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

Groups > sci.math > #430959 > unrolled thread

AP's thoughts as of 6JAN2019//radioactivity wholescale revision//directrix of ellipse

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

Contents

  AP's thoughts as of 6JAN2019//radioactivity wholescale revision//directrix of ellipse Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 14:21 -0800
    universal ellipse percentage formulas Re: AP's thoughts as of 6JAN2019//radioactivity wholescale revision//directrix of ellipse Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 14:45 -0800
      my first universal ellipse percentage formula, Square area = 30% Directrix area Re: AP's thoughts as of 6JAN2019//radioactivity wholescale revision//directrix of ellipse Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 17:23 -0800
        safe to say that the Internal Square perimeter of the Ellipse is 50% of the Directrix Rectangle perimeter, for all Ellipses Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 17:34 -0800
          You say you want to master physics? Well, you have to master the ellipse first!! Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 17:59 -0800
            Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-07 02:21 +0000
            .0072 a correction factor? Re: You say you want to master physics? Well, you have to master the ellipse first!! Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 19:58 -0800
              .007299 an angle issue ?Re: .007299 a correction factor? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 22:20 -0800
                old post of mine in 2015 on 1/137 Re: .007299 an angle issue ?Re: .007299 a correction factor? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 22:25 -0800
                  Heath Brown Moroz constant Re: old post of mine in 2015 on 1/137 Re: .007299 an angle issue ?Re: .007299 a correction factor? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 00:04 -0800
                    Heath Brown Moroz constant Re: old post of mine in 2015 on 1/137 Re: .007299 an angle issue ?Re: .007299 a correction factor? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 00:19 -0800
                      .00131 and .007299 Re: Heath Brown Moroz constant Re: old post of mine in 2015 on 1/137 Re: .007299 an angle issue ?Re: .007299 a correction factor? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 00:45 -0800
                        Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-07 14:21 +0000
                        Re: .00131 and .007299 Re: AP moves on from word salad to number salad. alouatta.coibensis@gmail.com - 2019-01-07 08:15 -0800
    Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-07 00:01 +0000

#430959 — AP's thoughts as of 6JAN2019//radioactivity wholescale revision//directrix of ellipse

Alright, we need wholescale revision of radioactivity. When we come upon a rock that is 1/2radioactive element and 1/2 lead, we have got to stop this assuming nonsense that it was 100% radioactive at one time of the past and has decayed into 1/2lead. No, it is just the reverse, where at one time it was 100% lead and has grown into radioactive element by 50% content. And if we wait long enough, the remainder of 50% will grow into the radioactive substance. The mechanism is Faraday law going on inside of atoms creates magnetic monopoles by turning space into monopoles and storaged in particles called neutrons until they grow into a new proton of 840MeV with its associated new muon 105MeV to raise the atomic number of that atom one more higher.

Alright, yesterday could not find one single percentage to match for the ellipse square, interior rectangle, exterior rectangle. So today I try the Directrix, defined as D = semimajor axis^2 / F where F is the focal point of a distance from the center, and D is a line situated parallel to semiminor axis and at a distance D from the center.

ELLIPSE 5by2
Semimajor axis = 5 
Semiminor axis = 2 
Foci distance from center = 4.58 using formula F^2 = semimajor axis^2 - semiminor axis^2 
Circumference = 23.013 
Area = 31.416 
Directrix is 5^2/4.58 = 5.458

ELLIPSE 10by8 
Semimajor axis = 10 
Semiminor axis = 8 
Foci distance of 6 from center, reckoned by F^2 = semimajor^2 - semiminor^2 
Circumference = 56.723 
Area = 251.327 
Directrix is 10^2/ 6 = 16.666

Let me see if today I can make some percentage matches.

AP


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]

#430960 — universal ellipse percentage formulas Re: AP's thoughts as of 6JAN2019//radioactivity wholescale revision//directrix of ellipse

On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 4:21:14 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Alright, we need wholescale revision of radioactivity. When we come upon a rock that is 1/2radioactive element and 1/2 lead, we have got to stop this assuming nonsense that it was 100% radioactive at one time of the past and has decayed into 1/2lead. No, it is just the reverse, where at one time it was 100% lead and has grown into radioactive element by 50% content. And if we wait long enough, the remainder of 50% will grow into the radioactive substance. The mechanism is Faraday law going on inside of atoms creates magnetic monopoles by turning space into monopoles and storaged in particles called neutrons until they grow into a new proton of 840MeV with its associated new muon 105MeV to raise the atomic number of that atom one more higher.
> 
> Alright, yesterday could not find one single percentage to match for the ellipse square, interior rectangle, exterior rectangle. So today I try the Directrix, defined as D = semimajor axis^2 / F where F is the focal point of a distance from the center, and D is a line situated parallel to semiminor axis and at a distance D from the center.
> 
> ELLIPSE 5by2
> Semimajor axis = 5 
> Semiminor axis = 2 
> Foci distance from center = 4.58 using formula F^2 = semimajor axis^2 - semiminor axis^2 
> Circumference = 23.013 
> Area = 31.416 
> Directrix is 5^2/4.58 = 5.458

Alright so the exterior rectangle I will use is the directrix rectangle of either 4by5.458 or 4by10.916

The maximum interior rectangle for this ellipse is 9.06by1.692 which is area of 15.32
And the internal square of this ellipse is 3.7by3.7

> 
> ELLIPSE 10by8 
> Semimajor axis = 10 
> Semiminor axis = 8 
> Foci distance of 6 from center, reckoned by F^2 = semimajor^2 - semiminor^2 
> Circumference = 56.723 
> Area = 251.327 
> Directrix is 10^2/ 6 = 16.666
> 
> Let me see if today I can make some percentage matches.
> 

The external rectangle using the directrix is here either 16by16.666 or 16by33.33

For this ellipse we have a maximum internal rectangle as 14.2*11.26 = 160.00 
And the internal square is 12.5by12.5 = 156.25

So let me see if I can get universal ellipse percentage formulas.

AP

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

#430972 — my first universal ellipse percentage formula, Square area = 30% Directrix area Re: AP's thoughts as of 6JAN2019//radioactivity wholescale revision//directrix of ellipse

On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 4:46:06 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> > ELLIPSE 5by2
> > Semimajor axis = 5 
> > Semiminor axis = 2 
> > Foci distance from center = 4.58 using formula F^2 = semimajor axis^2 - semiminor axis^2 
> > Circumference = 23.013 
> > Area = 31.416 
> > Directrix is 5^2/4.58 = 5.458
> 
> Alright so the exterior rectangle I will use is the directrix rectangle of either 4by5.458 or 4by10.916
> 

For Physics sake, I am going to use the entire directrix, viewing it as the electrical force while the focal point is the magnetic force so in the above 4*10.916 = 43.664 area and 29.83 perimeter

> The maximum interior rectangle for this ellipse is 9.06by1.692 which is area of 15.32 and perimeter is
21.5 

> And the internal square of this ellipse is 3.7by3.7 for area 13.69 and perimeter 14.8


> 
> > 
> > ELLIPSE 10by8 
> > Semimajor axis = 10 
> > Semiminor axis = 8 
> > Foci distance of 6 from center, reckoned by F^2 = semimajor^2 - semiminor^2 
> > Circumference = 56.723 
> > Area = 251.327 
> > Directrix is 10^2/ 6 = 16.666
> > 
> > Let me see if today I can make some percentage matches.
> > 
> 
> The external rectangle using the directrix is here either 16by16.666 or 16by33.33

Directrix rectangle is 533.28 area and 98.66 perimeter

> 
> For this ellipse we have a maximum internal rectangle as 14.2*11.26 = 160.00 and perimeter 50.92
> And the internal square is 12.5by12.5 = 156.25 with perimeter 50

And congratulations, finally we have a Universal Percentage Formula of Directrix rectangle area and internal square area

156.25/533.28 = approx 30%
with
13.69/43.66 = approx 31%

Close enough to say the formula of the Internal Square area of a Ellipse is 30% of the Directrix rectangle area.

AP

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

#430973 — safe to say that the Internal Square perimeter of the Ellipse is 50% of the Directrix Rectangle perimeter, for all Ellipses

On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 7:23:49 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 4:46:06 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 
> > > ELLIPSE 5by2
> > > Semimajor axis = 5 
> > > Semiminor axis = 2 
> > > Foci distance from center = 4.58 using formula F^2 = semimajor axis^2 - semiminor axis^2 
> > > Circumference = 23.013 
> > > Area = 31.416 
> > > Directrix is 5^2/4.58 = 5.458
> > 
> > Alright so the exterior rectangle I will use is the directrix rectangle of either 4by5.458 or 4by10.916
> > 
> 
> For Physics sake, I am going to use the entire directrix, viewing it as the electrical force while the focal point is the magnetic force so in the above 4*10.916 = 43.664 area and 29.83 perimeter
> 
> > The maximum interior rectangle for this ellipse is 9.06by1.692 which is area of 15.32 and perimeter is
> 21.5 
> 
> > And the internal square of this ellipse is 3.7by3.7 for area 13.69 and perimeter 14.8
> 
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > ELLIPSE 10by8 
> > > Semimajor axis = 10 
> > > Semiminor axis = 8 
> > > Foci distance of 6 from center, reckoned by F^2 = semimajor^2 - semiminor^2 
> > > Circumference = 56.723 
> > > Area = 251.327 
> > > Directrix is 10^2/ 6 = 16.666
> > > 
> > > Let me see if today I can make some percentage matches.
> > > 
> > 
> > The external rectangle using the directrix is here either 16by16.666 or 16by33.33
> 
> Directrix rectangle is 533.28 area and 98.66 perimeter
> 
> > 
> > For this ellipse we have a maximum internal rectangle as 14.2*11.26 = 160.00 and perimeter 50.92
> > And the internal square is 12.5by12.5 = 156.25 with perimeter 50
> 
> And congratulations, finally we have a Universal Percentage Formula of Directrix rectangle area and internal square area
> 
> 156.25/533.28 = approx 30%
> with
> 13.69/43.66 = approx 31%
> 
> Close enough to say the formula of the Internal Square area of a Ellipse is 30% of the Directrix rectangle area.
> 

Now the Perimeter of the Internal Square versus the perimeter of Directrix Rectangle comes in even a better match of a Universal Percentage Formula for all Ellipses

14.8/29.8 = 49%

50/98.6 = 50%

So it is safe to say that the Internal Square perimeter of the Ellipse is 50% of the Directrix Rectangle perimeter, for all Ellipses

AP

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

#430976 — You say you want to master physics? Well, you have to master the ellipse first!!

Apparently there is no universal relationship of the Internal Maximum Rectangle with the Directrix Rectangle. Nor with anything else involved with the Ellipse that has been mentioned so far-- square, external rectangle.

A bit puzzling I would say.

I keep harping back to the idea-- to master physics you need to master Angular Momentum, and to master Angular Momentum you need to master the Ellipse in every aspect of the ellipse.

The reason no-one in the 20th century was ever able to understand that in 1897, JJ Thomson never discovered the electron of the atom but rather, discovered the Dirac Magnetic Monopole of the Atom, for the true electron of the atom is the muon. And the reason no-one in the 20th century had enough logical brains to see the mistake, is because no-one in the 20th century understood Angular Momentum nor even understood what the Ellipse is. For in the 20th century and up to 2016, not one mathematician ever saw their error-- ellipse is not a conic section but a cylinder section.

If you have mathematicians so crazy in thought so crazy in thinking the ellipse is a cone cut, there is no hope that the physicist could ever realize that the electron has to be 105MeV, proton 840MeV in order for Chemistry to have chemical covalent bond because 8 to 1 ration gives Angular Momentum-- the ellipse inside of atoms.

No wonder the idiot physicists of the 20th century could never understand that the Thomson particle was not the electron, for they were treated by the idiot mathematicians of the 20th century that the ellipse was a conic cut, not a cylinder cut.

So, you want to be a master of Physics, you say. Well, you have to master the Ellipse first. And here the history of physics tells the whole story-- Kepler and Newton started the understanding of Angular Momentum with their Sweeping out Equal Areas in Equal Time Intervals-- that is the ellipse.

Now, I still need to see if 1/137 is a universal constant for all ellipses.

AP

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

#430977 — Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

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

>Subject: Re: You say you want to master physics? Well, you have to master the ellipse first!!

> I keep harping back to the idea-- to master physics you need to master Angular
> Momentum, and to master Angular Momentum you need to master the Ellipse
> in every aspect of the ellipse.

And one of the interesting things about the ellipse is how it is a conic
section, although at first glance it appears it can't be. An excellent
proof that the ellipse is a conic section is the Dandelin Spheres proof.
Another excellent proof follows:


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]

#430985 — .0072 a correction factor? Re: You say you want to master physics? Well, you have to master the ellipse first!!

On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 7:59:53 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Apparently there is no universal relationship of the Internal Maximum Rectangle with the Directrix Rectangle. Nor with anything else involved with the Ellipse that has been mentioned so far-- square, external rectangle.
> 
> A bit puzzling I would say.
> 
> I keep harping back to the idea-- to master physics you need to master Angular Momentum, and to master Angular Momentum you need to master the Ellipse in every aspect of the ellipse.
> 
> The reason no-one in the 20th century was ever able to understand that in 1897, JJ Thomson never discovered the electron of the atom but rather, discovered the Dirac Magnetic Monopole of the Atom, for the true electron of the atom is the muon. And the reason no-one in the 20th century had enough logical brains to see the mistake, is because no-one in the 20th century understood Angular Momentum nor even understood what the Ellipse is. For in the 20th century and up to 2016, not one mathematician ever saw their error-- ellipse is not a conic section but a cylinder section.
> 
> If you have mathematicians so crazy in thought so crazy in thinking the ellipse is a cone cut, there is no hope that the physicist could ever realize that the electron has to be 105MeV, proton 840MeV in order for Chemistry to have chemical covalent bond because 8 to 1 ration gives Angular Momentum-- the ellipse inside of atoms.
> 
> No wonder the idiot physicists of the 20th century could never understand that the Thomson particle was not the electron, for they were treated by the idiot mathematicians of the 20th century that the ellipse was a conic cut, not a cylinder cut.
> 
> So, you want to be a master of Physics, you say. Well, you have to master the Ellipse first. And here the history of physics tells the whole story-- Kepler and Newton started the understanding of Angular Momentum with their Sweeping out Equal Areas in Equal Time Intervals-- that is the ellipse.
> 
> Now, I still need to see if 1/137 is a universal constant for all ellipses.
> 

I suspect the 1/137 is a transformation correction, in going from a straightline to a "ellipse curve"

So far I have seen one reference to .0072 in the literature-- a mighty good reference at that.


Now I did a search on the Internet to see if anyone came across a .0072 involving the ellipse, and to my surprise in Earth measurement Measuring The Heaven And The Earth, page 77 they come upon the Earth as oblate ellipsoid with a angle measure of .0072 degrees to rectify the Earth's curvature. 


So I think this .0072 is a correction factor.

AP

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

#430992 — .007299 an angle issue ?Re: .007299 a correction factor?

On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 9:58:47 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 7:59:53 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Apparently there is no universal relationship of the Internal Maximum Rectangle with the Directrix Rectangle. Nor with anything else involved with the Ellipse that has been mentioned so far-- square, external rectangle.
> > 
> > A bit puzzling I would say.
> > 
> > I keep harping back to the idea-- to master physics you need to master Angular Momentum, and to master Angular Momentum you need to master the Ellipse in every aspect of the ellipse.
> > 
> > The reason no-one in the 20th century was ever able to understand that in 1897, JJ Thomson never discovered the electron of the atom but rather, discovered the Dirac Magnetic Monopole of the Atom, for the true electron of the atom is the muon. And the reason no-one in the 20th century had enough logical brains to see the mistake, is because no-one in the 20th century understood Angular Momentum nor even understood what the Ellipse is. For in the 20th century and up to 2016, not one mathematician ever saw their error-- ellipse is not a conic section but a cylinder section.
> > 
> > If you have mathematicians so crazy in thought so crazy in thinking the ellipse is a cone cut, there is no hope that the physicist could ever realize that the electron has to be 105MeV, proton 840MeV in order for Chemistry to have chemical covalent bond because 8 to 1 ration gives Angular Momentum-- the ellipse inside of atoms.
> > 
> > No wonder the idiot physicists of the 20th century could never understand that the Thomson particle was not the electron, for they were treated by the idiot mathematicians of the 20th century that the ellipse was a conic cut, not a cylinder cut.
> > 
> > So, you want to be a master of Physics, you say. Well, you have to master the Ellipse first. And here the history of physics tells the whole story-- Kepler and Newton started the understanding of Angular Momentum with their Sweeping out Equal Areas in Equal Time Intervals-- that is the ellipse.
> > 
> > Now, I still need to see if 1/137 is a universal constant for all ellipses.
> > 
> 
> I suspect the 1/137 is a transformation correction, in going from a straightline to a "ellipse curve"
> 
> So far I have seen one reference to .0072 in the literature-- a mighty good reference at that.
> 
> 
> Now I did a search on the Internet to see if anyone came across a .0072 involving the ellipse, and to my surprise in Earth measurement Measuring The Heaven And The Earth, page 77 they come upon the Earth as oblate ellipsoid with a angle measure of .0072 degrees to rectify the Earth's curvature. 
> 

This is in a Amazon book written by Antonio Llano "Measuring The Heaven And The Earth.

> 
> So I think this .0072 is a correction factor.
> 


Now in true math, there are no curves only chain links of straightline segments. So that no circle or ellipse as curve exists. Those are stringed together line segments. So can we say that the .0072 is the smallest angle for a ellipse?

Now, if we take a 100 regular polygon, our eyes are having a tough time of telling whether it is a circle or regular polygon, for the angle is tiny.

By a 137 sided regular polygon we really cannot tell that the figure is a circle or polygon.

I am thinking in terms of Antonio Llano above in his book where he calculated the curvature of Earth.

Now I may have to use .007299 for better accuracy.

Is it the case that at a regular polygon of 137 sides, its inverse of 1/137 is where the angles of the circle curve is less than or equal to a .007299 angle?

A square inside a Circle has a huge angle at its vertex the figure I call a diangle, involving a straightline and a curved arc of circle.

Is the number 137 where that diangle in a regular polygon is a smaller angle than 1/137. Up until 137 regular polygon the angles of these diangles were larger, for square 4, 1/4 is larger, for 136, 1/136 the angle larger, but at 137, the angle formed from the circle and straightline is smaller than 1/137.

AP

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

#430993 — old post of mine in 2015 on 1/137 Re: .007299 an angle issue ?Re: .007299 a correction factor?

On the topic of 1/137, I wrote this way back in July 2015


Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 13:42:42 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Chat: can I find 1/137 a constant on par with pi?
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 20:42:42 +0000

Chat: can I find 1/137 a constant on par with pi?

I wrote in New Physics some years back: 
 The inverse 
>  fine-structure marker is exactly 137 neutrons in the 
>  collapsed wavefunction 
>  and in the uncollapsed wavefunction of 231@94 when the 
>  value of pi is taken as 
>  exactly equal to 22/7, the inverse fine-structure 
>  marker is exactly 
>  ((22/7)^7)/22. 
> --- end quoting from my other book --- 
> So notice that the mass ratio of electron to proton becomes 6(pi^5) 
> and that the 
> inverse fine structure constant becomes (pi^7)/22. These two numbers 
> would be 
> related to each other in the fact of their exponents are energy 
> structures in a plutonium 
> atom. 

I am reviewing this topic because of the idea that circles as we knew them in Old Math are reduced to mere points of vertices of regular polygons in the plane. There is no "arclength" of a curve in a circle in New Math. 

So, is the number 1/137 a recognition that the regular polygon perimeter becomes the circumference? 

I am going to have to start using the decimal fraction for more insight. The number .007299... 

What I think I may retrieve in this adventure is the idea, again, that Borrowing from 3 exponents higher is the maximum I ever need to borrow. So that for example, sqrt2 in 10 Grid, that I need never borrow beyond 10^4 Grid. Or if I were in 100 Grid, I need never borrow beyond 10^5 Grid. 

But also, may .007299... be a sort of "speed of light constant" in mathematics. The Fine Structure Constant is everywhere in the Maxwell Theory and since those axioms include all of mathematics as a subset of Physics, then .007299... should be far more pronounced in math, whereas now it is a relative insignificant number in math. 

Is this number, .007299... perhaps the number needed to make all adjustments to the length of the side of any three noncollinear points of the plane so that those three points forms a regular polygon with those 3 points as vertices of the regular polygon. 

In the above, I show where pi= 22/7 that we take (22/7)^7 and then divide that into 22 gives .007299. 

So, in a sense, pi of Old Math is a composite number of a smaller more fundamental constant of .007299... 

If I am given a arbitrary radius of a circle (keep in mind a circle in New Math are just vertex points of a regular polygon inscribed), does the number .007299... determine the size of length of the regular polygon, which created those vertice points? 

AP 

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

#431005 — Heath Brown Moroz constant Re: old post of mine in 2015 on 1/137 Re: .007299 an angle issue ?Re: .007299 a correction factor?

Now to be thorough, I went to check for any math constants of the past whether any come close or near to 1/137, .007299. Maybe someone already found this constant, under a different use.

I found a constant called Chaitin's constant .00787 but then looking at it-- it is computer jabberwacky. Please, put computer science in the engineering section of academics, never in the math or physics departments. Computer knowledge is engineering, never logic, never math. If you have trouble in where to put computer science in your college, then put it with gymnastics, swimming and dodge ball, but not in mathematics.

Then I found an interesting constant called Heath Brown Moroz constant of .00131. So, I had to look to see if it is some geometry constant and sure enough it is. Of course it misses .007299 but then it could be a composite of the more primitive .00131. Both are in the same 1/1000 decimal place scale. And both are geometry. So have to look deeper into this constant.

AP

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

#431006 — Heath Brown Moroz constant Re: old post of mine in 2015 on 1/137 Re: .007299 an angle issue ?Re: .007299 a correction factor?

Quoting Wikipedia—
This constant is part of an asymptotic estimate for the distribution of rational points of bounded height on the cubic surface X03=X1X2X3. Let H be a positive real number and N(H) the number of solutions to the equation X03=X1X2X3 with all the Xi non-negative integers less than or equal to H and their greatest common divisor equal to

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

#431007 — .00131 and .007299 Re: Heath Brown Moroz constant Re: old post of mine in 2015 on 1/137 Re: .007299 an angle issue ?Re: .007299 a correction factor?

On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 2:20:05 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Quoting Wikipedia—
> This constant is part of an asymptotic estimate for the distribution of rational points of bounded height on the cubic surface X03=X1X2X3. Let H be a positive real number and N(H) the number of solutions to the equation X03=X1X2X3 with all the Xi non-negative integers less than or equal to H and their greatest common divisor equal to

So, what I am wondering here, is whether this above constant that is geometry is a more primitive constant than the Fine Structure Constant of 1/137 or .007299

If I take .00131 and multiply by 6 I get .00786

In terms of sigma error that is .00786/.00729 is 7% and unacceptable.

But I do like that geometry of rational points on a cubic surface, sort of like fits in with my idea that the straightline segments strung together to form a regular polygon start to look like a circle or a ellipse.

So maybe this scale of numbers-- the 1/1000 place value is where geometry of straight line is made to conform with curves of ellipse.

AP

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

#431039 — Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

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

>Subject: 8:21:25Moroney wrote:>Math Failure,,,//Susanne K. Langer,Gary M.
> Hardegree,Raymond M. Smullyan,John Venn,William Gustason,Richmond H.

>On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 8:21:25 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails:

Why thank you for requesting that I score your post once again for failure!


☑ Archie responds to criticism but refuses to discuss the issue...
☑ ...he would rather run away by trying to delete his posts...
☑ ...he actually believes deleting something on Google actually deletes it from Usenet...
☑ Archie considers attempts of actual discussion to be 'stalking'...
☐ ...Giggle Groups screenshot cut and pasted...
☑ Archie's response posted in the wrong topic...
☑ ...with zero new content...
☐ ...and posted to the wrong newsgroup...
☑ ...multiple times...
☑ ...again and again...
☑ ...and again and again...
☑ ...enough times to be classified as spam...
☑ ...in a topic/topics explicitly created by him for doing so...
☐ ...and Archie even whines about (other) spammers in his spam...
☐ ...with a subject about flunking a nonexistent test no one ever took...
☑ Archie's post mentions totally uninvolved people...
☑ ...who are university math or physics professors...
☑ ...at a university supposedly near the person criticizing Archie...
☑ ...but Archie got the location (and university) completely wrong...
☐ ...and Archie demands they resign for not teaching his broken math...
☐ ....no, Archie demands they be fired for not teaching his broken math...
☐ ....Archie demands they shut down an entire university for not teaching his broken math...
☐ ....heck, Archie demands they shut down HARVARD for not teaching his broken math...
☑ ...and he includes a stalker list of physics and/or math professors...
☑ ...and STILL can't answer 'why post stalker lists of uninvolved profs'...
☑ ...maybe he thinks these professors do a Kibo and will respond here just by mentioning their names...
☑ ...even though those profs have never heard of him and never will...
☑ ...speaking of Kibo, mentions Kibo (how last century!)
☑ ...Archie's actual response is completely unrelated to the topic...
☐ Archie even reposts something from 1994 to show he was a failure way back then, too!...
☑ A critic's comment has embarrassing (to AP) portion removed...
☑ ...to the extent the comment is no longer recognizable...
☐ Archie's post includes random snippets by other critics, spammers or babblers...
☐ ...which are attributed to yet other critics, spammers or babblers...
☐ ...followed by yet another repost of the "12 Failures of Plutonium"...
☑ Archie actually claims that anyone who believe the ellipse is a conic section is stupid...
☑ ...followed by yet another repost of his long-discredited ellipse/conic section non-proof...
☑ Archie includes the dumb ascii art cat/owl thing...
☑ ...and that whatever-it-is ascii art...
☑ ...as well as ascii art of Archie's butthole...
☑ ...and Archie doesn't realize ascii art is so 1980s...
☑ Archie still can't answer Dan C's easy 4 question math test...
☑ Archie brings up a "mistake" (in his view) from months ago...
☑ ...which, of course, is not actually a mistake...
☑ ...and Archie invents yet more "mistakes" (that are not mistakes)...
☐ Archie really wears out the "a beer short of a 6 pack" joke...
☑ ...but he still doesn't realize he's about 5 beers short...
☐ Archie says something really dumb and stoopid, but realizes how dumb it is, so he accuses another poster of saying it...
☐ Archie doesn't know the definition of "racism", so calls anyone who points out all the flaws in his claims are "racist"...
☐ Archie roots for cockroaches in the Law of the Jungle...
☑ Archie can't tell the difference between Boolean AND/OR and arithmetic addition/subtraction...
☑ Archie doesn't even know the 'rules' of Boolean logic...
☑ ...in particular, doesn't know the difference between AND/OR and addition/subtraction...
☑ Archie outsmarted by someone too stupid to come out of the rain AGAIN...
☑ Clay County Sheriff, be on lookout for someone in T-shirt&sandals walking along road during blizzards...
☐ Archie whines about iPhone's self-protection feature rather than heat his trailer in the winter...
☐ Archie thinks he is the very first person in the history of the world to disbelieve in negative and imaginary numbers...
☐ ...and demands credit from anyone else who also disbelieves in them...
☑ Archie can't get over the shame of messing up percentages...
☐ ...and Archie is envious that I weighed the electron and he didn't...
☐ Archie asks Google Groups to do something they can't do...
☑ Google Groups poster. 'Nuf said.
☑ ...because he's too stoopid to configure a newsreader with killfile...

The Failure Score of Archie's post:  42 plutoniums! Time for more Haldol!
(The plutonium is the new SI unit of failure)

X-No-Archive: yes

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

#431048 — Re: .00131 and .007299 Re: AP moves on from word salad to number salad.

On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 12:46:07 AM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 2:20:05 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Quoting Wikipedia—
> > This constant is part of an asymptotic estimate for the distribution of rational points of bounded height on the cubic surface X03=X1X2X3. Let H be a positive real number and N(H) the number of solutions to the equation X03=X1X2X3 with all the Xi non-negative integers less than or equal to H and their greatest common divisor equal to
> 
> So, what I am wondering here, is whether this above constant that is geometry is a more primitive constant than the Fine Structure Constant of 1/137 or .007299
> 
> If I take .00131 and multiply by 6 I get .00786
> 
> In terms of sigma error that is .00786/.00729 is 7% and unacceptable.
> 
> But I do like that geometry of rational points on a cubic surface, sort of like fits in with my idea that the straightline segments strung together to form a regular polygon start to look like a circle or a ellipse.
> 
> So maybe this scale of numbers-- the 1/1000 place value is where geometry of straight line is made to conform with curves of ellipse.
> 
> AP

Gibberish.

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

#430966 — Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

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

On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 12:28:12 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Math Failure

No, no, no. I already told you you have to quote properly. It is supposed to be:
>>Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails:

And again I see you are still too dumb and stoopid to not attack me.
Remember, I know your weakness, it is your logorrhea..
You want me to defend myself by attacking back or not? Your choice...

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web