*
For anyone interested in Mathematics, please take a look at this site:

https://www.cantorsparadise.com/meet-the-greatest-mathematician-probably-of-the-decade-eb06d5aa3caa

I especially invite Archimedes Plutonium to read this reference and comment.

Thanks,

earle
*

Why is UCLA Terence Tao a failure in math and physics, cannot even take 9 times 105 and see that it is 945? I mean, well, why ever bother with the mindless Weinberg-Glashow-Gell-Mann Standard Model nonsense of physics, as some sort of Algebra, when you cannot do 9x105=945 and interpret it correctly of what you have done in physics.

Tao cannot even take a paper scroll it into a cone and drop a Kerr lid inside and see the slant is a oval, never the ellipse for which even a High School student can witness and prove. No, Tao is a muddle headed fruitcake of mathematics that runs and hides when he hears AP discovered the truth behind the conic slant cut.

Much the same problem with Marcela Carena of Fermi Natl. Lab with the excessive muon spin as reported in Scientific American, Oct2021. Not able to ask the most simple and basic question of physics, which is the atom's true real electron is it the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus or is it the 0.5MeV particle that AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole. No, Marcela Carena and John Baez rather listen to a herd community, rather than practice and do physics with a logical mind-- ask the simple questions and do the logical experiments from those logical questions.

Physics, left up to Baez and his buddies of Weinberg, Glashow, Gell-Mann, Peter Higgs, Ed Witten those buddies are comfortable with a electron at 0.5MeV, proton at 938MeV, neutron at 940MeV and all three of them as "do nothing particles" with the amazing audacity of saying the 0.5MeV particle flys around the outside of a 938MeV proton at nearly the speed of light 99.99% speed of light, yet never flys off. For Baez, and his buddies never understood Angular Momentum. Never could interpret 9 x 105 = 938 or 940 within Sigma Error.

But then along comes AP, and says-- sigma error is important in physics and use it.

AP says-- you cannot have "do nothing particles in physics".

AP says-- the true electron of atoms is the muon and stuck inside a 840MeV proton doing the Faraday law by producing Dirac magnetic monopoles such as the 0.5MeV dipole as electricity.

Is John Baez or Sheldon Glashow or Peter Higgs or Ed Witten still able to learn in science, or are they just complete washed up and washed out. Are they complete wash out failures of physics? Probably complete failures because they cannot even muster the intelligence of dropping a Kerr or Mason lid inside a folded up paper cone and acknowledge something as simple as what a High School student can prove, that a slant cut in cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, (see AP books below). Yet that is what the "pack of fools Baez, Glashow, Higgs, Witten" still teach their electron is 0.5MeV, their ellipse is slant cut in cone, but probably worst of all, these bozos still teach the Boole logic of 2 OR 1= 3 with AND as subtraction. Imagine that, physics professors who cannot even think logically correct, no wonder they are incapable of 9 x 105.

..
.- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
, . `.' ' `.
.' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
. ; .' . `. ;
; . ' `. . '
. ' ` `. |
. '. '
. 0 0 ' `.
' `
; `
.' `
; U `
; '; `
: | ;.. :` `
: `;. ```. .-; | '
'. ` ``.., .' :' '
; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' Hi, I am Terence Tao, who when hearing of AP's proof that slant cut in cone is truly a Oval, never the ellipse, I did the biggest no, no you can ever do in science, for I went into a run and hide mode, run Terry, hide Terry, rather than do the experiment. I bent over backwards to redefine the ellipse in order to deny AP credit of a discovery. For I, Terence Tao feels it more important to suppress the truth in science than to acknowledge the truth, and my brethren Andrew Wiles, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell seem to all feel the same way-- suppress truth of science and run and hide, hide and run.

` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` `. ````'''''' ' '
` . ' '
/ ` `. ' ' .
/ ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
/ .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
/ .'' ; ` .' `
...'.' ; .' ` .' `
"" .' .' | ` .; \ `
; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
:' | ' ` , `. `
| ' ` ' `. `
` ' ` ; `. |
`.' ` ; `-'
`...'

3rd published book

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.

Length: 21 pages

File Size: 1620 KB
Print Length: 21 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

#8-2, 11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 19May2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.

Length: 137 pages

Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1307 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 137 pages
Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

74th published book

HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

In 2016-2017, AP discovered that the real proton has a mass of 840 MeV, not 938. The real electron was actually the muon and the muon stays inside the proton that forms a proton torus of 8 rings and with the muon as bar magnet is a Faraday Law producing magnetic monopoles. So this book is all about why researchers of physics and engineers keep getting the number 938MeV when they should be getting the number 840 MeV + 105 MeV = 945 MeV.

måndag 27 september 2021 kl. 23:05:37 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> Why is UCLA Terence Tao a failure in math and physics, cannot even take 9 times 105 and see that it is 945? I mean, well, why ever bother with the mindless Weinberg-Glashow-Gell-Mann Standard Model nonsense of physics, as some sort of Algebra, when you cannot do 9x105=945 and interpret it correctly of what you have done in physics.
>
> Tao cannot even take a paper scroll it into a cone and drop a Kerr lid inside and see the slant is a oval, never the ellipse for which even a High School student can witness and prove. No, Tao is a muddle headed fruitcake of mathematics that runs and hides when he hears AP discovered the truth behind the conic slant cut.
>
> Much the same problem with Marcela Carena of Fermi Natl. Lab with the excessive muon spin as reported in Scientific American, Oct2021. Not able to ask the most simple and basic question of physics, which is the atom's true real electron is it the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus or is it the 0.5MeV particle that AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole. No, Marcela Carena and John Baez rather listen to a herd community, rather than practice and do physics with a logical mind-- ask the simple questions and do the logical experiments from those logical questions.
>
> Physics, left up to Baez and his buddies of Weinberg, Glashow, Gell-Mann, Peter Higgs, Ed Witten those buddies are comfortable with a electron at 0.5MeV, proton at 938MeV, neutron at 940MeV and all three of them as "do nothing particles" with the amazing audacity of saying the 0.5MeV particle flys around the outside of a 938MeV proton at nearly the speed of light 99.99% speed of light, yet never flys off. For Baez, and his buddies never understood Angular Momentum. Never could interpret 9 x 105 = 938 or 940 within Sigma Error.
>
> But then along comes AP, and says-- sigma error is important in physics and use it.
>
> AP says-- you cannot have "do nothing particles in physics".
>
> AP says-- the true electron of atoms is the muon and stuck inside a 840MeV proton doing the Faraday law by producing Dirac magnetic monopoles such as the 0.5MeV dipole as electricity.
>
> Is John Baez or Sheldon Glashow or Peter Higgs or Ed Witten still able to learn in science, or are they just complete washed up and washed out. Are they complete wash out failures of physics? Probably complete failures because they cannot even muster the intelligence of dropping a Kerr or Mason lid inside a folded up paper cone and acknowledge something as simple as what a High School student can prove, that a slant cut in cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, (see AP books below). Yet that is what the "pack of fools Baez, Glashow, Higgs, Witten" still teach their electron is 0.5MeV, their ellipse is slant cut in cone, but probably worst of all, these bozos still teach the Boole logic of 2 OR 1= 3 with AND as subtraction. Imagine that, physics professors who cannot even think logically correct, no wonder they are incapable of 9 x 105.
>
>
>
>
> ..
> .- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
> , . `.' ' `.
> .' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
> . ; .' . `. ;
> ; . ' `. . '
> . ' ` `. |
> . '. '
> . 0 0 ' `.
> ' `
> ; `
> .' `
> ; U `
> ; '; `
> : | ;.. :` `
> : `;. ```. .-; | '
> '. ` ``.., .' :' '
> ; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' Hi, I am Terence Tao, who when hearing of AP's proof that slant cut in cone is truly a Oval, never the ellipse, I did the biggest no, no you can ever do in science, for I went into a run and hide mode, run Terry, hide Terry, rather than do the experiment. I bent over backwards to redefine the ellipse in order to deny AP credit of a discovery. For I, Terence Tao feels it more important to suppress the truth in science than to acknowledge the truth, and my brethren Andrew Wiles, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell seem to all feel the same way-- suppress truth of science and run and hide, hide and run.
>
> ` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
> ` ` ; ; ' '
> ` ` ; ; ' '
> ` `. ````'''''' ' '
> ` . ' '
> / ` `. ' ' .
> / ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
> / .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
> / .'' ; ` .' `
> ...'.' ; .' ` .' `
> "" .' .' | ` .; \ `
> ; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
> :' | ' ` , `. `
> | ' ` ' `. `
> ` ' ` ; `. |
> `.' ` ; `-'
> `...'
>
>
>
>
> 3rd published book
>
> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
>
> Length: 21 pages
>
> File Size: 1620 KB
> Print Length: 21 pages
> Publication Date: March 11, 2019
> Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> Language: English
> ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
> Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> X-Ray: Not Enabled
> Word Wise: Not Enabled
> Lending: Enabled
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
>
>
> #8-2, 11th published book
>
> World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 19May2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
> Preface:
> Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
>
> Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis".. To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
>
> Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
>
> Length: 137 pages
>
> Product details
> ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
> Publication date : March 14, 2019
> Language : English
> File size : 1307 KB
> Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> Screen Reader : Supported
> Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> X-Ray : Not Enabled
> Word Wise : Not Enabled
> Print length : 137 pages
> Lending : Enabled
> Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> #2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> #134 in Calculus (Books)
> #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
>
>
>
> 74th published book
>
> HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> In 2016-2017, AP discovered that the real proton has a mass of 840 MeV, not 938. The real electron was actually the muon and the muon stays inside the proton that forms a proton torus of 8 rings and with the muon as bar magnet is a Faraday Law producing magnetic monopoles. So this book is all about why researchers of physics and engineers keep getting the number 938MeV when they should be getting the number 840 MeV + 105 MeV = 945 MeV.
>
> Cover Picture is a proton torus of 8 rings with a muon of 1 ring inside the proton torus, doing the Faraday Law and producing magnetic monopoles.
> Length: 17 pages
>
> Product details
> • Publication Date : December 18, 2019
> • Word Wise : Enabled
> • Print Length : 17 pages
> • File Size : 698 KB
> • ASIN : B082WYGVNG
> • Language: : English
> • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> • Screen Reader : Supported
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Lending : Enabled
>
> #1-4, 105th published book
>
> Atom Geometry is Torus Geometry // Atom Totality series, book 4 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Since all atoms are doing the Faraday Law inside them, of their thrusting muon into a proton coil in the shape of a geometry torus, then the torus is the geometry of each and every atom. But then we must explain the neutrons since the muon and proton are doing Faraday's Law, then the neutron needs to be explained in terms of this proton torus with muon inside, all three shaped as rings. The muon is a single ring and each proton is 8 rings. The neutron is shaped like a plate and is solid not hollow. The explanation of a neutron is that of a capacitor storing what the proton-muon rings produce in electricity. Where would the neutron parallel plates be located? I argue in this text that the neutron plates when fully grown from 1 eV until 945MeV are like two parallel plate capacitors where each neutron is part of one plate, like two pieces of bread with the proton-muon torus being a hamburger patty.
>
> Cover Picture: I assembled two atoms in this picture where the proton torus with a band of muons inside traveling around and around the proton torus producing electricity. And the pie-plates represent neutrons as parallel-plate capacitors.
> Length: 39 pages
>
> Product details
> • Publication Date : March 24, 2020
> • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> • ASIN : B086BGSNXN
> • Print Length : 39 pages
> • File Size : 935 KB
> • Language: : English
> • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> • Screen Reader : Supported
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> • Lending : Enabled
> Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,656,820 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> #6413 in Mathematics (Kindle Store)
> #315 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
> #4953 in Physics (Kindle Store)
>
>
> #1-5, 112th published book
>
> New Perspective on Psi^2 in the Schrodinger Equation in a Atom Totality Universe// Atom Totality series, book 5
> Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> I first heard of the Schrodinger equation in college chemistry class. We never actually did any problem solving with the equation, and we were only told about it. Then taking physics my next year in college and after I bought the Feynman Lectures on Physics, just for fun for side reading, three volume set did I learn what this Schrodinger equation and the Psi^2 wavefunction was about. I am not going to teach the mathematics of the Schrodinger equation and the math calculations of the Psi or Psi^2 in this book, but leave that up to the reader or student to do that from Feynman's Lectures on Physics. The purpose of this book is to give a new and different interpretation of what Psi^2 is, what Psi^2 means. Correct interpretation of physics experiments and observations turns out to be one of the most difficult tasks in all of physics.
>
> Cover Picture: a photograph taken of me in 1993, after the discovery of Plutonium Atom Totality, and I was 43 years old then, on a wintery hill of New Hampshire. It is nice that Feynman wrote a physics textbook series, for I am very much benefitting from his wisdom. If he had not done that, getting organized in physics by writing textbooks, I would not be writing this book. And I would not have discovered the true meaning of the Fine Structure Constant, for it was Feynman who showed us that FSC is really 0.0854, not that of 0.0072. All because 0.0854 is Psi, and Psi^2 is 0.0072.
> Length: 20 pages
>
> Product details
> • ASIN : B0875SVDC7
> • Publication date : April 15, 2020
> • Language: : English
> • File size : 1134 KB
> • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> • Screen Reader : Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Word Wise : Enabled
> • Print length : 20 pages
> • Lending : Enabled
> • Best Sellers Rank: #240,066 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #5 in 30-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> ◦ #65 in General Chemistry & Reference
> ◦ #481 in Physics (Kindle Store)
>
> #1-6, 135th published book
>
> QED in Atom Totality theory where proton is a 8 ring torus and electron = muon inside proton doing Faraday Law// Atom Totality series, book 6 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> Since the real true electron of atoms is the muon and is a one ring bar magnet thrusting through the 8 ring torus of a proton, we need a whole entire new model of the hydrogen atom. Because the Bohr model with the 0.5MeV particle jumping orbitals as the explanation of Spectral Lines is all wrong. In this vacuum of explaining spectral line physics, comes the AP Model which simply states that the hydrogen atom creates Spectral lines because at any one instant of time 4 of the 8 proton rings is "in view" and the electricity coming from those 4 view rings creates spectral line physics.
>
> Cover Picture: Is a imitation of the 8 ring proton torus, with my fingers holding on the proton ring that has the muon ring perpendicular and in the equatorial plane of the proton rings, thrusting through. This muon ring is the same size as the 8 proton rings making 9 x 105MeV = 945MeV of energy.. The muon ring has to be perpendicular and lie on the equator of the proton torus. Surrounding the proton-torus would be neutrons as skin or coating cover and act as capacitors in storing the electricity produced by the proton+muon.
>
>
> Product details
> • ASIN : B08K47K5BB
> • Publication date : September 25, 2020
> • Language : English
> • File size : 587 KB
> • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> • Screen Reader : Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> • Print length : 25 pages
> • Lending : Enabled
> • Best Sellers Rank: #291,001 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #13 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> ◦ #52 in General Chemistry & Reference
> ◦ #334 in General Chemistry
>
>
>
> #1-7, 138th published book
> The true NUCLEUS of Atoms are inner toruses moving around in circles of a larger outer torus// Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden Experiment revisited // Atom Totality Series, book 7 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> The geometry of Atoms of the Table of Chemical Elements is torus geometry.. We know this to be true for the torus geometry forms the maximum electricity production when using the Faraday Law. We see this in Old Physics with their tokamak toruses attempting to make fusion, by accelerating particles of the highest possible acceleration for the torus is that geometry. But the torus is the geometry not only of maximum acceleration but of maximum electrical generation by having a speeding bar magnet go around and around inside a torus== the Faraday law, where the torus rings are the copper closed wire loop. The protons of atoms are 8 loops of rings in a torus geometry, and the electron of atoms is the muon as bar magnet, almost the same size as the proton loops but small enough to fit inside proton loops. It is torus geometry that we investigate the geometry of all atoms.
> Length: 41 pages
>
> Product details
> • Publication Date : October 9, 2020
> • File Size : 828 KB
> • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> • Print Length : 41 pages
> • ASIN : B08KZT5TCD
> • Language: : English
> • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> • Screen Reader : Supported
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Lending : Enabled
>
> #1-8, 1st published book
>
> Atom Totality Universe, 8th edition, 2017// A history log book: Atom Totality Series book 8 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
>
> Last revision 7Apr2021. This was AP's first published science book.
>
> Advisory: This is a difficult book to read and is AP's research log book of the Atom Totality in 2016-2017. I want to keep it for its history value. AP advises all readers wanting to know the Plutonium Atom Totality theory to go to the 9th edition that is the latest up to date account of this theory. The reason AP wants to keep the 8th edition is because of Historical Value, for in this book, while writing it, caused the discovery of the real electron is the muon of atoms. The real proton of atoms is 840MeV and not the 938MeV that most books claim. The particle discovered by JJ Thomson in 1897 thinking he discovered the electron of atoms was actually the Dirac magnetic monopole at 0.5MeV. This discovery changes every, every science that uses atoms and electricity and magnetism, in other words, every science.
>
> Foreward:
> I wrote the 8th edition of Atom Totality and near the end of writing it in 2017, I had my second greatest physics discovery. I learned the real electron of atoms was the muon at 105MeV and not the tiny 0.5MeV particle that J.J.Thomson found in 1897. So I desperately tried to include that discovery in my 8th edition and it is quite plain to see for I tried to write paragraphs after each chapter saying as much. I knew in 2017, that it was a great discovery, changing all the hard sciences, and reframing and restructuring all the hard sciences.
> Length: 632 pages
>
>
> Product details
> File Size: 1132 KB
> Print Length: 632 pages
> Publication Date: March 11, 2019
> Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> Language: English
> ASIN: B07PLP9NDR
> Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> X-Ray: Not Enabled
> Word Wise: Enabled
> Lending: Enabled
> Screen Reader: Supported
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
> Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #578,229 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> #1610 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> #8526 in Physics (Books)
> #18851 in Biological Sciences (Books)
>
> #2-1, 137th published book
>
> Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
>
>
> #1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory
>
> This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so I can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me.
>
> Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics community updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast, as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to.
>
> Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory.
> And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
> Length: 64 pages
>
> Product details
> • File Size : 790 KB
> • Publication Date : October 5, 2020
> • Word Wise : Enabled
> • Print Length : 64 pages
> • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> • Screen Reader : Supported
> • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Language: : English
> • ASIN : B08KS4YGWY
> • Lending : Enabled
> • Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory
> ◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
> ◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
>
> #2-2, 145th published book
>
>
> TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
> Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and errors and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the halls and corridors of education.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN : B08PC99JJB
> • Publication date : November 29, 2020
> • Language: : English
> • File size : 682 KB
> • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> • Screen Reader : Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Word Wise : Enabled
> • Print length : 78 pages
> • Lending : Enabled
> • Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
> ◦ #344 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> ◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books)
>
> #2-3, 146th published book
>
> TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3
> Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science, you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the science. I further believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later years of physics courses, we can always pick up on details. So I devote this senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this textbook. Now Asimov's book is full of error and mistakes, and that is disappointing but all of Old Physics is full of error. On errors and mistakes of Old Physics, the best I can do is warn the students, and the largest warning of all is that whenever someone in Old Physics says "electron" what they are talking about is really the Dirac magnetic monopole. And whenever they talk about the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, they are talking about huge huge grave mistakes, for the true atom is protons as 8 ringed toruses with a muon stuck inside of a proton doing the Faraday law and producing those magnetic monopoles as electricity. I use Asimov's book as a template but in the future, I hope to rewrite this textbook using no template at all, that is if I have time in the future.
> Cover Picture: Is the book The History of Physics, by Isaac Asimov, 1966 and on top of the book are 4 cut-outs of bent circles representing magnetic monopoles which revolutionizes modern physics, especially the ElectroMagnetic theory.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08RK33T8V
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 28, 2020
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 794 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 123 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Best Sellers Rank: #4,167,235 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #15,099 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> ◦ #91,163 in Physics (Books)
>
> #3-1, 2nd published book
>
> True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere.
>
> Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule.
>
> Length: 1150 pages
>
>
> Product details
> • File Size : 2167 KB
> • ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ
> • Publication Date : March 11, 2019
> • Word Wise : Enabled
> • Print Length : 1150 pages
> • Language: : English
> • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Lending : Enabled
> Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> #181 in General Chemistry & Reference
> #1324 in General Chemistry
> #1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)
>
> 3rd published book
>
> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
>
> Length: 21 pages
>
> File Size: 1620 KB
> Print Length: 21 pages
> Publication Date: March 11, 2019
> Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> Language: English
> ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
> Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> X-Ray: Not Enabled
> Word Wise: Not Enabled
> Lending: Enabled
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
>
>
> 11th published book
>
> World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 19May2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
> Preface:
> Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
>
> Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis".. To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
>
> Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
>
> Length: 137 pages
>
> Product details
> ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
> Publication date : March 14, 2019
> Language : English
> File size : 1307 KB
> Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> Screen Reader : Supported
> Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> X-Ray : Not Enabled
> Word Wise : Not Enabled
> Print length : 137 pages
> Lending : Enabled
> Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> #2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> #134 in Calculus (Books)
> #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
>
>
> 5th published book
>
> Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
> Preface:
> First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
>
> The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
>
> My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
>
> Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
>
>
> Length: 72 pages
>
> File Size: 773 KB
> Print Length: 72 pages
> Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> Language: English
> ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> X-Ray: Not Enabled
> Word Wise: Not Enabled
> Lending: Enabled
> Screen Reader: Supported
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
>
> y z
> | /
> | /
> |/______ x
>
> More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci..physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.
>
> In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.
>
> I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.
>
> There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.
>
> Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> Archimedes Plutonium
tldr

On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 10:24:57 AM UTC-7, Earle Jones wrote:
> *
> For anyone interested in Mathematics, please take a look at this site:
>
> https://www.cantorsparadise.com/meet-the-greatest-mathematician-probably-of-the-decade-eb06d5aa3caa
>
> I especially invite Archimedes Plutonium to read this reference and comment.
>
> Thanks,
>
> earle
> *

"Terry" Tao is like Erdos: having published so many papers with so many authors,
many much written by Tao, Tao is a monument to output, while also having so
much co-authorship.

Erdos or Erd-ush, really is a treasure trove and there are lots of mechanics
in numbers so laying about.

Do you read the arxiv?

I suppose I might write at Phys. Rev. C or D but not sure A or B.

I mostly read.

Pretty much all the Fields' medalists I think have stayed mostly in mathematics.

Tao is truly the King of Math, if there were to be one. Pretty amazing!

On 9/27/2021 5:05 PM, Archimedes Plutonium whined:

> Why is UCLA Terence Tao a failure in math and physics, cannot

More confirmation of Tao's greatness. Just about anyone whom Plutonium
calls a 'failure' of math or science is almost guaranteed to be very
good at math or science.

Can the West really vaporize GLONASS and BeiDou satellites? How about jamming them so they come tumbling and falling back to Earth.

Terry Tao you failed on slant cut of cone, can you not fail on how many Russians get their TV and telephones from GLONASS?

How many Chinese get their TV and telephones from BeiDou? How many North Koreans use BeiDou.

If the recent report by BBC on OneWeb satellites that Humanity has 462 satellites in all in orbit-- is that true?? Only 462 satellites????

How many of the 462 satellites are GLONASS??? and How many of the 462 satellites are BeiDou????

Terry Tao, no one cares if any of these numbers are prime numbers for the insignificant Green Tao Hornswaggle, but, what we do care about, is how to ruin GLONASS and BeiDou. Any thoughts Terry? Or are you completely worthless in academia?? Earle Jones has a job offer if the answer is "yes".

Kibo more math brains than Dr.Tao-- yet Kibo Parry M still believes 938 is 12% short of 945. But Dr. Terence Tao of UCLA, runs and hides, hides and runs whenever the question arises-- is slant cut of cone a ellipse or as AP proves-- it is a Oval. No, Dr. Tao should be drummed out of math completely. For here is the awful situation of a person not in math-- Kibo Parry M. who is on his way of the "realization slant cut of cone is a OVAL, never the ellipse". Yet there you have the idiot of math Dr. Tao at UCLA, run and hide, run Terry, hide Terry. Same thing can be said of Ruth Charney the recent head of AMS, run Ruth, hide Ruth, even though your so called specialty was geometry, Ruth, Ruth, run and hide.

On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 12:51:25 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 10/23/2022 1:06 AM, Earle Jones wrote:
> > *
> > Anyone who has taught mathematics at the college freshman level (as I have at Georgia Tech as a TA) went through the fairly simple process, using analytic geometry to define what is a conic section. If you can follow this, just perform these steps: First, write the definition of a cone (in x, y, z space). It is not difficult. Then, write the equation of an inclined plane in three-space. Then, if you have done the work accurately, you can solve these two equations simultaneously. That gives the locus of all points common to the cone and the inclined plane. (This is the definition of a section.) The resulting equation will be an ellipse, a circle, a parabola, or a hyperbola, depending on the exact inclined plane you have chosen. By the way, this was first demonstrated in about 300 BC, even before the original Archmedes (not the Plutonium version.)
> >
> > earle
> > *
> Plutonium's argument is based on axes of symmetry. While his so-called
> "proof" is rambling and in no way a valid math proof, its basic argument
> is a tilted plane intersecting a cone will have the side nearest the
> apex of the cone will be smaller than the side tilting away from the
> apex, simply because the cone itself gets smaller near the apex and
> larger away from it. Thus his "proof" is that the cone isn't symmetric
> _around the axis of the cone_. However the cone's formula will have
> something like (x-k)^2 in it, which is obviously symmetric around the
> x=k plane.
>
> I know if you look at a drawing, it doesn't look like it could be an
> ellipse. I think of this as like a "mathematical optical illusion".
>
> This is easier to visualize if the cone is tilted around the y axis,
> with its apex at the point (x=0,y=0,z=0) and is intersected by the plane
> z=m for some m.
>
>
> Here's a proof someone (I forget who) wrote earlier in response to AP,
> that tilts the cone and the cone is intersected by the plane
> z=<constant>. It may be unclear in the last line why that is the
> equation of an ellipse if C>0, but the left side is a constant, and the
> right side is C*(x-K)^2 + y^2, which is the formula of an ellipse. K=k*S/C.
>
>
>
> I'll start with the cone z^2 = x^2 + y^2, and rotate it through an angle
> 'theta' around the 'y' axis, and consider the intersection of that
> rotated cone with the plane z = <constant>
>
> To simplify things, let c = cos(theta) and s = sin(theta). Then the
> rotation is defined by
>
> z --> cz + sx
> x --> -sz + cx
> y --> y
>
> So the equation of the rotated cone is
>
> (cz+sx)^2 = (-sz+cx)^2 + y^2
>
> and now let C = c^2-s^2 and S = 2sc (again, just to simplify the look
> of things)
>
> so we get
>
> Cz^2 = Cx^2 - 2Szx + y^2
>
> and letting 'z' equal the constant 'k' gives
>
> Ck^2 + k^2*S^2/C = C(x - k*S/C)^2 + y^2
>
> which is the equation of an ellipse if C > 0.

On 10/23/2022 1:51 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> It may be unclear in the last line why that is the
> equation of an ellipse if C>0, but the left side is a constant, and the
> right side is C*(x-K)^2 + y^2, which is the formula of an ellipse. K=k*S/C.

This proof skips several steps before the last line, so it's far from
obvious. I will have to make it clearer, and add the skipped steps back in.

Kibo more math brains than Dr.Tao-- yet Kibo Parry M still believes 938 is 12% short of 945. But Dr. Terence Tao of UCLA, runs and hides, hides and runs whenever the question arises-- is slant cut of cone a ellipse or as AP proves-- it is a Oval. No, Dr. Tao should be drummed out of math completely. For here is the awful situation of a person not in math-- Kibo Parry M. who is on his way of the "realization slant cut of cone is a OVAL, never the ellipse". Yet there you have the idiot of math Dr. Tao at UCLA, run and hide, run Terry, hide Terry. Same thing can be said of Ruth Charney the recent head of AMS, run Ruth, hide Ruth, even though your so called specialty was geometry, Ruth, Ruth, run and hide.

On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 12:51:25 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 10/23/2022 1:06 AM, Earle Jones wrote:
> > *
> > Anyone who has taught mathematics at the college freshman level (as I have at Georgia Tech as a TA) went through the fairly simple process, using analytic geometry to define what is a conic section. If you can follow this, just perform these steps: First, write the definition of a cone (in x, y, z space). It is not difficult. Then, write the equation of an inclined plane in three-space. Then, if you have done the work accurately, you can solve these two equations simultaneously. That gives the locus of all points common to the cone and the inclined plane. (This is the definition of a section.) The resulting equation will be an ellipse, a circle, a parabola, or a hyperbola, depending on the exact inclined plane you have chosen. By the way, this was first demonstrated in about 300 BC, even before the original Archmedes (not the Plutonium version.)
> >
> > earle
> > *
> Plutonium's argument is based on axes of symmetry. While his so-called
> "proof" is rambling and in no way a valid math proof, its basic argument
> is a tilted plane intersecting a cone will have the side nearest the
> apex of the cone will be smaller than the side tilting away from the
> apex, simply because the cone itself gets smaller near the apex and
> larger away from it. Thus his "proof" is that the cone isn't symmetric
> _around the axis of the cone_. However the cone's formula will have
> something like (x-k)^2 in it, which is obviously symmetric around the
> x=k plane.
>
> I know if you look at a drawing, it doesn't look like it could be an
> ellipse. I think of this as like a "mathematical optical illusion".
>
> This is easier to visualize if the cone is tilted around the y axis,
> with its apex at the point (x=0,y=0,z=0) and is intersected by the plane
> z=m for some m.
>
>
> Here's a proof someone (I forget who) wrote earlier in response to AP,
> that tilts the cone and the cone is intersected by the plane
> z=<constant>. It may be unclear in the last line why that is the
> equation of an ellipse if C>0, but the left side is a constant, and the
> right side is C*(x-K)^2 + y^2, which is the formula of an ellipse. K=k*S/C.
>
>
>
> I'll start with the cone z^2 = x^2 + y^2, and rotate it through an angle
> 'theta' around the 'y' axis, and consider the intersection of that
> rotated cone with the plane z = <constant>
>
> To simplify things, let c = cos(theta) and s = sin(theta). Then the
> rotation is defined by
>
> z --> cz + sx
> x --> -sz + cx
> y --> y
>
> So the equation of the rotated cone is
>
> (cz+sx)^2 = (-sz+cx)^2 + y^2
>
> and now let C = c^2-s^2 and S = 2sc (again, just to simplify the look
> of things)
>
> so we get
>
> Cz^2 = Cx^2 - 2Szx + y^2
>
> and letting 'z' equal the constant 'k' gives
>
> Ck^2 + k^2*S^2/C = C(x - k*S/C)^2 + y^2
>
> which is the equation of an ellipse if C > 0.

On 10/23/2022 1:51 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> It may be unclear in the last line why that is the
> equation of an ellipse if C>0, but the left side is a constant, and the
> right side is C*(x-K)^2 + y^2, which is the formula of an ellipse. K=k*S/C.

This proof skips several steps before the last line, so it's far from
obvious. I will have to make it clearer, and add the skipped steps back in.

---------

Kibo of course is a loud math in sci.math and sci.physics and should never have posted but watched and listened.

3rd published book

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
•
•

Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.

Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.

In the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence proof. Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse..

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 827 KB
• Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 51 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#12-2, 11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.

To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?

Kibo better than Dr.Tao in math-- yet Kibo Parry M still believes 938 is 12% short of 945. But Dr. Terence Tao of UCLA, runs and hides, hides and runs whenever the question arises-- is slant cut of cone a ellipse or as AP proves-- it is a Oval. No, Dr. Tao should be drummed out of math completely. For here is the awful situation of a person not in math-- Kibo Parry M. who is on his way of the "realization slant cut of cone is a OVAL, never the ellipse". Yet there you have the idiot of math Dr. Tao at UCLA, run and hide, run Terry, hide Terry. Same thing can be said of Ruth Charney the recent head of AMS, run Ruth, hide Ruth, even though your so called specialty was geometry, Ruth, Ruth, run and hide.

On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 12:51:25 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 10/23/2022 1:06 AM, Earle Jones wrote:
> > *
> > Anyone who has taught mathematics at the college freshman level (as I have at Georgia Tech as a TA) went through the fairly simple process, using analytic geometry to define what is a conic section. If you can follow this, just perform these steps: First, write the definition of a cone (in x, y, z space). It is not difficult. Then, write the equation of an inclined plane in three-space. Then, if you have done the work accurately, you can solve these two equations simultaneously. That gives the locus of all points common to the cone and the inclined plane. (This is the definition of a section.) The resulting equation will be an ellipse, a circle, a parabola, or a hyperbola, depending on the exact inclined plane you have chosen. By the way, this was first demonstrated in about 300 BC, even before the original Archmedes (not the Plutonium version.)
> >
> > earle
> > *
> Plutonium's argument is based on axes of symmetry. While his so-called
> "proof" is rambling and in no way a valid math proof, its basic argument
> is a tilted plane intersecting a cone will have the side nearest the
> apex of the cone will be smaller than the side tilting away from the
> apex, simply because the cone itself gets smaller near the apex and
> larger away from it. Thus his "proof" is that the cone isn't symmetric
> _around the axis of the cone_. However the cone's formula will have
> something like (x-k)^2 in it, which is obviously symmetric around the
> x=k plane.
>
> I know if you look at a drawing, it doesn't look like it could be an
> ellipse. I think of this as like a "mathematical optical illusion".
>
> This is easier to visualize if the cone is tilted around the y axis,
> with its apex at the point (x=0,y=0,z=0) and is intersected by the plane
> z=m for some m.
>
>
> Here's a proof someone (I forget who) wrote earlier in response to AP,
> that tilts the cone and the cone is intersected by the plane
> z=<constant>. It may be unclear in the last line why that is the
> equation of an ellipse if C>0, but the left side is a constant, and the
> right side is C*(x-K)^2 + y^2, which is the formula of an ellipse. K=k*S/C.
>
>
>
> I'll start with the cone z^2 = x^2 + y^2, and rotate it through an angle
> 'theta' around the 'y' axis, and consider the intersection of that
> rotated cone with the plane z = <constant>
>
> To simplify things, let c = cos(theta) and s = sin(theta). Then the
> rotation is defined by
>
> z --> cz + sx
> x --> -sz + cx
> y --> y
>
> So the equation of the rotated cone is
>
> (cz+sx)^2 = (-sz+cx)^2 + y^2
>
> and now let C = c^2-s^2 and S = 2sc (again, just to simplify the look
> of things)
>
> so we get
>
> Cz^2 = Cx^2 - 2Szx + y^2
>
> and letting 'z' equal the constant 'k' gives
>
> Ck^2 + k^2*S^2/C = C(x - k*S/C)^2 + y^2
>
> which is the equation of an ellipse if C > 0.

On 10/23/2022 1:51 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> It may be unclear in the last line why that is the
> equation of an ellipse if C>0, but the left side is a constant, and the
> right side is C*(x-K)^2 + y^2, which is the formula of an ellipse. K=k*S/C.

This proof skips several steps before the last line, so it's far from
obvious. I will have to make it clearer, and add the skipped steps back in.

---------

Kibo of course is a loud math in sci.math and sci.physics and should never have posted but watched and listened.

3rd published book

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
•
•

Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.

Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.

In the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence proof. Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse..

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 827 KB
• Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 51 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#12-2, 11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.

To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?

Kibo better than Dr.Tao in math-- yet Kibo Parry M still believes 938 is 12% short of 945. But Dr. Terence Tao of UCLA, runs and hides, hides and runs whenever the question arises-- is slant cut of cone a ellipse or as AP proves-- it is a Oval. No, Dr. Tao should be drummed out of math completely. For here is the awful situation of a person not in math-- Kibo Parry M. who is on his way of the "realization slant cut of cone is a OVAL, never the ellipse". Yet there you have the idiot of math Dr. Tao at UCLA, run and hide, run Terry, hide Terry. Same thing can be said of Ruth Charney the recent head of AMS, run Ruth, hide Ruth, even though your so called specialty was geometry, Ruth, Ruth, run and hide.

On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 12:51:25 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 10/23/2022 1:06 AM, Earle Jones wrote:
> > *
> > Anyone who has taught mathematics at the college freshman level (as I have at Georgia Tech as a TA) went through the fairly simple process, using analytic geometry to define what is a conic section. If you can follow this, just perform these steps: First, write the definition of a cone (in x, y, z space). It is not difficult. Then, write the equation of an inclined plane in three-space. Then, if you have done the work accurately, you can solve these two equations simultaneously. That gives the locus of all points common to the cone and the inclined plane. (This is the definition of a section.) The resulting equation will be an ellipse, a circle, a parabola, or a hyperbola, depending on the exact inclined plane you have chosen. By the way, this was first demonstrated in about 300 BC, even before the original Archmedes (not the Plutonium version.)
> >
> > earle
> > *
> Plutonium's argument is based on axes of symmetry. While his so-called
> "proof" is rambling and in no way a valid math proof, its basic argument
> is a tilted plane intersecting a cone will have the side nearest the
> apex of the cone will be smaller than the side tilting away from the
> apex, simply because the cone itself gets smaller near the apex and
> larger away from it. Thus his "proof" is that the cone isn't symmetric
> _around the axis of the cone_. However the cone's formula will have
> something like (x-k)^2 in it, which is obviously symmetric around the
> x=k plane.
>
> I know if you look at a drawing, it doesn't look like it could be an
> ellipse. I think of this as like a "mathematical optical illusion".
>
> This is easier to visualize if the cone is tilted around the y axis,
> with its apex at the point (x=0,y=0,z=0) and is intersected by the plane
> z=m for some m.
>
>
> Here's a proof someone (I forget who) wrote earlier in response to AP,
> that tilts the cone and the cone is intersected by the plane
> z=<constant>. It may be unclear in the last line why that is the
> equation of an ellipse if C>0, but the left side is a constant, and the
> right side is C*(x-K)^2 + y^2, which is the formula of an ellipse. K=k*S/C.
>
>
>
> I'll start with the cone z^2 = x^2 + y^2, and rotate it through an angle
> 'theta' around the 'y' axis, and consider the intersection of that
> rotated cone with the plane z = <constant>
>
> To simplify things, let c = cos(theta) and s = sin(theta). Then the
> rotation is defined by
>
> z --> cz + sx
> x --> -sz + cx
> y --> y
>
> So the equation of the rotated cone is
>
> (cz+sx)^2 = (-sz+cx)^2 + y^2
>
> and now let C = c^2-s^2 and S = 2sc (again, just to simplify the look
> of things)
>
> so we get
>
> Cz^2 = Cx^2 - 2Szx + y^2
>
> and letting 'z' equal the constant 'k' gives
>
> Ck^2 + k^2*S^2/C = C(x - k*S/C)^2 + y^2
>
> which is the equation of an ellipse if C > 0.

On 10/23/2022 1:51 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> It may be unclear in the last line why that is the
> equation of an ellipse if C>0, but the left side is a constant, and the
> right side is C*(x-K)^2 + y^2, which is the formula of an ellipse. K=k*S/C.

This proof skips several steps before the last line, so it's far from
obvious. I will have to make it clearer, and add the skipped steps back in.

---------

Kibo of course is a loud math in sci.math and sci.physics and should never have posted but watched and listened.

3rd published book

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
•
•

Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.

Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.

In the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence proof. Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse..

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 827 KB
• Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 51 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#12-2, 11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.

To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?

Kibo better than Dr.Tao in math-- yet Kibo Parry M still believes 938 is 12% short of 945. But Dr. Terence Tao of UCLA, runs and hides, hides and runs whenever the question arises-- is slant cut of cone a ellipse or as AP proves-- it is a Oval. No, Dr. Tao should be drummed out of math completely. At least the dawn is awakening in Kibo, that cone has but one axis of symmetry, yet a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry. For here is the awful situation of a person not in math-- Kibo Parry M. who is on his way of the "realization slant cut of cone is a OVAL, never the ellipse". Yet there you have the idiot-of-math Dr. Tao at UCLA, run and hide, run Terry, hide Terry. Same thing can be said of Ruth Charney the recent head of AMS, run Ruth, hide Ruth, even though your so called specialty was geometry, Ruth, Ruth, run and hide.

On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 12:51:25 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 10/23/2022 1:06 AM, Earle Jones wrote:
> > *
> > Anyone who has taught mathematics at the college freshman level (as I have at Georgia Tech as a TA) went through the fairly simple process, using analytic geometry to define what is a conic section. If you can follow this, just perform these steps: First, write the definition of a cone (in x, y, z space). It is not difficult. Then, write the equation of an inclined plane in three-space. Then, if you have done the work accurately, you can solve these two equations simultaneously. That gives the locus of all points common to the cone and the inclined plane. (This is the definition of a section.) The resulting equation will be an ellipse, a circle, a parabola, or a hyperbola, depending on the exact inclined plane you have chosen. By the way, this was first demonstrated in about 300 BC, even before the original Archmedes (not the Plutonium version.)
> >
> > earle
> > *
> Plutonium's argument is based on axes of symmetry. While his so-called
> "proof" is rambling and in no way a valid math proof, its basic argument
> is a tilted plane intersecting a cone will have the side nearest the
> apex of the cone will be smaller than the side tilting away from the
> apex, simply because the cone itself gets smaller near the apex and
> larger away from it. Thus his "proof" is that the cone isn't symmetric
> _around the axis of the cone_. However the cone's formula will have
> something like (x-k)^2 in it, which is obviously symmetric around the
> x=k plane.
>
> I know if you look at a drawing, it doesn't look like it could be an
> ellipse. I think of this as like a "mathematical optical illusion".
>
> This is easier to visualize if the cone is tilted around the y axis,
> with its apex at the point (x=0,y=0,z=0) and is intersected by the plane
> z=m for some m.
>
>
> Here's a proof someone (I forget who) wrote earlier in response to AP,
> that tilts the cone and the cone is intersected by the plane
> z=<constant>. It may be unclear in the last line why that is the
> equation of an ellipse if C>0, but the left side is a constant, and the
> right side is C*(x-K)^2 + y^2, which is the formula of an ellipse. K=k*S/C.
>
>
>
> I'll start with the cone z^2 = x^2 + y^2, and rotate it through an angle
> 'theta' around the 'y' axis, and consider the intersection of that
> rotated cone with the plane z = <constant>
>
> To simplify things, let c = cos(theta) and s = sin(theta). Then the
> rotation is defined by
>
> z --> cz + sx
> x --> -sz + cx
> y --> y
>
> So the equation of the rotated cone is
>
> (cz+sx)^2 = (-sz+cx)^2 + y^2
>
> and now let C = c^2-s^2 and S = 2sc (again, just to simplify the look
> of things)
>
> so we get
>
> Cz^2 = Cx^2 - 2Szx + y^2
>
> and letting 'z' equal the constant 'k' gives
>
> Ck^2 + k^2*S^2/C = C(x - k*S/C)^2 + y^2
>
> which is the equation of an ellipse if C > 0.

On 10/23/2022 1:51 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> It may be unclear in the last line why that is the
> equation of an ellipse if C>0, but the left side is a constant, and the
> right side is C*(x-K)^2 + y^2, which is the formula of an ellipse. K=k*S/C.

This proof skips several steps before the last line, so it's far from
obvious. I will have to make it clearer, and add the skipped steps back in.

---------

Kibo of course is a loud math in sci.math and sci.physics and should never have posted but watched and listened.

3rd published book

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
•
•

Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.

Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.

In the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence proof. Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse..

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 827 KB
• Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 51 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#12-2, 11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.

To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?