Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.math > #423468 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-09-12 19:44 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-10-08 20:48 +0000 |
| Articles | 14 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.math
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
easier for Donald Trump to tell the truth and scientists and mathematicians Re: software that engineers out stalking bullies on Twitter, Facebook, Google Newsgroups Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 19:44 -0700
Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-13 03:04 +0000
Boston fools Barry Shein, kibo, MMoroney why can't they admit 938 is not 12% short of 945 Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 20:40 -0700
Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-02 04:37 +0000
1.1-Racist-math at MIT Henry Cohn, Laurent Demanet, Richard Dudley,Michael Artin, Martin Bazant, Bonnie Berger, Roman Bezrukavnikov, Alexei Borodin, John Bush, Herman Chernoff// Ellipse is never a conic (see proof below) Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 15:19 -0700
Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-06 06:00 +0000
shitheads Moroney Eastside never do math in sci.math only stalk and pester some for 26 years Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 10:47 -0700
Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-07 03:02 +0000
Moroney says: Racist Physicists, Barry Barish, Kip Thorne, Rainer Weiss, John M. Kosterlitz, F Duncan M. Haldane, David J. Thouless, Arthur B. McDonald, Takaaki Kajita// fail in Chemistry bonding for it cannot exist when proton=938MeV, electron=.5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 12:41 -0700
Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-07 21:10 +0000
page1 The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 20:51 -0700
Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-08 14:03 +0000
Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 13:32 -0700
Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-08 20:48 +0000
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 19:44 -0700 |
| Subject | easier for Donald Trump to tell the truth and scientists and mathematicians Re: software that engineers out stalking bullies on Twitter, Facebook, Google Newsgroups |
| Message-ID | <c2b22e80-6d68-43b3-a538-33b5dcecc48a@googlegroups.com> |
On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 1:55:22 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote: stalker dribble deleted On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 Dan Christensen writes: 7:55 AM (1 hour ago) >WARNING TO STUDENTS: AP writes: pretty stupid of John Conway to never admit the ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section, when even his students in class can prove it to John Conway by a cone, cylinder can and circle lid-- the asymmetry involved. Is this the modern day math class-- dictator math, not math of reasoning. AP writes: say there, Christensen, what is the chance that a math or physics professor of Univ Western Ontario can admit a ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic, or that the power of the Sun comes 90% from Faraday Law inside of individual atoms-- mostly hydrogen creating magnetic monopoles? Are the chances that Donald Trump will admit to colluding with Russians and wrongdoing, greater than the chance that scientist can admit to ellipse or starpower. Sad state of affairs we live in, where Logic is despised by most people, and especially scientist, whose business-- is the truth. John Conway, David Riley,Gordon Sinnamon, Justin Trudeau,Christensen says why teach correct math-- ellipse is a cylinder section, never a conic section 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. Endorsing the "perpetual stalking by Dan Christensen" Sebastien Proulx Jordan Brown David Eggen Gordon Wyant Zach Churchill Ian Wishart Rob Fleming /\-------/\ \::O:::O::/ (::_ ^ _::) \_`-----'_/ You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in 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 | 2018-09-13 03:04 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test |
| Message-ID | <pnck3b$q93$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #423468 |
Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails:
>On Wednesday, September 12, 2018
>Dan Christensen writes:
>7:55 AM (1 hour ago)
>>WARNING TO STUDENTS:
>AP writes: pretty stupid of John Conway to never admit the ellipse is never
>a conic, always a cylinder section,
Did I hear ellipse? Here you are!!
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 | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-01 20:40 -0700 |
| Subject | Boston fools Barry Shein, kibo, MMoroney why can't they admit 938 is not 12% short of 945 |
| Message-ID | <7b704698-f8d1-4c66-951d-8379d4da8d4b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423471 |
On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 10:04:16 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: Michael Moroney 9:48 PM (46 minutes ago) 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. >>Subject: Re: Racist-Physicists, Weinberg,Witten,Glashow,Gell-Mann,Higgs >>who refuse to admit proton=840MeV, electron=105MeV, Dirac monopole >>.5MeV, proofs by AP, because they never respect the source >** because they never respect the source **
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-02 04:37 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test |
| Message-ID | <pousle$ajf$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #424737 |
Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails: >DEFINITION of a racist-scientist , racist-mathematician= >Racist Mathematician & Scientist definition=E2=80=94 this is a person or :Hey Al, don't go anywhere, I'll probably need you in a few minutes... OK, Uncle Al. I told this Plutonium fool the following SEVERAL TIMES: "Respect must be earned, Archie. You will NEVER earn any respect BY POSTING STALKER LISTS AND ATTACKING OTHER POSTERS instead of LEARNING from them." Yet he still does the same stoopid things again and again! Al, what do you think of someone so dumb and stoopid as to demand respect yet he keeps posting attack posts full of stalker lists, EVEN WHEN TOLD THAT IS NOT HOW TO GET RESPECT. So how dumb and stoopid is that, Al? "I cannot believe how incredibly stupid Archie-Poo is. I mean rock-hard stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. Surface of Venus under 80 atmospheres of red hot carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid vapor dehydrated for 300 million years rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different sensorium of stupid. Archie-Poo is trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid so collapsed upon itself that it is within its own Schwarzschild radius. Black hole stupid. Stupid gotten so dense and massive that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid. Archie-Poo emits more stupid/second than our entire galaxy otherwise emits stupid/year. Quasar stupid. Nothing else in the universe can be this stupid. Archie-Poo is an oozingly putrescent primordial fragment from the original Big Bang of Stupid, a pure essence of stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of physics that define maximally extrapolated hypergeometric n-dimensional backgroundless stupid as we can imagine it. Archie-Poo is Planck stupid, a quantum foam of stupid, a vacuum decay of stupid, a grand unified theory of stupid. Archie-Poo is the epitome of stupidity, the epiphany of stupid, the apotheosis of stupidity. Archie-poo is stooopid."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 15:19 -0700 |
| Subject | 1.1-Racist-math at MIT Henry Cohn, Laurent Demanet, Richard Dudley,Michael Artin, Martin Bazant, Bonnie Berger, Roman Bezrukavnikov, Alexei Borodin, John Bush, Herman Chernoff// Ellipse is never a conic (see proof below) |
| Message-ID | <5d8a8cd8-7bcb-4df7-8d3f-9d523eaafe9b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424741 |
1.1-Racist-math at MIT Henry Cohn, Laurent Demanet, Richard Dudley,Michael Artin, Martin Bazant, Bonnie Berger, Roman Bezrukavnikov, Alexei Borodin, John Bush, Herman Chernoff// Ellipse is never a conic (see proof below)
On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 4:21:43 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> Archie has
DEFINITION of a racist-scientist , racist-mathematician
Racist Mathematician & Scientist definition— this is a person or group of people who reject a idea or proof or experiment on simply the grounds of __who the person was that gave/discovered the idea___, proof, or experiment. Hatred of the source. Hatred of the author/s. Racists ignore or deny the truth because they hate the source. And racists would rather keep on teaching a fakery or wrong science than to change to the true science.
Most people think Racist Mathematicians and Physicists are rare. But sci.math and sci.physics from 1993 to 2018 is proving that the majority of physics and math professors around the world are Racists, for example-- the AP proof ellipse is never a conic cut, but rather a cylinder cut. And the AP discovery that the Real Electron = muon = 105MeV, real proton = 840MeV, and the .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole.
Drs.Noam Elkies, Dennis Gaitsgory, Robin Gottlieb of Harvard, teach percentages correctly-- Moroney//Volney has a difficult time of percentages of how much is 938 short of 945. But worse yet, why do you keep teaching the ellipse is a conic when it never was, but rather the ellipse is always a cylinder section.
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.
President: L. Reif (electrical engineer)
MIT math dept.
Michael Artin, Martin Bazant, Bonnie Berger, Roman Bezrukavnikov, Alexei Borodin, John Bush, Herman Chernoff, Henry Cohn, Laurent Demanet, Richard Dudley, Jörn Dunkel, Alan Edelman, Pavel Etingof, Daniel Freedman, Michel Goemans, Vadim Gorin, Harvey Greenspan , Victor Guillemin, Larry Guth, Sigurdur Helgason, Anette Hosoi , David Jerison, Steven Johnson*, Victor Kac, Steven Kleiman, Daniel Kleitman, Andrew Lawrie, Tom Leighton, George Lusztig, Arthur Mattuck, Davesh Maulik, Richard Melrose, Haynes Miller, William Minicozzi, Ankur Moitra, Elchanan Mossel, Tomasz Mrowka, James Munkres, Andrei Negut, Aaron Pixton, Bjorn Poonen, Alexander Postnikov, Philippe Rigollet, Rodolfo Rosales, Giulia Saccà, Gerald Sacks, Paul Seidel, Scott Sheffield, Peter Shor, Isadore Singer, Michael Sipser, Jared Speck, Gigliola Staffilani, Richard Stanley, Harold Stark, Gilbert Strang, Daniel Stroock, Goncalo Tabuada, Alar Toomre, David Vogan
shein,std,kibo, Moroney 26 year virulent stalker harasser and pest
..
.- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
, . `.' ' `.
.' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
. ; .' . `. ;
; . ' `. . '
. ' ` `. |
. '. '
. 0 0 ' `.
' `
; `
.' `
; U `
; '; `
: | ;.. :` `
: `;. ```. .-; | '
'. ` ``.., .' :' '
; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' I am Moroney, stupid in math, but a pestering bully, trying to scrape together a joke off of another person by destroying his character
` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` `. ````'''''' ' '
` . ' '
/ ` `. ' ' .
/ ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
/ .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
/ .'' ; ` .' `
...'.' ; .' ` .' `
"" .' .' | ` .; \ `
; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
:' | ' ` , `. `
| ' ` ' `. `
` ' ` ; `. |
`.' ` ; `-'
`...'
Harvard Math dept
Noam Elkies, Dennis Gaitsgory, Robin Gottlieb, Benedict Gross, Joseph Harris, Heisuke Hironaka, Michael Hopkins, Arthur Jaffe, David Kazhdan, Mark Kisin, Peter Kronheimer, Jacob Lurie , Eric Maskin, Barry Mazur *, Curtis McMullen, David Mumford, Martin Nowak, Gerald Sacks, Wilfried Schmid, Yum-Tong Siu, Shlomo Sternberg, John Tate, Cliff Taubes, Hugh Woodin, Horng-Tzer Yau, Shing-Tung Yau
/\-------/\
\::O:::O::/
(::_ ^ _::)
\_`-----'_/
You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Boston?
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.
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
--------------------
AP's proof the ellipse is never a Conic Section, always a Cylinder section, and how the proof works
Let us analyze AP's Proof
On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 6:57:36 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
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
Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E
In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.
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
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 we can see that the distance cE = cF in cylinder for the walls are Parallel to one another, giving distance symmetry
But in the Cone, the walls are not parallel, shortening the distance cE compared to cF. Leaving only one axis of symmetry that of cx. The oval is the conic section of a cut at a slant, while the cylinder cut at a slant is a ellipse. The Oval has just one axis of symmetry.
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] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 06:00 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test |
| Message-ID | <pp9j2q$uuv$6@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #425039 |
Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails:
>Proofs ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section by
>Archimedes Plutonium
Yes, this proof that the ellipse is a conic section is cool, isn't it!
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 | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 10:47 -0700 |
| Subject | shitheads Moroney Eastside never do math in sci.math only stalk and pester some for 26 years |
| Message-ID | <25b2342a-2af9-46fa-8a21-438ceaf98f78@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425058 |
eastsi...@gmail.com Hey Archie! Look at your first column if P is prime: P 0 P-1 1 P-2 2 ... P-n n ... Just for fun, divide both columns by anything, say m. You get P/m - n/m n/m Even is n/m is integer, P/m is NEVER integer. Your conjecture is TRIVIAL. Oct 5 (20 hours ago) Michael Moroney Archie has stumbled across a variation of trial division to find primes. Instead of trying every number n from 2 to P/2 and seeing if n divides P evenly, he is trying every number n from 2 to P/2 and seeing if (P-n)/n divides evenly. However, 12:28 AM (12 hours ago) Michael Moroney 1:29 AM (11 hours ago) Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails: >Re: AP's stupid conjecture <snip more failure> So how is your logorrhea doing?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 03:02 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test |
| Message-ID | <ppbt00$lms$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #425082 |
Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails: > On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 4:21:43 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Archie has Come on, Archie, quote the whole sentence so we can all see how foolish you are. "Archie has stumbled across a variation of trial division to find primes."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 12:41 -0700 |
| Subject | Moroney says: Racist Physicists, Barry Barish, Kip Thorne, Rainer Weiss, John M. Kosterlitz, F Duncan M. Haldane, David J. Thouless, Arthur B. McDonald, Takaaki Kajita// fail in Chemistry bonding for it cannot exist when proton=938MeV, electron=.5MeV |
| Message-ID | <79b4e33f-1474-4aaf-9545-ad74443545a6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425100 |
The knowledge that Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840 MeV, and the .5MeV was Dirac's Magnetic Monopole is going on 2 years now in the public eye starting 2017. Yet why are no physicists debating the issue?? Because they are racists at heart, and not really true genuine scientists. On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 10:02:30 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: Boston's std 26 year long stalkers shein,kibo,Moroney -- just another stalk--- Moroney says: Racist Physicists, Barry Barish, Kip Thorne, Rainer Weiss, John M. Kosterlitz, F Duncan M. Haldane, David J. Thouless, Arthur B. McDonald, Takaaki Kajita// fail in Chemistry bonding for it cannot exist when proton=938MeV, electron=.5MeV DEFINITION of a racist-scientist , racist-mathematician Racist Mathematician & Scientist definition— this is a person or group of people who reject a idea or proof or experiment on simply the grounds of __who the person was__ that gave/discovered the idea___, proof, or experiment. Hatred of the source. Hatred of the author/s. Racists ignore or deny the truth because they hate the source. And racists would rather keep on teaching a fakery or wrong science than to change to the true science. Most people think Racist Mathematicians and Physicists are rare. But sci.math and sci.physics from 1993 to 2018 is proving that the majority of physics and math professors around the world are Racists, for example-- the AP proof ellipse is never a conic cut, but rather a cylinder cut. And the AP discovery that the Real Electron = muon = 105MeV, real proton = 840MeV, and the .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole. Help stop Physics Racists by stopping their hired stalking hands on Internet shein,std,kibo, Moroney 26 year virulent stalker harasser and pest .. .- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-.. , . `.' ' `. .' .' ` ` ' `.. ; . ; .' . `. ; ; . ' `. . ' . ' ` `. | . '. ' . 0 0 ' `. ' ` ; ` .' ` ; U ` ; '; ` : | ;.. :` ` : `;. ```. .-; | ' '. ` ``.., .' :' ' ; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' I am Moroney, stupid in physics, but a pestering hired bully by math and physics racists, trying to scrape together a joke off of another person by destroying their character and never doing any physics or math ` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' ' ` ` ; ; ' ' ` ` ; ; ' ' ` `. ````'''''' ' ' ` . ' ' / ` `. ' ' . / ` .. ..' .'"""""...' / .` ` ``........-' .'` .....''' / .'' ; ` .' ` ...'.' ; .' ` .' ` "" .' .' | ` .; \ ` ; .' | `. . . . ' . \ ` :' | ' ` , `. ` | ' ` ' `. ` ` ' ` ; `. | `.' ` ; `-' `...' 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 Moroney math failure, here is where the fool thinks 938 is short of 945 by 12%, and he pretends he is an electrical engineer. Perhaps the first e.e. in the world that cannot do a percentage correctly 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. /\-------/\ \::O:::O::/ (::_ ^ _::) \_`-----'_/ You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Boston? Yes, what did they say-- the power of Sun and stars is not really fusion but is the Faraday Law inside of atoms creating monopoles and turning Space into energy that fuels the Sun and stars. My rough estimate is that fusion only supplies 10% or less of Sun and stars. But of course, I could not have discovered the true starpower when under the idiotic idea that the electron was a mere .5MeV when it truly is 105 MeV. In that manner, physics departments are racist physicists for the knowledge that Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840 MeV, and the .5MeV was Dirac's Magnetic Monopole is going on 2 years now in the public eye starting 2017, yet none of these physicists (these poor physicists lacking understanding of angular momentum has raised a single peep). The reason they keep their mouths shut, is because they are so poor in physics, they do not want to be embarrassed. These gentlemen are not physicists, for a real physicist would debate the issue, not hide and run from the issue. And real physicist would not discount a discovery because of the person-- Archimedes Plutonium who discovered it. TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium page1 History Preface:: A history Preface to this textbook Re: TRUE CHEMISTRY, textbook, 2018 Alright, this textbook is written as a Memoir, in that I am writing it as a notebook, my daily activity, an historical accounting, along with a textbook of facts of True Chemistry. Both a textbook on True Chemistry and a historical accounting, both combined into one. So you will see many dates of posts throughout this Memoir. Now this book needs a Preface, to sort of tell people what it was like in the time period of 1897 when JJ Thomson discovered a .5MeV particle and then going on to believe he discovered the "electron of atoms", when in fact, what he discovered was the Magnetic Monopole of atoms. Yet the entire Scientific Community, whether physics, chemistry, biology, all were duped into thinking this .5MeV particle was the integral electron of atoms. So from 1897 until 2017 when I discovered the Real Electron = muon = 105 MeV, that community of scientists all fell duped to thinking electron= .5 MeV. Of course, that changes all of electricity, as we understood it in 1897 through 2017. So some time in the future, few people will understand what took place from 1897 through 2017, when all scientists thought the atom was a proton at 938MeV, neutron 940MeV and electron at .5MeV. Of course, my very first proof of the Real Electron is 105 MeV was instantaneous to my mind--chemical bonding, chemical bonding-- is it possible to have covalent bonding with 938 to .5 ?? For if the Real Electron is 105 MeV then the Real Proton cannot be 938, but had to be 840MeV, and then, chemical bonding covalent of 105 versus 840, all makes sense. This entire discovery was caused by a noting in 2016, that it takes 9 muons to make a proton (plus or minus less than 1%) To me, in science, I know all physics has outside "noise" and so when you say plus or minus less than 1%, means to me, anyway, that 9 muons = 1 proton. Now, sorry, but it took me another year from 2016 to 2017, to say-- Real Proton = 840 MeV. Sadly, to discover that 9 muons = 1 proton in 2016, took another year in 2017 to subtract 105 from 945 to see that the Real Proton was 840MeV. And the instantaneous proof that came to my mind, is, well, you just cannot have Chemistry, the Chemical bond of covalent, if the electron is .5MeV and the proton 938MeV, for the angular-momentum is just not there to make covalent bonding. If the Real Electron is 105MeV and Real Proton is 840MeV then you have sufficient numbers of MeV for angular momentum to create covalent bonding in atoms. But let me in this preface tell the story of how Electricity was imagined to be from 1897 to 2017. Electricity with the electron assumed as .5 MeV and proton at 938 MeV, that electricity in this view was seen as a electron particle that is wishy washy, here now, gone a second later flowing in a wire as electricity. In the new true view of electricity, electron = 105 MeV, proton = 840 MeV, it is rare for that electron of hydrogen atoms to ever leave its proton, and what electricity is-- is this monopole particle that assumes either a +1 or -1 charge and is fickle, for it can be attached to a hydrogen atom and with little to no encouragement, go flying off along a copper wire. Only, flying is a metaphor, for the Monopole is a photon or a neutrino dressed up (superposition) with .5MeV charge energy. So the monopole is a wave, a closed loop wave that becomes the shape of the closed loop wire itself. At the moment, I am rebuilding a crystal radio set I had as a Xmas gift from my father way back in about 1968. You see, the radio wave is a magnetic monopole, it is not an electron out of some atom. I need to build this Preface into a good logical history expose of how feeble was the understanding and teaching of What the Real Electron was in science from 1897 to 2017. How utterly feeble it is, to have millions of students around the world sitting in classes, hearing the teacher, the instructor saying that the electron is a .5MeV particle that runs along copper wires and yields electricity. When the real truth is, that electrons are very heavy particles of 105 MeV, 1/8 the mass of the proton at 840 MeV, and it is rare, extremely rare that this massive Real Electron ever leaves its proton, but that these magnetic monopoles flit around, flit here, flit there, flit almost everywhere, and these monopoles are electricity. AP Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 13:32:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 21:32:28 +0000 Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole, after all Experimental PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon by Archimedes Plutonium 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. Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 18:28:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: short history of subatomic particles of Physics Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 01:28:07 +0000 short history of subatomic particles of Physics Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook In my textbook True Chemistry, those new early pages, I need a chronology of history of how we viewed atoms, their constituent elementary particles, and electricity. For the blame as to not knowing the .5MeV particle was not the electron but a magnetic monopole, is the conceit of the minds of physicists, or should be say the naivety of the minds of physicists is that they were blown away by +1 and -1 charge. If we had taken off the table the electric charge. Then when JJ Thomson discovered this 1897 particle of .5MeV, if electric charge was not a issue, then Thomson, in my opinion would have realized it could not be the electron. So let me make a rough sketch of the history involved, the pertinent history. 1861-1864, Maxwell wrote " A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field"-- a complete theory of electricity tying together magnetism, as EM, electromagnetism theory. Perhaps the single greatest physics book, or book in general, before the Atom Totality textbook. 1897, J.J. Thomson discovers a .5MeV particle, with a -1 charge, which he names as electron, thinking it is the electron of atoms, which, it turns out by 2017 is the Dirac magnetic monopole, and the muon is the real-electron. 1913, the Bohr model of the Atom, which gives no working role for its elementary subatomic particles of proton, electron, neutron, photon (of which the magnetic monopole is a photon with a charge energy-- or a neutrino with charge energy). Sadly, the Bohr model is lacking any sort of physical role for these subatomic particles, other than to say, let there exist a proton, let there exist a electron. It is this lack of a job or role or working marching order for subatomic particles that should have alerted all chemists, all physicists, that they have a looney tune model of the atom. In the true model of the Atom, come 2017, is that the elementary particles are doing a Faraday Law and Ampere Law sort of like a dance, a job, a commitment for their existence, inside the Atom, conducted by those protons and muons. Where protons as a coil and muon electron as a bar magnet creates new monopoles, converting Space into monopoles, and stored in neutrons as capacitors, which a hydrogen atom grows to become a deuterium atom etc etc. In other words, the creation of new atoms and heavier atoms is the job of existing atoms. 1917-1920, Rutherford discovers the proton of what he thought was 938 MeV 1931, Dirac with a paper on magnetic monopoles which in order to satisfy the quantization of electricity, which implies that monopoles must exist. 1932, Chadwick discovered the neutron of 945 MeV. Now they discovered these particles, like the neutron and proton but would have to wait years before they refined their masses on how much mass they had. 1936, Anderson & Neddermeyer discover the muon particle of 105 MeV. I do not know what year they found out it weighed 105 MeV. Now, the big question is why are the minds of physicists so backwards, so empty of Logical thought, because when the proton was discovered by Rutherford in 1917 and could measure its mass to be roughly 940 MeV and then Thomson's particle of .5MeV. So, the puzzling question is from 1917 to 2017 is a span of time of 100 years, and the astonishment that in those 100 years, every physicist, every chemist knew of the Covalent bond of chemistry, every one of them knew what angular momentum was, or had a reasonable notion of what angular momentum means-- at least we thought they knew, yet not a single scientist ever had the thought run through their mind-- stop a minute-- how can a covalent bond of chemistry exist if the proton was 938 versus .5MeV electron ?? How, how is that possible. When that is only possible if the proton was 840 versus 105 MeV. Is the simple and short answer-- no physicist in the 20th century had a good decent logical mind to think straight, to think clear. 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] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 21:10 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test |
| Message-ID | <ppdsol$hl7$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #425120 |
Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails: >Moroney says: Racist Physicists, Barry Barish, Kip Thorne, Rainer Weiss, >John M. Kosterlitz, F Duncan M. Haldane, David J. Thouless, Arthur B. >McDonald, Takaaki Kajita// fail in Chemistry bonding for it cannot exist >when proton=938MeV, electron=.5MeV So you are now lying about what I say? I am glad you like for me to reply to your posts, and asked for me to do it again!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 20:51 -0700 |
| Subject | page1 The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition |
| Message-ID | <e6147ad9-b3da-4e2b-b5e0-fbf8fc6cb896@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425120 |
The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition with the discovery the Real Electron = 105 MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017 These are the final days of 2017 and I have a one last chance opportunity to run through the entire textbook with comments. I have found that "comments" are an essential ingredient in writing a textbook, for the author can reflect at juncture points, any changes or thoughts of the moment. Comments give flexibility to an otherwise rigid text, and rigidity is something to abhor in science. If you do not like change, well, writing a science text is not for you. So by commenting at the end of pages, this gives the author that needed flexibility, and warns him of what to write in a future edition. Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 18:18:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Page1, 1-1, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + AP-Maxwell-Equations-Describing Physics, 8th ed. From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 02:18:07 +0000 Page1, 1-1, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + AP-Maxwell-Equations-Describing Physics, 8th ed. PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017 Preface: Now I said I wanted Clarity, Comprehension, and Logical Flow in this textbook and keep that foremost in mind. In a way, after all these years, 24 of them, I seem to have learned -- how to write a science textbook. By writing preliminary pages and then constant editing. They say practice makes perfect. I think this textbook should be of Brevity also, and with the smallest amount of pages possible, under 100 pages. I do not want to ramble on. I think the first chapter should have many pictures, have some pictures in mind, for pictures with ideas are the most comprehensive teaching, and the first two chapters should be pictures with history to put things in perspective. page1, 1-1 Pictures of Atom-Totality-Universe I cannot show pictures except ascii-art in sci.physics, so I refer the reader to the many textbooks listed that shows pictures of what electrons (electron=muon) of an atom looks like. A large proportion of people reading this textbook, think that an electron=muon is one round ball that revolves around a proton-neutron nucleus of an atom. They are far from the true reality of what the electron=muon looks like. And most people are aghast or stunned to find out that the electron=muon looks like millions of fine grained glass dust evenly spread over a confined space, which in physics is called the electron-dot-cloud. One of my earliest ascii-art of the last electron=muon of plutonium was this: Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. Look in a quantum physics textbook or a chemistry textbook for pictures of what an electron=muon looks like. An electron=muon is many white dots surrounding a nucleus. This is commonly called the "Electron Dot Cloud". Now, look at the night sky and replace those shining galaxies, shining stars, with the white dots of an electron=muon cloud. And there you have the Atom Totality Universe theory in a picture. It was on 7 November 1990, woken from sleep that I discovered the Atom Totality Universe and the picture from textbooks that I was thinking of in my mind during the discovery was the Halliday & Resnick picture of what the electron=muon of an atom looks like. And I hope the reader himself/herself looks up that picture in Halliday & Resnick textbook PHYSICS, Part 2, Extended Version , 1986, of page 572. In the 1990s I did a survey in mathematics of math professors doing a Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof in which 84% of them failed to deliver a valid proof, which can be seen in my Correcting Math textbook of 2016. And the reason I bring that issue up is perhaps I should do a survey in physics, or, all the sciences, asking someone to draw a picture of the electron=muon of a hydrogen atom on a piece of paper with pencil. Will most fail? Looking at Halliday & Resnick textbook PHYSICS, Part 2, Extended Version , 1986, on page 572. This is a large electron=muon cloud dot picture for which I quote the caption. CHAP.26 CHARGE AND MATTER. Figure 26-5 An atom, suggesting the electron cloud and, above, an enlarged view of the nucleus. --- end quoting --- You see, the dots of the electron=muon cloud, its billions upon billions of dots, is one electron=muon itself. An electron is perhaps 10^180 dots that comprise the electron=muon. And on the historic day 7 November, 1990, having awoken from sleep and remembering that picture in Halliday & Resnick, did I discover the Atom Totality Universe theory. I put together the idea that the dots of the electron dot cloud are actual galaxies and stars in the night sky. The dots of the electron dot cloud are actual mass chunks or pieces of one electron=muon. So that if we had a survey test of scientists, especially physicists, would they draw the hydrogen atom of one electron=muon and one proton as this: o . Where the electron=muon is a ball going around a tiny ball of a proton nucleus? Probably that is their picture of an electron=muon, and, their understanding of what a proton and electron=muon are, -- some spheres going around one another. They probably would never draw a picture like this for an electron=muon: ...... .............. ..................... ..................... .............. ...... The picture of an electron=muon that was instrumental in my discovering the Atom Totality Universe theory is the one by Halliday & Resnick. That picture of the atom with dots caught my attention long before 7 Nov 1990 and it was on that day in 7 Nov1990 where I connected the dots of the electron dot cloud with actual galaxies and stars, and planets, etc. Thus this picture was instrumental in the discovery of the Plutonium Atom Universe theory. But let me emphasize strongly here that none of the electron cloud dot pictures, that I have seen, really show clearly the night sky of shining galaxies and stars. The discovery of a new theory sees more than what is contained in past wisdom and adds something new and pushes it into the new wisdom. I had seen many pictures of electron cloud dot patterns mostly in chemistry books and even in movies and TV. And it was stunning to me for the first time when I understood the electron=muon was not some small ball figure circling around a nucleus, but rather a huge number of dots was the actual electron=muon itself. And this stunning understanding is probably lacking in most scientists even a lot of physicists, but not so much chemists since they encounter pictures of electrons more often than others. So that if this survey of drawing what a hydrogen atom looks like of its 1 electron=muon with 1 proton nucleus were given to scientists and professors, would any of them draw something resembling a dot cloud? I think few if any. It is in their psyche to think the electron=muon is a tiny ball going around the proton nucleus, just like Earth going around the Sun. Somehow it was the Halliday & Resnick picture which jolted my mind into the discovery stage and although in that picture the white dots are far too dense to look like the night sky of shining galaxies and stars it was enough that they were white dots and that helped tremendously. In most of the other pictures of the electron dot cloud they are black dots or blue dots set against a light or white background, or they are too fuzzy as shown in a page from the Encyclopedia Britannica. And, on that fateful day of 7NOV1990, my day was spent in finding out what chemical element would fit the best as our Atom Totality Universe. Was it uranium, or plutonium? After 7NOV1990 I have searched many texts to find other pictures which have dot pictures of the electron cloud. Pictures speak a thousand words as the old saying goes, but better yet, pictures remain in the mind longer than written words. The Atom Totality Universe is very easy to explain and this ease is credit to the theory that it is the truth. When truth comes to physics the ideas are immediate, quick, connecting to past great ideas. For as Feynman said in his Feynman Lectures text in the first chapter where he places the Atomic Theory as the greatest physics idea of all time, and what I do here, is extend the Atomic theory to its utmost reach-- the universe in total is but one big atom. So on page 6-11 of Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume I, 1963, has a picture of the electron cloud, and quoting the caption: Fig.6-11. A way of visualizing a hydrogen atom. The density (whiteness) of the cloud represents the probability density for observing the electron. --- end quoting --- Well, on my fateful morning of 7 November 1990, I was interpreting those dots more than just probability numbers, but that the electron=muon was those dots and that the dots represent a mass chunk or piece of the electron=muon. Of course, the nucleus of a cosmic atom would have most of the mass, and so, the cosmic atom would be huge for the electron space and massive for the nucleus. So, if I did a survey on scientists, asking them to draw a electron=muon, would anyone in the survey get it correct by stipling dots or would they draw some round ball as the electron=muon? This is the dot picture I used in sci.physics and other newsgroups of Internet. 94th ELECTRON=muon OF 231PU Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. A larger version of what a plutonium atom looks like with its 5f6 as that of 12 lobes or as a dodecahedron: . \ . . | . /. . . \. . .|. . /. . ..\....|.../... ::\:::|::/:: --------------- ------------- --------------- (Y) ------------- --------------- -------------- ::/:::|::\:: ../....|...\... . . /. . .|. . \. . . / . . | . \ . Archimedes Plutonium Comments:: Since in 2017, I discovered that the Real Electron is the muon of 105 MeV and the so called little electron of .5MeV was in fact a charge energy, not rest mass and is a photon with charge, and is the magnetic monopole, which I call the magnepole. That has caused me to make clear where ever I write electron, to signify that the electron is a muon. This is huge huge change in Chemistry, for the chemical bond cannot exist with the electron as .5MeV, for it needs a 105 MeV as electron, and the Real Proton in physics is 840 MeV, and neutron is 945 MeV. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 14:03 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test |
| Message-ID | <ppfo36$kti$6@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #425160 |
Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails: >Moroney says: Racist Physicists, Barry Barish, Kip Thorne, Rainer Weiss, >John M. Kosterlitz, F Duncan M. Haldane, David J. Thouless, Arthur B. >McDonald, Takaaki Kajita// fail in Chemistry bonding for it cannot exist >when proton=938MeV, electron=.5MeV So you are now lying about what I say? I am glad you like for me to reply to your posts, and asked for me to do it again!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 13:32 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test |
| Message-ID | <1216162e-b8e4-4dfa-8330-dcadf9fc191d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425193 |
On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 9:03:24 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: Michael Moroney 8:53 AM (6 hours ago) Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails: >AP wrote: >Don't you think Dr. Gell-Mann knows all that and far better than your >crank dull mind. Well he certainly knows better than _your_ crank dull mind! He knows muons only last about 2.2 microseconds!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 20:48 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test |
| Message-ID | <ppgfr1$aco$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #425203 |
Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails: >On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 9:03:24 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >Michael Moroney >8:53 AM (6 hours ago) >Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test >Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium_archimedes@gmail.com> fails: >>AP wrote: >>Don't you think Dr. Gell-Mann knows all that and far better than your >>crank dull mind. >Well he certainly knows better than _your_ crank dull mind! He knows muons >only last about 2.2 microseconds! So how will you fix this glaring mistake?
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web