Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #864499 > unrolled thread

Bitcoin

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Bitcoin Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 04:47 -0800
    Re: Bitcoin Sergi o <invalid@invalid.com> - 2022-11-12 12:31 -0600
      Re: Bitcoin Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 22:10 -0800
    Re: Bitcoin Sergi o <invalid@invalid.com> - 2022-11-12 12:49 -0600
      Re: Bitcoin Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2022-11-16 03:55 -0800
        Re: Bitcoin Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2022-11-16 11:14 -0800
    Re: Bitcoin Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 13:35 -0800
      Re: Bitcoin Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2022-11-12 23:05 -0800
        Re: Bitcoin The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-13 11:28 -0800

#864499 — Bitcoin

Apparently bitcoin has gained in value by 20000 times since 2009.
How did that happen?
Sergio sahib, if you are around, please explain.
Is this the most successful scam ever?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#864509

On 11/12/2022 6:47 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> Apparently bitcoin has gained in value by 20000 times since 2009.
> How did that happen?
> Sergio sahib, if you are around, please explain.
> Is this the most successful scam ever?

yes! bitcoin has no intrinsic value, it is just 2 numbers. too easy to steal too, or lose the password.

It is worth only how much the other guy thinks it is worth.  like POGs or benie babies.

since no value is created in the bitcoin arena, there is no money to work with.

the crypto coin exchanges, reinvest other peoples bitcoin into very risky areas, like buying other cripto coins, however since no value is created, it 
is not investing at all, all risk. It has to crash.

this shows you the gullibility of the public, which is a lot!

most successful salesmen and marketing people

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#864557

On Sunday, 13 November 2022 at 05:31:22 UTC+11, Sergi o wrote:
> On 11/12/2022 6:47 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: 
> > Apparently bitcoin has gained in value by 20000 times since 2009. 
> > How did that happen? 
> > Sergio sahib, if you are around, please explain. 
> > Is this the most successful scam ever?
> yes! bitcoin has no intrinsic value, it is just 2 numbers. too easy to steal too, or lose the password. 
> 
> It is worth only how much the other guy thinks it is worth. like POGs or benie babies. 
> 
> since no value is created in the bitcoin arena, there is no money to work with. 
> 
> the crypto coin exchanges, reinvest other peoples bitcoin into very risky areas, like buying other cripto coins, however since no value is created, it 
> is not investing at all, all risk. It has to crash. 
> 
> this shows you the gullibility of the public, which is a lot! 
> 
> most successful salesmen and marketing people

Crypto sellers you can buy prestige stuff with crypto like Rolex watches and mega cars.
They also claim you can get $20000 back if you part with 1 bitcoin.
As I understand you are saying that they can use it for barter.
Like I can buy a Buggatti with a 1000 bitcoins?
Then those who kept their bitcoins for 10 years must be really rolling in it.
On the other hand, if you are a newbie, then your are in very risky area.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#864512

On 11/12/2022 6:47 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> Apparently bitcoin has gained in value by 20000 times since 2009.
> How did that happen?
> Sergio sahib, if you are around, please explain.
> Is this the most successful scam ever?

FTX went bankrupt, and someone is draining put what it had...

https://news.yahoo.com/hundreds-millions-dollars-drained-ftx-133219541.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#864809

On Sunday, 13 November 2022 at 05:49:04 UTC+11, Sergi o wrote:
> On 11/12/2022 6:47 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > Apparently bitcoin has gained in value by 20000 times since 2009. 
> > How did that happen? 
> > Sergio sahib, if you are around, please explain. 
> > Is this the most successful scam ever?
> FTX went bankrupt, and someone is draining put what it had... 
> 
> https://news.yahoo.com/hundreds-millions-dollars-drained-ftx-133219541.html

I wonder what the estab chaps (Moroney, Alsing, whodat, Else, JimP) think about crypto currency.
Do they agree or not with Archie, McGinn, Starmaker on this issue?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#864851

POn Wednesday, 16 November 2022 at 22:55:28 UTC+11, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Sunday, 13 November 2022 at 05:49:04 UTC+11, Sergi o wrote: 
> > On 11/12/2022 6:47 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: 
> > > Apparently bitcoin has gained in value by 20000 times since 2009. 
> > > How did that happen? 
> > > Sergio sahib, if you are around, please explain. 
> > > Is this the most successful scam ever? 
> > FTX went bankrupt, and someone is draining put what it had... 
> > 
> > https://news.yahoo.com/hundreds-millions-dollars-drained-ftx-133219541.html
> I wonder what the estab chaps (Moroney, Alsing, whodat, Else, JimP) think about crypto currency. 
> Do they agree or not with Archie, McGinn, Starmaker on this issue?
Silence here indicates their affirmation or cowardice.
The latter seems more likely, what?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#864524

Bitcoin compared to Play Act Spamming in sci.math by WM, Sergi_o,Chris Thomasson,Jim Burns, Feldhase, Ross Finlayson, Gus Gassmann, and many other spammers to keep a Germany WM mindrot thread on top of the leader board all day long all year long.

Sergi_o,Brigitta Wolff,Jurgen Habermass, Anja Karliczek head of Germany Federal Ministry of Education & Research, why does Germany keep flooding sci.math with WM math bullshit of dark numbers that fill up the front pages of sci.math with his insane bullshit going on for 3 decades now???? 

Play act spam to hog front page of sci.math 
Chris Thomasson 870 "Three proofs of dark numbers...." 


Brigitta Wolff, is this some type of German comedy show, WM daily spamming sci.math and have a team of comedians-- Chris Thomasson, Jim Burns, TheRafters, Sergi_o, day after day after day keep this WM imbecile with dark numbers as the first 5 post threads on the top of the leader board. 

Is there a German word for this Spamming behavior-- Shitligkeitzitter 


> > 
> > WM is a insane poster who cannot even admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, so insane is WM that he floods sci.math with his mindless dark numbers bullshit. 
> > 
> > He cannot admit the truth of math, so he should not be posting in sci.math. 
> > 
> > Why, Anja, WM is so insane, the fruitcake cannot even understand Boole logic is wrong with 2 OR 1 = 3 and WM has AND as subtraction. 
> > 
> > So mindless is WM, he cannot even ask the question,-- is the muon the true electron of atoms and the 0.5MeV particle the Dirac magnetic monopole. 
> > 
> > Yet this German shitturd WM floods the front page of sci.math every day for 3 decades with his never ending insane bullshit of dark numbers. 
 


Gus Gassmann,Thorsten Theobald,Yury Person, Wolfgang Mueckenheim ever admit slant cut of cone is oval, never the ellipse, ever do a geometry proof of FTC, no all failures of mathematics, and idling away. 
 

Germany's Muck the Puke taking up oxygen out of sci.math with his endless and mindless dark numbers, ellipse a conic when that is an oval, and the failure of all of Germany-- never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus 

siren Sergio,Laura Covi,Andreas Dillmann,Gottingen no one in Gottingen Germany can admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, all they seem to do is play with WM dark numbers KuhscheiBe. Nor can anyone do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Germany spends its time on Muck the Puck "dark numbers" please, need your help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist. 

> > > > > 
> > > > > B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist. 
> > > > >  
> > > > > > stir-crazy-W.Mueckenheim-the fool still thinks slant cut of cone is ellipse when in truth it is an oval, and the failure of logic WM believes in Boole's AND as TFFF when in truth it is TTTF to avoid what the nitwit WM has as 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. WM is a math failure for the idiot never knew calculus was geometry and therefore never sought a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. 
> > > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel 
> > > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim 
> > > > > > Augsburg- Friedrich Pukelsheim-Gottingen,Metin Tolin,Ariane Frey, Wolfgang Glatzel why does Wolfgang Mueckenheim the idiot with "dark numbers" & Dr. Tao fail geometry so so badly, 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > The idiots of math never knew calculus was geometry, erst, they would provide a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, why they are so banal stupid in math, they still believe slant cut in cone is an ellipse, when in reality it is a oval. 
> > > > > > > They are not mathematicians but mindless fuckdogs of math. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > Maybe they wear glasses and cannot see properly. Maybe WM & Tao were never good in math, for they cannot even tell apart a ellipse from oval. They cannot even ask the question which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle? 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Univ Augsburg Germany math-- Hello-- Wolfgang Mueckenheim the fool of math wasting everybodies time -- for WM is a math failure with his slant cut in cone as ellipse when in truth it is a Oval. And now, that fool of math with his "dark numbers". Can you whisk him off to a "shrink in Germany and put him on medications"?? 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Kai Cieliebak, Urs Frauenfelder, Jennifer Gruber, Yannis Bahni, Zhen Gao, Sungho Kim, Shuaipeng Liu, Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr, Kevin Ruck, Evgeny Volkov, Frederic Wagner 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist. 
> > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers. 
> > > > >  
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers" 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math. 
> > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math 
> > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse 
> > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. 
> > > > > > 3) arsehole WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus 
> > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > Metin Tolin,Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt, please, need you help to get WM and his mindless "dark numbers bullshit" moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers" 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math. 
> > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math 
> > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse 
 
 
> > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. 
> > > > > > > 3) fool WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus 
> > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Yet, every day the fool WM pollutes sci.math with his dark numbers bullshit. 
> > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers. 
>  
> > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair. 
> > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel 
> > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner. 
> > > 
> > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim 
> > > Gottingen Univ math 
> > > 
> > > Dorothea Bahns, Laurent Bartholdi, Valentin Blomer, Jorg Brüdern, Stefan Halverscheid, Harald Andres Helfgott, Madeleine Jotz Lean, Ralf Meyer, Preda Mihailescu, Walther Dietrich Paravicini, Viktor Pidstrygach, Thomas Schick, Evelina Viada, Ingo Frank Witt, Chenchang Zhu 
> > > 
> > > Eternal-September.org 
> > > Wolfgang M. Weyand 
> > > Berliner Strasse 
> > > Bad Homburg 
> > > 
> > > Goethe Universitat Physics dept 
> > > 
> > > Brigitta Wolff president 
> > > 
> > > Jurgen Habermass 
> > > Horst Stocker 
> > > Gerd Binnig 
> > > Horst Ludwig Stormer 
> > > Peter Grunberg 
> > > 
> > > math 
> > > Alex Kuronya 
> > > Martin Moller 
> > > Jakob Stix 
> > > Annette Werner 
> > > Andreas Bernig 
> > > Esther Cabezas-Rivas 
> > > Hans Crauel 
> > > Thomas Gerstner 
> > > Bastian von Harrach 
> > > Thomas Mettler 
> > > Tobias Weth 
> > > Amin Coja-Oghlan 
> > > Raman Sanyal 
> > > Thorsten Theobald 
> > > Yury Person 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Gottingen Univ physics 
> > > Prof. Dr. Karsten Bahr 
> > > Prof. Dr. Peter Bloechl 
> > > Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bodenschatz 
> > > Prof. Laura Covi, PhD 
> > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Dillmann 
> > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Dreizler 
> > > Prof. Dr. Jörg Enderlein 
> > > Prof. Dr. Laurent Gizon 
> > > Prof. Dr. Ariane Frey 
> > > apl. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Glatzel 
> > > Prof. Dr. Fabian Heidrich-Meisner 
> > > Prof. Dr. Hans Christian Hofsäss 
> > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Janshoff 
> > > Prof. Dr. Christian Jooß 
> > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Kehrein 
> > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Klumpp 
> > > Prof. Dr. Sarah Köster 
> > > Prof. Dr. Reiner Kree 
> > > Prof. Dr. Matthias Krüger 
> > > Prof. Dr. Stanley Lai 
> > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Mathias 
> > > apl. Prof. Dr. Vasile Mosneaga 
> > > Prof. Dr. Marcus Müller 
> > > Prof. Dr. Jens Niemeyer 
> > > apl. Prof. Dr. Astrid Pundt 
> > > Prof. Dr. Arnulf Quadt 
> > > apl. Prof. Dr. Karl-Henning Rehren 
> > > Prof. Dr. Ansgar Reiners 
> > > Prof. Dr. Angela Rizzi 
> > > Prof. Dr. Claus Ropers 
> > > Prof. Dr. Tim Salditt 
> > > Prof. Dr. Konrad Samwer 
> > > Prof. Dr. Christoph Schmidt 
> > > apl. Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider 
> > > Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann 
> > > Prof. Dr. Simone Techert 
> > > apl. Prof. Dr. Michael Seibt 
> > > Prof. Dr. Peter Sollich 
> > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Tilgner 
> > > Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert 
> > > Prof. Dr. Florentin Wörgötter 
> > > Prof. Dr. Annette Zippelius 

 
 
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? 

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)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#864558

Bitcoin fell, is Quantum Computing next? Or Artificial Intelligence? So Bitcoin and Play-Act-Spamming in sci.math have much in common. Pretend to do banking and have money in the bank, while in sci.math pretend to do mathematics when all the scam is about-- is keeping some ignorant fool in Germany on the front page of sci.math all day long, all year long all decade long.

Fabricated Money is a scam from the get-go. Even artificial-intelligence is a scam-- for no-one has ever been able to define it as well as Quantum Computing-- now that is a superlative scam, for not single person in the entire planet Earth can give a explanation of what the shit is Quantum Computing. Not a single person on planet Earth can teach what the hell, what in shit's name is Quantum Computing.

And I love it when magazines or news reporters talk about Quantum Computing-- for they uneasily pretend as if they know what it is and that the viewer knows what it is, and they jump into the topic in midstream.

The only thing Bitcoin had going for it was hiding money behind a large prime number for secrecy, something useful to spies and secrecy but hells bells, of no value for money and banking.

Like W.C. Fields said-- a sucker borne every minute. Or, said, a fool and his money are soon parted.

So like Germany's WM and his insanity of "dark numbers" is no different a scam than is Quantum Computing nor Bitcoin, nor Artificial Intelligence. All of them involve ACTING, and how that scamming requires expertise in acting.


Bitcoin compared to Play Act Spamming in sci.math by WM, Sergi_o,Chris Thomasson,Jim Burns, Feldhase, Ross Finlayson, Gus Gassmann, and many other spammers to keep a Germany WM mindrot thread on top of the leader board all day long all year long. 
> 
> Sergi_o,Brigitta Wolff,Jurgen Habermass, Anja Karliczek head of Germany Federal Ministry of Education & Research, why does Germany keep flooding sci.math with WM math bullshit of dark numbers that fill up the front pages of sci.math with his insane bullshit going on for 3 decades now???? 
> 
> Play act spam to hog front page of sci.math 
> Chris Thomasson 870 "Three proofs of dark numbers...." 
> 
> 
> Brigitta Wolff, is this some type of German comedy show, WM daily spamming sci.math and have a team of comedians-- Chris Thomasson, Jim Burns, TheRafters, Sergi_o, day after day after day keep this WM imbecile with dark numbers as the first 5 post threads on the top of the leader board. 
> 
> Is there a German word for this Spamming behavior-- Shitligkeitzitter 
> 
> 
> > > 
> > > WM is a insane poster who cannot even admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, so insane is WM that he floods sci.math with his mindless dark numbers bullshit. 
> > > 
> > > He cannot admit the truth of math, so he should not be posting in sci.math. 
> > > 
> > > Why, Anja, WM is so insane, the fruitcake cannot even understand Boole logic is wrong with 2 OR 1 = 3 and WM has AND as subtraction. 
> > > 
> > > So mindless is WM, he cannot even ask the question,-- is the muon the true electron of atoms and the 0.5MeV particle the Dirac magnetic monopole. 
> > > 
> > > Yet this German shitturd WM floods the front page of sci.math every day for 3 decades with his never ending insane bullshit of dark numbers. 
>  
> 
> 
> Gus Gassmann,Thorsten Theobald,Yury Person, Wolfgang Mueckenheim ever admit slant cut of cone is oval, never the ellipse, ever do a geometry proof of FTC, no all failures of mathematics, and idling away. 
>  
> 
> Germany's Muck the Puke taking up oxygen out of sci.math with his endless and mindless dark numbers, ellipse a conic when that is an oval, and the failure of all of Germany-- never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus 
> 
> siren Sergio,Laura Covi,Andreas Dillmann,Gottingen no one in Gottingen Germany can admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse, all they seem to do is play with WM dark numbers KuhscheiBe. Nor can anyone do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Germany spends its time on Muck the Puck "dark numbers" please, need your help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist. 
> 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist. 
> > > > > >  
> > > > > > > stir-crazy-W.Mueckenheim-the fool still thinks slant cut of cone is ellipse when in truth it is an oval, and the failure of logic WM believes in Boole's AND as TFFF when in truth it is TTTF to avoid what the nitwit WM has as 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. WM is a math failure for the idiot never knew calculus was geometry and therefore never sought a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. 
> > > > > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel 
> > > > > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim 
> > > > > > > Augsburg- Friedrich Pukelsheim-Gottingen,Metin Tolin,Ariane Frey, Wolfgang Glatzel why does Wolfgang Mueckenheim the idiot with "dark numbers" & Dr. Tao fail geometry so so badly, 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > The idiots of math never knew calculus was geometry, erst, they would provide a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, why they are so banal stupid in math, they still believe slant cut in cone is an ellipse, when in reality it is a oval. 
> > > > > > > > They are not mathematicians but mindless fuckdogs of math. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Maybe they wear glasses and cannot see properly. Maybe WM & Tao were never good in math, for they cannot even tell apart a ellipse from oval. They cannot even ask the question which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle? 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Univ Augsburg Germany math-- Hello-- Wolfgang Mueckenheim the fool of math wasting everybodies time -- for WM is a math failure with his slant cut in cone as ellipse when in truth it is a Oval. And now, that fool of math with his "dark numbers". Can you whisk him off to a "shrink in Germany and put him on medications"?? 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Kai Cieliebak, Urs Frauenfelder, Jennifer Gruber, Yannis Bahni, Zhen Gao, Sungho Kim, Shuaipeng Liu, Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr, Kevin Ruck, Evgeny Volkov, Frederic Wagner 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt,Metin Tolin, please, need you help to get WM moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist. 
> > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers. 
> > > > > >  
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers" 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math. 
> > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math 
> > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse 
> > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. 
> > > > > > > 3) arsehole WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus 
> > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > Metin Tolin,Julius Natrup, Marian Poppr,B. Schmidt, please, need you help to get WM and his mindless "dark numbers bullshit" moved over to sci.logic and out of sci.math with his crazy postings-- dark numbers. He is a fool, not a scientist. 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Wolfgang Mueckenheim math-mindless-fuckdog with his mindless "dark numbers" 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Scoot him over to sci.logic-- for he fails math. 
> > > > > > > > Germany's insane WM fails math 
> > > > > > > > 1) he cannot accept slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse 
>  
>  
> > > > > > > > 2) he accepts Boole logic of AND truth table is TFFF which leads to 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. 
> > > > > > > > 3) fool WM, never understood calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus 
> > > > > > > > 4) WM cannot even read a proof of math-- for the 7 Circle Theorem of 1974 is false and invalid 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Yet, every day the fool WM pollutes sci.math with his dark numbers bullshit. 
> > > > > > > Sarah Friedrich please help shuffle insane WM to sci.logic with his mindless dark-numbers. 
> >  
> > > > > > > > Stefan Grobkinsky, Sarah Friedrich, of Augsburg Germany, why does the USA have to have piped in turds from Wolfgang Mueckenheim of his crazy "dark numbers". So Russia cuts gas to Germany, yet Germany pipes the turds of WM into the USA. That is not fair. 
> > > > Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel 
> > > > Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner. 
> > > > 
> > > > Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim 
> > > > Gottingen Univ math 
> > > > 
> > > > Dorothea Bahns, Laurent Bartholdi, Valentin Blomer, Jorg Brüdern, Stefan Halverscheid, Harald Andres Helfgott, Madeleine Jotz Lean, Ralf Meyer, Preda Mihailescu, Walther Dietrich Paravicini, Viktor Pidstrygach, Thomas Schick, Evelina Viada, Ingo Frank Witt, Chenchang Zhu 
> > > > 
> > > > Eternal-September.org 
> > > > Wolfgang M. Weyand 
> > > > Berliner Strasse 
> > > > Bad Homburg 
> > > > 
> > > > Goethe Universitat Physics dept 
> > > > 
> > > > Brigitta Wolff president 
> > > > 
> > > > Jurgen Habermass 
> > > > Horst Stocker 
> > > > Gerd Binnig 
> > > > Horst Ludwig Stormer 
> > > > Peter Grunberg 
> > > > 
> > > > math 
> > > > Alex Kuronya 
> > > > Martin Moller 
> > > > Jakob Stix 
> > > > Annette Werner 
> > > > Andreas Bernig 
> > > > Esther Cabezas-Rivas 
> > > > Hans Crauel 
> > > > Thomas Gerstner 
> > > > Bastian von Harrach 
> > > > Thomas Mettler 
> > > > Tobias Weth 
> > > > Amin Coja-Oghlan 
> > > > Raman Sanyal 
> > > > Thorsten Theobald 
> > > > Yury Person 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Gottingen Univ physics 
> > > > Prof. Dr. Karsten Bahr 
> > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Bloechl 
> > > > Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bodenschatz 
> > > > Prof. Laura Covi, PhD 
> > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Dillmann 
> > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Dreizler 
> > > > Prof. Dr. Jörg Enderlein 
> > > > Prof. Dr. Laurent Gizon 
> > > > Prof. Dr. Ariane Frey 
> > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Glatzel 
> > > > Prof. Dr. Fabian Heidrich-Meisner 
> > > > Prof. Dr. Hans Christian Hofsäss 
> > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Janshoff 
> > > > Prof. Dr. Christian Jooß 
> > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Kehrein 
> > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Klumpp 
> > > > Prof. Dr. Sarah Köster 
> > > > Prof. Dr. Reiner Kree 
> > > > Prof. Dr. Matthias Krüger 
> > > > Prof. Dr. Stanley Lai 
> > > > Prof. Dr. Stefan Mathias 
> > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Vasile Mosneaga 
> > > > Prof. Dr. Marcus Müller 
> > > > Prof. Dr. Jens Niemeyer 
> > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Astrid Pundt 
> > > > Prof. Dr. Arnulf Quadt 
> > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Karl-Henning Rehren 
> > > > Prof. Dr. Ansgar Reiners 
> > > > Prof. Dr. Angela Rizzi 
> > > > Prof. Dr. Claus Ropers 
> > > > Prof. Dr. Tim Salditt 
> > > > Prof. Dr. Konrad Samwer 
> > > > Prof. Dr. Christoph Schmidt 
> > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider 
> > > > Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann 
> > > > Prof. Dr. Simone Techert 
> > > > apl. Prof. Dr. Michael Seibt 
> > > > Prof. Dr. Peter Sollich 
> > > > Prof. Dr. Andreas Tilgner 
> > > > Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert 
> > > > Prof. Dr. Florentin Wörgötter 
> > > > Prof. Dr. Annette Zippelius 
> 
>  
>  
> 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? 
> 
> 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)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#864604

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 
> Bitcoin fell, is Quantum Computing next? Or Artificial Intelligence? So Bitcoin and Play-Act-Spamming in sci.math have much in common. Pretend to do banking and have money in the bank, while in sci.math pretend to do mathematics when all the scam is about-- is keeping some ignorant fool in Germany on the front page of sci.math all day long, all year long all decade long.
> 
> Fabricated Money is a scam from the get-go. Even artificial-intelligence is a scam-- for no-one has ever been able to define it as well as Quantum Computing-- now that is a superlative scam, for not single person in the entire planet Earth can give a explanation of what the shit is Quantum Computing. Not a single person on planet Earth can teach what the hell, what in shit's name is Quantum Computing.
> 
> And I love it when magazines or news reporters talk about Quantum Computing-- for they uneasily pretend as if they know what it is and that the viewer knows what it is, and they jump into the topic in midstream.
> 
> The only thing Bitcoin had going for it was hiding money behind a large prime number for secrecy, something useful to spies and secrecy but hells bells, of no value for money and banking.
> 
> Like W.C. Fields said-- a sucker borne every minute. Or, said, a fool and his money are soon parted.
> 
> So like Germany's WM and his insanity of "dark numbers" is no different a scam than is Quantum Computing nor Bitcoin, nor Artificial Intelligence. All of them involve ACTING, and how that scamming requires expertise in acting.
> 
> Bitcoin compared to Play Act Spamming in sci.math by WM, Sergi_o,Chris Thomasson,Jim Burns, Feldhase, Ross Finlayson, Gus Gassmann, and many other spammers to keep a Germany WM mindrot thread on top of the leader board all day long all year long.

You are soooo right.



-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web