Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #706429 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-10-06 13:52 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-10-07 03:31 +0000 |
| Articles | 2 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Sheldon Axler Racist Mathematicians, AMS, David Weisbart, Fred Wilhelm, Bun Wong, Yulong Xing, Feng Xu, Qi Zhang, John Baez // Ellipse is never a conic (see proof below) Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 13:52 -0700
Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-07 03:31 +0000
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 13:52 -0700 |
| Subject | Sheldon Axler Racist Mathematicians, AMS, David Weisbart, Fred Wilhelm, Bun Wong, Yulong Xing, Feng Xu, Qi Zhang, John Baez // Ellipse is never a conic (see proof below) |
| Message-ID | <2f5f7f15-4e8c-4d8d-81a3-bcac1ed86bc2@googlegroups.com> |
Sheldon Axler Racist Mathematicians, AMS, David Weisbart, Fred Wilhelm, Bun Wong, Yulong Xing, Feng Xu, Qi Zhang, John Baez // Ellipse is never a conic (see proof below) Earle JOnes [...] * Archie: The triangle 119, 120, 169 is, in fact, VERY special. You missed seeing its special nature. Since 169 is a perfect square (13^2), we can write: 119^2 + 120^2 = 13^4 This is the only such triangle in existence of the form: Earle Jones writes  1:32 PM (2 hours ago) Re: earle jones a worthless insane kook of mathematics, an utter pollution - show quoted text - * AP: From the "kook of math": What do you think of the number 239? Is it an interesting number? earle (kook of math) 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 are rare. But sci.math from 1993 to 2018 is proving that the majority of math professors around the world are Racists, for example-- the AP proof ellipse is never a conic cut, but rather a cylinder cut. Earle Jones, 20 year insane worthless stalker in sci.math, who was so childish that he delivered anagrams on those doing real math in sci.math .. .- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-.. , . `.' ' `. .' .' ` ` ' `.. ; . ; .' . `. ; ; . ' `. . ' . ' ` `. | . '. ' . 0 0 ' `. ' ` ; ` .' ` ; U ` ; '; ` : | ;.. :` ` : `;. ```. .-; | ' '. ` ``.., .' :' ' ; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' Hi, I am Earle, probably John Baez and I don't chase math but chase after AP, for I am brainless in mathematics and so I stalk those who actually do math. ` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' ' ` ` ; ; ' ' ` ` ; ; ' ' ` `. ````'''''' ' ' ` . ' ' / ` `. ' ' . / ` .. ..' .'"""""...' / .` ` ``........-' .'` .....''' / .'' ; ` .' ` ...'.' ; .' ` .' ` "" .' .' | ` .; \ ` ; .' | `. . . . ' . \ ` :' | ' ` , `. ` | ' ` ' `. ` ` ' ` ; `. | `.' ` ; `-' `...' UC Riverside math dept Mark Alber, John Baez, Mei-Chu Chang, Vyjayanthi Chari, Kevin Costello, Po-Ning Chen, Wee Liang Gan, Gerhard Gierz, Jacob Greenstein, Jose Gonzalez, Zhuang-dan Guan, Jim Kelliher, Sara Lapan, Michel Lapidus, Carl Mautner, Amir Moradifam, Yat Sun Poon, Ziv Ran, David Rush, Reinhard Schultz, Stefano Vidussi, David Weisbart, Fred Wilhelm, Bun Wong, Yulong Xing, Feng Xu, Qi Zhang 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]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 03:31 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test |
| Message-ID | <ppbumh$lms$6@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #706429 |
Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails:
>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
You need to see Franz's proof yet again? You should save his proof on
your computer so you can look at it at any time without asking me to post
it for you again each time!
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] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web