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

Groups > sci.math > #413096 > unrolled thread

#2-30 & 3-1, Sigma error and Geometry Logic// Teaching True Mathematics

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

Contents

  #2-30 & 3-1, Sigma error and Geometry Logic// Teaching True Mathematics Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 14:21 -0700
    Conic sections when we get in Geometry // Teaching True Mathematics Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 01:16 -0700
      Re: Conic sections when we get in Geometry // Teaching True Mathematics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-15 11:19 +0000
        Re: Conic sections when we get in Geometry // Teaching True Mathematics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-15 19:15 +0000
          Jacob Barandes, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker, Howard Berg, Michael Brenner,   -- Moroney asks why you keep failing with identity of Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 12:36 -0700
            Re: Archimedes "Failure" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-15 20:39 +0000
      we have the Cone tube, and the Cylinder tube, now we have the Ellipse tube // Teaching True Mathematics Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 11:28 -0700
        Re: we have the Cone tube, and the Cylinder tube, now we have the Ellipse tube // Teaching True Mathematics Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2018-05-17 18:25 +0000

#413096 — #2-30 & 3-1, Sigma error and Geometry Logic// Teaching True Mathematics

#2-30 Sigma Error in number roots, sqrt2, sqrt3, sqrt5, etc // Teaching True Mathematics

Alright now, we do Sigma error on roots.

What is the square root of 2?

It is 1.42 in 10 Grid.
So we have
1.42
x1.42
---------
    284
  568
142
----------
2.0164  remember where the decimal point goes in multiplication, you have to count over four places.

So, in 10 Grid, the square root of 2 is 1.42, and the "164" is sigma-error

Now, using calculators find the square root of 2 as 1.414213....

Now, what is the sqrt2 , the abbreviation of square root is sqrt, in 100 Grid?

Well 100 Grid is 1.41, so we have to look for the next digit of 1.414 and raise it one digit higher
1.415. Now, using the calculator multiply 1.415 x 1.415. Ask the class if 1.415^2 is the same thing.
The squaring of a number is the same as the number multiplied by itself.

So, what does the calculator give for 1.415 x 1.415 = 2.0022.... And yes, the sqrt2 in 100 Grid is 1.415 with a sigma error of "22"

What is the sqrt2 in 1000 Grid? We look at the next digit over 1.4142 and raise it one digit higher to be 1.4143, now we multiply by itself or do a 1.4143^2. And we get 2.000244.... And the sigma error is "244".

Alright, there was a good reason to have lessons on Sequence for now we are going to call Sequence into work. Let us do the square sequence, then the cube sequence then the 4th exponent sequence. Now introduce exponent for the first time. Start with

2 = 2^1
2x2 = 2^2
2x2x2 = 2^3
2x2x2x2 = 2^4

Teacher, teach that an exponent is a quick way of just writing a number multiplied by itself. It takes too much time to write 2x2x2x2 and so we want a shortcut, a faster way of writing that, so we write 2^4. And of course, 2^4 = 16. So introduce the term exponent for the 13 year olds.

Now to the square sequence:
1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36,.... remember that sequence from an earlier lesson?

the cube sequence:
1, 8, 27, 64, . . .  (it is alright to use hand calculators, teacher and students)

the 4th exponent sequence:
1, 16, 81, 256, . . . 

Carry these above sequences out to ten numbers in each one.

Now, we need these sequences to do roots, like square roots, like cube roots, like 4th roots.

History Note of me. I remember in high school of trying to do the square root of a number as a math operation, it is sort of similar to long division but different. And my father remembered it perfectly and was able to show me, but today, I must admit, it is lost in the fog of my mind. And my father was not really good at mathematics, but for some reason or other, remembered in his old age how to do the operation mechanically of a square root. But, what I am going to teach is how to do the operation of roots, via using sequences, and a bit of a touch of sigma-error. Call it a new way of performing root extractions.

Alright, let us do several roots, a square root of say 10. So we want a number N, so that we multiply it by itself NxN to make 10.
NxN remember is N^2

So we bring out our square sequence is this:

1, 4, 9, 16, ....

And we stop there because we know 10 is between 9 and 16. Now 9 = 3^2, and 16= 4^2.

So we know that the square root of 10 is going to start with 3. Now we want the next digit. So we look at all the numbers from 9 to 16

9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

We know we must have 3 as first digit, but what is the second digit? Well, if it were 3.5 we would be looking at 12 to 13 for they are in the middle. So instead we look at 10 and see it is close to 9. So our next digit is either 3.1 or is 3.2. So let us experiment and try to see if sqrt10 is 3.1 or 3.2.

We multiply both
3.1
x3.1
------
9.61

3.2
x3.2
------
10.24

Yes indeed we see that 10.24 exceeds 10 so our next digit is 3.1

Now we want the next digit after 3.1 because 9.61 is not that close to 10.

Now we experiment some more. We try the midpoint of 3.15 where 5 is the midpoints of decimals roots.

We do a 

3.15
x3.15 (good practice on multiplying decimals and remembering where the decimal point goes)
--------
9.9225

which is not big enough, so we try 9.16

3.16
x3.16
--------
9.9856

still not big enough we try 3.17

3.17
x3.17
--------
10.0489 and hit it smack center for we have 10.0 with a sigma error of "489" in 10Grid, so that in 10 Grid the sqrt10 = 3.17

Now we can go further out to the 100Grid, and here what we need is 10.00 let us just do that.
We try the midpoint of "5" again
3.165
x3.165
---------
10.017 which is close, but a little too big so we drop down a digit

3.164
x3.164
--------
10.010 and a tiny bit too big

3.163
3.163
--------
10.0045 and we found what we were looking for 10.00 in 100 Grid is sqrt10 = 3.163 with sigma error of "45"

Now Old Math had a mechanical method of finding the square root of a number, but trouble is, that method never gives the exact value of a number with a sigma error. And so, their method was wrong, and not worth teaching.

Now when I went to school in some grade level we were taught how to do square root such as the square root of 1000, by the way the abbreviation of square root is "sqrt". So the sqrt1000, what is that?

I no longer remember how Old Math computes square root, or any root. So let me teach you the better way.

We want the square root of 1000
So we ask where does that root lie between two perfect squares. 

Take out the hand held calculator or the iphone and complete the sequence of perfect-squares until you get 1000 sandwiched between two numbers.

1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49, 64, 81, 100, 121, ...

Is it between 30 and 31? So we do 30 x 30 = 900
and do 31x31 = 961. So no, let us try 32x32 = 1024. 

So, now we know sqrt1000 is somewhere between 31 and 32. So now we take the 31.q and find out the next digit q. We pick say the midpoint to see if we need to go up or down from "5 digit".

   31.5 
x 31.5
---------
992.25

We are looking for the sqrt1000 in 10 Grid which would look like this 1000.0

Apparently 31.5 is not enough. So let us try 31.6 and 31.7

   31.6 
x 31.6
---------
998.56 which is not enough

   31.7 
x 31.7
---------
1004.89 which is too much

And tells us we need to try 31.65

   31.65 
x 31.65
---------
1001.72 too much again so we need to come down from 5, let us try 31.63 and still too much.

Finally we try 31.623
   31.623 
x 31.623
---------
1000.014 and that is what we wanted the sqrt1000 in 10 Grid = 31.623 with a Sigma error of "14"

Now there is a fast and easy way to do this.

Just punch into the calculator or iphone the sqrt1000 and up appears 31.622776... but that is not the true value of the sqrt1000 for it never comes as 1000.0, and the closest it ever gets to 1000 is 9999.999... So, what you have to do is increase the digit of one of those digits right of the decimal point until the number comes up with 1000.0. If we increased 6 to 7 it does not work, next, if we increase 2 to 3 it does not work but next is another 2 digit and if we increase it to 3 as in 31.623, then we get our sqrt1000 = 31.623 in 10 Grid.

Now teacher, tell the students that when they get to Algebra class in High School, they will learn that all, and every number that exists is a Decimal Grid Number like that of 1000.0 in 10 Grid or like 2.0 in 10 Grid or 2.00 in 100 Grid or like 2.000 in 1000 Grid. Tell the students there is no such thing as a Irrational Number, no such thing as a Real Number, no such thing as a Transcendental Number, and even, no such thing as a Rational Number-- because a division that has not been worked out such as 5/3, is not a number. In Algebra in High School, the students learn that the only numbers that exist are Decimal Grid Numbers, and will prove it in that Algebra class.

Now, teacher, assign for class and homework all these roots problems

sqrt3 in 10 Grid, 100 Grid, 1000 Grid and find sigma error
sqrt5 in 10 Grid, 100 Grid, 1000 Grid and find sigma error

Cube root is abbreviated as cbrt
cbrt10 in 10 Grid, 100 Grid and find sigma error
cbrt100 in 10 Grid, 100 Grid and find sigma error

Now let me show an example of cube root, that of cube root of 5

Cube means a number N multiply by itself three times, so we have NxNxN and we abbreviate that as N^3. We abbreviate a lot in mathematics for we are often too lazy to write it out.

Do the cube sequence

1, 8, ...... and we need go no further, because 5 is between 1 and 8

And the cube sequence goes much much further for it is

1^3, 2^3, 3^3, 4^3,....

Now in mathematics, in geometry, you will use mostly just square and cube, and only rarely will you use N^4, the 4th power or exponent. Remember what exponent was? N^3 is exponent 3 or power 3, N^4 is exponent 4 or power 4. Square is area in geometry, and cube is volume in geometry, and N^4 has no geometry meaning for dimensions of space end at 3 exponent. However, N^4 has meaning in physics, and so, on occasion but very rarely do we need N^4.

So, let us do cbrt5 to show the student

Since 5 is between 1 and 8, our first digit is 1 and now we need 1.q where q is our second digit
So we start with 1.5 guess to see if it needs to go higher or lower.

1.5 x 1.5 x 1.5

we first do
1.5
x1.5
------
2.25 then we do another times 1.5

2.25
x1.5
------
3.375

So we see we have not enough in 1.5 to be cbrt5, thus we go to 1.6 or 1.7

1.6x1.6x1.6

1.6
x1.6
-------
2.56

2.56
x1.6
------
4.096

then try 1.7x1.7x1.7

1.7
x1.7
-------
2.89

2.89
x1.7
-------
4.913

So, we are getting closer and we realize 1.6 is no good here. So let me guess 1.71 and try that

1.71 x 1.71 x 1.71

1.71
x1.71
--------
2.9241

2.9241
x1.71   (a lot of practice here for the students on multiplication of decimals)
---------
5.00021

Our result is beautiful for that is the cube root of 5 not only for 10 Grid, but also for 100 Grid and also 1000 Grid with a sigma error of "21".

So, let us write that down as

cbrt5 in 10 Grid = 1.71
cbrt5 in 100 Grid = 1.71
cbrt5 in 1000 Grid = 1.71  all with a sigma error of "21"

This has been a long lesson and have the students do the exercises above and any additional exercises the teacher wants to give. A long lesson because there is so much new to cover and so important for it keeps the students away from the fakery Old Math with their fake numbers of Reals, transcendentals, irrationals, even Rationals are fake because they are not numbers but some persons laziness in not dividing out a division problem. A long lesson, because it is this sort of fake math-- Reals, irrationals, rationals that is foisted on our young students being brainwashed for life into fakery mathematics.

The ONLY NUMBERS that exist are Decimal Grid Numbers. Period.

AP


Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2018 23:02:04 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: #3-1  Chapter 3 for age 14// Teaching True Mathematics
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2018 06:02:04 +0000

#3-1 Chapter 3 for age 14// Teaching True Mathematics

#3-1  Chapter 3 for age 14// Teaching True Mathematics 

Alright, you made it this far. Chapter 1 was all for the age 8 Grade School students. They had there very own chapter. Chapter 2 was for ages 9 to 13, and then chapter 3 is all for the age of 14 year olds. Ages 15 through 18 are for High School, freshman, sophomore, junior, senior. For freshman we want to do nothing but Geometry, for sophomore we want to do Algebra, for juniors we want Trigonometry, and for seniors PreCalculus. 

For 14 year olds, before they go to High School, we want to make sure they learned well all the lessons so far in this book, but not all is review, for we teach them Geometry-Logic which is Set theory with a spin. So, this chapter is about review, and then a new topic of Geometrical-Logic. 

We begin the review as we started the textbook,-- memorization of the multiplication table-- what is 54? Someone will blurt out 9*6, then ask, what is 56? Someone will blurt out 8*7. Ask what is 7*8? Ask what is 9*3 and then ask what is 2 of 9*3, and teach the students that if your memory fails you on 9*6, cut it in half to 9*3 = 27 and double it is 54. Same goes for 7*8 = 56, if you forget, cut it in half with 7*4 =28 and double 28 is 56. 

Teach the students to have a flexible alternative mind at solving, so you forget what 8*7 is, shaky if it is 54 or 56, so just cut it in half 4*7=28 and then you know 8*7 is 56. 

I used to love Dodge ball in High School, just loved that sport. Can we set up mathematics memorization of the Multiplication Table as a sort of Dodge Ball contest. But we must remember, some students are slow at memorizing and others fast, so we must never embarrass any student. Always have learning and teaching on a positive upward motivation. Never ever make fun or light of a student slow to learn. And the teacher has to guard and protect the slow learners. 

So, we review multiplication tables. Now review add and subtract decimals, and multiply with decimals. But the biggest review is Long Division. And on the first day of class, tell the students then must have two papers which they will be working in class and at home, for homework for several weeks. What they are going to do is learn something about Infinity and angles at infinity and about five beautiful objects in Nature-- the five regular-polyhedra. Teacher show them the dice. But now, show them two papers where the teacher has already done the homework exercise. 

Divide the below number of 604 digits by 12, where the division is done all on one side of a paper 
 31415926535 8979323846 2643383279 5028841971 6939937510 
 5820974944 5923078164 0628620899 8628034825 3421170679   
 8214808651 3282306647 0938446095 5058223172 5359408128 
 4811174502 8410270193 8521105559 6446229489 5493038196 
 4428810975 6659334461 2847564823 3786783165 2712019091 
 4564856692 3460348610 4543266482 1339360726 0249141273   
 7245870066 0631558817 4881520920 9628292540 9171536436 
 7892590360 0113305305 4882046652 1384146951 9415116094   
 3305727036 5759591953 0921861173 8193261179 3105118548 
 0744623799 6274956735 1885752724 8912279381 8301194912 
 9833673362 4406566430 8602139494 6395224737 1907021798   
 6094370277 0539217176 2931767523 8467481846 7669405132 
 00 

Now, after the above is done, on a second paper, both front and back divide by 72 this 1208 digit number 
05681271 4526356082 7785771342 7577896091 7363717872 
 1468440901 2249534301 4654958537 1050792279 6892589235 
4201995611 2129021960 8640344181 5981362977 4771309960   
5187072113 4999999837 2978049951 0597317328 1609631859 
   
5024459455 3469083026 4252230825 3344685035 2619311881 
 
7101000313 7838752886 5875332083 8142061717 7669147303     
5982534904 2875546873 1159562863 8823537875 9375195778   
1857780532 1712268066 1300192787 6611195909 2164201989 
     
3809525720 1065485863 2788659361 5338182796 8230301952 
 
0353018529 6899577362 2599413891 2497217752 8347913151     
5574857242 4541506959 5082953311 6861727855 8890750983 
 
8175463746 4939319255 0604009277 0167113900 9848824012 
                                            
8583616 

Of course, in both divisions the student needs to use the AP Long Division method where we subtract and carry over, not bring down. 

Ask the 14 year old if the number looks vaguely familiar to anyone? 

AP 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#413107 — Conic sections when we get in Geometry // Teaching True Mathematics

In High School when we get to geometry and conic sections we learn ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic and what we thought was a conic ellipse turns out to be an oval.

But now we build a ellipse tube and do various cuts at various angles. What is the cut or section of an ellipse tube. My first guess is that all cuts thereof are more different ellipses. Perhaps even a circle given a specific angle.

AP

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

#413110 — Re: Conic sections when we get in Geometry // Teaching True Mathematics

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:

>In High School when we get to geometry and conic sections we learn 
>ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic and what we thought was a 
>conic ellipse turns out to be an oval.

Teacher, Teacher, can we study this proof, please please please???

Some preliminaries:

Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used 
in the proof:

              ^ x
              |
             -+- <= x=h
         .'   |   `.
        .     |     .
        |     |     |
        '     |     '      
         `.   |   .'
 y <----------+ <= x=0
             
Cone (side view):
                 .
                /|\
               / | \
              /b |  \
             /---+---' <= x = h
            /    |'   \
           /   ' |     \
          / '    |      \
x = 0 => '-------+-------\
        /    a   |        \

Proof:

r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x  and  d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x,  hence

y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.

Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1  ...equation of an ellipse

qed

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

#413131 — Re: Conic sections when we get in Geometry // Teaching True Mathematics

Archimedes "Failure" Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails:

>Michael Moroney writes:

>6:20 AM (6 hours ago)
>>Teacher, Teacher, can we study this proof, please please please???

>AP writes:: Moroney cannot even do a percentage correctly for he thinks
>938 is 12% short of 945.

So why do you keep failing, again and again and again, by using the wrong
mass of the muon, even after I told you what your mistake was.
Archie Plutonium, it's obvious that you are failing deliberately. But why?


> On top of that, the fool plagiarized a dumb German-- Franz,

You never answered my question. If I wish to find the length of the hypotenuse
of a right triangle and I know the other two sides, do I have to invent my own
proof so that I don't plagiarize that Pythagoras guy?



So all you have to do is disprove the Dandelin Spheres proof and the following
proof by Franz/me, if you wish to prove an ellipse is not a conic section:


Some preliminaries:

Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used 
in the proof:

              ^ x
              |
             -+- <= x=h
         .'   |   `.
        .     |     .
        |     |     |
        '     |     '      
         `.   |   .'
 y <----------+ <= x=0
             
Cone (side view):
                 .
                /|\
               / | \
              /b |  \
             /---+---' <= x = h
            /    |'   \
           /   ' |     \
          / '    |      \
x = 0 => '-------+-------\
        /    a   |        \

Proof:

r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x  and  d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x,  hence

y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.

Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1  ...equation of an ellipse

qed




>percentage for Moroney, 938 is what percent short of 945

You failed again! You used the wrong mass of the muon again!!

>AP writes: these type of posts goes away once the 26 year long stalker
>Moroney is forced to go away-- otherwise, they are like the US postage
>stamp, the "forever stamp"

No, you are the one writing multiple attack posts, not me. The only way your
attack posts will go away is if you decide to go away or change your attitude.
But you will continue to fail and post attack posts, because it is your nature
to fail. Birds fly, fish swim, dogs bark and Archimedes Plutonium fails.

But you are getting off topic again. We're discussing how the ellipse is
a conic section in this topic.

>CONIC SECTION IS OVAL, never an ellipse; proofs below ---- by Archimedes Plutonium

You actually have a proof the ellipse is not a conic section finally? Could you post
it here sometime? I don't see how that could be possible since I already know of two
proofs the ellipse is a conic section. This will be a major shakeup of the math
world, when there are conflicting proofs, proofs that A is B and A is not B.

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

#413134 — Jacob Barandes, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker, Howard Berg, Michael Brenner, -- Moroney asks why you keep failing with identity of Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole

Michael Moroney 	
2:15 PM (9 minutes ago)

>So why do you keep failing, again and again and again, by using the wrong 
>mass of the muon, even after I told you what your mistake was. 

AP writes: these type of posts goes away once the 26 year long stalker Moroney is forced to go away-- otherwise, they are like the US postage stamp, the "forever stamp"

Jacob Barandes, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker, Howard Berg, Michael Brenner,   -- Moroney asks why you keep failing with identity of Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole 
On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 4:54:34 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> L. Reif, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker, Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins-- Moroney-- Boston's antiscience stalker fool//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole 
> 
> Bernard Burke, Charlie Baker, George Clark , Jeffrey Goldstone, teach percentages correctly-- Moroney electrical engr can't do percentages//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole 
> 
> Michael Moroney writes This Old House geothermal is bogus (see below), but the only fool here is Moroney.
> 
> 
> percentage for Moroney, 938 is what percent short of 945 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> > 
> > Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon. 
> > Hardly "exactly" 9 muons. 
> 
> Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > 
> > Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass 
> > of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short. 
> 
> AP writes: 
> Does the state of Massachusetts ever have education reviews. For here is a stalker of Moroney for 25 years-- obsessive stalker of AP, and only AP, says he is a electrical engineer yet never admits to mistakes that 938 is not 12% short of 945, but only .7% short, less than 1% short. So what kind of engineer is it from Barry Shein's std.com, that cannot even do a percentage correctly and never admits to mistakes, only stalks and harasses other people who do know math and science. 
> 
> Why is std.com so hateful of the tv program THIS OLD HOUSE, when I have learned so much from that show. 
> 
> 
> Michael Moroney writes:
> 
> May 8,
> 1:58 PM (2 hours ago)
> 
> >Are you deliberately
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is std.com such a antiscience ISP, with Moroney hating percentage problem, hating geothermal-- is std.com the worst isp for science in Boston, or is Barry Shein topped by someone else? 
> 
> 
> President: L. Reif (electrical engineer) 
> 
> MIT physics dept 
> William Bertozzi, Robert Birgeneau, Hale Bradt, Bernard Burke, George Clark , Jeffrey Goldstone, Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins , Paul Joss, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon*, Irwin Pless, Paul Schechter, James Young 
> 
>    /\-------/\ 
>    \::O:::O::/ 
>   (::_  ^  _::) 
>    \_`-----'_/ 
> You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Boston? 
> And, even though you-- professors of physics, want to remain stupid in Real Electron=105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, and .5MeV was Dirac's magnetic monopole, your students deserve better. 
> 
> Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole 
> 
> President Larry Summers 
> 
> Harvard Physics dept 
> Jacob Barandes, Howard Berg, Michael Brenner*, Adam Cohen, Eugene Demler, Michael Desai * 
> Louis Deslauriers, John Doyle, Cora Dvorkin, Gary Feldman, Douglas Finkbeiner, Melissa Franklin, Gerald Gabrielse, Howard Georgi, Sheldon Glashow, Roy Glauber, Jene Golovchenko, Markus Greiner, Roxanne Guenette, Girma Hailu, Bertrand Halperin, Lene Hau 
> Thomas Hayes, Eric Heller, Jason Hoffman, Jenny Hoffman, Gerald Holton, Paul Horowitz, John Huth, Arthur Jaffe, Daniel Jafferis, Efthimios Kaxiras, Philip Kim, John Kovac, Erel Levine 
> Mikhail Lukin, Logan McCarty, L. Mahadevan, Vinothan Manoharan, Eric Mazur, Masahiro Morii 
> David Morin, Julia Mundy, Cherry Murray, David Nelson, Kang Ni, Hongkun Park, William Paul 
> Peter Pershan, Mara Prentiss, Lisa Randall, Matthew Reece, Subir Sachdev, Aravinthan Samuel, Matthew Schwartz, Irwin Shapiro, Isaac Silvera, Andrew Strominger, Christopher Stubbs, Cumrun Vafa, Ronald Walsworth, David Weitz, Robert Westervelt, Richard Wilson 
> Tai Wu, Amir Yacoby, Susanne Yelin, Xi Yin 
> 
> 
> Can someone in the Boston area make sure this numbskull is never a science teacher in Boston-- and the damage he can do to a classroom 
> 
> Mike Moroney, science failure-- on geothermal 
> 
> 
> (1) 
> On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 12:15:22 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > 
> > There are some places here that use "geothermal" for heating and cooling 
> > but even these are solar power in disguise.  They pump water from wells 
> > from where the temperature is the average over many years and extract heat 
> > from it (in the winter) and dump heat into it (in the summer) and pump the 
> > water back into the ground.  The water is about 55F out of the ground. 
> 
> 
> 
> (2) 
> On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 1:31:27 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:   
> 
> > 
> > >Just as a point of order, what you described is not geothermal. What 
> > >you've just described is thermal balancing with water, using water 
> > >cooler than air from the water table to cool a building in the summer, 
> > >and using water warmer than air from the water table to warm a building 
> > >in the winter. 
> > 
> > In other words, glorified solar energy.  Solar energy stored and averaged 
> > out over many, many years. 
> > 
> 
> (3) 
> On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 8:44:12 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > 
> > Admit it, you were fooled by a "This Old House" type show where they 
> > use a high-tech sounding buzzword to impress people who don't know any 
> > better. 
> > 
> > Just answer one question, if you can.  If it's really geothermal, why 
> > is the temperature only 51 degrees, but in Iceland, where there's real 
> > geothermal, they're accessing temperatures of hundreds of degrees? 
> 
> 
> (4) 
> > On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 10:40:09 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > > 
> > > Pretty cool, fossil solar energy! 51 degrees, the average of summer and 
> > > winter temperatures for hundreds or even thousands of years, depending 
> > > on how deep they go. 
> > > 
> > > Too bad you do have to use real energy to run the heat pump, although it 
> > > is much better than simply using that energy to make heat. 
> > 
> 
> (5) 
> On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 12:30:56 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > 
> > It's amusing how he can't handle that at all. Just like he can't 
> > handle the concept of permafrost when he goes off on geothermal 
> > energy.  All he can do is attack. 
> 
> (6) 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 12:21:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > geothermal heat energy is 99% from the sun where he was (unsure where, 
> > Mass. I think) 
> > 
> > Now tell us where Permafrost comes from. 
> > 
> > p.p.s. I was searching because I am actually looking into getting 
> > geothermal heat. Fossil solar energy is a great resource! 
> 
> 
> Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall 
> 
> 12 PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon 
> by Archimedes Plutonium 
> 
> Proofs that the Real Electron=muon and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall 
> > 
> PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon 
> 
> 1st proof is chemical bonding cannot exist with momentum of 938 versus .5MeV 
> Chemical Bonds are covalent, ionic, metallic. You simply cannot get atoms to bond if the electron is thought of as the .5MeV particle, only with a muon at 105 MeV and the proton at 840 MeV with neutron at 945 MeV do you have the physics of angular momentum that allows bonding in Chemistry. The .5MeV particle was, all along a magnetic monopole of a photon with .5 MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy. 
> 
> AP

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

#413136 — Re: Archimedes "Failure" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:

>Michael Moroney 	
>2:15 PM (9 minutes ago)

>>So why do you keep failing, again and again and again, by using the wrong
>>mass of the muon, even after I told you what your mistake was.

>AP writes: these type of posts goes away once the 26 year long stalker 
>Moroney is forced to go away-- otherwise, they are like the US postage stamp,
>the "forever stamp"

And Plutonium fails yet again! Not only does he not answer why he doesn't use
the correct mass of the muon, he doesn't acknowledge that he creates the
attack posts and only he can stop them.

And, of course, he tries to drag uninvolved people into this, fortunately
Plutonium is a failure at this as well, none of them read this or even know
of it.

<snip babbling nonsense>

All I asked for is to see Archie's proof that the ellipse is not a conic section
and he has another of his autistic meltdowns.

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

#413128 — we have the Cone tube, and the Cylinder tube, now we have the Ellipse tube // Teaching True Mathematics

On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 3:16:56 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> In High School when we get to geometry and conic sections we learn ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic and what we thought was a conic ellipse turns out to be an oval.
> 
> But now we build a ellipse tube and do various cuts at various angles. What is the cut or section of an ellipse tube. My first guess is that all cuts thereof are more different ellipses. Perhaps even a circle given a specific angle.
> 
>

I cannot see any way of getting a circle from a Ellipse-Tube. Perhaps this figure has a name already given it. I hate to use the word-- "tube" because that suggests hollow, and this Ellipse Tube can be solid.

No, I do not see a way of getting a circle, but only more ellipses in diagonal cuts.

I would be surprised, really surprised if plumbers or electricians or other crafts never needed a Ellipse Tube Figure, and that I would be the very first person ever to recognize and discuss this figure-- very very surprised and alarmed, because the Ellipse Tube can also settle the huge huge Error of Ancient to Modern math where all mathematicians were dolts to never realize a conic has no ellipse. Because, well, it may turn out that the Ellipse Tube has no circle and has no oval, but only more ellipses-- which remains to be proven, for I could be wrong on that intuition.

That leaves us remaining to study-- the OVAL TUBE, and can the oval tube produce only more ovals, or can it somehow produce circles? produce ellipses?

AP

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

#413268 — Re: we have the Cone tube, and the Cylinder tube, now we have the Ellipse tube // Teaching True Mathematics

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> wrote:

[ .... ]

> That leaves us remaining to study-- the OVAL TUBE, and can the oval
> tube produce only more ovals, or can it somehow produce circles?
> produce ellipses?

What, exactly, do you mean by an "oval", and how is it different from an
ellipse?

> AP

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web