Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.math > #422319 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-08-27 19:18 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-08-27 21:25 -0700 |
| Articles | 3 — 3 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.math
Pauline Barmby, Matthias Franz, John Jardine of Univ Western Ontario insist on teaching Gay-geometry of ellipse, rather than true geometry-- for they deny ellipse is cylinder section, never a conic section Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 19:18 -0700
Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-28 03:07 +0000
Why AP cannot offer any rational proof or justify his outrageous claims? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-08-27 21:25 -0700
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-27 19:18 -0700 |
| Subject | Pauline Barmby, Matthias Franz, John Jardine of Univ Western Ontario insist on teaching Gay-geometry of ellipse, rather than true geometry-- for they deny ellipse is cylinder section, never a conic section |
| Message-ID | <af01e0c7-5d57-446f-80d2-7def1eb89256@googlegroups.com> |
Pauline Barmby, Matthias Franz, John Jardine of Univ Western Ontario insist on teaching Gay-geometry of ellipse, rather than true geometry-- for they deny ellipse is cylinder section, never a conic section
Univ Western Ontario prefers to teach fake, Gay math, rather than teach true math-- ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section (SEE AP PROOF BELOW).
Christensen and his fellow gang of gay-- fobbs in sci.math, not only are they fools of Logic with their 2 OR 10 = 12, when any kid knows 2 AND 10 = 12 but they fobb off the ellipse--
On Friday, August 24, 2018 at 8:17:57 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Homophobic Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails:
>
> > AP writes:: Moroney, was it not the dumb German Franz that you cobbed
> > that above fake proof
>
> Fake proof? How come you can't prove it wrong? Show us where it is wrong.
>
> Here it is again for you:
>
>
> Below you will find a simple *proof* that shows that certain conic
> sections are ellipses.
>
> 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
On Monday 27 Aug 2018,
Dan Christensen continues to stalk sci.math,,,,,
Dan Christensen failed Logic for any person with a gram of Logic is not confused over distinct--
On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:08:09 AM UTC-6, Peter Percival wrote:
> Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:47:32 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 8:27:19 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:16:52 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >>>> PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra, Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector
> >>>>
> >>>> The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any two points lies a third new point.
> >>>
> >>> The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points."
> >>>
> >>
> >> What a monsterous fool you are
> >>
> >
> > OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it.
>
> And yet Mr Plutonium is right. Two points are distinct (else they would
> be one) and it is not necessary to say so.
>
And so, what does Canada do about a failure of logic, and a stalker for 6 years? Believe it or not, Canada, lets these invalids of logic, construct web sites on Logic to further fill students with Logic-mind-rot.
Dan Christensen is anti-math and has stalked AP for 6 years in hopes of kicking AP out of sci.math. Dan belongs in a sanatorium with other insane people.
Univ Western Ontario math dept
Janusz Adamus, Tatyana Barron, Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon, Matthias Franz, John Jardine, Massoud Khalkhali, Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon
Amit Chakma (chem engr)
Univ. Western Ontario physics dept
Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang
Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker, Henry M. Van Driel, David J. Rowe, John W. Moffat, John F. Martin, Robert K. Logan, Albert E. Litherland, Roland List, Philipp Kronberg, James King, Anthony W. Key, Bob Holdom, Ron M. Farquhar, R. Nigel Edwards, David J. Dunlop, James Drummond, Tom E. Drake, R.Fraser Code, Richard C. Bailey, Robin Armstrong
Canadian Educ Ministers-- endorsing stalking hypocrites like Dan Christensen with his insane 2 OR 10 = 12 when even a Canadian 8 year old knows 2 AND 10 = 12.
These education ministers in Canada seem to endorse the stalker behavior of Dan Christensen
Sebastien Proulx
Jordan Brown
David Eggen
Gordon Wyant
Zach Churchill
Ian Wishart
Rob Fleming
Endorsing the "perpetual stalking by Dan Christensen" for one can only guess that they hate true math that a Ellipse is never a conic, that 2 AND 10 = 12, and that no negative numbers can exist because 10/0 does not exist.
/\-------/\
\::O:::O::/
(::_ ^ _::)
\_`-----'_/
You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole at Univ Western Ontario?
And, even though you-- professors of math who never want to fix and clean up error filled mathematics, your students deserve better, and you should quit teaching if you cannot come around to admitting a ellipse is a cylinder section, never a conic section. For it is embarrassing to have students smarter than the math professor who by taking a cone, cylinder can and a round lid, can prove on the spot, in the classroom that the cone yields an oval, never an ellipse.
Proofs ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section by
Archimedes Plutonium
--------------------
Conics = oval, 2 proofs, synthetic, analytic
Synthetic Geometry & Analytical Geometry Proofs that Conic section =
Oval, never an ellipse-- World's first proofs thereof
by Archimedes Plutonium
_Synthetic Geometry proofs that Cylinder section= Ellipse// Conic section= Oval
First Synthetic Geometry proofs, later the Analytic Geometry proofs.
Alright I need to get this prepared for the MATH ARRAY of proofs, that
the Ellipse is a Cylinder section, and that the Conic section is an
oval, never an ellipse
PROOF that Cylinder Section is an Ellipse, never a Oval::
I would have proven it by Symmetry. Where I indulge the reader to
place a circle inside the cylinder and have it mounted on a swivel, a
tiny rod fastened to the circle so that you can pivot and rotate the
circle. Then my proof argument would be to say--when the circle plate
is parallel with base, it is a circle but rotate it slightly in the
cylinder and determine what figure is produced. When rotated at the
diameter, the extra area added to the upper portion equals the extra
area added to bottom portion in cylinder, symmetrical area added,
hence a ellipse. QED
Now for proof that the Conic section cannot be an ellipse but an oval,
I again would apply the same proof argument by symmetry.
Proof:: Take a cone in general, and build a circle that rotates on a
axis. Rotate the circle just a tiny bit for it is bound to get stuck
or impeded by the upward slanted walls of the cone. Rotate as far as
you possibly can. Now filling in the area upwards is far smaller than
filling in the area downwards. Hence, only 1 axis of symmetry, not 2
axes of symmetry. Define Oval as having 1 axis of symmetry. Thus a
oval, never an ellipse. QED
The above two proofs are Synthetic Geometry proofs, which means they
need no numbers, just some concepts and axioms to make the proof work.
A Synthetic geometry proof is where you need no numbers, no coordinate
points, no arithmetic, but just using concepts and axioms. A Analytic
Geometry proof is where numbers are involved, if only just coordinate
points.
Array:: Analytic Geometry proof that Cylinder section= Ellipse//Conic
section = Oval, never ellipse
Now I did 3 Experiments and 3 models of the problem, but it turns out
that one model is superior over all the other models. One model is the
best of all.
That model is where you construct a cone and a cylinder and then
implant a circle inside the cone and cylinder attached to a handle so
that you can rotate the circle inside. Mine uses a long nail that I
poked holes into the side of a cylinder and another one inside a cone
made from heavy wax paper of magazine covers. And I used a Mason or
Kerr used lid and I attached them to the nail by drilling two holes
into each lid and running a wire as fastener. All of this done so I
can rotate or pivot the circle inside the cylinder and cone. You need
a long nail, for if you make the models too small or too skinny, you
lose clarity.
ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse::
E
__
.-' `-.
.' `.
/ \
; ;
| G c | H
; ;
\ /
`. .'
`-. _____ .-'
F
The above is a view of a ellipse with center c and is produced by the
Sectioning of a Cylinder as long as the cut is not perpendicular to
the base, and as long as the cut involves two points not larger than
the height of the cylinder walls. What we want to prove is that the
cut is always a ellipse, which is a plane figure of two axes of
symmetry with a Major Axis and Minor Axis and center at c.
Side view of Cylinder EGFH above with entry point cut at E and exit
point cut at F and where c denotes the central axis of the cylinder
and where x denotes a circle at c parallel with the base-circle of
cylinder
| |
| | E
| |
| |
|x c |x
| |
| |
| |
|F |
| |
| |
| |
So, what is the proof that figure EGFH is always an ellipse in the
cylinder section? The line segment GH is the diameter of the circle
base of cylinder and the cylinder axis cuts this diameter in half such
that Gc = cH. Now we only need to show that Fc = cE. This is done from
the right triangles cxF and cxE, for we note that by Angle-Side-Angle
these two right triangles are congruent and hence Fc = cE, our second
axis of symmetry and thus figure EGFH is always an ellipse. QED
Array proof:: Analytic Geometry proof that Conic section= Oval// never ellipse
ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Conic Section is a Oval, never an ellipse::
A
,'" "`.
/ \
C | c | D
\ /
` . ___ .'
B
The above is a view of a figure formed from the cut of a conic with
center c as the axis of the cone and is produced by the Sectioning of
a Cone as long as the cut is not perpendicular to the base, and as
long as the cut is not a hyperbola, parabola or circle (nor line).
What we want to prove is that this cut is always a oval, never an
ellipse. An oval is defined as a plane figure of just one axis of
symmetry and possessing a center, c, with a Major Diameter as the axis
of symmetry and a Minor Diameter. In our diagram above, the major
diameter is AB and minor diameter is CD.
Alright, almost the same as with Cylinder section where we proved the
center was half way between Major Axis and Minor Axis of cylinder,
only in the case of the Conic, we find that the center is half way
between CD the Minor Diameter, but the center is not halfway in
between the Major Diameter, and all of that because of the reason the
slanted walls of the cone cause the distance cA to be far smaller than
the distance cB. In the diagram below we have the circle of x centered
at c and parallel to base. The angle at cx is not 90 degrees as in
cylinder. The angle of cAx is not the same as the angle cBx, as in the
case of the cylinder, because the walls of the cone-for line segments-
are slanted versus parallel in the cylinder. Triangles cAx and cBx are
not congruent, and thus, the distance of cA is not equal to cB,
leaving only one axis of symmetry AB, not CD.
/ \A
x/ c \x
B/ \
Hence, every cut in the Cone, not a hyperbola, not a parabola, not a
circle (not a line) is a Oval, never an ellipse.
QED
--Archimedes Plutonium
Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu
::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ . . | . /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
--------------- -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
--------------- --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / . . | . \ .
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 03:07 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test |
| Message-ID | <pm2e9a$iv6$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #422319 |
Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails:
<snip failure>
So once again, Archie is unable to prove the ellipse is not a conic
section. Archie is unable to respond without his cubbyhole dweller
critter and stalker lists. FOUR stalker lists this time!!
So Archie, why can't you prove the following proof is wrong?
Why can't you even respond without multiple stalker lists or your
ascii cubbyhole dweller?
Below you will find a simple *proof* that shows that certain conic
sections are ellipses.
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]
| From | Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-27 21:25 -0700 |
| Subject | Why AP cannot offer any rational proof or justify his outrageous claims? |
| Message-ID | <8750f12a-fc1d-42ce-8ec3-f9668b24522b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422323 |
On Monday, August 27, 2018 at 11:07:28 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails: > > <snip failure> > > So once again, Archie is unable to prove the ellipse is not a conic > section. Archie is unable to respond without his cubbyhole dweller > critter and stalker lists. FOUR stalker lists this time!! > > So Archie, why can't you prove the following proof is wrong? > Why can't you even respond without multiple stalker lists or your > ascii cubbyhole dweller? > I caught him out the other day. He doesn't believe that T & F = T anymore than we do. He is just making it all up. That's why he can't offer a rational proof and or justify any of his outrageous claims. It's all disinformation meant to confuse and discourage students or impressionable readers here. disinformation: (noun) false information spread in order to deceive people He doesn't believe a word of it himself. He apparently wants to create an entire generation of math and science failures just like him. His motives? Maybe revenge for being failed so many times himself? Maybe he is a Trumpist agent? Who knows? Dan
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web