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

Groups > sci.physics > #858073 > unrolled thread

Paul Alsing does not belong in sci.physics, maybe alt.physics where it is toned down and dumb error filled physics

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Paul Alsing does not belong in sci.physics, maybe alt.physics where it is toned down and dumb error filled physics Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2022-07-21 14:20 -0700
    Re: Paul Alsing does not belong in sci.physics, maybe alt.physics where it is toned down and dumb error filled physics Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-07-21 14:44 -0700
      Re: Paul Alsing does not belong in sci.physics, maybe alt.physics where it is toned down and dumb error filled physics Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2022-07-21 14:57 -0700
        Re: Paul Alsing does not belong in sci.physics, maybe alt.physics where it is toned down and dumb error filled physics Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-07-21 17:40 -0700
          Re: Paul Alsing does not belong in sci.physics, maybe alt.physics where it is toned down and dumb error filled physics Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2022-07-21 17:52 -0700
            Re: Paul Alsing does not belong in sci.physics, maybe alt.physics where it is toned down and dumb error filled physics Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2022-07-21 17:57 -0700
              Re: Paul Alsing does not belong in sci.physics, maybe alt.physics where it is toned down and dumb error filled physics Andy Everett <andyeverett57@gmail.com> - 2022-07-21 18:30 -0700
            Re: Paul Alsing does not belong in sci.physics, maybe alt.physics where it is toned down and dumb error filled physics Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-07-21 19:05 -0700
              Re: Paul Alsing does not belong in sci.physics, maybe alt.physics where it is toned down and dumb error filled physics Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2022-07-21 20:47 -0700
          Re: Paul Alsing does not belong in sci.physics, maybe alt.physics where it is toned down and dumb error filled physics Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-07-22 15:04 -0400
            Re: Paul Alsing does not belong in sci.physics, maybe alt.physics where it is toned down and dumb error filled physics Lacy Favero <vcca@yveflfva.ev> - 2022-07-22 20:43 +0000
              Re: Paul Alsing does not belong in sci.physics, maybe alt.physics where it is toned down and dumb error filled physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-07-22 22:33 -0500
                Re: Paul Alsing does not belong in sci.physics, maybe alt.physics where it is toned down and dumb error filled physics James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2022-07-24 10:56 -0700
                  Re: Paul Alsing does not belong in sci.physics, maybe alt.physics where it is toned down and dumb error filled physics Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2022-07-24 11:42 -0700
      Re: Paul Alsing does not belong in sci.physics, maybe alt.physics where it is toned down and dumb error filled physics Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2022-07-21 21:06 -0700

#858073 — Paul Alsing does not belong in sci.physics, maybe alt.physics where it is toned down and dumb error filled physics

Is the below Google search on Paul Alsing, the same foolish idiot of physics that said this on geometry.

On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 2:18:59 PM UTC-5, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: 
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-first-stars-in-the-un/#:~:text=According%20to%20our%20current%20understanding,galaxies%20proliferated%20across%20the%20cosmos. 
> > But you Pnal, with your ellipse the slant cut in a cone when it truly is a Oval, never the ellipse, you Pnal, has astronomy all screwed up as you have a ellipse all screwed up. 
> You are quite a crank, AP... 
> 
> https://www.cuemath.com/geometry/conic-sections/ 
> 
> ... and again, if you have actual evidence that an ellipse is not a conic section, let's see it... but that dog won't hunt, no matter how many times you pound your little fists on the ground... it is pretty hard to declare a definition to be invalid. 
> 
> All ellipses are ovals but not all ovals are ellipses. You must certainly know this but instead choose to fight the bad fight, but no one knows why you like to flog yourself so much and so often. 
 

‪Paul Alsing‬ - ‪Google Scholar‬https://scholar.google.com › citations
Paul Alsing. Air Force Research Laboratory, Information Directorate, Rome, NY 13441. Verified email at us.af.mil. quantum information scienceentanglement in ...

Dr. Paul Alsing - Wright-Patterson AFBhttps://www.wpafb.af.mil › News › Photos › igphoto
Dr. Paul Alsing, Senior Research Physicist with the Air Force Research Laboratory's Information Directorate at Rome, New York, was one of three Air Force ...

Opportunity at Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)https://nrc58.nas.edu › RAPLab10 › Opportunity
Alsing, Paul M. paul.alsing@us.af.mil, 315.330.4960 ... experimental work from diverse fields such as physics, electrical and computer science, engineering, ...

Paul M. Alsing's research works | United States Air Force, New ...https://www.researchgate.net › Paul-M-Alsing-2117093964
Paul M. Alsing's 36 research works with 124 citations and 1417 reads, ... courses and disciplines around the world, spanning physics, math, and com.

SUNY Poly Research in Partnership with the Air Force ...https://sunypoly.edu › news › suny-poly-research-partn...
Nov 10, 2020 — ... is the lead author of a quantum physics work recently published in ... Dr. Paul Alsing- Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)-Information ...

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#858077

On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 2:20:52 PM UTC-7, plutonium....@gmail.com wrote:
> Is the below Google search on Paul Alsing, the same foolish idiot of physics that said this on geometry. 
> 
> On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 2:18:59 PM UTC-5, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-first-stars-in-the-un/#:~:text=According%20to%20our%20current%20understanding,galaxies%20proliferated%20across%20the%20cosmos. 
> > > But you Pnal, with your ellipse the slant cut in a cone when it truly is a Oval, never the ellipse, you Pnal, has astronomy all screwed up as you have a ellipse all screwed up. 
> > You are quite a crank, AP... 
> > 
> > https://www.cuemath.com/geometry/conic-sections/ 
> > 
> > ... and again, if you have actual evidence that an ellipse is not a conic section, let's see it... but that dog won't hunt, no matter how many times you pound your little fists on the ground... it is pretty hard to declare a definition to be invalid. 
> > 
> > All ellipses are ovals but not all ovals are ellipses. You must certainly know this but instead choose to fight the bad fight, but no one knows why you like to flog yourself so much and so often. 
>  
> 
> ‪Paul Alsing‬ - ‪Google Scholar‬https://scholar.google.com › citations 
> Paul Alsing. Air Force Research Laboratory, Information Directorate, Rome, NY 13441. Verified email at us.af.mil. quantum information scienceentanglement in ... 
> 
> Dr. Paul Alsing - Wright-Patterson AFBhttps://www.wpafb.af.mil › News › Photos › igphoto 
> Dr. Paul Alsing, Senior Research Physicist with the Air Force Research Laboratory's Information Directorate at Rome, New York, was one of three Air Force ... 
> 
> Opportunity at Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)https://nrc58.nas.edu › RAPLab10 › Opportunity 
> Alsing, Paul M. paul....@us.af.mil, 315.330.4960 ... experimental work from diverse fields such as physics, electrical and computer science, engineering, ... 
> 
> Paul M. Alsing's research works | United States Air Force, New ...https://www.researchgate.net › Paul-M-Alsing-2117093964 
> Paul M. Alsing's 36 research works with 124 citations and 1417 reads, ... courses and disciplines around the world, spanning physics, math, and com. 
> 
> SUNY Poly Research in Partnership with the Air Force ...https://sunypoly.edu › news › suny-poly-research-partn... 
> Nov 10, 2020 — ... is the lead author of a quantum physics work recently published in ... Dr. Paul Alsing- Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)-Information ...

So, you choose to divert rather than provide support for your claim that the ellipse is not a conic section. Got it.

AP is apparently stump-stupid and is also apparently quite proud of it.

Evidence rules, AP... got any?

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

#858079

On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 4:44:55 PM UTC-5, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> Evidence rules, AP... got any?

Too bad Paul Alsing cannot comprehend nor understand a math proof, why Paul is all about memorization, memorizing false science is his forte.

#12-1, 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



Is the below Google search on Paul Alsing, the same foolish idiot of physics that said this on geometry. 

On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 2:18:59 PM UTC-5, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: 
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-first-stars-in-the-un/#:~:text=According%20to%20our%20current%20understanding,galaxies%20proliferated%20across%20the%20cosmos. 
> > But you Pnal, with your ellipse the slant cut in a cone when it truly is a Oval, never the ellipse, you Pnal, has astronomy all screwed up as you have a ellipse all screwed up. 
> You are quite a crank, AP... 
> 
> https://www.cuemath.com/geometry/conic-sections/ 
> 
> ... and again, if you have actual evidence that an ellipse is not a conic section, let's see it... but that dog won't hunt, no matter how many times you pound your little fists on the ground... it is pretty hard to declare a definition to be invalid. 
> 
> All ellipses are ovals but not all ovals are ellipses. You must certainly know this but instead choose to fight the bad fight, but no one knows why you like to flog yourself so much and so often. 
 

‪Paul Alsing‬ - ‪Google Scholar‬https://scholar.google.com › citations 
Paul Alsing. Air Force Research Laboratory, Information Directorate, Rome, NY 13441. Verified email at us.af.mil. quantum information scienceentanglement in ... 

Dr. Paul Alsing - Wright-Patterson AFBhttps://www.wpafb.af.mil › News › Photos › igphoto 
Dr. Paul Alsing, Senior Research Physicist with the Air Force Research Laboratory's Information Directorate at Rome, New York, was one of three Air Force ... 

Opportunity at Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)https://nrc58.nas.edu › RAPLab10 › Opportunity 
Alsing, Paul M. paul....@us.af.mil, 315.330.4960 ... experimental work from diverse fields such as physics, electrical and computer science, engineering, ... 

Paul M. Alsing's research works | United States Air Force, New ...https://www.researchgate.net › Paul-M-Alsing-2117093964 
Paul M. Alsing's 36 research works with 124 citations and 1417 reads, ... courses and disciplines around the world, spanning physics, math, and com. 

SUNY Poly Research in Partnership with the Air Force ...https://sunypoly.edu › news › suny-poly-research-partn... 
Nov 10, 2020 — ... is the lead author of a quantum physics work recently published in ... Dr. Paul Alsing- Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)-Information ... 

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

#858083

On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 2:57:32 PM UTC-7, plutonium....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 4:44:55 PM UTC-5, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > 
> > Evidence rules, AP... got any?

> Too bad Paul Alsing cannot comprehend nor understand a math proof, why Paul is all about memorization, memorizing false science is his forte. 

Actually,  I did pretty well with math proofs, I earned several degrees in college that decorate my walls...

So,  from what I understand from your "book"?, this is your so-called 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."

Do you call this a mathematical proof, AP?  Really? I would like you to provide evidence that proves that an ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry because I know for sure that you are just making this up as you go along. The definition if an ellipse not not ever include such a requirement.

The verbal description of an ellipse is quite simple... "Ellipse Definition
An ellipse is the locus of points in a plane, the sum of whose distances from two fixed points is a constant value. The two fixed points are called the foci of the ellipse."

You want the math? No problem...

https://www.cuemath.com/geometry/ellipse/

... just scroll down until you see "Ellipse Equation"...  which you won't understand... that's it!

That's it. Simple. No mention of "2 axes of symmetry", which you have just made up. As always, if you have evidence to the contrary, let's see it! You can't possibly provide this support because you made it all up! 

Like I told others here (you know, Jimbo and Mitch), if brains were dynamite, you could not blow your hat off!

Evidence rules, AP... got any?

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

#858084

On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 7:41:02 PM UTC-5, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 2:57:32 PM UTC-7, plutonium....@gmail.com wrote: 
> > On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 4:44:55 PM UTC-5, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > > 
> > > Evidence rules, AP... got any? 
> 
> > Too bad Paul Alsing cannot comprehend nor understand a math proof, why Paul is all about memorization, memorizing false science is his forte.
> Actually, I did pretty well with math proofs, I earned several degrees in college that decorate my walls... 
> 
> So, from what I understand from your "book"?, this is your so-called 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."
> Do you call this a mathematical proof, AP? Really? I would like you to provide evidence that proves that an ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry because I know for sure that you are just making this up as you go along. The definition if an ellipse not not ever include such a requirement. 
> 

I give a traditional Euclid geometry proof the cone slant cut has unequal distances on its main axis. 

The axes of symmetry are just a distilled -- quick proof. But you have no logical brains to ever be in science, so I cannot expect any true science out of you, in fact, you are probably as bad as Dr. Terence Tao.

> The verbal description of an ellipse is quite simple... "Ellipse Definition 
> An ellipse is the locus of points in a plane, the sum of whose distances from two fixed points is a constant value. The two fixed points are called the foci of the ellipse." 
> 
> You want the math? No problem... 
> 
> https://www.cuemath.com/geometry/ellipse/ 
> 
> ... just scroll down until you see "Ellipse Equation"... which you won't understand... that's it! 
> 
> That's it. Simple. No mention of "2 axes of symmetry", which you have just made up. As always, if you have evidence to the contrary, let's see it! You can't possibly provide this support because you made it all up! 
> 
> Like I told others here (you know, Jimbo and Mitch), if brains were dynamite, you could not blow your hat off!
> Evidence rules, AP... got any?

For failures like Pnal,-- always referring elsewhere,,.....always people talk,,,,... never and science substance.

134th published book

Introduction to TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 1 for ages 5 through 26, math textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

The 134th book of AP, and belatedly late, for I had already written the series of TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS in a 7 volume, 8 book set. This would be the first book in that 8 book set (one of the books is a companion book to 1st year college). But I suppose that I needed to write the full series before I could write the Introduction and know what I had to talk about and talk about in a logical progression order. Sounds paradoxical in a sense, that I needed to write the full series first and then go back and write the Introduction. But in another sense, hard to write an introduction on something you have not really fully done and completed. For example to know what is error filled Old Math and to list those errors in a logical order requires me to write the full 7 volumes in order to list in order the mistakes.

Cover Picture: Mathematics begins with counting, with numbers, with quantity. But counting numbers needs geometry for something to count in the first place. So here in this picture of the generalized Hydrogen atom of chemistry and physics is a torus geometry of 8 rings of a proton torus and one ring where my fingers are, is a equator ring that is the muon and thrusting through the proton torus at the equator of the torus. So we count 9 rings in all. So math is created by atoms and math numbers exist because atoms have many geometry figures to count. And geometry exists because atoms have shapes and different figures.

Product details
	•	ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08K2XQB4M
	•	Publication date ‏ : ‎ September 24, 2020
	•	Language ‏ : ‎ English
	•	File size ‏ : ‎ 576 KB
	•	Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
	•	Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
	•	Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
	•	X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
	•	Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
	•	Print length ‏ : ‎ 23 pages
	•	Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
	•	Best Sellers Rank: #224,974 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
	◦	#3 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
	◦	#23 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
	◦	#182 in Calculus (Books)



#5-2, 45th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 2 for ages 5 to 18, math textbook series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)




#1 New Releasein General Geometry


Last revision was 2NOV2020. And this is AP's 45th published book of science.
Preface: Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education. 

This is a textbook series in several volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education starting age 5 up to age 26. Volume 2 is for age 5 year old to that of senior in High School, that is needed to do both science and math. Every other math book is incidental to this series of Teaching True Mathematics.

It is a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost on a daily basis. A unique first in education textbooks-- almost a continual overnight editing. Adding new text, correcting text. Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education. Volume 3 carries the Freshperson in College for their math calculus education. 

Cover Picture: The Numbers as Integers from 0 to 100, and 10 Grid when dividing by 10, and part of the 100 Grid when dividing by 100. Decimal Grid Numbers are the true numbers of mathematics. The Reals, the rationals & irrationals, the algebraic & transcendentals, the imaginary & Complex, and the negative-numbers are all fake numbers. For, to be a true number, you have to "be counted" by mathematical induction. The smallest Grid system is the Decimal 10 Grid.

Length: 399 pages




Product details
		ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07RG7BVZW
		Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 2, 2019
		Language ‏ : ‎ English
		File size ‏ : ‎ 2023 KB
		Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
		Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
		Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
		X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
		Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
		Print length ‏ : ‎ 399 pages
		Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
		Best Sellers Rank: #235,426 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
		#15 in General Geometry
		#223 in Geometry & Topology (Books)
		

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

#858085

No wonder, Pnal, the sickfuck of physics cannot ask a simple question-- which is the atoms true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle, for Pnal cannot understand that if the slant cut of cylinder is a ellipse, the slant cut of cone cannot be a ellipse.

And apparently this is the downfall also of Terence Tao as a geometry failure. Their microbrains cannot fathom that if the cylinder slant cut is a ellipse, the cone slant cut cannot be a ellipse.

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

#858087

On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 8:57:52 PM UTC-4, plutonium....@gmail.com wrote:
> No wonder, Pnal, the sickfuck of physics cannot ask a simple question-- which is the atoms true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle, for Pnal cannot understand that if the slant cut of cylinder is a ellipse, the slant cut of cone cannot be a ellipse. 
> 
> And apparently this is the downfall also of Terence Tao as a geometry failure. Their microbrains cannot fathom that if the cylinder slant cut is a ellipse, the cone slant cut cannot be a ellipse.

Google search and Google image search "show that the intersection of a plane and the cone can yield an ellipse"

https://www.google.com/search?q=show+that+the+intersection+of+a+plane+and+the+cone+can+yeild+an+ellipse&rlz=1CARJNJ_enUS781US784&oq=show+that+the+intersection+of+a+plane+and+the+cone+can+yeild+an+ellipse&aqs=chrome..69i57.45093j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

https://www.google.com/search?

https://www.google.com/search?q=show+that+the+intersection+of+a+plane+and+the+cone+can+yield+an+ellipse&rlz=1CARJNJ_enUS781US784&sxsrf=ALiCzsYl2Akp96FiCjo8YLdD737dAZEaWQ:1658452582837&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjaos6oqYv5AhXEoFwKHYUKAbYQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1484&bih=673&dpr=0.88

3Blue1Brown video, "Why slicing a cone gives an ellipse",

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQa_tWZmlGs

Video, "Slicing Cones gives you Ellipses",

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9fZrKOkQk4

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

#858089

On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 5:52:26 PM UTC-7, plutonium....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 7:41:02 PM UTC-5, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 2:57:32 PM UTC-7, plutonium....@gmail.com wrote: 
> > > On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 4:44:55 PM UTC-5, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > > > 
> > > > Evidence rules, AP... got any? 
> > 
> > > Too bad Paul Alsing cannot comprehend nor understand a math proof, why Paul is all about memorization, memorizing false science is his forte. 
> > Actually, I did pretty well with math proofs, I earned several degrees in college that decorate my walls... 
> > 
> > So, from what I understand from your "book"?, this is your so-called 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." 
> > Do you call this a mathematical proof, AP? Really? I would like you to provide evidence that proves that an ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry because I know for sure that you are just making this up as you go along. The definition if an ellipse not not ever include such a requirement. 
> >
> I give a traditional Euclid geometry proof the cone slant cut has unequal distances on its main axis. 
> 
> The axes of symmetry are just a distilled -- quick proof. But you have no logical brains to ever be in science, so I cannot expect any true science out of you, in fact, you are probably as bad as Dr. Terence Tao.
> > The verbal description of an ellipse is quite simple... "Ellipse Definition 
> > An ellipse is the locus of points in a plane, the sum of whose distances from two fixed points is a constant value. The two fixed points are called the foci of the ellipse." 
> > 
> > You want the math? No problem... 
> > 
> > https://www.cuemath.com/geometry/ellipse/ 
> > 
> > ... just scroll down until you see "Ellipse Equation"... which you won't understand... that's it! 
> > 
> > That's it. Simple. No mention of "2 axes of symmetry", which you have just made up. As always, if you have evidence to the contrary, let's see it! You can't possibly provide this support because you made it all up! 
> > 
> > Like I told others here (you know, Jimbo and Mitch), if brains were dynamite, you could not blow your hat off! 

> > Evidence rules, AP... got any?

> For failures like Pnal,-- always referring elsewhere,,.....always people talk,,,,... never and science substance. 

So... you have provided zero support for your claims and somehow this is all my fault? I do seriously believe that it is *you* who never provides "science substance", as you call it. No evidence whatsoever, just like Jimbo does! Maybe you guys are the same guy! Both if you don't have the brains given to a ripe kumquat but continue to blather on and on without a lick of evidence. Twins... and a waste of good air!

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

#858090

Brig Gen Linell Letendre, astronautical engineering, please, is it not time to teach and offer a course at the US Air Force Academy, a course in Logic, for that Paul Alsing, is lost and unable to have a discussion of Slant cut of Cone is Oval, never ellipse. Geometry is vital in flying airplanes, we all can concede to that. But the Air Force motto is 

Frank Kendall III
Gen Charles Q Brown Jr.
Gen David W. Allvin
CMSAF JoAnne S. Bass

Motto: "Integrity first, Service before self, Excellence in all we do"

How important is it, Frank, for the US Air Force to tell apart a ellipse from a oval?

Frank, I see no integrity in Paul Alsing denying the truth and admitting he is wrong, for a slant cut in cylinder is surely a ellipse with 2 axes of symmetry. But a slant cut in cone that has but 1 axis of symmetry is a oval, for the oval has 1 axis of symmetry.

So Frank, is your air force personnel honest and have integrity, or are they a rabble crowd like Paul Alsing with his mockery and taunting instead of straight upright and truthful.

Col. Paul Henderson, Mr. Jack Blackhurst, Dr. Timothy J. Bunning, is this how Air Force Research and Air Force Academy operate-- no discussion of slant cut in cone, but only intimidation, taunting and mocking by Pnal.

Maj. Gen. Heather L. Pringle, is Paul Alsing Pnal one of your researchers, who demonstrates daily in sci.physics that he is not interested in science, in math, in truth, but only that of mocking others and taunting others.

Is Pnal one of your researchers? And obviously a disappointment and failure of science.

On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 9:05:45 PM UTC-5, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 5:52:26 PM UTC-7, plutonium....@gmail.com wrote: 
> > On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 7:41:02 PM UTC-5, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > > On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 2:57:32 PM UTC-7, plutonium....@gmail.com wrote: 
> > > > On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 4:44:55 PM UTC-5, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Evidence rules, AP... got any? 
> > > 
> > > > Too bad Paul Alsing cannot comprehend nor understand a math proof, why Paul is all about memorization, memorizing false science is his forte. 
> > > Actually, I did pretty well with math proofs, I earned several degrees in college that decorate my walls... 
> > > 
> > > So, from what I understand from your "book"?, this is your so-called 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." 
> > > Do you call this a mathematical proof, AP? Really? I would like you to provide evidence that proves that an ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry because I know for sure that you are just making this up as you go along. The definition if an ellipse not not ever include such a requirement. 
> > > 
> > I give a traditional Euclid geometry proof the cone slant cut has unequal distances on its main axis. 
> > 
> > The axes of symmetry are just a distilled -- quick proof. But you have no logical brains to ever be in science, so I cannot expect any true science out of you, in fact, you are probably as bad as Dr. Terence Tao. 
> > > The verbal description of an ellipse is quite simple... "Ellipse Definition 
> > > An ellipse is the locus of points in a plane, the sum of whose distances from two fixed points is a constant value. The two fixed points are called the foci of the ellipse." 
> > > 
> > > You want the math? No problem... 
> > > 
> > > https://www.cuemath.com/geometry/ellipse/ 
> > > 
> > > ... just scroll down until you see "Ellipse Equation"... which you won't understand... that's it! 
> > > 
> > > That's it. Simple. No mention of "2 axes of symmetry", which you have just made up. As always, if you have evidence to the contrary, let's see it! You can't possibly provide this support because you made it all up! 
> > > 
> > > Like I told others here (you know, Jimbo and Mitch), if brains were dynamite, you could not blow your hat off! 
> 
> > > Evidence rules, AP... got any? 
> 
> > For failures like Pnal,-- always referring elsewhere,,.....always people talk,,,,... never and science substance.
> So... you have provided zero support for your claims and somehow this is all my fault? I do seriously believe that it is *you* who never provides "science substance", as you call it. No evidence whatsoever, just like Jimbo does! Maybe you guys are the same guy! Both if you don't have the brains given to a ripe kumquat but continue to blather on and on without a lick of evidence. Twins... and a waste of good air!


> On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 2:18:59 PM UTC-5, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-first-stars-in-the-un/#:~:text=According%20to%20our%20current%20understanding,galaxies%20proliferated%20across%20the%20cosmos. 
> > > But you Pnal, with your ellipse the slant cut in a cone when it truly is a Oval, never the ellipse, you Pnal, has astronomy all screwed up as you have a ellipse all screwed up. 
> > You are quite a crank, AP... 
> > 
> > https://www.cuemath.com/geometry/conic-sections/ 
> > 
> > ... and again, if you have actual evidence that an ellipse is not a conic section, let's see it... but that dog won't hunt, no matter how many times you pound your little fists on the ground... it is pretty hard to declare a definition to be invalid. 
> > 
> > All ellipses are ovals but not all ovals are ellipses. You must certainly know this but instead choose to fight the bad fight, but no one knows why you like to flog yourself so much and so often. 
>  
> 
> ‪Paul Alsing‬ - ‪Google Scholar‬https://scholar.google.com › citations 
> Paul Alsing. Air Force Research Laboratory, Information Directorate, Rome, NY 13441. Verified email at us.af.mil. quantum information scienceentanglement in ... 
> 
> Dr. Paul Alsing - Wright-Patterson AFBhttps://www.wpafb.af.mil › News › Photos › igphoto 
> Dr. Paul Alsing, Senior Research Physicist with the Air Force Research Laboratory's Information Directorate at Rome, New York, was one of three Air Force ... 
> 
> Opportunity at Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)https://nrc58.nas.edu › RAPLab10 › Opportunity 
> Alsing, Paul M. paul....@us.af.mil, 315.330.4960 ... experimental work from diverse fields such as physics, electrical and computer science, engineering, ... 
> 
> Paul M. Alsing's research works | United States Air Force, New ...https://www.researchgate.net › Paul-M-Alsing-2117093964 
> Paul M. Alsing's 36 research works with 124 citations and 1417 reads, ... courses and disciplines around the world, spanning physics, math, and com. 
> 
> SUNY Poly Research in Partnership with the Air Force ...https://sunypoly.edu › news › suny-poly-research-partn... 
> Nov 10, 2020 — ... is the lead author of a quantum physics work recently published in ... Dr. Paul Alsing- Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)-Information ...

Maj. Gen. Heather L. Pringle, is Paul Alsing Pnal one of your researchers, who demonstrates daily in sci.physics that he is not interested in science, in math, in truth, but only that of mocking others and taunting others.

Col. Paul Henderson, Mr. Jack Blackhurst, Dr. Timothy J. Bunning, is this how Air Force Research and Air Force Academy operate-- no discussion of slant cut in cone, but only intimidation, taunting and mocking by Pnal.

Is Pnal one of your researchers? And obviously a disappointment and failure of science.

US Air Force Academy
Lt Gen Richard M. Clark
Brig Gen Linell Letendre, astronautical engineering

physics
Capt Zachary Condon
Dr. Kimberly de La Harpe
Dr. Devin Della-Rose
Major Robert Vincent
math
Dr. Beth Schaubroeck

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

#858125

On 7/21/2022 8:40 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 2:57:32 PM UTC-7, plutonium....@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 4:44:55 PM UTC-5, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

>>> Evidence rules, AP... got any?
> 
>> Too bad Paul Alsing cannot comprehend nor understand a math proof, why Paul is all about memorization, memorizing false science is his forte.
> 
Once again, Plutonium attacks the poster with ad hominems rather than 
discuss the math or the physics.

> Actually,  I did pretty well with math proofs, I earned several degrees in college that decorate my walls...
> 
> So,  from what I understand from your "book"?, this is your so-called 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."
> 
> Do you call this a mathematical proof, AP?  Really? I would like you to provide evidence that proves that an ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry because I know for sure that you are just making this up as you go along. The definition if an ellipse not not ever include such a requirement.
> 
> The verbal description of an ellipse is quite simple... "Ellipse Definition
> An ellipse is the locus of points in a plane, the sum of whose distances from two fixed points is a constant value. The two fixed points are called the foci of the ellipse."
> 
> You want the math? No problem...
> 
> https://www.cuemath.com/geometry/ellipse/
> 
> ... just scroll down until you see "Ellipse Equation"...  which you won't understand... that's it!
> 
> That's it. Simple. No mention of "2 axes of symmetry", which you have just made up. As always, if you have evidence to the contrary, let's see it! You can't possibly provide this support because you made it all up!
> 
> Like I told others here (you know, Jimbo and Mitch), if brains were dynamite, you could not blow your hat off!
> 
> Evidence rules, AP... got any?

Once again, evidence rules, Plutonium drools.

Plutonium's claim centers around the fact he's trying to show there is 
only one axis of symmetry AROUND THE AXIS OF THE CONE. The center of the 
ellipse formed by a plane intersecting a cone has a center NOT ALONG THE 
AXIS OF THE CONE AT ALL. Plutonium's claim is like saying the curve:
   (x-1)²+2y² = k²
isn't an ellipse because it doesn't have two axes of symmetry because 
it's not symmetric around the point (0,0).  It's not, because it's 
symmetric around the point (1,0)!
> 

I think it's simple to prove the ellipse has two axes of symmetry since 
the formula for an ellipse has only even powers of x and y (once 
coordinates are shifted), so if AP (or anyone else) could prove the 
intersection of a cone and plane has only 1 axis of symmetry (around any 
point) it would show it's not an ellipse, but multiple proofs do show it 
does have the formula of an ellipse. Unfortunately (for AP):

1) Many proofs exist that the curve has the formula for an ellipse;
2) AP has no idea how to create/derive/write a mathematical proof anyway.

I asked this before, and I'll ask again: In the general case, the 
intersection of the axis of a cone and the ellipse formed by an 
intersecting plane is not the center of an ellipse.  It is also not 
through either focus of the ellipse (someone showed me a proof of this). 
I'll ask: Does the intersection of the plane-cone ellipse and cone axis 
have a name? Any special mathematical properties? If we were to examine 
this point for the orbits of the various planets, comets etc., would we 
see anything interesting there?

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

#858137

Michael Moroney wrote:

>>> Too bad Paul Alsing cannot comprehend nor understand a math proof, why
>>> Paul is all about memorization, memorizing false science is his forte.
>> 
> Once again, Plutonium attacks the poster with ad hominems rather than
> discuss the math or the physics.

with you??

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

#858147

On 7/22/2022 3:43 PM, Lacy Favero wrote:
> Michael Moroney wrote:
> 
>>>> Too bad Paul Alsing cannot comprehend nor understand a math proof, why
>>>> Paul is all about memorization, memorizing false science is his forte.
>>>
>> Once again, Plutonium attacks the poster with ad hominems rather than
>> discuss the math or the physics.
> 
> with you??

And yet another inferiority complex displays itself.

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

#858242

On Friday, July 22, 2022 at 8:33:23 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> On 7/22/2022 3:43 PM, Lacy Favero wrote: 
> > Michael Moroney wrote: 
> > 
> >>>> Too bad Paul Alsing cannot comprehend nor understand a math proof, why 
> >>>> Paul is all about memorization, memorizing false science is his forte. 
> >>> 
> >> Once again, Plutonium attacks the poster with ad hominems rather than 
> >> discuss the math or the physics. 
> > 
> > with you??
> And yet another inferiority complex displays itself.

Q.E.D.

James McGinn / Genius

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

#858244

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, July 22, 2022 at 8:33:23 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
>> On 7/22/2022 3:43 PM, Lacy Favero wrote: 
>> > Michael Moroney wrote: 
>> > 
>> >>>> Too bad Paul Alsing cannot comprehend nor understand a math proof, why 
>> >>>> Paul is all about memorization, memorizing false science is his forte. 
>> >>> 
>> >> Once again, Plutonium attacks the poster with ad hominems rather than 
>> >> discuss the math or the physics. 
>> > 
>> > with you??
>> And yet another inferiority complex displays itself.
> 
> Q.E.D.

And it seems we can add QED to the long, and ever growing, list of
things that the insane crackpot does not understand.

> James McGinn / Delusionally Insane Crackpot

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

#858091

Pnal, US Air Force makes a mockery of math and physics. Is all the Air Force like Pnal.

On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 4:44:55 PM UTC-5, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > ... and again, if you have actual evidence that an ellipse is not a conic section, let's see it... but that dog won't hunt, no matter how many times you pound your little fists on the ground... it is pretty hard to declare a definition to be invalid. 
> > > 
> > > All ellipses are ovals but not all ovals are ellipses. You must certainly know this but instead choose to fight the bad fight, but no one knows why you like to flog yourself so much and so often. 


In both of AP's books of proof that slant cut in cone is oval, never the ellipse:

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 

#12-1, 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] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web