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

Groups > sci.physics > #644240 > unrolled thread

Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder section. Failures of physics- Hawking, Brian Greene, Tyson, Higgs, Arindam Banerjee, Mike Moroney, James McGinn

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder section. Failures of physics- Hawking, Brian Greene, Tyson, Higgs, Arindam Banerjee, Mike Moroney, James McGinn Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 12:57 -0700
    Re: Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder section. Failures of physics- Hawking, Brian Greene, Tyson, Higgs, Arindam Banerjee, Mike Moroney, James McGinn Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 13:37 -0700
      Re: Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder section. Failures of physics- Hawking, Brian Greene, Tyson, Higgs, Arindam Banerjee, Mike Moroney, James McGinn Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 14:41 -0700
        Re: Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder section. Failures of physics- Hawking, Brian Greene, Tyson, Higgs, Arindam Banerjee, Mike Moroney, James McGinn benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-03 18:26 -0400
        Re: Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder section. Failures of physics- Hawking, Brian Greene, Tyson, Higgs, Arindam Banerjee, Mike Moroney, James McGinn poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-17 01:53 -0700
          Re: Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder section. Failures of physics- Hawking, Brian Greene, Tyson, Higgs, Arindam Banerjee, Mike Moroney, James McGinn poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-17 02:07 -0700
    Re: Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder section. Failures of physics- Archimedes Plutonium moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-04 02:35 +0000
    experiment takes only a can of veggies to prove ellipse is not a conic section Re: Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder section Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 23:23 -0700
      Re: experiment takes only a can of veggies to prove ellipse is not a conic section Re: Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder section Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 11:25 -0700
        Re: experiment takes only a can of veggies to prove ellipse is not a conic section Re: Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder section Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 11:56 -0700
          Re: experiment takes only a can of veggies to prove ellipse is not a conic section Re: Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder section Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 16:12 -0700
      Re: experiment takes only a can of veggies to prove ellipse is not a conic section Re: Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder section Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 17:08 -0700
        Re: experiment takes only a can of veggies to prove ellipse is not a conic section Re: Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder section moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-07 04:31 +0000
        Re: experiment takes only a can of veggies to prove ellipse is not a conic section Re: Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder section Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 10:33 -0700
    Re: Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder section. Failures of physics- Hawking, Brian Greene, Tyson, Higgs, Arindam Banerjee, Mike Moroney, James McGinn bursejan@gmail.com - 2017-08-04 19:44 -0700
      Re: Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder section. Failures of physics- Hawking, Brian Greene, Tyson, Higgs, Arindam Banerjee, Mike Moroney, James McGinn bursejan@gmail.com - 2017-08-05 04:48 -0700
        Re: Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder section. Failures of physics- Hawking, Brian Greene, Tyson, Higgs, Arindam Banerjee, Mike Moroney, James McGinn bursejan@gmail.com - 2017-08-05 06:28 -0700
    Re: Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder section. Failures of physics- Hawking, Brian Greene, Tyson, Higgs, Arindam Banerjee, Mike Moroney, James McGinn bursejan@gmail.com - 2017-08-15 17:44 -0700
    Re: Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder section. Failures of physics- Hawking, Brian Greene, Tyson, Higgs, Arindam Banerjee, Mike Moroney, James McGinn bursejan@gmail.com - 2017-08-17 01:18 -0700
    Re: Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder section. Failures of physics- Hawking, Brian Greene, Tyson, Higgs, Arindam Banerjee, Mike Moroney, James McGinn bursejan@gmail.com - 2017-08-26 16:46 -0700

#644240 — Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder section. Failures of physics- Hawking, Brian Greene, Tyson, Higgs, Arindam Banerjee, Mike Moroney, James McGinn

Easy experiment, easy 

Just get a tin can of vegetables, cut the end as you usually do and let the lid fall through the CYLINDER. 

The lid is round as a circle and is able to fall through the can because it is shorter and it forms a ELLIPSE as it falls through. 

The CONE is different than the cylinder, it is asymmetrical in a fall through of the lid, meaning that the lid will not fall through, it will be quickly impeded in falling. Why? Because the lid as a circle gets stopped by the walls of the cone impeding the fall. So a Cross Section of the Cylinder is a Ellipse, but the cross section of a Cone is a OVAL. 

Now the Ancient Greeks seldom if ever did a hands on experiment. They liked to do everything in their head, which often can get you the wrong answer. 

Experimental Physics was borne with Galileo, long after the Ancient Greeks.

Now, in modern times there is no excuse for not doing this experiment. You simply get a cylinder and a cone of about the same size and you make a oblique angle cut and see what figure comes out. In the Cylinder cut, the figure is a ELLIPSE, yet in the Cone cut the figure is a OVAL. 

Now here is a short list of physics failures who just cannot be bothered to hands on experiment but rather are failures of physics for all they can do is dictate that the ellipse is a conic section. Dictate because they are far far too stupid to ever actually experiment to see if their memorized crap in their minds is really true, or, just memorized crap. 

Stephen Hawking
Brian Greene
Mike Brown
Lisa Randall
Niel deGrasse Tyson
Peter Higgs
Arindam Banerjee
Mike Moroney
James McGinn (real crazy)
Pentcho Valev
Jeff-Relf
Benj sci.physics


All of them, failures of physics, for they never are able to get beyond memorization of physics and mathematics, whether utterly false math, and worst yet, they preach their fake physics crap to younger generations and scold the young students-- that their crap physics is what they must learn. 

AP

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#644251

On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 2:57:45 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Easy experiment, easy 
> 
> Just get a tin can of vegetables, cut the end as you usually do and let the lid fall through the CYLINDER. 
> 
> The lid is round as a circle and is able to fall through the can because it is shorter and it forms a ELLIPSE as it falls through. 
> 
> The CONE is different than the cylinder, it is asymmetrical in a fall through of the lid, meaning that the lid will not fall through, it will be quickly impeded in falling. Why? Because the lid as a circle gets stopped by the walls of the cone impeding the fall. So a Cross Section of the Cylinder is a Ellipse, but the cross section of a Cone is a OVAL. 
> 
> Now the Ancient Greeks seldom if ever did a hands on experiment. They liked to do everything in their head, which often can get you the wrong answer. 
> 
> Experimental Physics was borne with Galileo, long after the Ancient Greeks.
> 
> Now, in modern times there is no excuse for not doing this experiment. You simply get a cylinder and a cone of about the same size and you make a oblique angle cut and see what figure comes out. In the Cylinder cut, the figure is a ELLIPSE, yet in the Cone cut the figure is a OVAL. 
> 
> Now here is a short list of physics failures who just cannot be bothered to hands on experiment but rather are failures of physics for all they can do is dictate that the ellipse is a conic section. Dictate because they are far far too stupid to ever actually experiment to see if their memorized crap in their minds is really true, or, just memorized crap. 
> 
> Stephen Hawking
> Brian Greene
> Mike Brown
> Lisa Randall
> Niel deGrasse Tyson
> Peter Higgs
> Arindam Banerjee
> Mike Moroney
> James McGinn (real crazy)
> Pentcho Valev
> Jeff-Relf
> Benj sci.physics
> 
add

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> 
> All of them, failures of physics, for they never are able to get beyond memorization of physics and mathematics, whether utterly false math, and worst yet, they preach their fake physics crap to younger generations and scold the young students-- that their crap physics is what they must learn. 
> 
> AP

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

#644269

Add Reber/hanson

Add Porat

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

#644274

On 8/3/2017 5:41 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Add Reber/hanson
> 
> Add Porat
> 
Add Archie

Hey Arch I noticed you ignored my proof that your Goldbach proof is 
wrong. You had better fix it for quit posting as a proven fraud.

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

#646270

On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 12:41:40 AM UTC+3, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Add Reber/hanson
> 
> Add Porat
===============================================
indeed add porat to Archi s   ''list''!!
see the

Y CIRCLON    MECHANISM !**!!
IE 
YOU CANT DEFINE ANY FORCE 
WITHOUT THAT   MECHANISM 
==
copyrighted  
in my site 
from 
1993 
in my historic model  
Google
the y porat model an abstract 

and its appendix 
it is written there 

''NEWTONS FIRST LAW Of MOTION
HAS TO BE EXPANDED !!!

how expanded 
just see there !!! 
ATB
Y.Porat
======================= 

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

#646271

On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 11:54:01 AM UTC+3, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 12:41:40 AM UTC+3, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Add Reber/hanson
> > 
> > Add Porat
> ===============================================
> indeed add porat to Archi s   ''list''!!
> see the
> 
> Y CIRCLON    MECHANISM !**!!
> IE 
> YOU CANT DEFINE ANY FORCE 
> WITHOUT THAT   MECHANISM 
> ==
> copyrighted  
> in my site 
> from 
> 1993 
> in my historic model  
> Google
> the y porat model an abstract 
> 
> and its appendix 
> it is written there 
> 
> ''NEWTONS FIRST LAW Of MOTION
> HAS TO BE EXPANDED !!!
> 
> how expanded 
> just see there !!! 
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> =======================
and more !!
see
even in Google sites 
THE HELIX MODEL OF THE E M WAVE !!

it is not something new !!
surely not by the   professional  thief 
Archimedes Rectum !!!
===============
ATB
Y.Porat
================================

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

#644311 — Re: Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder section. Failures of physics- Archimedes Plutonium

Not merely content to fail just at physics, Archimedes Plutonium 
<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> decides to fail at math as well by writing:

>Just get a tin can of vegetables, cut the end as you usually do and let the
> lid fall through the CYLINDER.

>The lid is round as a circle and is able to fall through the can because it
> is shorter and it forms a ELLIPSE as it falls through.

>The CONE is different than the cylinder, it is asymmetrical in a fall
>through of the lid, meaning that the lid will not fall through, it will be
>quickly impeded in falling.

Archie-Poo, you great big math failure, a conic section is _defined_ as
the intersection of a cone an a plane, not by dropping a circle through
anything. Once again you fail by starting with a false assumption and come
up with an incorrect conclusion based on the false assumption.  If you
want to create a conic section, start with a cone and cut it at an angle
with respect to the axis, not by dropping a can lid through it.

>So a Cross Section of the Cylinder is a Ellipse, but the cross section
>of a Cone is a OVAL.

And this is where you fail. "Oval" doesn't have a strict mathematical
definition, it just means egg-shaped. So saying the cross section of a
cone is an oval(*) is pretty much meaningless.  Of course, since an
ellipse is considered by most people as one kind of oval, it is true(*).

(*) as long as the angle between the intersecting plane and the axis of 
the cone is greater than the angle between the axis of the cone and a 
generating line of the cone, otherwise you get a parabola (generating line
of cone parallel to cutting plane) or a hyperbola

>Now the Ancient Greeks seldom if ever did a hands on experiment. They liked
>to do everything in their head, which often can get you the wrong answer.

You are great at doing things in your head and coming up with the wrong
answer!

>Now, in modern times there is no excuse for not doing this experiment.

And no excuse for doing the wrong experiment, like you did.

>Now here is a short list of physics failures who just cannot be bothered to
>hands on experiment but rather are failures of physics for all they can do
>is dictate that the ellipse is a conic section. Dictate because they are
>far far too stupid to ever actually experiment to see if their memorized 
>crap in their minds is really true, or, just memorized crap.

>Archimedes Plutonium
>Archimedes Plutonium
>Archimedes Plutonium
>Archimedes Plutonium
>Archimedes Plutonium
>Archimedes Plutonium
>Archimedes Plutonium
>Archimedes Plutonium
>Archimedes Plutonium
>Archimedes Plutonium
>Archimedes Plutonium
>Someone who once lived near Hanover NH who just wasn't bolted down too 
tight in the first place

>All of them, failures of physics, for they never are able to get beyond
babbling nonsense in sci.physics and sci.math, and worst yet, they preach
their fake physics crap on sci.physics and sci.math and scold anyone who
objects to the babble.

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

#644330 — experiment takes only a can of veggies to prove ellipse is not a conic section Re: Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder section

experiment takes only a can of veggies to prove ellipse is not a conic section Re: Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder section

Earlier today I wrote: 
> 
> Take a can of vegetables and with can opener, open it all the way except for a little bit attachment. Now you can swivel the lid and see that it is an ellipse in the cylinder. Now imagine it as a cone with the lid, and you easily see it is a oval. 
> 

Yes, in the future there ought to be a movie in which it shows three scenes, some housewife curious about conic sections, so she opens a can of Organic Beans for soup and leaves the lid not fully cut so the lid can swivel on that uncut metal. Now as she swivels the lid downward in the cylinder she sees that if the can were a cone, it would be stopped from going further because the walls narrow and she sees it forms not a ellipse but rather, forms a oval. Now, she gets her husband to complete the task of drilling two holes and putting getting a rod to fit into the holes and attaching the lid to the rod as a diameter. Now she has a cylinder with a rotating disc inside. As she rotates, she sees symmetry of the one side with the other side-- in other words a ellipse. 

Doing the same for the cone, obviously no symmetry, thus, an oval 

Now the two other scenes is one at Harvard math class and one at Cal Tech math class showing professors lecturing students, yakkity yak tell them and drilling them that a ellipse is a conic section. 

Hard to believe, no-one since Ancient Greek times, ever questioned -- how the hell you get a ellipse out of a cone, you guys nuts. 

AP 

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

#644381 — Re: experiment takes only a can of veggies to prove ellipse is not a conic section Re: Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder section

obvious, since cone has no up-down symmetry, nor left-right symmetry Re: Oval is conic section, never a ellipse

Now, another way of looking at this question of whether a ellipse is never a conic section but always a cylinder section is the ability of a cylinder at a angle that is not parallel to base, is the ability of cylinder to have a center seeking cross section for any angle. An ability the cone does not have. So give me any oblique angle, any angle not parallel to base. Say you give me 46.5 degrees. Then with that angle cross section, I can find a ellipse with that angle and with a center. 

With the cone and 46.5 degrees, I can never find a ellipse because I can never have symmetry. To form an ellipse, the figure has to be up-down and left-right symmetrical. The cone has none of the symmetry required to form ellipses. 

AP

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

#644394 — Re: experiment takes only a can of veggies to prove ellipse is not a conic section Re: Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder section

On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 1:25:45 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> obvious, since cone has no up-down symmetry, nor left-right symmetry Re: Oval is conic section, never a ellipse
> 
> Now, another way of looking at this question of whether a ellipse is never a conic section but always a cylinder section is the ability of a cylinder at a angle that is not parallel to base, is the ability of cylinder to have a center seeking cross section for any angle. An ability the cone does not have. So give me any oblique angle, any angle not parallel to base. Say you give me 46.5 degrees. Then with that angle cross section, I can find a ellipse with that angle and with a center. 
> 
> With the cone and 46.5 degrees, I can never find a ellipse because I can never have symmetry. To form an ellipse, the figure has to be up-down and left-right symmetrical. The cone has none of the symmetry required to form ellipses. 
> 
> AP

Jeff-Relf.Me	
1:42 PM (11 minutes ago)

FizzBuzz is a trick question.

Getting it to work properly ( extensions, settings,

Hey, Jeff, Jeff Relf, are you doing the cone in Java script of Apple 4.8

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

#644432 — Re: experiment takes only a can of veggies to prove ellipse is not a conic section Re: Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder section

Jeff-Relf.Me	
3:16 PM (2 hours ago)


C wasn't your _first_ choice

Hey Jeff, Jeff Relf, there are only two choices cone or cylinder

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

#644861 — Re: experiment takes only a can of veggies to prove ellipse is not a conic section Re: Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder section

Array proof Re: Proof that oval is the conic section, never the ellipse

Alright, I need to prepare this proof for the Proof Array, where the proofs are all pared down to just their motors on how they work, no extras, no frills, just bare bone essentials.

Theorem Statement:: Conic Sections are never ellipses. We have cuts or sections in cylinders and in two cones stacked apex to apex, but here we need only one cone. A cylinder is itself the stacking of equal circles, while the cone is a stacking of progressive smaller circles. We define a ellipse as a planar figure that has two axes of symmetry, and a oval as a planar figure of only one axis of symmetry. A cut parallel to base is a circle in each. But a cut at a diagonal to base is always a ellipse in the cylinder section and always a oval in the conic section. 

Proof Statement:: The diagonal cut in the cylinder has an entry cut and a exit cut. Since a cylinder is composed of equal circles stacked, means the entry cut circle equals the exit cut circle, hence 2 axes of symmetry. The conic section, the entry circle is far smaller than exit circle, hence only 1 axis of symmetry. QED 


Picture of the proof 

        A             A 
        
  A        B     B        A   

A     B    --|--     B     A 
      
  A   B               B    A    

    A   B             B  A 

The proof is simple, but what history is going to endlessly talk about, is how in the world can something so simple so easy, escape the attention of the best of mathematicians for 2,500 years. If this had been biology, biologists would only now be recognizing that mammals that live in the oceans are not fish. 

The word "scatterbrained" is apt for mathematicians from Ancient Greek times to now, scatterbrained. 

AP

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

#644898 — Re: experiment takes only a can of veggies to prove ellipse is not a conic section Re: Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder section

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math as he writes:

>Proof Statement:: The diagonal cut in the cylinder has an entry cut and a
>exit cut. Since a cylinder is composed of equal circles stacked, means 
>the entry cut circle equals the exit cut circle, hence 2 axes of 
>symmetry. The conic section, the entry circle is far smaller than exit 
>circle, hence only 1 axis of symmetry. QED

Silly Archie, we're not trying to prove whether the generating circle of a
cone nearer the apex is smaller that another generating circle further
away. In order to prove the intersecting curve is or is not an ellipse,
you have to calculate the equation of the curve formed by the intersection
and see if it matches that of an ellipse or not. So you would need to
calculate the curve equation given the cone parameters and the angle the
intersecting plane makes with the cone base.

Perhaps you were fooled by it being counterintuitive that such an
intersection would make an ellipse with two axes of symmetry. But
counterintuitive doesn't necessarily mean false, it is counterintuitive
that it is possible to form a hyperboloid of one sheet (think of nuclear
power plant cooling tower) entirely from *straight* lines, but you can.

(Now will you attempt to either calulate the formula for the curve of
the intersection or about the hyperboloid, or will you fail yet again by
attacking me?)

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

#645895 — Re: experiment takes only a can of veggies to prove ellipse is not a conic section Re: Oval is conic section, never a ellipse. Ellipse is a cylinder section

On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 7:08:04 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Array proof Re: Proof that oval is the conic section, never the ellipse
> 
> Alright, I need to prepare this proof for the Proof Array, where the proofs are all pared down to just their motors on how they work, no extras, no frills, just bare bone essentials.
> 
> Theorem Statement:: Conic Sections are never ellipses. We have cuts or sections in cylinders and in two cones stacked apex to apex, but here we need only one cone. A cylinder is itself the stacking of equal circles, while the cone is a stacking of progressive smaller circles. We define a ellipse as a planar figure that has two axes of symmetry, and a oval as a planar figure of only one axis of symmetry. A cut parallel to base is a circle in each. But a cut at a diagonal to base is always a ellipse in the cylinder section and always a oval in the conic section. 
> 
> Proof Statement:: The diagonal cut in the cylinder has an entry cut and a exit cut. Since a cylinder is composed of equal circles stacked, means the entry cut circle equals the exit cut circle, hence 2 axes of symmetry. The conic section, the entry circle is far smaller than exit circle, hence only 1 axis of symmetry. QED 
> 
> 
> Picture of the proof 
> 
>         A             A 
>         
>   A        B     B        A   
> 
> A     B    --|--     B     A 
>       
>   A   B               B    A    
> 
>     A   B             B  A 
> 
> The proof is simple, but what history is going to endlessly talk about, is how in the world can something so simple so easy, escape the attention of the best of mathematicians for 2,500 years. If this had been biology, biologists would only now be recognizing that mammals that live in the oceans are not fish. 
> 
> The word "scatterbrained" is apt for mathematicians from Ancient Greek times to now, scatterbrained. 
> 
> 

more mistakes in Dandelin fake proof Re: Ellipse only comes out of a Cylinder Section, never a Conic section

On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 1:27:53 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 5:05:35 PM UTC-5, FredJeffries wrote: 
> > On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 10:05:22 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> > > Oval is conic section, never ellipse; ellipse is cylinder section// Failures of geometry conic sections-- Wiles, Hales, Conway, Hartshorne, Tao, Milnor 
> > > 
> > > Easy experiment, easy, even the High School student can verify in a half hour, that the conic section is never an ellipse but an oval 
> > > 
> > > Get some stiff wax paper like a magazine cover and roll it into a cylinder and with scotch tape tape it secure, then roll another into a cone shape and scotch tape. now get a scissors (or paper cutter unless dangerous) and proceed to cut the cone and cut the cylinder. You will find that the cylinder section is truly a ellipse, but the cone section is going to be a oval. A ellipse has two axes of symmetry while the oval has only one axis of symmetry. The reason no ellipse can come from a cone is the fact that the upper parts of the section have far less area than the lower section. In a cylinder, the upper and lower are equals. 
> > 
> > I'm guessing that the phenomenon referred to is the fact that the center of the cone section does not coincide with the center line of the cone. 
> > 
> > For a related phenomenon, see Dandelin spheres 
> > 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dandelin_spheres 
> > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DandelinSpheres.html 
> 

Looking at those Dandelin Spheres in Wikipedia, not only do they have a fake proof, since they assume the section is a ellipse, when in fact it is a oval with just one axis of symmetry, and thus, no foci. 

But, I think in that picture, another huge mistake is showing. I think they show a latitude line on big sphere and latitude line on little sphere as being ellipses also. When we all know that every cross section of a sphere that is not a tangent point, ends up being a circle. 

Now, when was it proven true that every sphere cross section by a plane, is a circle (unless it is a tangent point). 

Now in that picture, they do show the two spheres on the centerline axis of the cone. 

Somewhere I read where to construct a OVAL you take two different size circles, and by a technique you append part of the arc of the smaller circle onto the larger circle, forming a oval. The only tricky part is to not have two vertices. 

So in that construction of a oval from two different sized circles, is what the Dandelin spheres were groping for, groping for a proof, that Dandelin spheres is the 3rd dimension analog of construction of a oval in 2nd dimension by the blending of a small circle being incorporated upon a larger circle forming a oval. 

Now, I find it almost miraculously annoying that a Dandelin fake proof exists to this day, when surely, someone would have constructed a hands on Cone and tried to stuff a ellipse inside that cone. It is very easy to roll up a sheet of paper into a cone and try to stuff a ellipse into it. So how in the world could this fake proof, have lasted all these centuries without anyone hands on doing it. And we see the power of fake math community proofs, the power to crush rational logical reasoning, once a fakery is published. Once a fake is published, it is as if almost everyone in math is void of logical thought on any aspect of the fakery. As if mathematicians worship publication, and drained of any logical intelligence. 

> Alright, I looked that up, the Dandelin spheres and apparently, the proof is fake because they start out 
> assuming the oval is a ellipse, and the aim of the proof is that the small sphere and larger sphere contact the plane at a focus. 
> 
> So apparently, if Dandelin had started out his proof without the assumption the section was a ellipse, instead that the section was a oval, puff, his proof goes all up in a cloud of smoke and dust. 
> 
> Now, Dandelin is probably not the first mathematician with a tacit-hidden-assumption that wrecks his fake proof. History of math is littered with these guys. 
> 
> Fred, can you spot a Dandelin proof where he proves the section is a ellipse in the first beginning and then follows up. 
> 
> Apparently this is a huge gap in math, that a fakery like Dandelin was so undetected. 
> 

So, who was the first to prove that all sections except a tangent point of a sphere are all circles? Seems so obvious that likely, no-one thought such a proof was necessary. How is it proved? Anyway? 

AP 

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

#644455

Ha Ha, AP with his mongo math, cant even compute an ellipse.
Lets make an example, start with this cone:

   x^2 + y^2 = (1 - z)^2

Now do a rotation from (x,y,z) to (x2,y,z2), by substituting
x = (2*x2-z2)/sqrt(5) and z = (2*z2+x2)/sqrt(5):

   ?-  A is subst(subst(X^2+Y^2-(1-Z)^2, X, (2*X2-Z2)/sqrt(5)),
                  Z, (2*Z2+X2)/sqrt(5)).
   A is - 1+Y^2+sqrt(4/5)*X2+3/5*X2^2+(sqrt(3+1/5)-(1+3/5)*X2)*Z2-3/5*Z2^2

We can now intersect this rotated cone with the plane (x2,y,0),
by simply setting z2=0:

   ?-  B is subst(- 1+Y^2+sqrt(4/5)*X2+3/5*X2^2+
                  (sqrt(3+1/5)-(1+3/5)*X2)*Z2-3/5*Z2^2, Z2, 0).
   B is - 1+Y^2+sqrt(4/5)*X2+3/5*X2^2

Looks like a perfect ellipse to me:

- 1+Y^2+sqrt(4/5)*X+3/5*X^2=0
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=-+1%2BY^2%2Bsqrt%284%2F5%29*X%2B3%2F5*X^2%3D0

Maybe AP is confused because the ellipse doesn't have
the center at (0,0). Oh, I forgot, AP is always confused.

Disclaimer: The above computation might contain errors,
did it very quickly and ad-hoc.

Note: Why 2/sqrt(5) and 1/sqrt(5)? Well its from atan(1/2)
for the rotation: Reference triangle for angle 0.4636 radians:
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=atan%281%2F2%29

Am Donnerstag, 3. August 2017 21:57:45 UTC+2 schrieb Archimedes Plutonium:
> Easy experiment, easy 
> 
> Just get a tin can of vegetables, cut the end as you usually do and let the lid fall through the CYLINDER. 
> 
> The lid is round as a circle and is able to fall through the can because it is shorter and it forms a ELLIPSE as it falls through. 
> 
> The CONE is different than the cylinder, it is asymmetrical in a fall through of the lid, meaning that the lid will not fall through, it will be quickly impeded in falling. Why? Because the lid as a circle gets stopped by the walls of the cone impeding the fall. So a Cross Section of the Cylinder is a Ellipse, but the cross section of a Cone is a OVAL. 
> 
> Now the Ancient Greeks seldom if ever did a hands on experiment. They liked to do everything in their head, which often can get you the wrong answer. 
> 
> Experimental Physics was borne with Galileo, long after the Ancient Greeks.
> 
> Now, in modern times there is no excuse for not doing this experiment. You simply get a cylinder and a cone of about the same size and you make a oblique angle cut and see what figure comes out. In the Cylinder cut, the figure is a ELLIPSE, yet in the Cone cut the figure is a OVAL. 
> 
> Now here is a short list of physics failures who just cannot be bothered to hands on experiment but rather are failures of physics for all they can do is dictate that the ellipse is a conic section. Dictate because they are far far too stupid to ever actually experiment to see if their memorized crap in their minds is really true, or, just memorized crap. 
> 
> Stephen Hawking
> Brian Greene
> Mike Brown
> Lisa Randall
> Niel deGrasse Tyson
> Peter Higgs
> Arindam Banerjee
> Mike Moroney
> James McGinn (real crazy)
> Pentcho Valev
> Jeff-Relf
> Benj sci.physics
> 
> 
> All of them, failures of physics, for they never are able to get beyond memorization of physics and mathematics, whether utterly false math, and worst yet, they preach their fake physics crap to younger generations and scold the young students-- that their crap physics is what they must learn. 
> 
> AP

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

#644507

Judging from erruptions such as on sci.math:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/_LedP1i4SW4/ijn_6pzYBQAJ

AP brain farto, with his mongo math, 
is on crystal meth by now.

Am Samstag, 5. August 2017 04:44:45 UTC+2 schrieb burs...@gmail.com:
> Ha Ha, AP with his mongo math, cant even compute an ellipse.
> Lets make an example, start with this cone:
> 
>    x^2 + y^2 = (1 - z)^2
> 
> Now do a rotation from (x,y,z) to (x2,y,z2), by substituting
> x = (2*x2-z2)/sqrt(5) and z = (2*z2+x2)/sqrt(5):
> 
>    ?-  A is subst(subst(X^2+Y^2-(1-Z)^2, X, (2*X2-Z2)/sqrt(5)),
>                   Z, (2*Z2+X2)/sqrt(5)).
>    A is - 1+Y^2+sqrt(4/5)*X2+3/5*X2^2+(sqrt(3+1/5)-(1+3/5)*X2)*Z2-3/5*Z2^2
> 
> We can now intersect this rotated cone with the plane (x2,y,0),
> by simply setting z2=0:
> 
>    ?-  B is subst(- 1+Y^2+sqrt(4/5)*X2+3/5*X2^2+
>                   (sqrt(3+1/5)-(1+3/5)*X2)*Z2-3/5*Z2^2, Z2, 0).
>    B is - 1+Y^2+sqrt(4/5)*X2+3/5*X2^2
> 
> Looks like a perfect ellipse to me:
> 
> - 1+Y^2+sqrt(4/5)*X+3/5*X^2=0
> https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=-+1%2BY^2%2Bsqrt%284%2F5%29*X%2B3%2F5*X^2%3D0
> 
> Maybe AP is confused because the ellipse doesn't have
> the center at (0,0). Oh, I forgot, AP is always confused.
> 
> Disclaimer: The above computation might contain errors,
> did it very quickly and ad-hoc.
> 
> Note: Why 2/sqrt(5) and 1/sqrt(5)? Well its from atan(1/2)
> for the rotation: Reference triangle for angle 0.4636 radians:
> https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=atan%281%2F2%29
> 
> Am Donnerstag, 3. August 2017 21:57:45 UTC+2 schrieb Archimedes Plutonium:
> > Easy experiment, easy 
> > 
> > Just get a tin can of vegetables, cut the end as you usually do and let the lid fall through the CYLINDER. 
> > 
> > The lid is round as a circle and is able to fall through the can because it is shorter and it forms a ELLIPSE as it falls through. 
> > 
> > The CONE is different than the cylinder, it is asymmetrical in a fall through of the lid, meaning that the lid will not fall through, it will be quickly impeded in falling. Why? Because the lid as a circle gets stopped by the walls of the cone impeding the fall. So a Cross Section of the Cylinder is a Ellipse, but the cross section of a Cone is a OVAL. 
> > 
> > Now the Ancient Greeks seldom if ever did a hands on experiment. They liked to do everything in their head, which often can get you the wrong answer. 
> > 
> > Experimental Physics was borne with Galileo, long after the Ancient Greeks.
> > 
> > Now, in modern times there is no excuse for not doing this experiment. You simply get a cylinder and a cone of about the same size and you make a oblique angle cut and see what figure comes out. In the Cylinder cut, the figure is a ELLIPSE, yet in the Cone cut the figure is a OVAL. 
> > 
> > Now here is a short list of physics failures who just cannot be bothered to hands on experiment but rather are failures of physics for all they can do is dictate that the ellipse is a conic section. Dictate because they are far far too stupid to ever actually experiment to see if their memorized crap in their minds is really true, or, just memorized crap. 
> > 
> > Stephen Hawking
> > Brian Greene
> > Mike Brown
> > Lisa Randall
> > Niel deGrasse Tyson
> > Peter Higgs
> > Arindam Banerjee
> > Mike Moroney
> > James McGinn (real crazy)
> > Pentcho Valev
> > Jeff-Relf
> > Benj sci.physics
> > 
> > 
> > All of them, failures of physics, for they never are able to get beyond memorization of physics and mathematics, whether utterly false math, and worst yet, they preach their fake physics crap to younger generations and scold the young students-- that their crap physics is what they must learn. 
> > 
> > AP

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

#644524

Or is it glue sniffing for AP?

Am Samstag, 5. August 2017 13:48:14 UTC+2 schrieb burs...@gmail.com:
> Judging from erruptions such as on sci.math:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/_LedP1i4SW4/ijn_6pzYBQAJ
> 
> AP brain farto, with his mongo math, 
> is on crystal meth by now.
> 
> Am Samstag, 5. August 2017 04:44:45 UTC+2 schrieb burs...@gmail.com:
> > Ha Ha, AP with his mongo math, cant even compute an ellipse.
> > Lets make an example, start with this cone:
> > 
> >    x^2 + y^2 = (1 - z)^2
> > 
> > Now do a rotation from (x,y,z) to (x2,y,z2), by substituting
> > x = (2*x2-z2)/sqrt(5) and z = (2*z2+x2)/sqrt(5):
> > 
> >    ?-  A is subst(subst(X^2+Y^2-(1-Z)^2, X, (2*X2-Z2)/sqrt(5)),
> >                   Z, (2*Z2+X2)/sqrt(5)).
> >    A is - 1+Y^2+sqrt(4/5)*X2+3/5*X2^2+(sqrt(3+1/5)-(1+3/5)*X2)*Z2-3/5*Z2^2
> > 
> > We can now intersect this rotated cone with the plane (x2,y,0),
> > by simply setting z2=0:
> > 
> >    ?-  B is subst(- 1+Y^2+sqrt(4/5)*X2+3/5*X2^2+
> >                   (sqrt(3+1/5)-(1+3/5)*X2)*Z2-3/5*Z2^2, Z2, 0).
> >    B is - 1+Y^2+sqrt(4/5)*X2+3/5*X2^2
> > 
> > Looks like a perfect ellipse to me:
> > 
> > - 1+Y^2+sqrt(4/5)*X+3/5*X^2=0
> > https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=-+1%2BY^2%2Bsqrt%284%2F5%29*X%2B3%2F5*X^2%3D0
> > 
> > Maybe AP is confused because the ellipse doesn't have
> > the center at (0,0). Oh, I forgot, AP is always confused.
> > 
> > Disclaimer: The above computation might contain errors,
> > did it very quickly and ad-hoc.
> > 
> > Note: Why 2/sqrt(5) and 1/sqrt(5)? Well its from atan(1/2)
> > for the rotation: Reference triangle for angle 0.4636 radians:
> > https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=atan%281%2F2%29
> > 
> > Am Donnerstag, 3. August 2017 21:57:45 UTC+2 schrieb Archimedes Plutonium:
> > > Easy experiment, easy 
> > > 
> > > Just get a tin can of vegetables, cut the end as you usually do and let the lid fall through the CYLINDER. 
> > > 
> > > The lid is round as a circle and is able to fall through the can because it is shorter and it forms a ELLIPSE as it falls through. 
> > > 
> > > The CONE is different than the cylinder, it is asymmetrical in a fall through of the lid, meaning that the lid will not fall through, it will be quickly impeded in falling. Why? Because the lid as a circle gets stopped by the walls of the cone impeding the fall. So a Cross Section of the Cylinder is a Ellipse, but the cross section of a Cone is a OVAL. 
> > > 
> > > Now the Ancient Greeks seldom if ever did a hands on experiment. They liked to do everything in their head, which often can get you the wrong answer. 
> > > 
> > > Experimental Physics was borne with Galileo, long after the Ancient Greeks.
> > > 
> > > Now, in modern times there is no excuse for not doing this experiment. You simply get a cylinder and a cone of about the same size and you make a oblique angle cut and see what figure comes out. In the Cylinder cut, the figure is a ELLIPSE, yet in the Cone cut the figure is a OVAL. 
> > > 
> > > Now here is a short list of physics failures who just cannot be bothered to hands on experiment but rather are failures of physics for all they can do is dictate that the ellipse is a conic section. Dictate because they are far far too stupid to ever actually experiment to see if their memorized crap in their minds is really true, or, just memorized crap. 
> > > 
> > > Stephen Hawking
> > > Brian Greene
> > > Mike Brown
> > > Lisa Randall
> > > Niel deGrasse Tyson
> > > Peter Higgs
> > > Arindam Banerjee
> > > Mike Moroney
> > > James McGinn (real crazy)
> > > Pentcho Valev
> > > Jeff-Relf
> > > Benj sci.physics
> > > 
> > > 
> > > All of them, failures of physics, for they never are able to get beyond memorization of physics and mathematics, whether utterly false math, and worst yet, they preach their fake physics crap to younger generations and scold the young students-- that their crap physics is what they must learn. 
> > > 
> > > AP

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

#646103

Name dropping cunt.

Am Donnerstag, 3. August 2017 21:57:45 UTC+2 schrieb Archimedes Plutonium:
> Easy experiment, easy 
> 
> Just get a tin can of vegetables, cut the end as you usually do and let the lid fall through the CYLINDER. 
> 
> The lid is round as a circle and is able to fall through the can because it is shorter and it forms a ELLIPSE as it falls through. 
> 
> The CONE is different than the cylinder, it is asymmetrical in a fall through of the lid, meaning that the lid will not fall through, it will be quickly impeded in falling. Why? Because the lid as a circle gets stopped by the walls of the cone impeding the fall. So a Cross Section of the Cylinder is a Ellipse, but the cross section of a Cone is a OVAL. 
> 
> Now the Ancient Greeks seldom if ever did a hands on experiment. They liked to do everything in their head, which often can get you the wrong answer. 
> 
> Experimental Physics was borne with Galileo, long after the Ancient Greeks.
> 
> Now, in modern times there is no excuse for not doing this experiment. You simply get a cylinder and a cone of about the same size and you make a oblique angle cut and see what figure comes out. In the Cylinder cut, the figure is a ELLIPSE, yet in the Cone cut the figure is a OVAL. 
> 
> Now here is a short list of physics failures who just cannot be bothered to hands on experiment but rather are failures of physics for all they can do is dictate that the ellipse is a conic section. Dictate because they are far far too stupid to ever actually experiment to see if their memorized crap in their minds is really true, or, just memorized crap. 
> 
> Stephen Hawking
> Brian Greene
> Mike Brown
> Lisa Randall
> Niel deGrasse Tyson
> Peter Higgs
> Arindam Banerjee
> Mike Moroney
> James McGinn (real crazy)
> Pentcho Valev
> Jeff-Relf
> Benj sci.physics
> 
> 
> All of them, failures of physics, for they never are able to get beyond memorization of physics and mathematics, whether utterly false math, and worst yet, they preach their fake physics crap to younger generations and scold the young students-- that their crap physics is what they must learn. 
> 
> AP

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

#646268

See page 7:

Real Algebraic Geometry
von Vladimir I. Arnold
ftp://nozdr.ru/biblioteka/kolxo3/M/MA/MAg/Arnold%20V.I.%20Real%20algebraic%20geometry%20(Springer,%202013)(ISBN%209783642362422)(O)(112s)_MAg_.pdf

Means AP statement "for both cannot be simultaneously
ellipses." makes even less sense now.
Both cone and cylinder have dandelin spheres, and
We can also use the same reasoning, i.e.

F1 P + F2 P = const

To show this, one can also look at the lateral surface
of the cylinder, and find F1 P and F2 P again and see
that sum is constant. The dandelin spheres in a cylinder
will also touch the lateral surface, a distance between

them along these aequators, vertically, is constant again.
We must conclude that APs visual apparatus, must be severly
impaired. Is it crystal meth or the glue sniffing? Who knows
already 30 years internet spam by AP, and not

a single line of math, only nonsense by AP. 

Am Donnerstag, 3. August 2017 21:57:45 UTC+2 schrieb Archimedes Plutonium:
> Easy experiment, easy 
> 
> Just get a tin can of vegetables, cut the end as you usually do and let the lid fall through the CYLINDER. 
> 
> The lid is round as a circle and is able to fall through the can because it is shorter and it forms a ELLIPSE as it falls through. 
> 
> The CONE is different than the cylinder, it is asymmetrical in a fall through of the lid, meaning that the lid will not fall through, it will be quickly impeded in falling. Why? Because the lid as a circle gets stopped by the walls of the cone impeding the fall. So a Cross Section of the Cylinder is a Ellipse, but the cross section of a Cone is a OVAL. 
> 
> Now the Ancient Greeks seldom if ever did a hands on experiment. They liked to do everything in their head, which often can get you the wrong answer. 
> 
> Experimental Physics was borne with Galileo, long after the Ancient Greeks.
> 
> Now, in modern times there is no excuse for not doing this experiment. You simply get a cylinder and a cone of about the same size and you make a oblique angle cut and see what figure comes out. In the Cylinder cut, the figure is a ELLIPSE, yet in the Cone cut the figure is a OVAL. 
> 
> Now here is a short list of physics failures who just cannot be bothered to hands on experiment but rather are failures of physics for all they can do is dictate that the ellipse is a conic section. Dictate because they are far far too stupid to ever actually experiment to see if their memorized crap in their minds is really true, or, just memorized crap. 
> 
> Stephen Hawking
> Brian Greene
> Mike Brown
> Lisa Randall
> Niel deGrasse Tyson
> Peter Higgs
> Arindam Banerjee
> Mike Moroney
> James McGinn (real crazy)
> Pentcho Valev
> Jeff-Relf
> Benj sci.physics
> 
> 
> All of them, failures of physics, for they never are able to get beyond memorization of physics and mathematics, whether utterly false math, and worst yet, they preach their fake physics crap to younger generations and scold the young students-- that their crap physics is what they must learn. 
> 
> AP

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

#647375

Experiments by AP brain farto have reached a 
new low. He is now counting from 1 to 100.

Am Donnerstag, 3. August 2017 21:57:45 UTC+2 schrieb Archimedes Plutonium:
> Easy experiment, easy 
> 
> Just get a tin can of vegetables, cut the end as you usually do and let the lid fall through the CYLINDER. 
> 
> The lid is round as a circle and is able to fall through the can because it is shorter and it forms a ELLIPSE as it falls through. 
> 
> The CONE is different than the cylinder, it is asymmetrical in a fall through of the lid, meaning that the lid will not fall through, it will be quickly impeded in falling. Why? Because the lid as a circle gets stopped by the walls of the cone impeding the fall. So a Cross Section of the Cylinder is a Ellipse, but the cross section of a Cone is a OVAL. 
> 
> Now the Ancient Greeks seldom if ever did a hands on experiment. They liked to do everything in their head, which often can get you the wrong answer. 
> 
> Experimental Physics was borne with Galileo, long after the Ancient Greeks.
> 
> Now, in modern times there is no excuse for not doing this experiment. You simply get a cylinder and a cone of about the same size and you make a oblique angle cut and see what figure comes out. In the Cylinder cut, the figure is a ELLIPSE, yet in the Cone cut the figure is a OVAL. 
> 
> Now here is a short list of physics failures who just cannot be bothered to hands on experiment but rather are failures of physics for all they can do is dictate that the ellipse is a conic section. Dictate because they are far far too stupid to ever actually experiment to see if their memorized crap in their minds is really true, or, just memorized crap. 
> 
> Stephen Hawking
> Brian Greene
> Mike Brown
> Lisa Randall
> Niel deGrasse Tyson
> Peter Higgs
> Arindam Banerjee
> Mike Moroney
> James McGinn (real crazy)
> Pentcho Valev
> Jeff-Relf
> Benj sci.physics
> 
> 
> All of them, failures of physics, for they never are able to get beyond memorization of physics and mathematics, whether utterly false math, and worst yet, they preach their fake physics crap to younger generations and scold the young students-- that their crap physics is what they must learn. 
> 
> AP

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web