WM,Dr. Susanne Schneider,Metin Tolan,Anja Karliczek,Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider,Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann,Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert are they forever going to be mindless fools of math especially geometry.

And here you can plainly see the side EC is smaller than CF, while a ellipse requires them to be equal
......../\E
....../ c.\
F / .......\

entrance E of planar cut, and "c" the center axis, and F the exit of planar cut, cF is far larger than Ec.

Are they trying to turn sci.math into a gay pick up bar rather than legitimate math with endless day after day spam?

Sergi_o 68, "Questions on...."
Wolfgang Mueckenheim 324 "Three proofs of dark numbers..."
of the fine Bacarisse cheese
Ben Bacarisse 323 "Three proofs of dark numbers..."
FromTheRafters (more like gutters) 221 "Two similar..."
Sergi_o 161 "Two similar..."
Ben Bacarisse 133, "Two similar properties..."

WM turning Gottingen Germany into geometry failures.
Kibo chasing corpses in WM gay pick up bar, for Kibo sure does not know the difference between Oval and ellipse as seen in his latest stupidity-- a revolving axis as Kibo the moron and BWR describes it--

Let's try again with your little diagram, fixed.
> > >>> .......A
> > >>> ....../.\E
> > >>> ...../.C.\
> > >>> ..../B....\
> > >>> .../.......\
> > >>> .F/....G....\
> >
> > You chose point C to be the intersection of line segment EF and the axis
> > of the cone AG. As you say segment EC is smaller than CF. Not in
> > dispute. But that doesn't show that the intersecting curve isn't
> > symmetric around EF. C is not the center of EF. To see if the
> > intersection figure is symmetric around EF, you obviously have to start
> > at the center, the halfway point of EF. Here I called it B, and the
> > length BE = length BF. Now you need to show that the curve is or is not
> > symmetric around B. That the width at B+d is or is not = the width at
> > B-d, as bwr stated. Not quite as simple.
>

On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 1:48:16 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 12/5/2022 12:22 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > On 12/4/2022 8:19 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 12/4/2022 7:43 PM, Mathin3D wrote:
> >>> Serious Question:

Kibo Parry M on Harvard's Dr. Hau.
Kibo on > I want to fuck her corpse
On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> I want to fuck her corpse
Why Kibo??? Because she refuses to finish her experiment and see all the light vanishes simultaneously, or is it because she can not admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse???

On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 12:21:30 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"Imp of Math"
On Monday, January 18, 2021 at 2:06:24 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> fails at math and science:

Re: Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly??-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole (1)
By Michael Moroney 1/23/18, 44 posts 461 views

On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> I want to fuck her corpse
Kibo Parry Moroney in 1997 blows his CIA cover-- to the entire world, mind you---
Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
>> In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes:
> >

On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 9:13:14 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"Court Jester of Math"

Kibo,is Ruth Charney of AMS the model in your book, for she cannot admit the slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse as proven by AP in 2016? I know it falls on deaf ears of Kibo with his 938 is 12% short of 945. And Ruth, would the AMS publish Kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945, because the AMS certainly will not publish AP's conic proof? Maybe that is all the AMS publishes-- fake math.

On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> I want to fuck her corpse
On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 3:21:37 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> fails at math and science:

On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 12:43:52 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"bozo"
> fails at math and science:
>"psychoceramic"

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 10:40:13 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"physics hater"
> tarded:
> Drag Queen of Science, especially Physics

AP no longer tolerates 30 year nonstop stalker shitheads like Kibo Parry M.
> No wonder Dr.Tao is a failed mathematician who cannot see that |/\| planar cut simultaneously through cylinder and cone has to yield a Oval in cone, a ellipse in cylinder. Tao fails fails fails math, and no wonder the nitwit cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
>
> On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 6:19:00 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On 12/4/2022 5:52 PM, bwr fml wrote:
> > > On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 2:39:25 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > >>> And here you can plainly see the side EC is smaller than CF, while a ellipse requires them to be equal
> > >>> ......./\E
> > >>> ...../ c.\
> > >>> F / .......\
> > >
> > > If you are thinking your cone is symmetric around the z axis and the point c is on the z axis
> > > then you claim that Ec is less than cF is true.
> > > And that means absolutely nothing about whether the intersection of the cone and plane is an ellipse.
> > >
> > > The fundamental crank mistake you made a decade ago is thinking that the point c on the z axis
> > > has ANYTHING to do with whether the intersection is an ellipse or not..
> > >
> > > As I clearly showed a couple of days ago, the algebra CLEARLY shows that your point c needs to be
> > > exactly half way between the point E and the point F. Then the distances Ec and cF are equal.
> > > BUT, far more important, all the widths of the intersection in that plane for any distance d to the left
> > > and the distance d to the right of that point c are then precisely equal and that is the definition
> > > of a plane of symmetry and the intersection is an ellipse.
> > >
> > > But you have screeched your false claim out your crank hole for long enough and you DESPERATELY
> > > need to imagine that you are right and everyone else in the history of the world is wrong... that you
> > > probably can't ever admit that you made this mistake and just keep screeching it.
> > >
> > > Go out in your yard and scream it loud and proud:
> > > RETARDED, RETARDED, ARCHIE IS RETARDED
> > > and keep crank screaming that until they call the cops on you.
> > bwr is correct, Archie. Let's try again with your little diagram, fixed..
> > >>> .......A
> > >>> ....../.\E
> > >>> ...../.C.\
> > >>> ..../B....\
> > >>> .../.......\
> > >>> .F/....G....\
> >
> > You chose point C to be the intersection of line segment EF and the axis
> > of the cone AG. As you say segment EC is smaller than CF. Not in
> > dispute. But that doesn't show that the intersecting curve isn't
> > symmetric around EF. C is not the center of EF. To see if the
> > intersection figure is symmetric around EF, you obviously have to start
> > at the center, the halfway point of EF. Here I called it B, and the
> > length BE = length BF. Now you need to show that the curve is or is not
> > symmetric around B. That the width at B+d is or is not = the width at
> > B-d, as bwr stated. Not quite as simple.
>
> AP comments: so look at the moron Moroney (Kibo Parry) being a spokesperson for failed Dr. Tao with his "move around axis of the cone-- say Kibo and Tao is there a witch flying around on a broomstick in that cone also???

> > > 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
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > > 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 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

On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 8:38:38 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> WM,Dr. Susanne Schneider,Metin Tolan,Anja Karliczek,Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider,Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann,Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert are they forever going to be mindless fools of math especially geometry.
>
> And here you can plainly see the side EC is smaller than CF, while a ellipse requires them to be equal
> ......./\E
> ...../ c.\
> F / .......\
>
> entrance E of planar cut, and "c" the center axis, and F the exit of planar cut, cF is far larger than Ec.

Grab your phone and get over to Ebay and BUY THIS NOW Archie

https://www.ebay.com/itm/373778862727

That is a clear plastic cone that has a slope cut.
If you buy that and CAREFULLY measure it to find
the EXACT location of the z axis then that will be
your point "c" and you can identify your points "E" and "F"
on that.

Then you can also find a point "d" that is exactly half
way between "E" and "F" and that will not be the same
point as point "c".

CAREFULLY PRECISELY measuring that will let you
test whether the intersection of the cone and sloping
plane is two semi-ellipses that are not congruent.

Those used to be available every day on Ebay, but
those don't show up very often anymore. Grab
that before it is gone. Measured PRECISELY, that
will be exactly what you need to support your claim.

On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 11:27:20 PM UTC-8, bwr fml wrote:
> On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 8:38:38 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > And here you can plainly see the side EC is smaller than CF, while a ellipse requires them to be equal
> > ......./\E
> > ...../ c.\
> > F / .......\
> >
> > entrance E of planar cut, and "c" the center axis, and F the exit of planar cut, cF is far larger than Ec.
> Grab your phone and get over to Ebay and BUY THIS NOW Archie
>
> https://www.ebay.com/itm/373778862727
>
> That is a clear plastic cone that has a slope cut.

He only has two sets of those left. BUY both sets.

Then you can put the two cones base-to-base and you
can actually SEE your closed loop hyperbola and parabola.
You can use your phone to get pictures to put in your books.
You can lay the flat surfaces onto a clean sheet of paper
and use a fine mechanical pencil to draw precise outlines
of your intersections.

The two semi-ellipses of your intersection will be joined
at exactly the point where the y values are a maximum.
You can use the cone to carefully draw EXACTLY what the
intersection is, locate the maximum, cut that intersection
into those two pieces, lay them on top of each other and
look for the differences that you know, and nobody else
in the world believes, are there.

OR, since you buy two sets, you can hold the two pieces
together, one rotated 180 degrees from the other and look
for a significant substantial difference in the shape of the
intersection.

BUY both sets and get the actual hands-on concrete shapes
that you can measure and test. You are going to need to
measure those VERY carefully, don't let what you imagine
or what you think or what you know mess with your actual
precise measurements. Get those measurements, show
those measurements, get pictures of that to put in your book.

DO NOT MISS this opportunity to be able to ACTUALLY SHOW
other people what is only inside your mind.

On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 1:27:20 AM UTC-6, bwr fml wrote:
> On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 8:38:38 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > WM,Dr. Susanne Schneider,Metin Tolan,Anja Karliczek,Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider,Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann,Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert are they forever going to be mindless fools of math especially geometry.
> >
> > And here you can plainly see the side EC is smaller than CF, while a ellipse requires them to be equal
> > ......./\E
> > ...../ c.\
> > F / .......\
> >
> > entrance E of planar cut, and "c" the center axis, and F the exit of planar cut, cF is far larger than Ec.
> Grab your phone and get over to Ebay and BUY THIS NOW Archie
>
> https://www.ebay.com/itm/373778862727
>

Look, BWR too stupid to roll up a paper cone, and has to buy some imprecise plastic tiny toy to make his point. BWR never had a single marble of logical brain to understand the upper parts of cut is Asymmetrical to the lower portions, which goes along with Volney's crackpot index of John Baez, that BWR is thinking out of his arsehole and using his brains and head to eat up the math lounges coffee and donuts.

> That is a clear plastic cone that has a slope cut.
> If you buy that and CAREFULLY measure it to find
> the EXACT location of the z axis then that will be
> your point "c" and you can identify your points "E" and "F"
> on that.
>
> Then you can also find a point "d" that is exactly half
> way between "E" and "F" and that will not be the same
> point as point "c".
>
> CAREFULLY PRECISELY measuring that will let you
> test whether the intersection of the cone and sloping
> plane is two semi-ellipses that are not congruent.
>
> Those used to be available every day on Ebay, but
> those don't show up very often anymore. Grab
> that before it is gone. Measured PRECISELY, that
> will be exactly what you need to support your claim.

On 12/26/2022 1:01 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 1:27:20 AM UTC-6, bwr fml wrote:
>> On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 8:38:38 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>> WM,Dr. Susanne Schneider,Metin Tolan,Anja Karliczek,Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider,Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann,Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert are they forever going to be mindless fools of math especially geometry.
>>>
>>> And here you can plainly see the side EC is smaller than CF, while a ellipse requires them to be equal
>>> ......./\E
>>> ...../ c.\
>>> F / .......\
>>>
>>> entrance E of planar cut, and "c" the center axis, and F the exit of planar cut, cF is far larger than Ec.
>> Grab your phone and get over to Ebay and BUY THIS NOW Archie
>>
>> https://www.ebay.com/itm/373778862727
>>
>
>
> Look, BWR too stupid to roll up a paper cone

[...]

https://www.amazon.com/Eco-Friendly-Dispenser-Coolers-Fundraisers-Disposable/dp/B07M9WN4CM/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?keywords=paper+cone&qid=1672089010&sr=8-1-spons&psc=1&smid=A2W48U3XUS6VVO&spLa=ZW5jcnlwdGVkUXVhbGlmaWVyPUEyOVFORUlWVklPN0cmZW5jcnlwdGVkSWQ9QTAzMjY0NTIzMUpSTTJDOFdUVFc4JmVuY3J5cHRlZEFkSWQ9QTAyNzU4MjE1WllCTEpTMFVLRFomd2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9hdGYmYWN0aW9uPWNsaWNrUmVkaXJlY3QmZG9Ob3RMb2dDbGljaz10cnVl

If I am not mistaken, it is Gottingen in Germany that has a statue of a slant cut in cone-- claiming it is a ellipse.

But you need a steep cone and a steep slant cut for the human eye to detect that it is a Oval, not the fantasized ellipse.

And it shows the moron attitude by BWR with his ebay plastic toy having a Milling Precision of 1 one millionth of a millimeter plastic toy precision. Why, NASA, Apple and Advanced Microchips go to ebay for precision plastics as BWR so claims.

On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 1:27:20 AM UTC-6, bwr fml wrote:
> > And here you can plainly see the side EC is smaller than CF, while a ellipse requires them to be equal
> > ......./\E
> > ...../ c.\
> > F / .......\
> >
> > entrance E of planar cut, and "c" the center axis, and F the exit of planar cut, cF is far larger than Ec.
>
> Grab your phone and get over to Ebay and BUY THIS NOW Archie
>
> https://www.ebay.com/itm/373778862727
>
> That is a clear plastic cone that has a slope cut.
> If you buy that and CAREFULLY measure it to find
> the EXACT location of the z axis then that will be
> your point "c" and you can identify your points "E" and "F"
> on that.
>
> Then you can also find a point "d" that is exactly half
> way between "E" and "F" and that will not be the same
> point as point "c".
>
> CAREFULLY PRECISELY measuring that will let you
> test whether the intersection of the cone and sloping
> plane is two semi-ellipses that are not congruent.
>

Gottingen University a Physics failure school. With their mindless idiots of proton 938MeV with electron of 0.5MeV flying around the outside of proton.. While AP has a logical brain and says the proton is 840MeV with muon as electron trapped inside proton doing the Faraday law and producing the 0.5MeV Dirac magnetic monopole.

Trouble with Gottingen is that it harbors insane idiots of math-- WM and insane idiots of physics, that no clear intelligent and logical knowledge gets through in that network of Gottingen Uni kooks.

WM,apl. Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider,Metin Tolan,Anja Karliczek,apl. Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider,Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann,Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert are they forever going to be mindless idiots of math especially geometry.

And here you can plainly see the side EC is smaller than CF, while a ellipse requires them to be equal
......../\E
....../ c.\
F / .......\

entrance E of planar cut, and "c" the center axis, and F the exit of planar cut, cF is far larger than Ec.

Are they trying to turn sci.math into a gay pick up bar rather than legitimate math with endless day after day spam?

Sergi_o 68, "Questions on...."
Wolfgang Mueckenheim 324 "Three proofs of dark numbers..."
of the fine Bacarisse cheese
Ben Bacarisse 323 "Three proofs of dark numbers..."
FromTheRafters (more like gutters) 221 "Two similar..."
Sergi_o 161 "Two similar..."
Ben Bacarisse 133, "Two similar properties..."

WM turning Gottingen Germany into geometry failures.
Kibo chasing corpses in WM gay pick up bar, for Kibo sure does not know the difference between Oval and ellipse as seen in his latest stupidity-- a revolving axis as Kibo the moron and BWR describes it--

Let's try again with your little diagram, fixed.
> > >>> .......A
> > >>> ....../.\E
> > >>> ...../.C.\
> > >>> ..../B....\
> > >>> .../.......\
> > >>> .F/....G....\
> >
> > You chose point C to be the intersection of line segment EF and the axis
> > of the cone AG. As you say segment EC is smaller than CF. Not in
> > dispute. But that doesn't show that the intersecting curve isn't
> > symmetric around EF. C is not the center of EF. To see if the
> > intersection figure is symmetric around EF, you obviously have to start
> > at the center, the halfway point of EF. Here I called it B, and the
> > length BE = length BF. Now you need to show that the curve is or is not
> > symmetric around B. That the width at B+d is or is not = the width at
> > B-d, as bwr stated. Not quite as simple.
>

On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 1:48:16 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 12/5/2022 12:22 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > On 12/4/2022 8:19 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 12/4/2022 7:43 PM, Mathin3D wrote:
> >>> Serious Question:

Kibo Parry M on Harvard's Dr. Hau.
Kibo on > I want to fuck her corpse
On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> I want to fuck her corpse
Why Kibo??? Because she refuses to finish her experiment and see all the light vanishes simultaneously, or is it because she can not admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse???

On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 12:21:30 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"Imp of Math"
On Monday, January 18, 2021 at 2:06:24 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> fails at math and science:

Re: Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly??-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole (1)
By Michael Moroney 1/23/18, 44 posts 461 views

On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> I want to fuck her corpse
Kibo Parry Moroney in 1997 blows his CIA cover-- to the entire world, mind you---
Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
>> In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes:
> >

On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 9:13:14 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"Court Jester of Math"

Kibo,is Ruth Charney of AMS the model in your book, for she cannot admit the slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse as proven by AP in 2016? I know it falls on deaf ears of Kibo with his 938 is 12% short of 945. And Ruth, would the AMS publish Kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945, because the AMS certainly will not publish AP's conic proof? Maybe that is all the AMS publishes-- fake math.

On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> I want to fuck her corpse
On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 3:21:37 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> fails at math and science:

On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 12:43:52 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"bozo"
> fails at math and science:
>"psychoceramic"

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 10:40:13 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"physics hater"
> tarded:
> Drag Queen of Science, especially Physics

AP no longer tolerates 30 year nonstop stalker shitheads like Kibo Parry M.
> No wonder Dr.Tao is a failed mathematician who cannot see that |/\| planar cut simultaneously through cylinder and cone has to yield a Oval in cone, a ellipse in cylinder. Tao fails fails fails math, and no wonder the nitwit cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
>
> On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 6:19:00 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On 12/4/2022 5:52 PM, bwr fml wrote:
> > > On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 2:39:25 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > >>> And here you can plainly see the side EC is smaller than CF, while a ellipse requires them to be equal
> > >>> ......./\E
> > >>> ...../ c.\
> > >>> F / .......\
> > >
> > > If you are thinking your cone is symmetric around the z axis and the point c is on the z axis
> > > then you claim that Ec is less than cF is true.
> > > And that means absolutely nothing about whether the intersection of the cone and plane is an ellipse.
> > >
> > > The fundamental crank mistake you made a decade ago is thinking that the point c on the z axis
> > > has ANYTHING to do with whether the intersection is an ellipse or not..
> > >
> > > As I clearly showed a couple of days ago, the algebra CLEARLY shows that your point c needs to be
> > > exactly half way between the point E and the point F. Then the distances Ec and cF are equal.
> > > BUT, far more important, all the widths of the intersection in that plane for any distance d to the left
> > > and the distance d to the right of that point c are then precisely equal and that is the definition
> > > of a plane of symmetry and the intersection is an ellipse.
> > >
> > > But you have screeched your false claim out your crank hole for long enough and you DESPERATELY
> > > need to imagine that you are right and everyone else in the history of the world is wrong... that you
> > > probably can't ever admit that you made this mistake and just keep screeching it.
> > >
> > > Go out in your yard and scream it loud and proud:
> > > RETARDED, RETARDED, ARCHIE IS RETARDED
> > > and keep crank screaming that until they call the cops on you.
> > bwr is correct, Archie. Let's try again with your little diagram, fixed..
> > >>> .......A
> > >>> ....../.\E
> > >>> ...../.C.\
> > >>> ..../B....\
> > >>> .../.......\
> > >>> .F/....G....\
> >
> > You chose point C to be the intersection of line segment EF and the axis
> > of the cone AG. As you say segment EC is smaller than CF. Not in
> > dispute. But that doesn't show that the intersecting curve isn't
> > symmetric around EF. C is not the center of EF. To see if the
> > intersection figure is symmetric around EF, you obviously have to start
> > at the center, the halfway point of EF. Here I called it B, and the
> > length BE = length BF. Now you need to show that the curve is or is not
> > symmetric around B. That the width at B+d is or is not = the width at
> > B-d, as bwr stated. Not quite as simple.
>
> AP comments: so look at the moron Moroney (Kibo Parry) being a spokesperson for failed Dr. Tao with his "move around axis of the cone-- say Kibo and Tao is there a witch flying around on a broomstick in that cone also???

> > > 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
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > > 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 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

🕷 of Math and 🦂 of Physics Archimedes "Putin's stooge" Plutonium
<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

> If I am not mistaken,

You are mistaken. You are always mistaken

> And it shows the moron attitude by BWR with his ebay plastic toy having a Milling Precision of 1 one millionth of a millimeter plastic toy precision. Why, NASA, Apple and Advanced Microchips go to ebay for precision plastics as BWR so claims.

And StupidPlutonium thinks a handmade "cone" made by rolling up a piece
of paper somehow "proves" something, and this "cone" not only is much
better than the Ebay teaching tool but much better than anything NASA
would have. And the circular canning jar lid, if it doesn't sit exactly
horizontally to the base of the paper "cone" but fits tight to it,
PROVES the cone isn't even a cone! How dumb and stoopid is that?

>>> And here you can plainly see the side EC is smaller than CF, while a ellipse requires them to be equal
>>> ......./\E
>>> ...../ c.\
>>> F / .......\
>>>
>>> entrance E of planar cut, and "c" the center axis, and F the exit of planar cut, cF is far larger than Ec.

StupidPlutonium! If CF is larger than EC, then C obviously is NOT the
center (halfway point) between E and F! If you want to show the curve
isn't an ellipse, you have to start at the CENTER of the curve, and show
that the left side is NOT a mirror image of the right side! POINT C IS
NOT THE CENTER OF THE CURVE, no matter WHAT it is!

Hey Uncle Al's Ghost! 👻 StupidPlutonium thinks he can show a curve
isn't an ellipse by picking a point away from the center and showing
it's not symmetric around the point that's not even the center! How dumb
and stoopid is that?

"Pull the troll's plug. Archie-Poo is an epiphany of chronic abusive
trolling stupidity.

I cannot believe how incredibly stupid Archie-Poo is. I mean
rock-hard stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. Surface
of Venus under 80 atmospheres of red hot carbon dioxide and sulfuric
acid vapor dehydrated for 300 million years rock-hard stupid. Stupid
so stupid that it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole
different sensorium of stupid. Archie-Poo is trans-stupid stupid.
Meta-stupid. Stupid so collapsed upon itself that it is within its
own Schwarzschild radius. Black hole stupid. Stupid gotten so dense
and massive that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid.
Archie-Poo emits more stupid/second than our entire galaxy otherwise
emits stupid/year. Quasar stupid. Nothing else in the universe can
be this stupid. Archie-Poo is an oozingly putrescent primordial
fragment from the original Big Bang of Stupid, a pure essence of
stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of
physics that define maximally extrapolated hypergeometric
n-dimensional backgroundless stupid as we can imagine it. Archie-Poo
is Planck stupid, a quantum foam of stupid, a vacuum decay of stupid,
a grand unified theory of stupid.

Archie-Poo is the epiphany of stupid. Archie-poo is stooopid.

Archie-Poo is a swine. Archie-Poo is a vulgar little maggot.
Archie-Poo is a worthless bag of filth. As they say in Texas,
Archie-Poo couldn't pour piss out of a boot with instructions printed
on the heel. Archie-Poo is a canker, an ulcerous sore that won't go
away. I would rather watch Affirmative Action lawyers suck-start
Harleys with their bungholes than suffer the troll abominations of
Archie-Poo."

Gottingen University, Metin Tolan a Physics failure school. With their mindless idiots of proton 938MeV with electron of 0.5MeV flying around the outside of proton. While AP has a logical brain and says the proton is 840MeV with muon as electron trapped inside proton doing the Faraday law and producing the 0.5MeV Dirac magnetic monopole.

Trouble with Gottingen is that it harbors insane idiots of math-- WM and insane idiots of physics, that no clear intelligent and logical knowledge gets through in that network of Gottingen Uni kooks.

WM,apl. Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider,Metin Tolan,Anja Karliczek,apl. Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider,Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann,Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert are they forever going to be mindless idiots of math especially geometry.

And here you can plainly see the side EC is smaller than CF, while a ellipse requires them to be equal
......../\E
....../ c.\
F / .......\

entrance E of planar cut, and "c" the center axis, and F the exit of planar cut, cF is far larger than Ec.

Are they trying to turn sci.math into a gay pick up bar rather than legitimate math with endless day after day spam?

Sergi_o 68, "Questions on...."
Wolfgang Mueckenheim 324 "Three proofs of dark numbers..."
of the fine Bacarisse cheese
Ben Bacarisse 323 "Three proofs of dark numbers..."
FromTheRafters (more like gutters) 221 "Two similar..."
Sergi_o 161 "Two similar..."
Ben Bacarisse 133, "Two similar properties..."

WM turning Gottingen Germany into geometry failures.
Kibo chasing corpses in WM gay pick up bar, for Kibo sure does not know the difference between Oval and ellipse as seen in his latest stupidity-- a revolving axis as Kibo the moron and BWR describes it--

Let's try again with your little diagram, fixed.
> > >>> .......A
> > >>> ....../.\E
> > >>> ...../.C.\
> > >>> ..../B....\
> > >>> .../.......\
> > >>> .F/....G....\
> >
> > You chose point C to be the intersection of line segment EF and the axis
> > of the cone AG. As you say segment EC is smaller than CF. Not in
> > dispute. But that doesn't show that the intersecting curve isn't
> > symmetric around EF. C is not the center of EF. To see if the
> > intersection figure is symmetric around EF, you obviously have to start
> > at the center, the halfway point of EF. Here I called it B, and the
> > length BE = length BF. Now you need to show that the curve is or is not
> > symmetric around B. That the width at B+d is or is not = the width at
> > B-d, as bwr stated. Not quite as simple.
>

On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 1:48:16 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 12/5/2022 12:22 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > On 12/4/2022 8:19 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 12/4/2022 7:43 PM, Mathin3D wrote:
> >>> Serious Question:

Kibo Parry M on Harvard's Dr. Hau.
Kibo on > I want to fuck her corpse
On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> I want to fuck her corpse
Why Kibo??? Because she refuses to finish her experiment and see all the light vanishes simultaneously, or is it because she can not admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse???

On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 12:21:30 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"Imp of Math"
On Monday, January 18, 2021 at 2:06:24 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> fails at math and science:

Re: Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly??-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole (1)
By Michael Moroney 1/23/18, 44 posts 461 views

On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> I want to fuck her corpse
Kibo Parry Moroney in 1997 blows his CIA cover-- to the entire world, mind you---
Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
>> In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes:
> >

On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 9:13:14 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"Court Jester of Math"

Kibo,is Ruth Charney of AMS the model in your book, for she cannot admit the slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse as proven by AP in 2016? I know it falls on deaf ears of Kibo with his 938 is 12% short of 945. And Ruth, would the AMS publish Kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945, because the AMS certainly will not publish AP's conic proof? Maybe that is all the AMS publishes-- fake math.

On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> I want to fuck her corpse
On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 3:21:37 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> fails at math and science:

On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 12:43:52 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"bozo"
> fails at math and science:
>"psychoceramic"

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 10:40:13 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"physics hater"
> tarded:
> Drag Queen of Science, especially Physics

AP no longer tolerates 30 year nonstop stalker shitheads like Kibo Parry M.
> No wonder Dr.Tao is a failed mathematician who cannot see that |/\| planar cut simultaneously through cylinder and cone has to yield a Oval in cone, a ellipse in cylinder. Tao fails fails fails math, and no wonder the nitwit cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
>
> On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 6:19:00 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On 12/4/2022 5:52 PM, bwr fml wrote:
> > > On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 2:39:25 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > >>> And here you can plainly see the side EC is smaller than CF, while a ellipse requires them to be equal
> > >>> ......./\E
> > >>> ...../ c.\
> > >>> F / .......\
> > >
> > > If you are thinking your cone is symmetric around the z axis and the point c is on the z axis
> > > then you claim that Ec is less than cF is true.
> > > And that means absolutely nothing about whether the intersection of the cone and plane is an ellipse.
> > >
> > > The fundamental crank mistake you made a decade ago is thinking that the point c on the z axis
> > > has ANYTHING to do with whether the intersection is an ellipse or not..
> > >
> > > As I clearly showed a couple of days ago, the algebra CLEARLY shows that your point c needs to be
> > > exactly half way between the point E and the point F. Then the distances Ec and cF are equal.
> > > BUT, far more important, all the widths of the intersection in that plane for any distance d to the left
> > > and the distance d to the right of that point c are then precisely equal and that is the definition
> > > of a plane of symmetry and the intersection is an ellipse.
> > >
> > > But you have screeched your false claim out your crank hole for long enough and you DESPERATELY
> > > need to imagine that you are right and everyone else in the history of the world is wrong... that you
> > > probably can't ever admit that you made this mistake and just keep screeching it.
> > >
> > > Go out in your yard and scream it loud and proud:
> > > RETARDED, RETARDED, ARCHIE IS RETARDED
> > > and keep crank screaming that until they call the cops on you.
> > bwr is correct, Archie. Let's try again with your little diagram, fixed..
> > >>> .......A
> > >>> ....../.\E
> > >>> ...../.C.\
> > >>> ..../B....\
> > >>> .../.......\
> > >>> .F/....G....\
> >
> > You chose point C to be the intersection of line segment EF and the axis
> > of the cone AG. As you say segment EC is smaller than CF. Not in
> > dispute. But that doesn't show that the intersecting curve isn't
> > symmetric around EF. C is not the center of EF. To see if the
> > intersection figure is symmetric around EF, you obviously have to start
> > at the center, the halfway point of EF. Here I called it B, and the
> > length BE = length BF. Now you need to show that the curve is or is not
> > symmetric around B. That the width at B+d is or is not = the width at
> > B-d, as bwr stated. Not quite as simple.
>
> AP comments: so look at the moron Moroney (Kibo Parry) being a spokesperson for failed Dr. Tao with his "move around axis of the cone-- say Kibo and Tao is there a witch flying around on a broomstick in that cone also???

> > > 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
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > > 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 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

Moscow,Beijing▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ 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

On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 3:10:35 PM UTC-6, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>Disposable

Yes, Chris, Sarmats are disposable, but are they biodegradable, and can your English environment protection agency classify Sarmats as biodegradable. We here in the USA have this illogical designation of "recyclable" and who cares about recycling a Sarmat?

Chris, which of these is Shangai ??? Is it 1/2
> i[0] = 1/1
> i[1] = 1/2
> i[2] = 1/3
> i[3] = 1/4
> i[4] = 1/5

Re: 4-Does WM make Germany & Gottingen Univ a failure in mathematics with his slant cut of Cone a ellipse when it is a OVAL, and his mindless "dark numbers bullshit" Ben Bacarisse,Cynthia A. Volkert,Florentin Wörgötter,Annette Zippelius, Metin Tolan
by Chris Thomasson

So spamming William, a Sarmat never reaches its exact target but sends shock waves from a blast site.
> No.
>
> Not 'to its limit'.
>
> Only TOWARDS its limit.
>
> It never arrives 'at zero'.'

William, infinite spamming nutjob comparing unit fractions of Moscow compared to Beijing. William spamming nutjob is Moscow 0/1 and Beijing fraction is 1/0 ??

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

> 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█۞█







> & wrote:
> > _And as the Baby Xi 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, Emperor Qing's homeland, now occupied by homeless Russians drinking vodka, as Putin bombs Ukraine. And the nascent Xi orders
> > 1,000 divisions to the Outer Manchuria border to regain back the stolen
>
>
> > > Why Putin is 2X smarter than Xi as dictators// SCIENCE COUNCIL RULES EARTH, not petty dictators
> > > 2m views
> > >
> > >
> > 2> If Putin pushes nuclear buttons, he drags down China along with Russia into a nuclear ash waste pile, and this means Xi is a inferior junior partner to Putin. Putin will drag down Xi's China, never the reverse.
> > >
> > 2> So, one can look at the present situation on Earth and ask several logical questions about the 2 dictators of Putin's Russia and China's Xi.
> > >
> > > It is little wonder that both Russia and China dictators are combative towards the West. Because dictators never want to give up on power but stay in power all their life long. So they oppose the West because the West has grown up to democracy-- let the people have power, not one single idiot having power all his life time.
> > >
> > > Naturally, Putin will want to keep the Russian people suppressed and have Russia be a second rate government as a dictator. Same goes for China-- they never want to give up power so the people themselves choose their leader.
> > >
> > > But can we find differences in Putin and Xi themselves? Well in the West we call the Chinese inscrutable-- meaning -- little logical commonsense.. And is this a valid description?? Yes of course, considering that Russia had stolen the lands of Outer Manchuria, some 28 times larger of a land mass than is Taiwan island. Yet there is Xi, spending so much time on wanting to invade Taiwan, when it is Outer Manchuria and Vladivostok (Haishenwai) that he should be focusing attention upon. And while Putin is distracted with Ukraine, is the time for Xi to recapture Outer Manchuria, the Qing dynasty empire, Qing's Manchurian homeland.
> > >
> > > What does Xi do instead??? He focuses on Taiwan and befriends Russia. Why, at this rate, if Russia takes Inner Manchuria, we can expect Xi and the Chinese Communist Party to become even more loving of Russia for stealing more land of China.
> > >
> > > And there is Xi, whose China has become rich with trading with the West, yet every day, Xi foaming at the mouth in hatred of the West.
> > >
> > > So yes, Putin is 2X smarter as a dictator than is Xi, as if Putin has Xi in his side pocket.
> > >
> > > Is there some scientific explanation as to why Xi is 2X dumber than Putin?? Perhaps, in that China is densely populated and the air pollution over all of China is worse than most countries. That Xi probably has 1/2 of his brain filled with CO and CO2 isomers and lead, and mercury and nitrous oxide and sulfur dioxide from just living in that air polluted hellhole of Beijing. Xi studied chemistry and should know this. Whereas Putin likely detox..s every evening with breathing in pure oxygen at his residence and takes oxygen breathing tanks to office and work. This easily can explain the light-headed reasoning that Xi and his foreign diplomats Wang Yi display, where Putin plays them like a chess game, --- checkmate in 7 moves.
> > >
> > > This explains why Xi hates the West for not stealing any Chinese lands and making China rich in trade, while loving Putin for stealing Outer Manchuria, and proposing having Russia push nuclear buttons, making both Russia and China a nuclear waste site after ICBMs wipe China off the map.
> > >
> > > Xi's brain is full of air pollution toxins from the nasty Chinese air.. They still build a new coal fired plant in China every day. The air in China is the worst air in the entire world.
> > >
> > > Why Putin is 2X smarter than Xi as dictators// SCIENCE COUNCIL RULES EARTH, not petty dictators.
>

> > > > 2/1, AP tards:
> > > > > Give Ukraine drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/2, AP tards:
> > > > > Give Ukraine drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/3, AP tards:
> > > > > Every Russian missile fired into Ukraine met with a drone from Ukraine knocking out Moscow electric power lines
> > > > >
> > > > > Give Ukraine drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/4, AP tards:
> > > > > drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/9 (vacation?), AP tards:
> > > > > drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/9, AP tards (again):
> > > > > drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/10, AP tards:
> > > > > drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/11, AP tards:
> > > > > drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/12, AP tards:
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/12, AP tards again:
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/13, AP tards:
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/14, AP tards:
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/15, AP tards:
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/16, AP tards:
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/17, AP tards:
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/18, AP tards:
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/19, AP tards:
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/20, AP tards:
> > > >
> > > > > Electricity out Novosibirsk &Volgograd█۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/22, AP tards:
> > > > > Moscow electric blackout█۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/23, AP tards:
> > > > > Moscow electric blackout█۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/24, AP tards:
> > > > > Moscow electric blackout█۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/25, AP tards:
> > > > > Moscow electric blackout█۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█
> > > > > _drones █۞█knock out Moscow electric power lines█۞█ Moscow, St.Petersburg, Volgograd, Vladivostok no electricity
> > > >
> > > > 2/26, AP tards:

Gottingen University, Metin Tolan a Physics failure school. With their mindless idiots of proton 938MeV with electron of 0.5MeV flying around the outside of proton. While AP has a logical brain and says the proton is 840MeV with muon as electron trapped inside proton doing the Faraday law and producing the 0.5MeV Dirac magnetic monopole.

Trouble with Gottingen is that it harbors insane idiots of math-- WM and insane idiots of physics, that no clear intelligent and logical knowledge gets through in that network of Gottingen Uni kooks.

WM,apl. Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider,Metin Tolan,Anja Karliczek,apl. Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider,Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann,Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert are they forever going to be mindless idiots of math especially geometry.

And here you can plainly see the side EC is smaller than CF, while a ellipse requires them to be equal
......../\E
....../ c.\
F / .......\

entrance E of planar cut, and "c" the center axis, and F the exit of planar cut, cF is far larger than Ec.

Are they trying to turn sci.math into a gay pick up bar rather than legitimate math with endless day after day spam?

Sergi_o 68, "Questions on...."
Wolfgang Mueckenheim 324 "Three proofs of dark numbers..."
of the fine Bacarisse cheese
Ben Bacarisse 323 "Three proofs of dark numbers..."
FromTheRafters (more like gutters) 221 "Two similar..."
Sergi_o 161 "Two similar..."
Ben Bacarisse 133, "Two similar properties..."

WM turning Gottingen Germany into geometry failures.
Kibo chasing corpses in WM gay pick up bar, for Kibo sure does not know the difference between Oval and ellipse as seen in his latest stupidity-- a revolving axis as Kibo the moron and BWR describes it--

Let's try again with your little diagram, fixed.
> > >>> .......A
> > >>> ....../.\E
> > >>> ...../.C.\
> > >>> ..../B....\
> > >>> .../.......\
> > >>> .F/....G....\
> >
> > You chose point C to be the intersection of line segment EF and the axis
> > of the cone AG. As you say segment EC is smaller than CF. Not in
> > dispute. But that doesn't show that the intersecting curve isn't
> > symmetric around EF. C is not the center of EF. To see if the
> > intersection figure is symmetric around EF, you obviously have to start
> > at the center, the halfway point of EF. Here I called it B, and the
> > length BE = length BF. Now you need to show that the curve is or is not
> > symmetric around B. That the width at B+d is or is not = the width at
> > B-d, as bwr stated. Not quite as simple.
>

On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 1:48:16 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 12/5/2022 12:22 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > On 12/4/2022 8:19 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 12/4/2022 7:43 PM, Mathin3D wrote:
> >>> Serious Question:

Kibo Parry M on Harvard's Dr. Hau.
Kibo on > I want to fuck her corpse
On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> I want to fuck her corpse
Why Kibo??? Because she refuses to finish her experiment and see all the light vanishes simultaneously, or is it because she can not admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse???

On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 12:21:30 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"Imp of Math"
On Monday, January 18, 2021 at 2:06:24 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> fails at math and science:

Re: Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly??-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole (1)
By Michael Moroney 1/23/18, 44 posts 461 views

On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> I want to fuck her corpse
Kibo Parry Moroney in 1997 blows his CIA cover-- to the entire world, mind you---
Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
>> In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes:
> >

On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 9:13:14 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"Court Jester of Math"

Kibo,is Ruth Charney of AMS the model in your book, for she cannot admit the slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse as proven by AP in 2016? I know it falls on deaf ears of Kibo with his 938 is 12% short of 945. And Ruth, would the AMS publish Kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945, because the AMS certainly will not publish AP's conic proof? Maybe that is all the AMS publishes-- fake math.

On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:07:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> I want to fuck her corpse
On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 3:21:37 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> fails at math and science:

On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 12:43:52 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"bozo"
> fails at math and science:
>"psychoceramic"

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 10:40:13 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"physics hater"
> tarded:
> Drag Queen of Science, especially Physics

AP no longer tolerates 30 year nonstop stalker shitheads like Kibo Parry M.
> No wonder Dr.Tao is a failed mathematician who cannot see that |/\| planar cut simultaneously through cylinder and cone has to yield a Oval in cone, a ellipse in cylinder. Tao fails fails fails math, and no wonder the nitwit cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
>
> On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 6:19:00 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On 12/4/2022 5:52 PM, bwr fml wrote:
> > > On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 2:39:25 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > >>> And here you can plainly see the side EC is smaller than CF, while a ellipse requires them to be equal
> > >>> ......./\E
> > >>> ...../ c.\
> > >>> F / .......\
> > >
> > > If you are thinking your cone is symmetric around the z axis and the point c is on the z axis
> > > then you claim that Ec is less than cF is true.
> > > And that means absolutely nothing about whether the intersection of the cone and plane is an ellipse.
> > >
> > > The fundamental crank mistake you made a decade ago is thinking that the point c on the z axis
> > > has ANYTHING to do with whether the intersection is an ellipse or not..
> > >
> > > As I clearly showed a couple of days ago, the algebra CLEARLY shows that your point c needs to be
> > > exactly half way between the point E and the point F. Then the distances Ec and cF are equal.
> > > BUT, far more important, all the widths of the intersection in that plane for any distance d to the left
> > > and the distance d to the right of that point c are then precisely equal and that is the definition
> > > of a plane of symmetry and the intersection is an ellipse.
> > >
> > > But you have screeched your false claim out your crank hole for long enough and you DESPERATELY
> > > need to imagine that you are right and everyone else in the history of the world is wrong... that you
> > > probably can't ever admit that you made this mistake and just keep screeching it.
> > >
> > > Go out in your yard and scream it loud and proud:
> > > RETARDED, RETARDED, ARCHIE IS RETARDED
> > > and keep crank screaming that until they call the cops on you.
> > bwr is correct, Archie. Let's try again with your little diagram, fixed..
> > >>> .......A
> > >>> ....../.\E
> > >>> ...../.C.\
> > >>> ..../B....\
> > >>> .../.......\
> > >>> .F/....G....\
> >
> > You chose point C to be the intersection of line segment EF and the axis
> > of the cone AG. As you say segment EC is smaller than CF. Not in
> > dispute. But that doesn't show that the intersecting curve isn't
> > symmetric around EF. C is not the center of EF. To see if the
> > intersection figure is symmetric around EF, you obviously have to start
> > at the center, the halfway point of EF. Here I called it B, and the
> > length BE = length BF. Now you need to show that the curve is or is not
> > symmetric around B. That the width at B+d is or is not = the width at
> > B-d, as bwr stated. Not quite as simple.
>
> AP comments: so look at the moron Moroney (Kibo Parry) being a spokesperson for failed Dr. Tao with his "move around axis of the cone-- say Kibo and Tao is there a witch flying around on a broomstick in that cone also???

> > > 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
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > > 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 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

2-WM,Dr. Susanne Schneider,Metin Tolan,Anja Karliczek,Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider,Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann,Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert are they forever going to be mindless fools of math especially geometry.
> >>>
> >>> And here you can plainly see the side EC is smaller than CF, while a ellipse requires them to be equal
> >>> ......./\E
> >>> ...../ c.\
> >>> F / .......\
> >>>
> >>> entrance E of planar cut, and "c" the center axis, and F the exit of planar cut, cF is far larger than Ec.

Dan Christensen spam photo profile
unread,
A Paradox of Equality?
On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 1:40:29 AM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote: (Correction) > Its not that
12:17 PM

William's profile photo
William
, …
Fritz Feldhase
198
unread,
WM Logic
On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 10:44:29 AM UTC-3, WM wrote: > William schrieb am Montag, 5. Juni 2023
11:31 AM


William's profile photo
William
, …
WM
111
unread,
No "First" init fraction
Fritz Feldhase schrieb am Montag, 5. Juni 2023 um 17:49:58 UTC+2: > On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 5:
9:36 AM

Eram semper recta's profile photo
Eram semper recta

4- WM,Dr. Susanne Schneider,Metin Tolan,Anja Karliczek,Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider,Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann,Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert are they forever going to be mindless fools of math especially geometry.
> >>>
4>>> And here you can plainly see the side EC is smaller than CF, while a ellipse requires them to be equal
> >>> ......./\E
> >>> ...../ c.\
> >>> F / .......\
> >>>
> >>> entrance E of planar cut, and "c" the center axis, and F the exit of planar cut, cF is far larger than Ec.
> >> Grab your phone and get over to Ebay and BUY THIS NOW Archie
> >>
> >> https://www.ebay.com/itm/373778862727
> >>
> >
> >
> > Look, BWR too stupid to roll up a paper cone
>
> [...]
>
19
unread,
Re: Proof of Kepler Packing//Jan Burse-Alzheimer faggot//ETH Zurich, Dietmar Salamon, Martin Schweizer, Mete Soner, looking at it
5:25 PM

William's profile photo
William
, …
Chris M. Thomasson
114
unread,
No "First" init fraction
On 6/7/2023 3:35 AM, WM wrote: > Chris M. Thomasson schrieb am Dienstag, 6. Juni 2023 um 21:36:50
5:21 PM


5- WM,Dr. Susanne Schneider,Metin Tolan,Anja Karliczek,Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider,Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann,Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert are they forever going to be mindless fools of math especially geometry.
> > >>>
> 4>>> And here you can plainly see the side EC is smaller than CF, while a ellipse requires them to be equal
> > >>> ......./\E
> > >>> ...../ c.\
> > >>> F / .......\
> > >>>
> > >>> entrance E of planar cut, and "c" the center axis, and F the exit of planar cut, cF is far larger than Ec.
> > >> Grab your phone and get over to Ebay and BUY THIS NOW Archie
> > >>

Chris Thomasson the baby goo--doo-doo of sci.math

John Gabriel profile photo
John Gabriel
,...
Chris M. Thomasson
154
I am the victim, not any of you cunts!

> > > Look, BWR too stupid to roll up a paper cone
> >
> > [...]
> >
> 19
> unread,
> Re: Proof of Kepler Packing//Jan Burse-Alzheimer faggot//ETH Zurich, Dietmar Salamon, Martin Schweizer, Mete Soner, looking at it
> 5:25 PM
> 
> William's profile photo
> William
> , …
> Chris M. Thomasson
> 114
> unread,
> No "First" init fraction
> On 6/7/2023 3:35 AM, WM wrote: > Chris M. Thomasson schrieb am Dienstag, 6. Juni 2023 um 21:36:50
> 5:21 PM
> 

6- WM,Dr. Susanne Schneider,Metin Tolan,Anja Karliczek,Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider,Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann,Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert are they forever going to be mindless fools of math especially geometry.
> > > >>>
> > 4>>> And here you can plainly see the side EC is smaller than CF, while a ellipse requires them to be equal
> > > >>> ......./\E
> > > >>> ...../ c.\
> > > >>> F / .......\
> > > >>>
> > > >>> entrance E of planar cut, and "c" the center axis, and F the exit of planar cut, cF is far larger than Ec.
> > > >> Grab your phone and get over to Ebay and BUY THIS NOW Archie
> > > >>
6> Chris Thomasson the baby goo--doo-doo of sci.math
>
> John Gabriel profile photo
> John Gabriel
> ,...
> Chris M. Thomasson
> 154
> I am the victim, not any of you cunts!
> > > > Look, BWR too stupid to roll up a paper cone
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > 19
> > unread,
> > Re: Proof of Kepler Packing//Jan Burse-Alzheimer faggot//ETH Zurich, Dietmar Salamon, Martin Schweizer, Mete Soner, looking at it
> > 5:25 PM
> > 
> > William's profile photo
> > William
> > , …
> > Chris M. Thomasson
> > 114
> > unread,
> > No "First" init fraction
> > On 6/7/2023 3:35 AM, WM wrote: > Chris M. Thomasson schrieb am Dienstag, 6. Juni 2023 um 21:36:50
> > 5:21 PM
> > 

Can_Dr.Ahnert,Dr.Alai,Dr.Alexander,Dr.Allison,Cambridge University - -PLEASE--step into Univ of Cambridge physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. AP's homegrown lab cannot do the fine tuning experiment of weighing a test tube of electrolyzed hydrogen and oxygen from water. If AP is correct Water is really H4O, not H2O. My weighing scale is puny and insufficient for the job at hand, 0.00001 gram or less of hydrogen and oxygen test tubes. If AP is correct the hydrogen is 1/4 the weight of oxygen, if mainstream chemistry, physics is correct the hydrogen is 1/8 in amu to oxygen.
>

Chris Thomasson spam of 5Aug2023 in sci.math
>Yawn

Chris Thomasson streamlined

Drs:Ansorge, Atature, Barker, Barnes, Bartlett, Batley, Baumberg, Bohndiek, of Cambridge are you like Thomasson too stupid to learn proton is _not_ 938MeV electron .5MeV when they really are 840MeV, 105MeV in order to have chemistry bonding
Ahnert, Alai, Alexander, Allison of Cambridge are you like Thomasson too stupid to learn proton is _not_ 938MeV electron .5MeV when they really are 840MeV, 105MeV in order to have chemistry bonding

On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 12:25:14 AM UTC-6, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> One morphs into two. Two into four...

On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 5:19:37 PM UTC-6, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> They are tractrix coordinate points. Got a problem?
>
> You are a funny guy. The numbers are correct. Here are some plots:
>

When I asked Thomasson to provide a tractrix coordinate point table, the imp gave a totally wrong data sheet. This is because Chris is not into truth and math truth but is a stupid troll in sci.math and sci.physics, foisting his village idiot fractals

Ahnert, Alai, Alexander, Allison of Cambridge are you like Thomasson too stupid to learn proton is _not_ 938MeV electron .5MeV when they really are 840MeV, 105MeV in order to have chemistry bonding

                              ..
            .- " `-.   ,..-'''  ```.....'`-..
           ,      . `.'            '        `.
         .'   .' `    `           '   `..     ;
         .   ;  .'                     . `.    ;
         ;   . '                       `.  .   '
          . '                            ` `.  |
        . '.                                  '
       .          0              0            ' `.
      '                                          `
     ;                                            `
    .'                                             `
    ;                      U                        `
    ;    ';                                         `
    :   | ;..                                 :`     `
    :    `;. ```.                           .-; |    '
    '.      `    ``..,                   .'   :'    '
     ;       `        ;'...          ..-''    '     '  Hi I am Chris Thomasson, a English Village idiot who never defined infinity properly and sees no harm in selling fractals which do not exist if you define infinity properly. I like the dough, more than the truth of the world
      `       `        ;  ````'''""'  ;      '    '
       `       `        ;            ;      '    '
        `       `        ;          ;      '    '
         `       `.       ````''''''      '    '
           `       .                     '    '
         /  `       `.                  '    '        .
        /     `       ..            ..'    .'"""""...'
       /   .`   `       ``.........-'     .'` .....'''
      / .'' ;     `                    .'   `
  ...'.'    ;    .' `                .'      `
   ""      .'  .' |    `           .; \       `
           ; .'   |      `. . . . ' .  \       `
           :'     |     '   `       ,   `.     `
                  |    '     `      '     `.    `
                  `   '       `     ;       `.  |
                  `.'          `    ;         `-'
                                `...'

Cambridge Physics Dept

Ahnert, Alai, Alexander, Allison, Ansorge, Atature, Barker, Barnes, Bartlett, Batley, Baumberg, Bohndiek, Bowman, Brown, Buscher, Butler, Campbell Carilli, Carter, Castelnovo, Challis, Chalut, Chaudhri, Chin, Ciccarelli, Cicuta, Cole, Cooper, Cowburn, Credgington, Cross, Croze, Deschler, Donald, Duffett-Smith, Dutton, Eiser, Ellis, Euser, Field, Flynn, Ford, Friend, Gibson, Green, Greenham, Gripaios, Grosche, Guck, Gull, Haniff, Heavens-Ward, Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, Hughes, Irvine, Jardine, Jenkins, Jones, Josephson, Keyser, Khmeinitskii, King, Kotlyar, Lamacraft, Lasenby, Lester, Longair, Lonzarich, Maiolino, Marshall, Martin, Mitov, Morris, Mortimer, Moller, Needs, Norman, Nunnenkamp, Padman,Parker, Patel, Payne, Pepper, Phillips, Pramauro, Queloz, Rao, Richer, Riley, Ritchie, Sargent, Saunders, Saxena, Schneider, Scott, Scrivener, Sebastian, Simmons, Simons, Sirringhaus, Smith, Sutherland, Taylor, Teichmann, Terentjev, Thomson, Verrechia, Walker, Ward, Warner, Weale, Webber, Whyles, Withington.

Cambridge Math Dept

Alan Baker
Bela Bollobas
Darwin Smith
John Coates
Timothy Gowers
Peter Johnstone
Imre Leader
Gabriel Paternain

>
> > > > +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within
>
> > > > +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within
> > > >
> > > > 3m views Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium
> > > >
> > > > In Old Chemistry and Old Physics, their subatomic particles were do nothing and no function and no job particles that sit around as balls or whiz around the outside of balls doing nothing but pointless circling.
> > > >
> > > > In New Physics and New Chemistry-- All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. Every subatomic particle has a job a function a purpose as to the Laws of Electromagnetism--- Faraday law, Coulomb law, Ampere law, Capacitor law.
> > > >
> > > > A proton is a torus of 840MeV with 840 windings, while the muon is the true electron of Atoms and is encased inside the proton torus thrusting through and producing electricity-- magnetic monopoles.
> > > >
> > > > The neutron of Atoms is a parallel plate capacitor storing the electricity of proton+muon and is skin cover on the outside of the proton torus in the form of parallel plates.
> > > >
> > > > Can hydrogen be a Atom if it is just a proton+muon? No, all atoms require to have a capacitor such as at least one neutron. Thus the Hydrogen Atom is H2 where you have 2 proton+muon where 1 of the 2 proton+muon acts like a neutron to the other proton+muon. Thus, water molecule is not H2O but rather is H4O.
> > > >
> > > > AP is waiting for experimental chemists and physicists to prove him correct that Water is H4O.
> > > >
> > > > In the meantime we have Hydroxyl which in Old Chemistry, especially Biology is OH, while AP says that is wrong and that is really H2O.
> > > >
> > > > Now glycerine is a hydroxyl with formula C3H8O3. And what I am thinking at this moment, is that hydroxyls will be an easier proof that Water is truly H4O, rather than wait for experimentalists to actually "weigh the electrolysis test tubes of oxygen and hydrogen".
> > > >
> > > > You see, with H4O as water, glycerine is C3(2 waters)O with an extra oxygen. If Water is H2O then glycerine is C3(4 waters) deficit O. It is missing an oxygen if water is H2O.
> > > >
> > > > The reason glycerine is so effective as a skin ointment is because it has glycerine, the extra O oxygen. If water were H2O, then glycerine would be a missing oxygen and not a skin lotion that works, but makes skin even more dry.
> > > >
> > > > Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium
> > > >
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > > 12:24 AM (13 hours ago)
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > >
> > > > --- quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---
> > > > Perhaps there is only two Faraday laws on Electrolysis. I am looking at the one that states: Faraday's first law of electrolysis relates the mass of a substance liberated (or deposited) at an electrode to the electric charge used (Q). A proportionality constant Z can be used:
> > > >
> > > > m = ZQ = (E/96485)(Q)
> > > >
> > > > m = mass, Q = total charge rewritten as Q = I*t amperes x time in seconds.
> > > >
> > > > This website gives an example: 5amps passed through molten Sodium Chloride for 3 hours. Calculate the mass of Sodium. E=23/1.
> > > >
> > > > m = (23/96485) (5) (3*60*60) approx 12.87 grams.
> > > >
> > > > --- end quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---
> > > >
> > > > Now has such a experiment been performed on Water to see how much atomic mass of hydrogen and of oxygen results??? If AP is correct, the formula of water is H4O, if Old Physics, Old Chemistry is correct the formula is H2O. So which is it???
> > > >
> > > > AP
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No, sorry no, Faraday's Law of Electrolysis is not going to tell the correct mass of hydrogen.
> > > >
> > > > Reading Wikipedia on Faraday's Electrolysis law.
> > > >
> > > > --- quoting Wikipedia ---
> > > > A monovalent ion requires 1 electron for discharge, a divalent ion requires 2 electrons for discharge and so on. Thus, if x electrons flow,
> > > > x/v atoms are discharged.
> > > >
> > > > So the mass m discharged is
> > > >
> > > > m= (xM)/vN_A) = (QM)/(eN_A *v) = (QM) / (vF)
> > > > where
> > > > N_A is the Avogadro constant;
> > > > Q = xe is the total charge, equal to the number of electrons (x) times the elementary charge e;
> > > > F is the Faraday constant.
> > > > --- end quoting Wikipedia ---
> > > >
> > > > No, the Faraday law of Electrolysis will not work on water with a correct answer, because H is not an atom but H2 is an Atom. And where one of the proton+muon converts to being a neutron to the other proton+muon.
> > > >
> > > > So if Faraday's law of Electrolysis was applied to water, thinking it would deliver a true answer is mistaken because the one H converts to neutron.
> > > >
> > > > So it appears that we need to directly measure the test tube of oxygen and the test tube of hydrogen by a direct mass measurement.
> > > >
> > > > AP
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > > 1:14 AM (12 hours ago)
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > > I doubt we can measure a test tube of hydrogen or test tube of oxygen, too small to determine the mass on some sort of weight scale.
> > > >
> > > > But here is a possible lucrative idea. We should be able to get pure deuterium water. Then run the electrolysis. Collect the test tubes.
> > > >
> > > > Now have some sort of balancing beam weight scale. Place the regular water of hydrogen test tube on one side, and place the deuterium water hydrogen test tube on other side. If they stay balanced, then AP is correct and Water is really H4O.
> > > >
> > > > AP
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > > 1:48 AM (11 hours ago)
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > > Cosmic Rays from Sun
> > > >
> > > > 90% of Sun's cosmic rays are 840MeV proton+muon inside = H. The hydrogen Atom is H2 where one of the H proton+muon converts to being a neutron.
> > > >
> > > > When these proton+muon hit Earth atmosphere, they can turn into pions and muons.
> > > >
> > > > I commented that H alone is a subatomic particle and that makes sense in the idea that Sun's cosmic rays are 90% these proton+muon.
> > > >
> > > > Now is interstellar hydrogen H2 and intergalactic hydrogen H2 formed when one H cosmic ray joins up with another H cosmic ray to form H2 atom?
> > > >
> > > > Is this how we get H2 in outer space? From the splitting apart of H2 into H cosmic rays?
> > > >
> > > > So how much of the Sun's hydrogen is H2 and how much is H ready to join with another H and reform back into H2. Probably little of the Sun's H is H alone, and the vast majority of the Sun's hydrogen is H2.
> > > >
> > > > How much deuterium in the Sun? And it is a higher percentage than the deuterium in water on Earth?
> > > >
> > > > AP
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > > 3:11 AM (10 hours ago)
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > > Water is the only known non-metallic substance that expands when if freezes; its density decreases and it expands approximately 9% by volume. (Source: web Lunar and Planetary Institute)
> > > >
> > > > I have to wait for experimental chemists and physicists to weigh the mass of test tubes from electrolysis, as to the verdict-- water is H4O.
> > > >
> > > > But until that news comes in, I will look for other means of proof.
> > > >
> > > > So AP says that the H2 is not a molecule but is the hydrogen Atom itself, where one proton+muon converts to a neutron and capacitates the other proton+muon which undergo the Faraday law.
> > > >
> > > > There are subatomic particles of H in the form of Cosmic Rays from the Sun, but most of the Sun's hydrogen is H2, and flips back and forth from H to rejoining to form H2. Some gets away from the Sun and is cosmic rays..
> > > >
> > > > But H2 is an Atom and H is a fleeting subatomic particle.
> > > >
> > > > So can I prove Water is H4O from the data of Spectral lines of H2 is the same as deuterium, only slight difference is that the deuterium is a full fledged neutron not a makeshift proton+muon of H.
> > > >
> > > > I suspect that special trait of water freezing is a proof that Water is H4O. Because the 840MeV proton torus with muon inside doing the Faraday law acting as a makeshift neutron capacitor for the other 840MeV proton torus with muon inside, is where H2 gets that expansion characteristic.
> > > >
> > > > A neutron is a parallel plate capacitor and those plates can expand when frozen temperature occurs. As the temperature gets colder, those plates move further apart.
> > > >
> > > > Now does deuterium which truly has a full neutron, does it expand also when frozen?? If so, does it expand as much as H2 which is 2 protons with 2 muons inside?
> > > >
> > > > So comparing the freezing and expansion of the parallel plates of a neutron in deuterium with the freezing and expansion of one of the proton+muon that is acting as a makeshift neutron in H2.
> > > >
> > > > If I can numbers correlate the H2 expansion with the Deuterium expansion would be a alternative proof that Water is really H4O and not H2O.
> > > >
> > > > AP
> > > > to
> > > > So now on Blankenship's book "Molecular Mechanisms of Photosynthesis", 2014, page 134, shows The structure of ATP, ADP, AMP. And within that structure are OH hydroxyls.
> > > >
> > > > In New Chemistry, water is truly H4O, and where hydroxyls are now H2O. And we have first proof of this in the Figure 8.1 of Blankenship's "Chemical structure of ATP".
> > > >
> > > > For in the lower left corner of the diagram, Blankenship has a H+ all alone, (really a mindless error) and has P surrounded by O-, O-, O and OH. The OH is really H2O for hydroxyls are H2O and water itself is H4O, and that would leave that mindless H+ as being hydrogen Atom of H2.
> > > >
> > > > The world of physics and chemistry should drop what they are doing and weigh the electrolysis test tube of hydrogen and oxygen to discover the correct true formula of water is H4O.
> > > >
> > > > AP is total confident, becuase an Atom cannot exist if it has no capacitor structure such as a neutron, or one of the H in H2 acting as a neutron. I am totally confident that Water formula is truly H4O. And I need look only to methane of H4C, to realize that there is no HC, no H2C, no H3C, but starts with H4C, and that tells me water starts with H4O. Totally confident that Old Chemistry, Old Physics did electrolysis experiments and the moment they saw hydrogen test tube be 2x volume of oxygen test tube, they dropped their work and went out for a Danish and coffee break, rather than finish their work--- actual physics weighing of atomic mass units (not the Faraday electrolysis law for it does not apply to water).
> > > >
> > > > When water electrolysis is physics weighed, AP is confident that there are 4H per every one oxygen O. And that Water is truly H4O.
> > > >
> > > > AP, King of Science
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > 9:34 AM (15 minutes ago)
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > to
> > > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 8:56:57 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > > Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.
> > > >
> > > > Now modern day physics and chemist experimenters can really do a marvelous job if they wanted to. For they could freeze the test tubes of oxygen and hydrogen to where they are liquid and compare liquids from water electrolysis.
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > 10:01 AM (5 hours ago)
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > to
> > > > So, what AP is saying here is that we do electrolysis of water. We collect the two test tubes, one with oxygen the other with hydrogen.
> > > >
> > > > To prove Water is truly the formula H4O and not H2O we must weigh the masses of the two tubes to find that the ratio is 1 x 16amu to 4 x 1amu.
> > > >
> > > > The silly grotesque science error of the past was to look at volumes in the two test tubes-- "Hey-- the hydrogen is twice the volume of oxygen so the formula of water is H2O".
> > > >
> > > > No, way was that science good practice. For the correct formula of water needs to be measured by mass, by atomic mass units where Oxygen is 16amu and hydrogen is 1amu.
> > > >
> > > > I suspect a balance beam scale is good enough to see the hydrogen test tube will be 1/4 as massive as the oxygen test tube. To get within precision of electronic weighing scale of 0.00001 gram we just have to make a larger test tube of electrolysis of water.
> > > >
> > > > AP is betting that the readings will be hydrogen test tube 1/4 the mass of oxygen test tube proving Water formula is truly H4O.
> > > >
> > > > Old Physics and Old Chemistry is betting that the mass experiment will have the hydrogen test tube be 1/8 the mass of the oxygen test tube, proving Water formula is H2O.
> > > >
> > > > AP does not have these precision equipment to conduct an at-home experiment of this nature.
> > > >
> > > > AP
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > 12:38 PM (4 hours ago)
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > to
> > > > So, once Water is found to actually be H4O, not H2O, we move on to methane, and ask the same question of its hydrogen bonds. Is Methane really that of H8C and not H4C.
> > > >
> > > > Well, looking in the literature for anomalies to methane, I come across a arXiv "Low and high-temperature anomalies in the physical properties of solid methane "The anomalous behavior of thermodynamic, spectral, plastic, elastic and some other properties of solid methane is discussed near 20..48K and...
> > > >
> > > > AP wonders: if they can get methane to solid form, well, I am then hopeful that the mass of the molecule can be determined. Because if methane is truly H8C, that difference of H4 in atomic mass units would be very much noticeable difference.
> > > >
> > > > Chemistry Europe--
> > > > "The Anomalous Deuterium Isotope Effect in the NMR Spectrum of Methane...
> > > >
> > > > P Vermeeren, 2023
> > > > "The abnormally long and weak methylidyne C-H bond.."
> > > > "The C-H bond of the methylidyne radical, CH*, is abnormally long and weak, even longer and..."
> > > >
> > > > AP asks, are these anomalies solved if we consider methane is actually H8C and not H4C?
> > > >
> > > > AP
>
>
> My 250th published book.
>
> TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY; H2 is the hydrogen Atom and water is H4O, not H2O// Chemistry
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
> Prologue: This textbook is 1/2 research history and 1/2 factual textbook combined as one textbook. For many of the experiments described here-in have not yet been performed, such as water is really H4O not H2O. Written in a style of history research with date-time markers, and fact telling. And there are no problem sets. This book is intended for 1st year college. Until I include problem sets and exercises, I leave it to the professor and instructor to provide such. And also, chemistry is hugely a laboratory science, even more so than physics, so a first year college student in the lab to test whether Water is really H4O and not H2O is mighty educational.
>
> Preface: This is my 250th book of science, and the first of my textbooks on Teaching True Chemistry. I have completed the Teaching True Physics and the Teaching True Mathematics textbook series. But had not yet started on a Teaching True Chemistry textbook series. What got me started on this project is the fact that no chemistry textbook had the correct formula for water which is actually H4O and not H2O. Leaving the true formula for hydroxyl groups as H2O and not OH. But none of this is possible in Old Chemistry, Old Physics where they had do-nothing subatomic particles that sit around and do nothing or go whizzing around the outside of balls in a nucleus, in a mindless circling. Once every subatomic particle has a job, task, function, then water cannot be H2O but rather H4O. And a hydrogen atom cannot be H alone but is actually H2. H2 is not a molecule of hydrogen but a full fledged Atom, a single atom of hydrogen.
>
> Cover Picture: Sorry for the crude sketch work but chemistry and physics students are going to have to learn to make such sketches in a minute or less. Just as they make Lewis diagrams or ball & stick diagrams. My 4-5 minute sketch-work of the Water molecule H4O plus the subatomic particle H, and the hydrogen atom H2. Showing how one H is a proton torus with muon inside (blue color) doing the Faraday law. Protons are toruses with many windings. Protons are the coils in Faraday law while muons are the bar magnets. Neutrons are the capacitors as parallel plates, the outer skin cover of atoms.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0CCLPTBDG
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ July 21, 2023
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 788 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 168 pages
>
>
>
>
>
>
> y z
> | /
> | /
> |/______ x