*AP:

Why do you persist in creating long lists of premier University faculties in Physics and Mathemaics? These are people who know more than you will ever learn. Tragically, you, based on your past 20 years of gibberish, are not capable of learning. You create wild "explanations" and then defend them with what you call "proofs". Sadly, you would not recognize a real proof if it came up and kicked you in your skinny worthless ass!

How old are you now? How much time do you have left to allow your far-ranging and creative mind to achieve something truly valuable to the intellectual community?

Is it possible?

Think about it.

earle
*

On Fri, 24 Dec 2021 06:15:33 +0000, Earle Jones wrote:

> *AP:
>
> Why do you persist in creating long lists of premier University
> faculties in Physics and Mathemaics? These are people who know more
> than you will ever learn. Tragically, you, based on your past 20 years
> of gibberish, are not capable of learning. You create wild
> "explanations" and then defend them with what you call "proofs". Sadly,
> you would not recognize a real proof if it came up and kicked you in
> your skinny worthless ass!
>
> How old are you now? How much time do you have left to allow your
> far-ranging and creative mind to achieve something truly valuable to the
> intellectual community?
>
> Is it possible?

Be charitative: the guy is obviously mentally disturbed.

On 12/24/2021 12:15 AM, Earle Jones wrote:
> *AP:
>
> Why do you persist in creating long lists of premier University faculties in Physics and Mathemaics? These are people who know more than you will ever learn. Tragically, you, based on your past 20 years of gibberish, are not capable of learning. You create wild "explanations" and then defend them with what you call "proofs". Sadly, you would not recognize a real proof if it came up and kicked you in your skinny worthless ass!
>
> How old are you now? How much time do you have left to allow your far-ranging and creative mind to achieve something truly valuable to the intellectual community?
>
> Is it possible?
>
> Think about it.
>
> earle
> *

some of AP's photos of his self are online, look at his books for sale on Amazon

On Fri Dec 24 18:58:30 2021 Jens Stuckelberger wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2021 06:15:33 +0000, Earle Jones wrote:
>
> > *AP:
> >
> > Why do you persist in creating long lists of premier University
> > faculties in Physics and Mathemaics? These are people who know more
> > than you will ever learn. Tragically, you, based on your past 20 years
> > of gibberish, are not capable of learning. You create wild
> > "explanations" and then defend them with what you call "proofs". Sadly,
> > you would not recognize a real proof if it came up and kicked you in
> > your skinny worthless ass!
> >
> > How old are you now? How much time do you have left to allow your
> > far-ranging and creative mind to achieve something truly valuable to the
> > intellectual community?
> >
> > Is it possible?
>
> Be charitative: the guy is obviously mentally disturbed.

*
Jens: I think you are right. I should be charitable. AP is obviously mentally disturbed.

I will therefore lay off correcting his obvious mathematical errors. I have never before had any relationship with someone who is just incapable of learning. As an old (now 90+) math professor, I feel the need to explain, but in the case of AP -- explanatioons are just not worth doing.

Thanks for your advice!

earle
*

Earle Jones has brought this to us :
> On Fri Dec 24 18:58:30 2021 Jens Stuckelberger wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2021 06:15:33 +0000, Earle Jones wrote:
>>
>>> *AP:
>>>
>>> Why do you persist in creating long lists of premier University
>>> faculties in Physics and Mathemaics? These are people who know more
>>> than you will ever learn. Tragically, you, based on your past 20 years
>>> of gibberish, are not capable of learning. You create wild
>>> "explanations" and then defend them with what you call "proofs". Sadly,
>>> you would not recognize a real proof if it came up and kicked you in
>>> your skinny worthless ass!
>>>
>>> How old are you now? How much time do you have left to allow your
>>> far-ranging and creative mind to achieve something truly valuable to the
>>> intellectual community?
>>>
>>> Is it possible?
>>
>> Be charitative: the guy is obviously mentally disturbed.
>
> *
> Jens: I think you are right. I should be charitable. AP is obviously
> mentally disturbed.
>
> I will therefore lay off correcting his obvious mathematical errors. I have
> never before had any relationship with someone who is just incapable of
> learning. As an old (now 90+) math professor, I feel the need to explain,
> but in the case of AP -- explanatioons are just not worth doing.
>
> Thanks for your advice!
>
> earle
> *

Happy 90+ birthday.

Is Jens the most retarded hate spewing (non)scientist in Europe?

On Friday, December 24, 2021 at 12:58:41 PM UTC-6, Jens Stuckelberger wrote:
> Be charitative: the guy is obviously mentally disturbed.

Luca Avena, K.Batenburg, M.Bhargava, Martin Bright, Peter Bruin of Univ Leiden// Are you as ignorant and a education parasite as Jens Stuckelberger on the ELLIPSE is never a conic?? proof below

Jens on Willem-Alexander or Nicolass Bloembergen, physics, Hendrik Lenstra, math, Eric Mazur, physics, Pieter Moree, math

Jens Stuckelberger// Leiden Univ,Jan Aarts,Ana Achucarro,Milan Allan,Carlo Beenakker too stupid to understand true real proton is 840MeV, electron=muon, in order for Angular Momentum to allow Chemistry bonding

/\-------/\
\::O:::O::/
(::_ ^ _::)
\_`-----'_/
You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Netherlands.
And, even though you-- professors of physics, want to remain stupid in not knowing what is really the electron in atoms has to be the muon at 105MeV and proton at 840MeV with Dirac's magnetic monopole being .5MeV, your students deserve better.

The world no longer needs physics professors who cannot understand Angular Momentum and that the Chemical bond cannot exist with proton = 938MeV, electron= .5MeV.

And, even though you-- professors of physics/math, want to remain silent and stupid in Real Electron = muon, and true real Calculus with a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, your students deserve better.

Yes, there, what did they say-- the power of Sun and stars is not really fusion but is the Faraday Law inside of atoms creating monopoles and turning Space into energy that fuels the Sun and stars. My rough estimate is that fusion only supplies 10% or less of Sun and stars.

But of course, I could not have discovered the true starpower when under the idiotic idea that the electron was a mere .5MeV when it truly is 105 MeV.

What answer did they give?

University of Leiden

Physics dept

Jan Aarts, Ana Achucarro, Milan Allan, Carlo Beenakker, Alexey Boiarskyi, Dirk Bouwmeester, Vadim Cheianov, Peter Denteneer, Marileen Dogterom, Michiel de Dood, Eric Eliel, Martin van Exter, Diego Garlaschelli, Peter Gast, Luca Giomi, Edgar Groenen, Martin van Hecke, Doris Heinrich, Hans Hilgenkamp, Jan Willem van Holten, Martina Huber, Daniela Kraft, Wolfgang Loffler, Sense Jan van der Molen, John van Noort, Tjerk Oosterkamp, Michel Orrit, Jan van Ruitenbeek, Wim van Saarloos, Dorothea Samtleben, Koenraad Schalm, Helmut Schiessel, Thomas Schmidt, Stefan Semrau, Alessandra Silvestri, Ruud Tromp, Johannes Zaanen

Math dept

Luca Avena, K.Batenburg, M.Bhargava, Martin Bright, Peter Bruin, Martina Chirilus-Bruckner, Ronald Cramer, Gerrit van Dijk, Arjen Doelman, Bas Edixhoven, Tim van Erven, Jan-Hendrik Evertse, Marta Fiocco, Onno van Gaans, Richard Gill, Jelle Goeman, Peter Grunwald, Willem Heiser, Sander Hille, Frank den Hollander, David Holmes, Hermen Jan Hupkes, Marcel de Jeu, Robin de Jong, Charlene Kalle, Maarten Kampert, Hendrik Lenstra, Martin Lubke, Ronald van Luijk, Roeland Merks, Hans Metz, Jaap Murre, Stephanie van der Pas, Bert Peletier, Vivi Rottschafer, Bart de Smit, Floske Spieksma, Marc Spijker, Peter Stevenhagen, Marco Streng, Botond Szabo, Rob Tijdeman, Aad van der Vaart, Roland van der Veen, Evgeny Verbitskiy, Willem van Zwet

Nicolass Bloembergen, physics, Hendrik Lenstra, math, Eric Mazur, physics, Pieter Moree, math

--------------------
AP's proof the ellipse is never a Conic Section, always a Cylinder section, and how the proof works

Let us analyze AP's Proof

On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 6:57:36 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Array:: Analytic Geometry proof that Cylinder section= Ellipse//Conic
section = Oval, never ellipse

Now I did 3 Experiments and 3 models of the problem, but it turns out
that one model is superior over all the other models. One model is the
best of all.

That model is where you construct a cone and a cylinder and then
implant a circle inside the cone and cylinder attached to a handle so
that you can rotate the circle inside. Mine uses a long nail that I
poked holes into the side of a cylinder and another one inside a cone
made from heavy wax paper of magazine covers. And I used a Mason or
Kerr used lid and I attached them to the nail by drilling two holes
into each lid and running a wire as fastener. All of this done so I
can rotate or pivot the circle inside the cylinder and cone. You need
a long nail, for if you make the models too small or too skinny, you
lose clarity.

ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse::


E
__
.-' `-.
.' `.
/ \
; ;
| G c | H
; ;
\ /
`. .'
`-. _____ .-'
F

Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E

In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.

The side view of a cylinder is this

| |
| |
| |

That allows cE to be the same distance as cF

But the side view of the cone is

/\E
/c \
F / \

The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF make that distance larger than cE

The above is a view of a ellipse with center c and is produced by the
Sectioning of a Cylinder as long as the cut is not perpendicular to
the base, and as long as the cut involves two points not larger than
the height of the cylinder walls. What we want to prove is that the
cut is always a ellipse, which is a plane figure of two axes of
symmetry with a Major Axis and Minor Axis and center at c.

Side view of Cylinder EGFH above with entry point cut at E and exit
point cut at F and where c denotes the central axis of the cylinder
and where x denotes a circle at c parallel with the base-circle of
cylinder

| |
| | E
| |
| |
|x c |x
| |
| |
| |
|F |
| |
| |
| |

So we can see that the distance cE = cF in cylinder for the walls are Parallel to one another, giving distance symmetry

But in the Cone, the walls are not parallel, shortening the distance cE compared to cF. Leaving only one axis of symmetry that of EF. The oval is the conic section of a cut at a slant, while the cylinder cut at a slant is a ellipse. The Oval has just one axis of symmetry.

So, what is the proof that figure EGFH is always an ellipse in the
cylinder section? The line segment GH is the diameter of the circle
base of cylinder and the cylinder axis cuts this diameter in half such
that Gc = cH. Now we only need to show that Fc = cE. This is done from
the right triangles cxF and cxE, for we note that by Angle-Side-Angle
these two right triangles are congruent and hence Fc = cE, our second
axis of symmetry and thus figure EGFH is always an ellipse. QED



Array proof:: Analytic Geometry proof that Conic section= Oval// never ellipse

ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Conic Section is a Oval, never an ellipse::


A
,'" "`.
/ \
C | c | D
\ /
` . ___ .'
B

The above is a view of a figure formed from the cut of a conic with
center c as the axis of the cone and is produced by the Sectioning of
a Cone as long as the cut is not perpendicular to the base, and as
long as the cut is not a hyperbola, parabola or circle (nor line).
What we want to prove is that this cut is always a oval, never an
ellipse. An oval is defined as a plane figure of just one axis of
symmetry and possessing a center, c, with a Major Diameter as the axis
of symmetry and a Minor Diameter. In our diagram above, the major
diameter is AB and minor diameter is CD.

Alright, almost the same as with Cylinder section where we proved the
center was half way between Major Axis and Minor Axis of cylinder,
only in the case of the Conic, we find that the center is half way
between CD the Minor Diameter, but the center is not halfway in
between the Major Diameter, and all of that because of the reason the
slanted walls of the cone cause the distance cA to be far smaller than
the distance cB. In the diagram below we have the circle of x centered
at c and parallel to base. The angle at cx is not 90 degrees as in
cylinder. The angle of cAx is not the same as the angle cBx, as in the
case of the cylinder, because the walls of the cone-for line segments-
are slanted versus parallel in the cylinder. Triangles cAx and cBx are
not congruent, and thus, the distance of cA is not equal to cB,
leaving only one axis of symmetry AB, not CD.

/ \A
x/ c \x
B/ \

Hence, every cut in the Cone, not a hyperbola, not a parabola, not a
circle (not a line) is a Oval, never an ellipse.

QED

--Archimedes Plutonium