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

Groups > sci.math > #425156 > unrolled thread

Kenneth Ribet,RACIST MATHEMATICIANS, Hales,Tao,Conway,Wiles,Fefferman,Meyer,Stillwell, Andrew Beal, Mauldin who refuse to admit ellipse is never a conic, refuse to even offer a Geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

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.

Contents

  Kenneth Ribet,RACIST MATHEMATICIANS, Hales,Tao,Conway,Wiles,Fefferman,Meyer,Stillwell, Andrew Beal, Mauldin who refuse to admit ellipse is never a conic, refuse to even offer a Geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 18:58 -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 02:22 +0000
      Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 13:28 -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 20:42 +0000

#425156 — Kenneth Ribet,RACIST MATHEMATICIANS, Hales,Tao,Conway,Wiles,Fefferman,Meyer,Stillwell, Andrew Beal, Mauldin who refuse to admit ellipse is never a conic, refuse to even offer a Geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 11:49:29 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
snip the vile racist, antimath antiphysics stalker
never any correct math nor physics


Kenneth Ribet,RACIST MATHEMATICIANS, Hales,Tao,Conway,Wiles,Fefferman,Meyer,Stillwell, Andrew Beal, Mauldin who refuse to admit ellipse is never a conic, refuse to even offer a Geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus



qbwr...@gmail.com writes:	
3:48 PM (21 minutes ago)
>Nope. There are several reasons that nobody is debating this. 
>1: You have FIRMLY established yourself as a mentally ill crank brain. 
>2: You have NO reproducible experiment,
snip the qbwr list of hatred,,,,,
(snip a long list of a racist qbwr hatred mind in science and math,,,)

You see why qbwr is a failed person, and is now a hired hand by racists of science, when a proof a conic is never an ellipse or a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is placed in front of him or in front of 

Kenneth Ribet

Tao

Conway

Wiles

Hales

Fefferman

Meyer

Stillwell

Andrew Beal

They do not bother to even look at what is presented by AP, no, rather instead they call up their hired hands qbwr, Boston stalker net std with shein, moroney and say-- accelerate the pestering of AP and hate mockery

Even a High School geometry student can prove to the Math Racists that the ellipse was never a conic.


Kenneth Ribet, Racist Mathematicians, Tao,Conway,Wiles,Hales,Fefferman,Meyer,Stillwell, Andrew Beal, Ron Graham, Daniel Mauldin who refuse to admit ellipse is never a conic, refuse to even offer a Geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

Kenneth Ribet Racist Mathematicians Tao,Conway,Wiles,Hales,Fefferman,Meyer,Stillwell who refuse to admit ellipse is never a conic, refuse to even offer a Geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus 

A racist scientist or mathematician is one who ignores and refuses to admit true science or math all because they hate and despise the source of that new knowledge, they are racists at heart and not scientists at all. 

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. 


A real mathematician or scientist weighs only the substance and content of the claim, not by who did the work. 

In that manner, Ribet, Tao,Conway,Wiles,Hales,Fefferman,Ribet,Meyer, Andrew Beal are racist mathematicians because AP's proof that ellipse is never a Conic, always a cylinder section has been in sci.math since 2016, yet these listed persons still teach and preach a ellipse is a conic. Otherwise they would publicly admit a oval is a conic section, never the 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 


By April 2015, was there for the first time a picture diagram proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, not just an analysis argument, but a geometry proof (see below). Old Math could never assemble a picture diagram of the FTC. All they could do is argue with limit concept an analysis argument, never a geometry proof of FTC. 

A picture diagram proof of FTC changes all of calculus and thus, changes all of mathematics for it requires a infinity borderline to produce an actual number for the  infinitesimal, and that number is the inverse of the infinity borderline. Requiring a infinity borderline to produce the infinitesimal changes all of mathematics, and throwing out the limit concept. By changing all of Calculus and thus correcting mathematics, all of math before 2015 was just trash math. 

Picture Diagram needed for Fundamental Theorem of Calculus 

Why no continuum and no curves exist in Math, so that the Calculus 
can exist, and does exist 

by Archimedes Plutonium 

Calculus is based upon there being Grid points in geometry, no 
continuum, but actually, empty space between two neighboring points. 
This is called Discrete geometry, and in physics, this is called 
Quantum Mechanics. In 10 Grid, the first few numbers are 0, .1, .2, 
.3, etc. That means there does not exist any number between 0 and .1, 
no number exists between .1 and .2. Now if you want more precise 
numbers, you go to a higher Grid like that of 100 Grid where the first 
few numbers are 0, .01, .02, .03, etc. 

Calculus in order to exist at all, needs this empty space between 
consecutive numbers or successor numbers. It needs that empty space so 
that the integral of calculus is actually small rectangles whose 
interior area is not zero. So in 10 Grid, the smallest width of any 
Calculus rectangle is of width .1. In 100 Grid the smallest width is 
.01. 

But, this revolutionary understanding of Calculus does not stop with 
the Integral, for having empty space between numbers, means no curves 
in math exist, but are ever tinier straight-line segments. 

It also means, that the Derivative in Calculus is part and parcel of 
the function graph itself. So that in a function such as y = x^2, the 
function graph is the derivative at a point. In Old Math, they had the 
folly and idiocy of a foreign, alien tangent line to a function graph 
as derivative. In New Math, the derivative is the same as the function 
graph itself. And, this makes commonsense, utter commonsense, for the 
derivative is a prediction of the future of the function in question, 
and no way in the world can a foreign tangent line to a point on the 
function be able to predict, be able to tell where the future point of 
that function be. The only predictor of a future point of a function, 
is the function graph itself. 

If the Calculus was done correctly, conceived correctly, then a 
minimal diagram explains all of Calculus. Old Math never had such a 
diagram, because Old Math was in total error of what Calculus is, and 
what Calculus does. 

The fundamental picture of all of Calculus are these two of a 
trapezoid and rectangle. In fact, call the picture, the 

FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS, Picture 

Trapezoid for derivative as the roof-top of 
the trapezoid, which must be a straight-line segment. If it is curved, 
you cannot fold it down to form a integral rectangle. And the 
rectangle for integral as area. 

From this: 
        B 
        /| 
      /  | 
 A /----| 
  /      | 
|        | 
|____| 


The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative) 
so that it can be hinged at A, and swiveled down to form rectangle for 
integral. 

To this: 

______ 
|         | 
|         | 
|         | 
--------- 

And the derivative of x= A, above is merely the dy/dx involving points 
A and B. Thus, it can never be a curve in Calculus. And the AB is part 
of the function graph itself. No curves exist in mathematics and no 
continuum exists in mathematics. 

In the above we see that CALCULUS needs and requires a diagram in 
which you can go from derivative to integral, or go from integral to 
derivative, by simply a hinge down to form a rectangle for area, or a 
hinge up to form the derivative from a given rectangle. 

Why in Old Math could no professor of math ever do the Calculus 
Diagram? Why? The answer is simple, no-one in Old Math pays attention 
to Logic, and that no-one in Old Math was required to take formal 
Logic when they attended school. So a person bereft of Logic, is never 
going to find mistakes of Logic and think clear and think straight. 

by 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]

#425157 — Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

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

<snip failures>

Archie, can't you do *anything* but fail? Fail at math, fail at physics,
fail at logic (outwitted by someone too stoopid to come out of the rain!)
and especially fail at social skills! Fail, fail fail!

Can you imagine, perhaps 10000 years in the future, perhaps some
scientists stumble across some Usenet archive, and one of them goes "Hey
look, there's some guy named Plutonium who seems to have some math
discoveries. Let's see what else he has to say.  Oh, here's something
where he attacks someone named Zelos for correcting some mistake, and
here's another post where he attacks someone named Dan for correcting
another mistake, and another attacking someone named Moroney for
correcting yet another mistake. Forget Plutonium, hey here's something
claiming an inventor named Tesla from 100 years earlier may have invented
free electricity but it was supressed..."  See, you claim to want to be
remembered in history but here you are, ruining your own reputation...

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

#425202 — Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 9:22:20 PM 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]

#425204 — Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails:
>On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 8:42:47 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 <pluton...@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 are you going to fix this obvious mistake of yours?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web