture: Is a iphone photograph of the Chemistry textbook I used at UC 1968-1972 with my own paper cut-outs of magnetic monopoles. Pictured are 4 bent circles, bent at 90degrees from diameter and each bent circle is a individual magnetic monopole.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09TKL4HMC
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 27, 2022
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 675 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 41 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> >
> >
> >
> > #2-6, 177th published book
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Atoms, 3rd year College
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition
> >
> > Preface: I come to teaching physics for 3rd year College as the Architecture of Atoms. My writing style will be prose-narrative, until I add on exercise problems and convert it into a textbook. The 1st year College, has to be the equations and laws of electricity and magnetism. For the primal-axiom over all of physics is-- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. The 2nd year College is thermodynamics. And now the 3rd year College physics has to teach the Architecture, the geometry of the inside and exterior surface of the atom. One of the greatest faults, misery, and anti-science teaching of Old Physics is their denial that subatomic particles have to be something more than tiny balls tiny spheres that do-nothing, perform nothing, function as nothing. That the proton and neutron and true electron=muon, has to be matter with a function and purpose and design and task and job. This is a year of physics teaching of the architecture of the atom.
> > Cover Picture: A iphone photograph of my book chemistry book, a long time favorite of mine of CHEM ONE, 2nd edition, Waser, Trueblood, Knobler, 1980, and page 307 of that book. Why this page? Because it was instrumental in my discovery of the true Architecture of Atoms. Not many professors of chemistry or physics dive into the Shrodinger Equation that results in a meaningful teaching of "matter waves". Matter waves are the heart of understanding the geometry of Atomic Architecture.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09VFH9QST
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2022
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 823 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 74 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> >
> >
> >
> > #2-7, 178th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Light Waves & Energy, 4th year College
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Kindle edition)
> >
> >
> > Preface: This is 4th year College Physics and the important ideas of physics to learn as last year undergraduate school is the architecture and geometry of the Light Wave & Energy in physics. This is New Physics and not Old Physics. New Physics is defined as physics that knows and uses the true electron of atoms is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus and doing the Faraday law, creating new electrical energy that is storaged in the neutrons of atoms until they grow from 1eV into 945MeV and then create a new higher atomic numbered atom or emitted as radioactivity. Old Physics mistakenly identified the electron of atoms as the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. In 3rd year College we studied the architecture of the interior of atoms. In 4th year College we study the architecture of Light Waves & Energy.
> >
> > The template book for 4th year College is Feynman's 1985 book of QED.
> >
> > Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of the template book for this book. Feynman's 1985 QED, quantum electrodynamics, showing my plastic toy model of DNA and my cut-outs of 4 bent circles that each bent circle represents one magnetic monopole. I arranged the monopoles into a single strand of a cycloid wave.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09W58XGDW
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 21, 2022
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 824 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 66 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> >
> >
> >

Click here to read the complete article

Subject	Author
Wolfgang Mueckenheim and Gottingen University Germany needs a 1st	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim and Gottingen University Germany needs a 1st	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim and Gottingen University Germany needs a 1st	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim and Gottingen University Germany needs a 1st	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	zelos...@gmail.com
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	zelos...@gmail.com
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	zelos...@gmail.com
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Michael Moroney
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Blaide Alesiooal@oasaella.oe Blaide Alesio
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Chris M. Thomasson
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Sergi o
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Sergi o
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Chris M. Thomasson
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Chris M. Thomasson
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Chris M. Thomasson
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	zelos...@gmail.com
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	zelos...@gmail.com
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	zelos...@gmail.com
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	zelos...@gmail.com
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Anja Karliczek head of Germany Federal Ministry of Education &	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Chris M. Thomasson
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	zelos...@gmail.com
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Archimedes "gigatard" Plutonium flunked the math test of a	Michael Moroney
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H E
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Eram semper recta
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Wolfgang Mueckenheim fuck my ass!	Archimedes Plutonium