torsdag 22. juli 2021 kl. 00:02:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Wednesday, 21 July 2021 at 17:53:49 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 21 July 2021 at 16:42:57 UTC-4, konyberg wrote:
> > > onsdag 21. juli 2021 kl. 21:14:45 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Tuesday, 20 July 2021 at 13:56:53 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > Telling students that the derivative definition they are given at university is fraudulent, is the TRUTH. The evidence is ALL here:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1peL7lzXsmZ4AVsgAwDLvn8QIZbWy8Ebm
> > > > >
> > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1520NjhgiakcrssQxtbxRCDXus_aHXpI9
> > > > >
> > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
> > > > >
> > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
> > > > Students:
> > > >
> > > > As you can see, once again, there is blind denial from the mainstream, refusing to admit error and accept correction.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To wit, one of the limit properties states that the limit of a constant is a constant! Indeed!
> > > >
> > > > But somehow the orangutans in the mainstream disregard that property with respect to the constant [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h which is the SLOPE of the NON-PARALLEL secant line in Newton's and Leibniz's bogus formulation of calculus.
> > > Are you introdusing a new meaning of constant in mathematics: the constant [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h ?
> > Not at all. Is not the slope of any straight line constant? And is not [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h the slope of any given non-parallel secant line at x and h?
> >
> > The slopes of the non-parallel secant lines are CONSTANT. They NEVER change because if they did, then my historic geometric identity [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) would be false! But we know that it is TRUE from my theorem!!! Both f'(x) and Q(x,h) are *****CONSTANTS*****.
> >
> > If you take the limit of a constant, then it has NO EFFECT. The h does NOT change values for any given non-parallel secant line slope. There is ONLY ONE h for each non-parallel secant line slope.
> Try the identity [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) with actual numbers and a given function f(x)= x^2.
>
> Then f'(x) = 2x+h.
>
> If x = 2, then
>
> Now if h=2, we have 2(2)+2 = f'(x) + Q(x,h) = 6 = (16-4)/2 = [(x+h)^2-(x)^2]/h
>
> 6 is the slope of the non-parallel secant line.
>
> IF you try ANY other h in the above, then it will NOT be true!!!!
>
> Now if h=1, we have 2(2)+1 = f'(x) + Q(x,h) = 5 = (9-4)/1 = [(x+h)^2-(x)^2]/h
>
> 5 is the slope of the non-parallel secant line.
>
> IF you try ANY other h in the above, then it will NOT be true!!!!
>
> and so on...
>
> You get it now? Chuckle.
> > > KON
> > > >
> > > > I, and I ALONE solved the tangent line problem correctly. I produced the FIRST rigorous formulation of calculus in human history by removing all nonsense concepts such as limit theory, infinity and infinitesimals.
> > > >
> > > > I should be honoured by the mainstream community, not ex-communicated and reviled. These evil academics have destroyed my life. I am officially homeless and not in the best of health.
> > > >
> > > > My work is not worth one Abel prize - it is worth ALL the Abel prizes ever awarded to the fools in the Abel prize circus.

I get what you think, but your own argument clearly show that [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h is not a constant. It varies with x and h.
KON

Crank John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Friday, 23 July 2021 at 11:23:13 UTC-4, Python wrote:
>> Crank John Gabriel, Eram semper recta wrote:
>> ...
>>>> ...
>>>>>>> The general identity [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) works for ANY smooth function.
>>>>>> Nothing relevant can be deduced from such an identity as there is
>>>>>> nothing specific to the derivative function f' there.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're a crank. The identity includes the derivative f'(x) from the theorem.
>>>> If the identity is true for any function, not only f', then NOTHING can
>>>> be stated about the derivative starting from the identity.
>>>
>>> But you don't start with the identity, you incorrigible idiot! You get the identity from the theorem. LMAO.
>>>
>>>>> Correct! It's a pretty big deal eh? Q(x,h) turns out to be the difference in slope of the tangent line and the non-parallel secant line. Hmm. I would say that is pretty BIG STUFF! Chuckle.
>>>> As it true not only for f' but for ANY function, this identity CANNOT
>>>> express anything specific to f' (such as being the tangent line slope),
>>>> it is VOID of any specific property of f'.
>>>
>>> Have you taken your meds today? The identity is SPECIFIC to every smooth function. That's the idea, you idiot! ROFLMAO. In other words, the derivative exists provided the function is smooth and **more importantly**, can be found using the identity! :)
>> If f' could be found using the identity, then the identy couldn't
>> be true for ANY other function but f'.
>
> Nonsense. f' can always be found using the identity.

It can't. The argument is not nonsense this is basic rationality. A non
specific property cannot be used to determine a specific object of any
kind.

Python wrote:
> Crank John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
>> On Friday, 23 July 2021 at 11:23:13 UTC-4, Python wrote:
>>> Crank John Gabriel, Eram semper recta wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> The general identity [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) works for
>>>>>>>> ANY smooth function.
>>>>>>> Nothing relevant can be deduced from such an identity as there is
>>>>>>> nothing specific to the derivative function f' there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're a crank. The identity includes the derivative f'(x) from
>>>>>> the theorem.
>>>>> If the identity is true for any function, not only f', then NOTHING
>>>>> can
>>>>> be stated about the derivative starting from the identity.
>>>>
>>>> But you don't start with the identity, you incorrigible idiot! You
>>>> get the identity from the theorem. LMAO.
>>>>
>>>>>> Correct! It's a pretty big deal eh? Q(x,h) turns out to be the
>>>>>> difference in slope of the tangent line and the non-parallel
>>>>>> secant line. Hmm. I would say that is pretty BIG STUFF! Chuckle.
>>>>> As it true not only for f' but for ANY function, this identity CANNOT
>>>>> express anything specific to f' (such as being the tangent line
>>>>> slope),
>>>>> it is VOID of any specific property of f'.
>>>>
>>>> Have you taken your meds today? The identity is SPECIFIC to every
>>>> smooth function. That's the idea, you idiot! ROFLMAO. In other
>>>> words, the derivative exists provided the function is smooth and
>>>> **more importantly**, can be found using the identity! :)
>>> If f' could be found using the identity, then the identy couldn't
>>> be true for ANY other function but f'.
>>
>> Nonsense. f' can always be found using the identity.
>
> It can't. The argument is not nonsense this is basic rationality. A non
> specific property cannot be used

+alone, as the only property,

> to determine a specific object of any
> kind.

On Friday, 23 July 2021 at 18:18:26 UTC-4, konyberg wrote:
> torsdag 22. juli 2021 kl. 00:02:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Wednesday, 21 July 2021 at 17:53:49 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 21 July 2021 at 16:42:57 UTC-4, konyberg wrote:
> > > > onsdag 21. juli 2021 kl. 21:14:45 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Tuesday, 20 July 2021 at 13:56:53 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > Telling students that the derivative definition they are given at university is fraudulent, is the TRUTH. The evidence is ALL here:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1peL7lzXsmZ4AVsgAwDLvn8QIZbWy8Ebm
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1520NjhgiakcrssQxtbxRCDXus_aHXpI9
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
> > > > > Students:
> > > > >
> > > > > As you can see, once again, there is blind denial from the mainstream, refusing to admit error and accept correction.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > To wit, one of the limit properties states that the limit of a constant is a constant! Indeed!
> > > > >
> > > > > But somehow the orangutans in the mainstream disregard that property with respect to the constant [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h which is the SLOPE of the NON-PARALLEL secant line in Newton's and Leibniz's bogus formulation of calculus.
> > > > Are you introdusing a new meaning of constant in mathematics: the constant [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h ?
> > > Not at all. Is not the slope of any straight line constant? And is not [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h the slope of any given non-parallel secant line at x and h?
> > >
> > > The slopes of the non-parallel secant lines are CONSTANT. They NEVER change because if they did, then my historic geometric identity [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) would be false! But we know that it is TRUE from my theorem!!! Both f'(x) and Q(x,h) are *****CONSTANTS*****.
> > >
> > > If you take the limit of a constant, then it has NO EFFECT. The h does NOT change values for any given non-parallel secant line slope. There is ONLY ONE h for each non-parallel secant line slope.
> > Try the identity [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) with actual numbers and a given function f(x)= x^2.
> >
> > Then f'(x) = 2x+h.
> >
> > If x = 2, then
> >
> > Now if h=2, we have 2(2)+2 = f'(x) + Q(x,h) = 6 = (16-4)/2 = [(x+h)^2-(x)^2]/h
> >
> > 6 is the slope of the non-parallel secant line.
> >
> > IF you try ANY other h in the above, then it will NOT be true!!!!
> >
> > Now if h=1, we have 2(2)+1 = f'(x) + Q(x,h) = 5 = (9-4)/1 = [(x+h)^2-(x)^2]/h
> >
> > 5 is the slope of the non-parallel secant line.
> >
> > IF you try ANY other h in the above, then it will NOT be true!!!!
> >
> > and so on...
> >
> > You get it now? Chuckle.
> > > > KON
> > > > >
> > > > > I, and I ALONE solved the tangent line problem correctly. I produced the FIRST rigorous formulation of calculus in human history by removing all nonsense concepts such as limit theory, infinity and infinitesimals.
> > > > >
> > > > > I should be honoured by the mainstream community, not ex-communicated and reviled. These evil academics have destroyed my life. I am officially homeless and not in the best of health.
> > > > >
> > > > > My work is not worth one Abel prize - it is worth ALL the Abel prizes ever awarded to the fools in the Abel prize circus.
>
> I get what you think, but your own argument clearly show that [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h is not a constant. It varies with x and h.

It does not vary because the slopes of those secant lines haven't changed in past perpetuity and continue to be the same indefinitely. Of course their slopes are different to each other! BUT this does not mean they *change*! To change would require that any one secant line has more than one slope! Absurd.

The identity is TRUE for each secant line. You cannot change the constant Q(x,h) for ANY of the secant lines that it applies to for otherwise the identity is not true, meaning the Left hand side =/= right hand side.

> KON

On Friday, 23 July 2021 at 22:06:05 UTC-4, Psychopath Jean Pierre Messager aka YBM aka JPM aka Python wrote:

> >> ...
> >>>> ...
> >>>>>>> The general identity [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) works for ANY smooth function.
> >>>>>> Nothing relevant can be deduced from such an identity as there is
> >>>>>> nothing specific to the derivative function f' there.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You're a crank. The identity includes the derivative f'(x) from the theorem.
> >>>> If the identity is true for any function, not only f', then NOTHING can
> >>>> be stated about the derivative starting from the identity.
> >>>
> >>> But you don't start with the identity, you incorrigible idiot! You get the identity from the theorem. LMAO.
> >>>
> >>>>> Correct! It's a pretty big deal eh? Q(x,h) turns out to be the difference in slope of the tangent line and the non-parallel secant line. Hmm. I would say that is pretty BIG STUFF! Chuckle.
> >>>> As it true not only for f' but for ANY function, this identity CANNOT
> >>>> express anything specific to f' (such as being the tangent line slope),
> >>>> it is VOID of any specific property of f'.
> >>>
> >>> Have you taken your meds today? The identity is SPECIFIC to every smooth function. That's the idea, you idiot! ROFLMAO. In other words, the derivative exists provided the function is smooth and **more importantly**, can be found using the identity! :)
> >> If f' could be found using the identity, then the identy couldn't
> >> be true for ANY other function but f'.
> >
> > Nonsense. f' can always be found using the identity.

> It can't.

The geometric theorem says it CAN. What part of "theorem" do you not understand?

> The argument is not nonsense this is basic rationality.

ALL your arguments are nonsense. Chuckle. What you know about rationality is very dangerous!

> A non specific property cannot be used to determine a specific object of any kind.

But it _IS_ a specific property, you moron crank! The geometry applies to EVERY smooth function, not just to one.

lørdag 24. juli 2021 kl. 13:55:47 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Friday, 23 July 2021 at 18:18:26 UTC-4, konyberg wrote:
> > torsdag 22. juli 2021 kl. 00:02:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Wednesday, 21 July 2021 at 17:53:49 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, 21 July 2021 at 16:42:57 UTC-4, konyberg wrote:
> > > > > onsdag 21. juli 2021 kl. 21:14:45 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, 20 July 2021 at 13:56:53 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > Telling students that the derivative definition they are given at university is fraudulent, is the TRUTH. The evidence is ALL here:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1peL7lzXsmZ4AVsgAwDLvn8QIZbWy8Ebm
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1520NjhgiakcrssQxtbxRCDXus_aHXpI9
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
> > > > > > Students:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As you can see, once again, there is blind denial from the mainstream, refusing to admit error and accept correction.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To wit, one of the limit properties states that the limit of a constant is a constant! Indeed!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But somehow the orangutans in the mainstream disregard that property with respect to the constant [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h which is the SLOPE of the NON-PARALLEL secant line in Newton's and Leibniz's bogus formulation of calculus.
> > > > > Are you introdusing a new meaning of constant in mathematics: the constant [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h ?
> > > > Not at all. Is not the slope of any straight line constant? And is not [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h the slope of any given non-parallel secant line at x and h?
> > > >
> > > > The slopes of the non-parallel secant lines are CONSTANT. They NEVER change because if they did, then my historic geometric identity [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) would be false! But we know that it is TRUE from my theorem!!! Both f'(x) and Q(x,h) are *****CONSTANTS*****.
> > > >
> > > > If you take the limit of a constant, then it has NO EFFECT. The h does NOT change values for any given non-parallel secant line slope. There is ONLY ONE h for each non-parallel secant line slope.
> > > Try the identity [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) with actual numbers and a given function f(x)= x^2.
> > >
> > > Then f'(x) = 2x+h.
> > >
> > > If x = 2, then
> > >
> > > Now if h=2, we have 2(2)+2 = f'(x) + Q(x,h) = 6 = (16-4)/2 = [(x+h)^2-(x)^2]/h
> > >
> > > 6 is the slope of the non-parallel secant line.
> > >
> > > IF you try ANY other h in the above, then it will NOT be true!!!!
> > >
> > > Now if h=1, we have 2(2)+1 = f'(x) + Q(x,h) = 5 = (9-4)/1 = [(x+h)^2-(x)^2]/h
> > >
> > > 5 is the slope of the non-parallel secant line.
> > >
> > > IF you try ANY other h in the above, then it will NOT be true!!!!
> > >
> > > and so on...
> > >
> > > You get it now? Chuckle.
> > > > > KON
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I, and I ALONE solved the tangent line problem correctly. I produced the FIRST rigorous formulation of calculus in human history by removing all nonsense concepts such as limit theory, infinity and infinitesimals.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I should be honoured by the mainstream community, not ex-communicated and reviled. These evil academics have destroyed my life. I am officially homeless and not in the best of health.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My work is not worth one Abel prize - it is worth ALL the Abel prizes ever awarded to the fools in the Abel prize circus.
> >
> > I get what you think, but your own argument clearly show that [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h is not a constant. It varies with x and h.
> It does not vary because the slopes of those secant lines haven't changed in past perpetuity and continue to be the same indefinitely. Of course their slopes are different to each other! BUT this does not mean they *change*! To change would require that any one secant line has more than one slope! Absurd.
>
> The identity is TRUE for each secant line. You cannot change the constant Q(x,h) for ANY of the secant lines that it applies to for otherwise the identity is not true, meaning the Left hand side =/= right hand side.
>
> > KON

Using your argument I could say that the function f(x) = 2x is a constant, because for every number x I choose the function gives a constant number. x = 1 gives the constant f(1) = 2 and x = 3 gives f(3) = 6. Do you really mean this?

KON

konyberg wrote:

> Using your argument I could say that the function f(x) = 2x is a
> constant,
> because for every number x I choose the function gives a constant
> number. x = 1 gives the constant f(1) = 2 and x = 3 gives f(3) = 6. Do
> you really mean this?

"Any capitalist govt that wages psychological warfare on its own citizens
has declared itself an enemy of the people."

"capitalism is a rokafella bill gates predatory ideology, that prays on
legitimate economic activity, through usury primarily."

On Saturday, 24 July 2021 at 08:43:33 UTC-4, konyberg wrote:
> lørdag 24. juli 2021 kl. 13:55:47 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Friday, 23 July 2021 at 18:18:26 UTC-4, konyberg wrote:
> > > torsdag 22. juli 2021 kl. 00:02:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Wednesday, 21 July 2021 at 17:53:49 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, 21 July 2021 at 16:42:57 UTC-4, konyberg wrote:
> > > > > > onsdag 21. juli 2021 kl. 21:14:45 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, 20 July 2021 at 13:56:53 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > Telling students that the derivative definition they are given at university is fraudulent, is the TRUTH. The evidence is ALL here:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1peL7lzXsmZ4AVsgAwDLvn8QIZbWy8Ebm
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1520NjhgiakcrssQxtbxRCDXus_aHXpI9
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
> > > > > > > Students:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As you can see, once again, there is blind denial from the mainstream, refusing to admit error and accept correction.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To wit, one of the limit properties states that the limit of a constant is a constant! Indeed!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But somehow the orangutans in the mainstream disregard that property with respect to the constant [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h which is the SLOPE of the NON-PARALLEL secant line in Newton's and Leibniz's bogus formulation of calculus.
> > > > > > Are you introdusing a new meaning of constant in mathematics: the constant [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h ?
> > > > > Not at all. Is not the slope of any straight line constant? And is not [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h the slope of any given non-parallel secant line at x and h?
> > > > >
> > > > > The slopes of the non-parallel secant lines are CONSTANT. They NEVER change because if they did, then my historic geometric identity [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) would be false! But we know that it is TRUE from my theorem!!! Both f'(x) and Q(x,h) are *****CONSTANTS*****.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you take the limit of a constant, then it has NO EFFECT. The h does NOT change values for any given non-parallel secant line slope. There is ONLY ONE h for each non-parallel secant line slope.
> > > > Try the identity [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) with actual numbers and a given function f(x)= x^2.
> > > >
> > > > Then f'(x) = 2x+h.
> > > >
> > > > If x = 2, then
> > > >
> > > > Now if h=2, we have 2(2)+2 = f'(x) + Q(x,h) = 6 = (16-4)/2 = [(x+h)^2-(x)^2]/h
> > > >
> > > > 6 is the slope of the non-parallel secant line.
> > > >
> > > > IF you try ANY other h in the above, then it will NOT be true!!!!
> > > >
> > > > Now if h=1, we have 2(2)+1 = f'(x) + Q(x,h) = 5 = (9-4)/1 = [(x+h)^2-(x)^2]/h
> > > >
> > > > 5 is the slope of the non-parallel secant line.
> > > >
> > > > IF you try ANY other h in the above, then it will NOT be true!!!!
> > > >
> > > > and so on...
> > > >
> > > > You get it now? Chuckle.
> > > > > > KON
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I, and I ALONE solved the tangent line problem correctly. I produced the FIRST rigorous formulation of calculus in human history by removing all nonsense concepts such as limit theory, infinity and infinitesimals.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I should be honoured by the mainstream community, not ex-communicated and reviled. These evil academics have destroyed my life. I am officially homeless and not in the best of health.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My work is not worth one Abel prize - it is worth ALL the Abel prizes ever awarded to the fools in the Abel prize circus.
> > >
> > > I get what you think, but your own argument clearly show that [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h is not a constant. It varies with x and h.
> > It does not vary because the slopes of those secant lines haven't changed in past perpetuity and continue to be the same indefinitely. Of course their slopes are different to each other! BUT this does not mean they *change*! To change would require that any one secant line has more than one slope! Absurd.
> >
> > The identity is TRUE for each secant line. You cannot change the constant Q(x,h) for ANY of the secant lines that it applies to for otherwise the identity is not true, meaning the Left hand side =/= right hand side.
> >
> > > KON
> Using your argument I could say that the function f(x) = 2x is a constant,

Look again Kony: If f(x) = x^2 then f'(x)=2x and Q(x,h)=h from [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)

Now let's say x = 1.

If h = 1 then [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = 2(1) + 1 = 3 which is the slope of the non-parallel secant line between points (1,1) and (2, 4).

Secant line slope = (4-1)/(2-1) = 3

If you try to put a different Q(x,h) in the above, say h=4, then 3 =/= 2(1)+4 = 6

Get it now? Q(x,h) is a CONSTANT for any given non-parallel secant line. In other words, no secant line can have more than one slope.

> because for every number x I choose the function gives a constant number. x = 1 gives the constant f(1) = 2 and x = 3 gives f(3) = 6. Do you really mean this?
>
> KON

On Saturday, 24 July 2021 at 09:36:10 UTC-4, Bubba Haake wrote:
> konyberg wrote:
>
> > Using your argument I could say that the function f(x) = 2x is a
> > constant,
> > because for every number x I choose the function gives a constant
> > number. x = 1 gives the constant f(1) = 2 and x = 3 gives f(3) = 6. Do
> > you really mean this?
> "Any capitalist govt that wages psychological warfare on its own citizens
> has declared itself an enemy of the people."

Welcome to planet earth where psychological warfare has been waged since time immemorial.
>
> "capitalism is a rokafella bill gates predatory ideology, that prays on
> legitimate economic activity, through usury primarily."

Agreed. But normally a human is born with a brain that can analyse FACTS and EVIDENCE. This is a simple two-step guide to reaching correct conclusions.

1. Transmission Electron Microscope proves the virus exists in tissue. Conclusion: It's not a hoax.
2 Statistics reveals millions of people dead in short time. Conclusion: We have a pandemic.

Is the vaccine 100% safe? Probably not. But I'll take my chances rather than doing nothing.

The universe rewards action. The foolish do nothing and pay the price.

On Saturday, 24 July 2021 at 10:23:42 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Saturday, 24 July 2021 at 08:43:33 UTC-4, konyberg wrote:
> > lørdag 24. juli 2021 kl. 13:55:47 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Friday, 23 July 2021 at 18:18:26 UTC-4, konyberg wrote:
> > > > torsdag 22. juli 2021 kl. 00:02:05 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Wednesday, 21 July 2021 at 17:53:49 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, 21 July 2021 at 16:42:57 UTC-4, konyberg wrote:
> > > > > > > onsdag 21. juli 2021 kl. 21:14:45 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 20 July 2021 at 13:56:53 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Telling students that the derivative definition they are given at university is fraudulent, is the TRUTH. The evidence is ALL here:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1peL7lzXsmZ4AVsgAwDLvn8QIZbWy8Ebm
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1520NjhgiakcrssQxtbxRCDXus_aHXpI9
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
> > > > > > > > Students:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As you can see, once again, there is blind denial from the mainstream, refusing to admit error and accept correction.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > To wit, one of the limit properties states that the limit of a constant is a constant! Indeed!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But somehow the orangutans in the mainstream disregard that property with respect to the constant [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h which is the SLOPE of the NON-PARALLEL secant line in Newton's and Leibniz's bogus formulation of calculus.
> > > > > > > Are you introdusing a new meaning of constant in mathematics: the constant [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h ?
> > > > > > Not at all. Is not the slope of any straight line constant? And is not [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h the slope of any given non-parallel secant line at x and h?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The slopes of the non-parallel secant lines are CONSTANT. They NEVER change because if they did, then my historic geometric identity [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) would be false! But we know that it is TRUE from my theorem!!! Both f'(x) and Q(x,h) are *****CONSTANTS*****.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you take the limit of a constant, then it has NO EFFECT. The h does NOT change values for any given non-parallel secant line slope. There is ONLY ONE h for each non-parallel secant line slope.
> > > > > Try the identity [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) with actual numbers and a given function f(x)= x^2.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then f'(x) = 2x+h.
> > > > >
> > > > > If x = 2, then
> > > > >
> > > > > Now if h=2, we have 2(2)+2 = f'(x) + Q(x,h) = 6 = (16-4)/2 = [(x+h)^2-(x)^2]/h
> > > > >
> > > > > 6 is the slope of the non-parallel secant line.
> > > > >
> > > > > IF you try ANY other h in the above, then it will NOT be true!!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > Now if h=1, we have 2(2)+1 = f'(x) + Q(x,h) = 5 = (9-4)/1 = [(x+h)^2-(x)^2]/h
> > > > >
> > > > > 5 is the slope of the non-parallel secant line.
> > > > >
> > > > > IF you try ANY other h in the above, then it will NOT be true!!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > and so on...
> > > > >
> > > > > You get it now? Chuckle.
> > > > > > > KON
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I, and I ALONE solved the tangent line problem correctly. I produced the FIRST rigorous formulation of calculus in human history by removing all nonsense concepts such as limit theory, infinity and infinitesimals.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I should be honoured by the mainstream community, not ex-communicated and reviled. These evil academics have destroyed my life. I am officially homeless and not in the best of health.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My work is not worth one Abel prize - it is worth ALL the Abel prizes ever awarded to the fools in the Abel prize circus.
> > > >
> > > > I get what you think, but your own argument clearly show that [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h is not a constant. It varies with x and h.
> > > It does not vary because the slopes of those secant lines haven't changed in past perpetuity and continue to be the same indefinitely. Of course their slopes are different to each other! BUT this does not mean they *change*! To change would require that any one secant line has more than one slope! Absurd.
> > >
> > > The identity is TRUE for each secant line. You cannot change the constant Q(x,h) for ANY of the secant lines that it applies to for otherwise the identity is not true, meaning the Left hand side =/= right hand side.
> > >
> > > > KON
> > Using your argument I could say that the function f(x) = 2x is a constant,
> Look again Kony: If f(x) = x^2 then f'(x)=2x and Q(x,h)=h from [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
>
> Now let's say x = 1.
>
> If h = 1 then [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = 2(1) + 1 = 3 which is the slope of the non-parallel secant line between points (1,1) and (2, 4).
>
> Secant line slope = (4-1)/(2-1) = 3
>
> If you try to put a different Q(x,h) in the above, say h=4, then 3 =/= 2(1)+4 = 6
>
> Get it now? Q(x,h) is a CONSTANT for any given non-parallel secant line. In other words, no secant line can have more than one slope.

What the fraudulent mainstream formulation claims is that you can vary the constant Q(x,h).

I'm sorry, but you can't! Because if you do, then the identity [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h) is no longer true. This cannot be since the geometric theorem tells us it is so.

> > because for every number x I choose the function gives a constant number. x = 1 gives the constant f(1) = 2 and x = 3 gives f(3) = 6. Do you really mean this?
> >
> > KON

konyberg wrote:
> lørdag 24. juli 2021 kl. 13:55:47 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
....
> Using your argument I could say that the function f(x) = 2x is a constant, because for every number x I choose the function gives a constant number. x = 1 gives the constant f(1) = 2 and x = 3 gives f(3) = 6. Do you really mean this?

John probably don't even know what he means by this as he tries to
deduce something from such a empty statement.

Fact is that nothing he states means any more than "for given a and b,
a+b has a given single value", which is an utter triviality. He shares
a cognitive dissonance with Crank Wolfgang Mueckenheim, from Hoschschule
Augsburg, who pretends to be able to deduce anything from "any natural
number n belong to a finite set" (sure, Wolfgang, whatever belongs to
the finite set { whatever }, big deal!)

On Saturday, 24 July 2021 at 11:41:20 UTC-4, Psychopath Jean Pierre Messager aka YBM aka JPM aka Python wrote:
> konyberg wrote:
> > lørdag 24. juli 2021 kl. 13:55:47 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> ...
> > Using your argument I could say that the function f(x) = 2x is a constant, because for every number x I choose the function gives a constant number. x = 1 gives the constant f(1) = 2 and x = 3 gives f(3) = 6. Do you really mean this?

It's pretty obvious that the above is NOT what is meant and there is no analogy to the above. f(x) above is a function, but [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h is a SLOPE.. Functions are expected to have different outputs for given inputs, but secant line slopes have only one property - their slopes. Chuckle. Now crank Messager has been told this many times. For some reason, he completely ignores it.

Moral of the story is that every secant line has EXACTLY one slope which does not change. The general slope expression for these secant lines is [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h. Here, there are TWO inputs: x and h. Only one (x,h) pair works for each secant line, therefore Q(x,h) is CONSTANT for any given secant line. Nothing difficult about this.

>
> Fact is that ...

everything I state is TRUE, rational and exposes YOUR stupidity which you obviously despise. Sorry, can't help you, but this is how it will continue to be.

On Saturday, 24 July 2021 at 12:08:53 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Saturday, 24 July 2021 at 11:41:20 UTC-4, Psychopath Jean Pierre Messager aka YBM aka JPM aka Python wrote:
> > konyberg wrote:
> > > lørdag 24. juli 2021 kl. 13:55:47 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > ...
> > > Using your argument I could say that the function f(x) = 2x is a constant, because for every number x I choose the function gives a constant number. x = 1 gives the constant f(1) = 2 and x = 3 gives f(3) = 6. Do you really mean this?
> It's pretty obvious that the above is NOT what is meant and there is no analogy to the above. f(x) above is a function, but [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h is a SLOPE. Functions are expected to have different outputs for given inputs, but secant line slopes have only one property - their slopes. Chuckle. Now crank Messager has been told this many times. For some reason, he completely ignores it.
>
> Moral of the story is that every secant line has EXACTLY one slope which does not change. The general slope expression for these secant lines is [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h. Here, there are TWO inputs: x and h. Only one (x,h) pair works for each secant line, therefore Q(x,h) is CONSTANT for any given secant line. Nothing difficult about this.

Heck, come to think of it, their is NO change either for any function f(x) since the given exes are fixed and so are the outputs. NOTHING is changing anywhere. LMAO

>
> >
> > Fact is that ...
>
> everything I state is TRUE, rational and exposes YOUR stupidity which you obviously despise. Sorry, can't help you, but this is how it will continue to be.

On Saturday, 24 July 2021 at 12:10:37 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Saturday, 24 July 2021 at 12:08:53 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Saturday, 24 July 2021 at 11:41:20 UTC-4, Psychopath Jean Pierre Messager aka YBM aka JPM aka Python wrote:
> > > konyberg wrote:
> > > > lørdag 24. juli 2021 kl. 13:55:47 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > ...
> > > > Using your argument I could say that the function f(x) = 2x is a constant, because for every number x I choose the function gives a constant number. x = 1 gives the constant f(1) = 2 and x = 3 gives f(3) = 6.. Do you really mean this?
> > It's pretty obvious that the above is NOT what is meant and there is no analogy to the above. f(x) above is a function, but [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h is a SLOPE. Functions are expected to have different outputs for given inputs, but secant line slopes have only one property - their slopes. Chuckle. Now crank Messager has been told this many times. For some reason, he completely ignores it.
> >
> > Moral of the story is that every secant line has EXACTLY one slope which does not change. The general slope expression for these secant lines is [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h. Here, there are TWO inputs: x and h. Only one (x,h) pair works for each secant line, therefore Q(x,h) is CONSTANT for any given secant line. Nothing difficult about this.
> Heck, come to think of it, their is NO change either for any function f(x) since the given exes are fixed and so are the outputs. NOTHING is changing anywhere. LMAO
> >
> > >
> > > Fact is that ...
> >
> > everything I state is TRUE, rational and exposes YOUR stupidity which you obviously despise. Sorry, can't help you, but this is how it will continue to be.

What makes mainstream academics reveal their idiocy is that they imagine they can make Q(x,h) as small as they please. Chuckle. Well, the syphilitic thinking here is that somehow Q(x,h) will disappear, but this NEVER happens.. There is no secant line with pair (x,0). Tsk, tsk.

On Saturday, 24 July 2021 at 12:13:02 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Saturday, 24 July 2021 at 12:10:37 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Saturday, 24 July 2021 at 12:08:53 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > On Saturday, 24 July 2021 at 11:41:20 UTC-4, Psychopath Jean Pierre Messager aka YBM aka JPM aka Python wrote:
> > > > konyberg wrote:
> > > > > lørdag 24. juli 2021 kl. 13:55:47 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > ...
> > > > > Using your argument I could say that the function f(x) = 2x is a constant, because for every number x I choose the function gives a constant number. x = 1 gives the constant f(1) = 2 and x = 3 gives f(3) = 6. Do you really mean this?
> > > It's pretty obvious that the above is NOT what is meant and there is no analogy to the above. f(x) above is a function, but [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h is a SLOPE. Functions are expected to have different outputs for given inputs, but secant line slopes have only one property - their slopes. Chuckle. Now crank Messager has been told this many times. For some reason, he completely ignores it.
> > >
> > > Moral of the story is that every secant line has EXACTLY one slope which does not change. The general slope expression for these secant lines is [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h. Here, there are TWO inputs: x and h. Only one (x,h) pair works for each secant line, therefore Q(x,h) is CONSTANT for any given secant line. Nothing difficult about this.
> > Heck, come to think of it, their is NO change either for any function f(x) since the given exes are fixed and so are the outputs. NOTHING is changing anywhere. LMAO
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Fact is that ...
> > >
> > > everything I state is TRUE, rational and exposes YOUR stupidity which you obviously despise. Sorry, can't help you, but this is how it will continue to be.
> What makes mainstream academics reveal their idiocy is that they imagine they can make Q(x,h) as small as they please. Chuckle. Well, the syphilitic thinking here is that somehow Q(x,h) will disappear, but this NEVER happens. There is no secant line with pair (x,0). Tsk, tsk.

One last comment: It's hilarious that baboons talk about change because the domain and range of a function are supposedly well-defined "sets" even in their idiotic theories. So do these sets change? Eyes rolling....

Eram semper recta wrote:

> Agreed. But normally a human is born with a brain that can analyse FACTS
> and EVIDENCE. This is a simple two-step guide to reaching correct
> conclusions.
>
> 1. Transmission Electron Microscope proves the virus exists in tissue.
> Conclusion: It's not a hoax.
> 2 Statistics reveals millions of people dead in short time.
> Conclusion:
> We have a pandemic.

Amazing you can so stupid in so many areas. I worked in nano-labs, You
have no idea how an electron microscope etc looks like.

They never isolated any virus, nor proved that it can infect cells and
reproduce, let alone being a cause of certain disease. We write 2021 and
still all symptoms in the world are "covid". Influenza A and B are
corona, about 100 of variants, part of the immune system.

The covid-19 test kits fabricated and sold starting 2017, testing on
computer generated RNA sequences.

It didn't passed Kogh postulates. Impossible to infect all countries in a
mater of 1 week. Use your brain, ff sake! The oxygen in air and UV
destroy any crap they *pretend* they cooked in those nano-laboratories.

When it comes to nano, you come to me.

Large or small droplets, what will the oxygen do? Nothing.

We highlight that the potential for superspreading of SARS-CoV-2, t
hat is characterized by a large variance (overdispersion) in the
number of secondary infections generated by one infected
individual (Riou and Althaus 2020), underlines the likely contribution

of aerosol-based transmission as it has also been described
(albeit to a larger extent) for the related viruses SARS- CoV
(Lloyd-Smith et al. 2005) and MERS-CoV (Kucharski and Althaus 2015).
It should not be concluded from this evidence that aerosol-based

transmission is limited to superspreading events. The reason for
this is that only for such superspreading events is it possible
to attribute transmission to aerosols with reasonably large
confidence, whereas for regular-spreading events it remains

difficult to distinguish between the large-droplet and the
aerosol mode. It appears likely that a fraction of the close-
proximity infections are caused not just by larger droplets,
but also by aerosols, or by a combination of the two. In this

latter case, the distinction between large droplets and aerosols
does not substantially affect the required prevention measures.

https://sciencetaskforce.ch/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/The_role_of_aerosols_in_SARS-CoV-2Transmission29Oct20-EN.pdf

Chuck Obrien schrieb am Samstag, 24. Juli 2021 um 19:23:11 UTC+2:
> mater of 1 week. Use your brain, ff sake! The oxygen in air and UV
> destroy any crap they *pretend* they cooked in those nano-laboratories.

Mostowski Collapse wrote:

> Large or small droplets, what will the oxygen do? Nothing.

Idiot, oxygen is highly reactive, Einstein proved it, "pollen in water
experiment". A few more percent in air of a laboratory may start a fire.
Oxygen eats everything, even Iron and most of the metals. You just
display you ignorance.

An aerosol is a suspension of fine solid particles or liquid droplets
in air or another gas. Aerosols can be natural or anthropogenic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerosol

If you want to infect some of your neighboughrs at the next flight,
I suggest to bring a vuvuzela on board next time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vR7q6DwYCGw

LoL

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 24. Juli 2021 um 19:44:43 UTC+2:
> Large or small droplets, what will the oxygen do? Nothing.
>
> We highlight that the potential for superspreading of SARS-CoV-2, t
> hat is characterized by a large variance (overdispersion) in the
> number of secondary infections generated by one infected
> individual (Riou and Althaus 2020), underlines the likely contribution
>
> of aerosol-based transmission as it has also been described
> (albeit to a larger extent) for the related viruses SARS- CoV
> (Lloyd-Smith et al. 2005) and MERS-CoV (Kucharski and Althaus 2015).
> It should not be concluded from this evidence that aerosol-based
>
> transmission is limited to superspreading events. The reason for
> this is that only for such superspreading events is it possible
> to attribute transmission to aerosols with reasonably large
> confidence, whereas for regular-spreading events it remains
>
> difficult to distinguish between the large-droplet and the
> aerosol mode. It appears likely that a fraction of the close-
> proximity infections are caused not just by larger droplets,
> but also by aerosols, or by a combination of the two. In this
>
> latter case, the distinction between large droplets and aerosols
> does not substantially affect the required prevention measures.
>
> https://sciencetaskforce.ch/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/The_role_of_aerosols_in_SARS-CoV-2Transmission29Oct20-EN.pdf
> Chuck Obrien schrieb am Samstag, 24. Juli 2021 um 19:23:11 UTC+2:
> > mater of 1 week. Use your brain, ff sake! The oxygen in air and UV
> > destroy any crap they *pretend* they cooked in those nano-laboratories.

Mostowski Collapse wrote:

> An aerosol is a suspension of fine solid particles or liquid droplets in
> air or another gas. Aerosols can be natural or anthropogenic.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerosol

Idiot, you just display you ignorance. It's about the oxygen and UV, use
your brain, if applicable. Any nano *structure*, especially organic
compounds is disintegrated *room_temp* in a mater of *microseconds*.
That's why those crap vaccines are to be preserved -30 degrees deep
freeze.

Some bacteria like oxygen dissolved in water. Water without
oxygen is kind of dead. Whether an aerosol has exceptional
fraction oxygen dissolved in it I dont know, whether it would harm

viruses, I dont know. air itself doesn't have so much oxygen.
Physico chemical the concentration of dissolved oxygen seems
to be inversely related to water temperature:

By volume, dry air contains 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen,
0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

Dissolved Oxygen and Water
https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/science/dissolved-oxygen-and-water?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects

I am assuming that the droplets are mainly water. Thats
also what humans are sweating. Its 99% water.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 24. Juli 2021 um 19:52:46 UTC+2:
> An aerosol is a suspension of fine solid particles or liquid droplets
> in air or another gas. Aerosols can be natural or anthropogenic.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerosol
>
> If you want to infect some of your neighboughrs at the next flight,
> I suggest to bring a vuvuzela on board next time:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vR7q6DwYCGw
>
> LoL
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 24. Juli 2021 um 19:44:43 UTC+2:
> > Large or small droplets, what will the oxygen do? Nothing.
> >
> > We highlight that the potential for superspreading of SARS-CoV-2, t
> > hat is characterized by a large variance (overdispersion) in the
> > number of secondary infections generated by one infected
> > individual (Riou and Althaus 2020), underlines the likely contribution
> >
> > of aerosol-based transmission as it has also been described
> > (albeit to a larger extent) for the related viruses SARS- CoV
> > (Lloyd-Smith et al. 2005) and MERS-CoV (Kucharski and Althaus 2015).
> > It should not be concluded from this evidence that aerosol-based
> >
> > transmission is limited to superspreading events. The reason for
> > this is that only for such superspreading events is it possible
> > to attribute transmission to aerosols with reasonably large
> > confidence, whereas for regular-spreading events it remains
> >
> > difficult to distinguish between the large-droplet and the
> > aerosol mode. It appears likely that a fraction of the close-
> > proximity infections are caused not just by larger droplets,
> > but also by aerosols, or by a combination of the two. In this
> >
> > latter case, the distinction between large droplets and aerosols
> > does not substantially affect the required prevention measures.
> >
> > https://sciencetaskforce.ch/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/The_role_of_aerosols_in_SARS-CoV-2Transmission29Oct20-EN.pdf
> > Chuck Obrien schrieb am Samstag, 24. Juli 2021 um 19:23:11 UTC+2:
> > > mater of 1 week. Use your brain, ff sake! The oxygen in air and UV
> > > destroy any crap they *pretend* they cooked in those nano-laboratories.

Mostowski Collapse wrote:

> Some bacteria like oxygen dissolved in water. Water without oxygen is
> kind of dead. Whether an aerosol has exceptional fraction oxygen
> dissolved in it I dont know, whether it would harm
>
> viruses, I dont know. air itself doesn't have so much oxygen.
> Physico chemical the concentration of dissolved oxygen seems to be
> inversely related to water temperature:

DOes not matter, if Oxygen is present, water, air etc, it would be highly
reactive. That's why for instance, in nano-tech Gold is used, and not
Silver. (silver better conductivity).

The vaccines dont do anything against aerosol. A vaccine
trains the immune system, in that it simulates an infection.
The immune response takes a couple of weeks to complete

and runs through different stages. The body will produce
different forms of immoglubine and different cells will
participate, until it has formed an immune response memory.

This means after vaccination, you should still wear a mask.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 24. Juli 2021 um 20:06:23 UTC+2:
> Some bacteria like oxygen dissolved in water. Water without
> oxygen is kind of dead. Whether an aerosol has exceptional
> fraction oxygen dissolved in it I dont know, whether it would harm
>
> viruses, I dont know. air itself doesn't have so much oxygen.
> Physico chemical the concentration of dissolved oxygen seems
> to be inversely related to water temperature:
>
> By volume, dry air contains 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen,
> 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
>
> Dissolved Oxygen and Water
> https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/science/dissolved-oxygen-and-water?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects
>
> I am assuming that the droplets are mainly water. Thats
> also what humans are sweating. Its 99% water.
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 24. Juli 2021 um 19:52:46 UTC+2:
> > An aerosol is a suspension of fine solid particles or liquid droplets
> > in air or another gas. Aerosols can be natural or anthropogenic.
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerosol
> >
> > If you want to infect some of your neighboughrs at the next flight,
> > I suggest to bring a vuvuzela on board next time:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vR7q6DwYCGw
> >
> > LoL
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 24. Juli 2021 um 19:44:43 UTC+2:
> > > Large or small droplets, what will the oxygen do? Nothing.
> > >
> > > We highlight that the potential for superspreading of SARS-CoV-2, t
> > > hat is characterized by a large variance (overdispersion) in the
> > > number of secondary infections generated by one infected
> > > individual (Riou and Althaus 2020), underlines the likely contribution
> > >
> > > of aerosol-based transmission as it has also been described
> > > (albeit to a larger extent) for the related viruses SARS- CoV
> > > (Lloyd-Smith et al. 2005) and MERS-CoV (Kucharski and Althaus 2015).
> > > It should not be concluded from this evidence that aerosol-based
> > >
> > > transmission is limited to superspreading events. The reason for
> > > this is that only for such superspreading events is it possible
> > > to attribute transmission to aerosols with reasonably large
> > > confidence, whereas for regular-spreading events it remains
> > >
> > > difficult to distinguish between the large-droplet and the
> > > aerosol mode. It appears likely that a fraction of the close-
> > > proximity infections are caused not just by larger droplets,
> > > but also by aerosols, or by a combination of the two. In this
> > >
> > > latter case, the distinction between large droplets and aerosols
> > > does not substantially affect the required prevention measures.
> > >
> > > https://sciencetaskforce.ch/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/The_role_of_aerosols_in_SARS-CoV-2Transmission29Oct20-EN.pdf
> > > Chuck Obrien schrieb am Samstag, 24. Juli 2021 um 19:23:11 UTC+2:
> > > > mater of 1 week. Use your brain, ff sake! The oxygen in air and UV
> > > > destroy any crap they *pretend* they cooked in those nano-laboratories.

How does ModeRNA work? Nano Particls and more:

The mRNA-1273 is encoded to trigger the cell into
making a specific protein using the cell's normal
manufacturing process. The vaccine encodes a version
of the spike protein with a modification called 2P,
in which the protein includes two stabilizing mutations
in which the original amino acids are replaced with
prolines, developed by researchers at the University
of Texas at Austin and the National Institute of
Allergy and Infectious Diseases' Vaccine Research Center.
Once the protein is expelled from the cell, it is
eventually detected by the immune system, which begins
generating efficacious antibodies. The mRNA-1273 drug
delivery system uses a PEGylated lipid nanoparticle
drug delivery (LNP) system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderna_COVID-19_vaccine#Pharmacology

With or without "self-amplifying"?

Basic mRNA vaccine pharmacology

mRNA is the intermediate step between the translation
of protein-encoding DNA and the production of proteins
by ribosomes in the cytoplasm. Two major types of RNA
are currently studied as vaccines: non-replicating
mRNA and virally derived, self-amplifying RNA. Conventional
mRNA-based vaccines encode the antigen of interest and
contain 5′ and 3′ untranslated regions (UTRs), whereas
self-amplifying RNAs encode not only the antigen but
also the viral replication machinery that enables
intracellular RNA amplification and abundant protein
expression.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 24. Juli 2021 um 20:10:45 UTC+2:
> The vaccines dont do anything against aerosol. A vaccine
> trains the immune system, in that it simulates an infection.
> The immune response takes a couple of weeks to complete
>
> and runs through different stages. The body will produce
> different forms of immoglubine and different cells will
> participate, until it has formed an immune response memory.
>
> This means after vaccination, you should still wear a mask.
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 24. Juli 2021 um 20:06:23 UTC+2:
> > Some bacteria like oxygen dissolved in water. Water without
> > oxygen is kind of dead. Whether an aerosol has exceptional
> > fraction oxygen dissolved in it I dont know, whether it would harm
> >
> > viruses, I dont know. air itself doesn't have so much oxygen.
> > Physico chemical the concentration of dissolved oxygen seems
> > to be inversely related to water temperature:
> >
> > By volume, dry air contains 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen,
> > 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases.
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
> >
> > Dissolved Oxygen and Water
> > https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/science/dissolved-oxygen-and-water?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects
> >
> > I am assuming that the droplets are mainly water. Thats
> > also what humans are sweating. Its 99% water.
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 24. Juli 2021 um 19:52:46 UTC+2:
> > > An aerosol is a suspension of fine solid particles or liquid droplets
> > > in air or another gas. Aerosols can be natural or anthropogenic.
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerosol
> > >
> > > If you want to infect some of your neighboughrs at the next flight,
> > > I suggest to bring a vuvuzela on board next time:
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vR7q6DwYCGw
> > >
> > > LoL
> > > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 24. Juli 2021 um 19:44:43 UTC+2:
> > > > Large or small droplets, what will the oxygen do? Nothing.
> > > >
> > > > We highlight that the potential for superspreading of SARS-CoV-2, t
> > > > hat is characterized by a large variance (overdispersion) in the
> > > > number of secondary infections generated by one infected
> > > > individual (Riou and Althaus 2020), underlines the likely contribution
> > > >
> > > > of aerosol-based transmission as it has also been described
> > > > (albeit to a larger extent) for the related viruses SARS- CoV
> > > > (Lloyd-Smith et al. 2005) and MERS-CoV (Kucharski and Althaus 2015)..
> > > > It should not be concluded from this evidence that aerosol-based
> > > >
> > > > transmission is limited to superspreading events. The reason for
> > > > this is that only for such superspreading events is it possible
> > > > to attribute transmission to aerosols with reasonably large
> > > > confidence, whereas for regular-spreading events it remains
> > > >
> > > > difficult to distinguish between the large-droplet and the
> > > > aerosol mode. It appears likely that a fraction of the close-
> > > > proximity infections are caused not just by larger droplets,
> > > > but also by aerosols, or by a combination of the two. In this
> > > >
> > > > latter case, the distinction between large droplets and aerosols
> > > > does not substantially affect the required prevention measures.
> > > >
> > > > https://sciencetaskforce.ch/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/The_role_of_aerosols_in_SARS-CoV-2Transmission29Oct20-EN.pdf
> > > > Chuck Obrien schrieb am Samstag, 24. Juli 2021 um 19:23:11 UTC+2:
> > > > > mater of 1 week. Use your brain, ff sake! The oxygen in air and UV
> > > > > destroy any crap they *pretend* they cooked in those nano-laboratories.

Nano technology, biological/medical nano technology, is
used for the drug delivery. Because unprotected the mRNA
would be destroyed by the recipient of the vaccine, before

it can enter the cells, and also the cell uptake wouldn't be
that good, its also optimized towards cell uptake. When
inside the cell, the cell uses the mRNA to produce the antigen.

Which then triggers the immune system.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 24. Juli 2021 um 20:14:24 UTC+2:
> How does ModeRNA work? Nano Particls and more:
>
> The mRNA-1273 is encoded to trigger the cell into
> making a specific protein using the cell's normal
> manufacturing process. The vaccine encodes a version
> of the spike protein with a modification called 2P,
> in which the protein includes two stabilizing mutations
> in which the original amino acids are replaced with
> prolines, developed by researchers at the University
> of Texas at Austin and the National Institute of
> Allergy and Infectious Diseases' Vaccine Research Center.
> Once the protein is expelled from the cell, it is
> eventually detected by the immune system, which begins
> generating efficacious antibodies. The mRNA-1273 drug
> delivery system uses a PEGylated lipid nanoparticle
> drug delivery (LNP) system.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderna_COVID-19_vaccine#Pharmacology
>
> With or without "self-amplifying"?
>
> Basic mRNA vaccine pharmacology
>
> mRNA is the intermediate step between the translation
> of protein-encoding DNA and the production of proteins
> by ribosomes in the cytoplasm. Two major types of RNA
> are currently studied as vaccines: non-replicating
> mRNA and virally derived, self-amplifying RNA. Conventional
> mRNA-based vaccines encode the antigen of interest and
> contain 5′ and 3′ untranslated regions (UTRs), whereas
> self-amplifying RNAs encode not only the antigen but
> also the viral replication machinery that enables
> intracellular RNA amplification and abundant protein
> expression.
> https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 24. Juli 2021 um 20:10:45 UTC+2:
> > The vaccines dont do anything against aerosol. A vaccine
> > trains the immune system, in that it simulates an infection.
> > The immune response takes a couple of weeks to complete
> >
> > and runs through different stages. The body will produce
> > different forms of immoglubine and different cells will
> > participate, until it has formed an immune response memory.
> >
> > This means after vaccination, you should still wear a mask.
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 24. Juli 2021 um 20:06:23 UTC+2:
> > > Some bacteria like oxygen dissolved in water. Water without
> > > oxygen is kind of dead. Whether an aerosol has exceptional
> > > fraction oxygen dissolved in it I dont know, whether it would harm
> > >
> > > viruses, I dont know. air itself doesn't have so much oxygen.
> > > Physico chemical the concentration of dissolved oxygen seems
> > > to be inversely related to water temperature:
> > >
> > > By volume, dry air contains 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen,
> > > 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases.
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
> > >
> > > Dissolved Oxygen and Water
> > > https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/science/dissolved-oxygen-and-water?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects
> > >
> > > I am assuming that the droplets are mainly water. Thats
> > > also what humans are sweating. Its 99% water.
> > > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 24. Juli 2021 um 19:52:46 UTC+2:
> > > > An aerosol is a suspension of fine solid particles or liquid droplets
> > > > in air or another gas. Aerosols can be natural or anthropogenic.
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerosol
> > > >
> > > > If you want to infect some of your neighboughrs at the next flight,
> > > > I suggest to bring a vuvuzela on board next time:
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vR7q6DwYCGw
> > > >
> > > > LoL
> > > > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Samstag, 24. Juli 2021 um 19:44:43 UTC+2:
> > > > > Large or small droplets, what will the oxygen do? Nothing.
> > > > >
> > > > > We highlight that the potential for superspreading of SARS-CoV-2, t
> > > > > hat is characterized by a large variance (overdispersion) in the
> > > > > number of secondary infections generated by one infected
> > > > > individual (Riou and Althaus 2020), underlines the likely contribution
> > > > >
> > > > > of aerosol-based transmission as it has also been described
> > > > > (albeit to a larger extent) for the related viruses SARS- CoV
> > > > > (Lloyd-Smith et al. 2005) and MERS-CoV (Kucharski and Althaus 2015).
> > > > > It should not be concluded from this evidence that aerosol-based
> > > > >
> > > > > transmission is limited to superspreading events. The reason for
> > > > > this is that only for such superspreading events is it possible
> > > > > to attribute transmission to aerosols with reasonably large
> > > > > confidence, whereas for regular-spreading events it remains
> > > > >
> > > > > difficult to distinguish between the large-droplet and the
> > > > > aerosol mode. It appears likely that a fraction of the close-
> > > > > proximity infections are caused not just by larger droplets,
> > > > > but also by aerosols, or by a combination of the two. In this
> > > > >
> > > > > latter case, the distinction between large droplets and aerosols
> > > > > does not substantially affect the required prevention measures.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://sciencetaskforce.ch/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/The_role_of_aerosols_in_SARS-CoV-2Transmission29Oct20-EN.pdf
> > > > > Chuck Obrien schrieb am Samstag, 24. Juli 2021 um 19:23:11 UTC+2:
> > > > > > mater of 1 week. Use your brain, ff sake! The oxygen in air and UV
> > > > > > destroy any crap they *pretend* they cooked in those nano-laboratories.