Jan Burse, is the reason Dr. Hales KPP is so stupid and dead on arrival, is that Thomas never had a well defined infinity, for if you consider infinity as per Hales, then the hexagonal closed pack density needs no computer proof, not even for higher dimensions, which even the silly daft Thomas is not proposing that computers can peek into higher dimensions.

On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 5:54:29 AM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> 1 gram is still more than zero, AP brain farto. You
> have got zero brains. Only spamming sci.math already
> for 25 years. Not a single line of math.
>

Jan, do you mind if I call you Molotov Cocktail instead of Mouse Collapse.

Hales fails geometry because he believes Python with his cone has 2 axes of symmetry and hence slant cut is ellipse in cone, for otherwise, he would have said something by now 2016-2021.
On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 10:35:31 AM UTC-5, Python wrote:
> Why don't you buy this kind of stuff that will show you that
> you didn't do the experiment right?
>
> https://www.pinterest.fr/pin/595178906992508262/
>
> Moreover that a slant cut in a cylinder shows an ellipse does not
> contradict that some slant cuts in a cone shows an ellipse also.

AP writes: no wonder that AP's discovery that Cone slant cut is an Oval never the ellipse is because everyone in math community other than AP thinks a cone has 2 axes of symmetry, just the same as a cylinder has 2 axis of symmetry.

I have heard of color blindness where you fail to see certain wavelengths of color, and guess that in mathematics, now, we have to test students and teachers for axis blindness.

On Sunday, September 12, 2021 at 11:38:26 PM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
> STOP wasting time on anything and everything else. This is WAY more important and is actually feasible to do.
> Write up EXACTLY what Terence Tao method is going to be to measure the speed of light with an accuracy of 0.01%.
> Find some generous, but very respected people in the speed of light field.
> Get them to look over Andrew Wiles method and see if John Baez agree it will measure with an accuracy of 0.01% or not.
> Lisa Randall don't want to include any other made up claims or conjectures or explanations for why this is.
> This is simply and specifically and only measuring the speed of light, nothing more, nothing less.
> John Stillwell don't want to tell them what Andrea Ghez conjecture is, just and only that Roger Penrose are going to do the experiment.
> Then order all the instruments and equipment to actually do this.
> AND THEN ACTUALLY DO THE EXPERIMENT.
> Peter Higgs MUST have respected people check the setup and observe the experiment and see the result.
> That should be enough to definitely prove Sheldon Glashow 3.16*10^8 m/s versus 2.99792*10^8 m/s question.
> And, no matter what the result is, broadcast EXACTLY what the measurement was.
>
> If qualified skilled people approve of your method and Brian Greene make the measurement and Alan H. Guth get 3.16 instead of 2.99
> then Michael E. Brown
and Konstantin Batygin will have to repeat this experiment over and over and improve the method and get better instruments and
> better observers and if the result is still 3.16 then the entire world will recognize AP as the king of physics.
> DO THE EXPERIMENT George Smoot. DO IT. STOP WASTING TIME ON ANYTHING ELSE.
> This is Kip S. Thorne big chance.

AP writes: thanks BWR, say, can you share with us your dosage of antidepressants? Is it in the kilograms where a backloader is needed.

On Sunday, September 12, 2021 at 11:38:26 PM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
> STOP wasting time on anything and everything else. This is WAY more important and is actually feasible to do.
> Write up EXACTLY what Terence Tao method is going to be to measure the speed of light with an accuracy of 0.01%.
> Find some generous, but very respected people in the speed of light field.
> Get them to look over Andrew Wiles method and see if John Baez agree it will measure with an accuracy of 0.01% or not.
> Lisa Randall don't want to include any other made up claims or conjectures or explanations for why this is.
> This is simply and specifically and only measuring the speed of light, nothing more, nothing less.
> John Stillwell don't want to tell them what Andrea Ghez conjecture is, just and only that Roger Penrose are going to do the experiment.
> Then order all the instruments and equipment to actually do this.
> AND THEN ACTUALLY DO THE EXPERIMENT.
> Peter Higgs MUST have respected people check the setup and observe the experiment and see the result.
> That should be enough to definitely prove Sheldon Glashow 3.16*10^8 m/s versus 2.99792*10^8 m/s question.
> And, no matter what the result is, broadcast EXACTLY what the measurement was.
>
> If qualified skilled people approve of your method and Brian Greene make the measurement and Alan H. Guth get 3.16 instead of 2.99
> then Michael E. Brown
and Konstantin Batygin will have to repeat this experiment over and over and improve the method and get better instruments and
> better observers and if the result is still 3.16 then the entire world will recognize AP as the king of physics.
> DO THE EXPERIMENT George Smoot. DO IT. STOP WASTING TIME ON ANYTHING ELSE.
> This is Kip S. Thorne big chance.

AP writes: thanks BWR, say, can you share with us your dosage of antidepressants? Is it in the kilograms where a backloader is needed.

P.S. AP no longer tolerates stalkers, and so shreds them and spits out the byproduct of the shredder. With stalkers, there is never any serious discussion, so AP teaches how stalking is really a criminal act and worthy only of a comical reply

On Sunday, September 12, 2021 at 10:38:49 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Sunday, September 12, 2021 at 11:38:26 PM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
> > STOP wasting time on anything and everything else. This is WAY more important and is actually feasible to do.
> > DO THE EXPERIMENT. MEASURE THE SPEED OF LIGHT. DO IT. STOP WASTING TIME ON ANYTHING ELSE.
> > This is your big chance.
>
> AP writes: thanks BWR, say, can you share with us your dosage of antidepressants? Is it in the kilograms where a backloader is needed.
>
> P.S. AP no longer tolerates stalkers, and so shreds them and spits out the byproduct of the shredder. With stalkers, there is never any serious discussion, so AP teaches how stalking is really a criminal act and worthy only of a comical reply

So are you so pissed off at after a lifetime of rejection that you are never going to actually do any real experiment?
Or is it that you know that if you did an actual real test of any of your conjectures this will show that you are wrong?

Which is it Archie?

Hales, washed up and washed out of math and good riddance to the crackpot crank for his Kepler Packing is total b.s., see AP's proof below.

1Failure and mindless Thomas Hales in mathematics, for he thinks he proved Kepler Packing, yet the imp still today cannot admit slant cut in single cone is a Oval, not the ellipse, and yet a High School student can prove to the failure Hales that a slant cut is the Oval. Dr. Hales should get out of mathematics altogether as a washed up failure. He never even knew that Calculus is geometry and the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires a geometry proof, not Hales b.s. of a limit analysis. So, Hales is just a crackpot crank of math with his logic of Boole of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, the kind of logic he used to assemble his nonsense of Kepler Packing.

2 Hales fails geometry because he believes Python with his cone has 2 axes of symmetry and hence slant cut is ellipse in cone, for otherwise, he would have said something by now 2016-2021.
> On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 10:35:31 AM UTC-5, Python wrote:
> > Why don't you buy this kind of stuff that will show you that
> > you didn't do the experiment right?
> >
> > https://www.pinterest.fr/pin/595178906992508262/
> >
> > Moreover that a slant cut in a cylinder shows an ellipse does not
> > contradict that some slant cuts in a cone shows an ellipse also.
>
> AP writes: no wonder that AP's discovery that Cone slant cut is an Oval never the ellipse is because everyone in math community other than AP thinks a cone has 2 axes of symmetry, just the same as a cylinder has 2 axis of symmetry.
>
> I have heard of color blindness where you fail to see certain wavelengths of color, and guess that in mathematics, now, we have to test students and teachers for axis blindness.

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
•
•

#11-2, 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?

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

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

#11-3, 24th published book

World's First Proof of Kepler Packing Problem KPP // Math proof series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

There has been a alleged proof of KPP by Thomas Hales, but his is a fakery because he does not define what infinity actually means, for it means a borderline between finite and infinite numbers. Thus, KPP was never going to be proven until a well-defined infinity borderline was addressed within the proof. And because infinity has a borderline means that in free space with no borderlines to tackle and contend with, the 12 kissing point density that is the hexagonal close packed is the maximum density. But the truth and reality of Kepler Packing is asking for maximum packing out to infinity. That means you have to contend and fight with the packing of identical spheres up against a wall or border. And so, in tackling that wall, we can shift the hexagonal closed pack to another type of packing, a hybrid type of packing in order to get "maximum packing". So no proof ever of KPP is going to happen unless the proof tackles a infinity border wall. In free-space, a far distance away from a wall barrier of infinity border, then, hexagonal closed pack reigns and is the packing in all of free space-- but, the moment the packing gets nearby the walls of infinity border, then, we re-arrange the hexagonal closed pack to fit in more spheres. Not unlike us packing a suitcase and then rearranging to fit in more.

Cover picture: is a container and so the closed packing must be modified once the border is nearly reached to maximize the number of spheres.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07NMV8NQQ
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 20, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1241 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 60 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

People of Mensa need to keep taking their test just to make sure...

Mitchell Raemsch