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

Groups > sci.physics > #716649 > unrolled thread

-Why it took Math 3,000 years to understand a ellipse was never a conic section but rather a cylinder section and 330 years for a geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  -Why it took Math 3,000 years to understand a ellipse was never a conic section but rather a cylinder section and 330 years for a geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-04 14:50 -0800
    Re: Archimedes "front page hog" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-04 23:01 +0000
      Insane kook Moroney mocking MIT, Harvard, Cornell Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-04 15:17 -0800
        Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-05 07:03 +0000

#716649 — -Why it took Math 3,000 years to understand a ellipse was never a conic section but rather a cylinder section and 330 years for a geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 14:42:41 -0800 (PST)

Subject: -Why it took Math 3,000 years to understand a ellipse was never a
 conic section but rather a cylinder section and 330 years for a geometry
 proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2018 22:42:41 +0000

-Why it took Math 3,000 years to understand a ellipse was never a conic section but rather a cylinder section and 330 years for a geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

Now the short answer to both these questions including the physics question: 

Why it took Physics 330 years to realize gravity is magnetism, yet 120 years to realize muon was the real electron and proton =840MeV 

The short answer is that only 1 person in 3,000 years is born with more than a microgram of Logical intelligence, a Spock like person of logic abilities (referencing the sci.fi Star Trek movies). 

That is the short answer-- rarely is any human born with a mind of Logic, and not flooded by sentiment and taste and touchy feely mind. 

Every 3,000 years, you have only one person with a mind capable of doing proper true science and math. 

That is the short answer to why ellipse, calculus, gravity=magnetism, real electron = muon. 

Only a person with more than a microgram brain of logic needs to set straight the fools of science, physics and mathematics. 

But, let us explore each of these 4 stories in detail 

a) ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section 
b) gravity is magnetism 
c) never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus 
d) screwed up on what the real electron was and what the Dirac Magnetic Monopole was 

Each of those major science issues deserves a story with a theme involved. 

AP

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#716663 — Re: Archimedes "front page hog" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

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

>Subject: Re: -Why it took Math 3,000 years to understand a ellipse was never a conic section but rather a cylinder section and 330 years for a geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

It's not 3,000 years old, but here's your math proof!

Below you will find a simple *proof* that shows that certain conic 
sections are ellipses.

Some preliminaries:

Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used 
in the proof:

              ^ x
              |
             -+- <= x=h
         .'   |   `.
        .     |     .
        |     |     |
        '     |     '      
         `.   |   .'
 y <----------+ <= x=0
             
Cone (side view):
                 .
                /|\
               / | \
              /b |  \
             /---+---' <= x = h
            /    |'   \
           /   ' |     \
          / '    |      \
x = 0 => '-------+-------\
        /    a   |        \

Proof:

r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x  and  d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x,  hence

y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.

Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1  ...equation of an ellipse

qed

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

#716669 — Insane kook Moroney mocking MIT, Harvard, Cornell

On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 4:52:40 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> Math Failure 


AP writes: MM has been nothing but an insane stalking spammer for 25 years-- worthless loud mouth idiot fool that needs a straightjacket-- 

Moroney math failure, here is where the fool thinks 938 is short of 945 by 12%, and he pretends he is an electrical engineer. Perhaps the first ee in the world that cannot do a percentage correctly 

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
  
  Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon. 
  Hardly "exactly" 9 muons. 
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
  
  Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass 
  of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short. 

President: L. Reif (electrical engineer) 

MIT physics dept 
William Bertozzi, Robert Birgeneau, Hale Bradt, Bernard Burke, George Clark , Jeffrey Goldstone, Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins , Paul Joss, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon, Irwin Pless, Paul Schechter, James Young   

Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole 

Harvard Physics dept 
Jacob Barandes, Howard Berg, Michael Brenner, Adam Cohen, Eugene Demler, Michael Desai 
Louis Deslauriers, John Doyle, Cora Dvorkin, Gary Feldman, Douglas Finkbeiner, Melissa Franklin, Gerald Gabrielse, Howard Georgi, Sheldon Glashow, Roy Glauber, Jene Golovchenko, Markus Greiner, Roxanne Guenette, Girma Hailu, Bertrand Halperin, Lene Hau 
Thomas Hayes, Eric Heller, Jason Hoffman, Jenny Hoffman, Gerald Holton, Paul Horowitz, John Huth, Arthur Jaffe, Daniel Jafferis, Efthimios Kaxiras, Philip Kim, John Kovac, Erel Levine 
Mikhail Lukin, Logan McCarty, L. Mahadevan, Vinothan Manoharan, Eric Mazur, Masahiro Morii 
David Morin, Julia Mundy, Cherry Murray, David Nelson, Kang Ni, Hongkun Park, William Paul 
Peter Pershan, Mara Prentiss, Lisa Randall, Matthew Reece, Subir Sachdev, Aravinthan Samuel, Matthew Schwartz, Irwin Shapiro, Isaac Silvera, Andrew Strominger, Christopher Stubbs, Cumrun Vafa, Ronald Walsworth, David Weitz, Robert Westervelt, Richard Wilson 
Tai Wu, Amir Yacoby, Susanne Yelin, Xi Yin 


   /\-------/\ 
   \::O:::O::/ 
  (::_  ^  _::) 
   \_`-----'_/ 
You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Boston?   

Yes, what did they say-- the power of Sun and stars is not really fusion but is the Faraday Law inside of atoms creating monopoles and turning Space into energy that fuels the Sun and stars. My rough estimate is that fusion only supplies 10% or less of Sun and stars. 

But of course, I could not have discovered the true starpower when under the idiotic idea that the electron was a mere .5MeV when it truly is 105 MeV. 

In that manner,  physics departments are racist physicists for the knowledge that Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840 MeV, and the .5MeV was Dirac's Magnetic Monopole is going on 2 years now in the public eye starting 2017, yet none of these physicists (these poor physicists lacking understanding of angular momentum has raised a single peep). The reason they keep their mouths shut, is because they are so poor in physics, they do not want to be embarrassed. These gentlemen are not physicists, for a real physicist would debate the issue, not hide from the issue. And real physicist would not discount a discovery because of the person-- Archimedes Plutonium who discovered it. 


why no math professor at Cornell understands the oval is a conic section, never the ellipse-- because they are pathetic fools of math Re: Fire the entire Cornell Univ math dept-- unable to even teach Add in Logic is not OR but rather is AND 

On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 3:00:47 PM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote: 
> On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 3:15:47 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> > Cornell Univ math dept 

AP writes: Christensen, why you want to fire the entire Cornell Univ math dept? Why? because they accept the fool Boole that 10 OR 2 = 12 while 10 AND 2 = 8. Or is it because the Cornell professors were so dumb and dull as to never see the ellipse was a cylinder section never a conic? 

Fire the entire Cornell Univ math dept-- unable to even teach Add in Logic is not OR but rather is AND 
12 posts by 5 authors   



me (Archimedes Plutonium change)         wrote: 
11/9/17 


Cornell Univ math dept which none of them can even do correct logic, so, hopeless in doing correct math. All of which made worse in that these failing professors control Arxiv.org. The blind leading the blind. 

- hide quoted text - 
See TRUE LOGIC corrections below:: 


Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty 
Marcelo Aguiar 
Jason Manning 
Slawomir Solecki 
Dan M. Barbasch 
Karola Meszaros 
Philippe Sosoe 
Yuri Berest 
Justin Moore 
Birgit E. Speh 
Louis Billera 
Camil Muscalu 
Michael E. Stillman 
Xiaodong Cao 
Anil Nerode 
Robert S. Strichartz 
Robert Connelly 
Michael Nussbaum 
Steven Strogatz 
R. Keith Dennis 
Irena Peeva 
Edward Swartz 
Daniel Halpern-Leistner 
zzzzz 
Ravi Ramakrishna 
Nicolas Templier 
Timothy J. Healey 
Richard H. Rand 
Alex Townsend 
Tara Holm 
Timothy Riley 
Alexander Vladimirsky 
John H. Hubbard 
Laurent Saloff-Coste 
Marten Wegkamp 
Martin Kassabov 
Shankar Sen 
James E. West 
Allen Knutson 
Richard A. Shore 
Inna Zakharevich 
Lionel Levine 
Reyer Sjamaar 
David Zywina 
Emeritus and Retired Faculty 
Allen Back 
Allen Hatcher 
Alfred H. Schatz 
James H. Bramble 
David W. Henderson 
John Smillie 
Kenneth S. Brown 
J.T. Gene Hwang 
Moss E. Sweedler 
Stephen U. Chase 
Yulij Ilyashenko 
Daina Taimina 
Marshall M. Cohen 
Peter J. Kahn 
Robert E. Terrell 
Clifford J. Earle 
Harry Kesten 
Maria S. Terrell 
Roger H. Farrell 
G. Roger Livesay 
Karen Vogtmann 
Leonard Gross 
Michael D. Morley 
Beverly West 
John M. Guckenheimer 

Correction of Logic errors by Archimedes Plutonium 
3. Logic errors:: otherwise we cannot think clearly and think straight and true 
History of those pathetic errors:: 


by Archimedes Plutonium 

The 4 connectors of Logic are: 

1) Equal (equivalence) plus Not (negation) where the two are combined as one 
2) And (conjunction) 
3) Or (exclusive or) (disjunction) 
4) Implication 

New Logic 

EQUAL/NOT table: 
T  = T  = T 
T  = not F  = T 
F  = not T  = T 
F =  F   = T 

Equality must start or begin logic because in the other connectors, we cannot say a result equals something if we do not have equality built already. Now to build equality, it is unary in that T=T and F =F. So we need another unary connector to make equality a binary. Negation is that other connector and when we combine the two we have the above table. 

Equality combined with Negation allows us to proceed to build the other three logic connectors. 

Now, unfortunately, Logic must start with equality allied with negation and in math what this connector as binary connector ends up being-- is multiplication for math. One would think that the first connector of Logic that must be covered is the connector that ends up being addition of math, not multiplication. But maybe we can find a philosophy-logic answer as to why Logic starts with equal/not and is multiplication rather than addition. 

Here you we have one truth table equal/not whose endresult is 4 trues. 

New Logic 
AND 
T &  T  = T 
T & F  = T 
F &  T  = T 
F  & F   = F 

AND is ADD in New Logic, and that makes a whole lot of common sense. AND feels like addition, the joining of parts. And the truth table for AND should be such that if given one true statement in a series of statements then the entire string of statements is true. So if I had P and Q and S and R, I need only one of those to be true to make the string true P & Q & S & R = True if just one statement is true. 

The truth table of AND results in 3 trues and 1 false. 

New Logic 
OR(exclusive) 
T or  T  = F 
T or F  = T 
F or  T  = T 
F  or F   = F 

OR is seen as a choice, a pick and choose. So if I had T or T, there is no choice and so it is False. If I had T or F there is a choice and so it is true. Again the same for F or T, but when I have F or F, there is no choice and so it is false. OR in mathematics, because we pick and discard what is not chosen, that OR is seen as subtraction. 

OR is a truth table whose endresult is 2 trues, 2 falses. 

New Logic 
IMPLIES (Material Conditional) 
IF/THEN 
MOVES INTO 
T ->  T  = T 
T ->  F  = F 
F ->  T  = U probability outcome 
F ->  F   = U probability outcome 

A truth table that has a variable which is neither T or F, but U for unknown or a probability outcome. We need this U so that we can do math where 0 divided into something is not defined. 

Now notice there are four truth tables where the endresult is 4 trues, 3 trues with 1 false, 2 trues with 2 falses and finally a truth table with a different variable other than T or F, with variable U. This is important in New Logic that the four primitive connectors, by primitive I mean they are independent of one another so that one cannot be derived by the other three. The four are axioms, independent. And the way you can spot that they are independent is that if you reverse their values so that 4 trues become 4 falses. For AND, reversal would be FFFT instead of TTTF. For OR, a reversal would be TFFT instead of FTTF. 

To be independent and not derivable by the other three axioms you need a condition of this: 

One Table be 4 of the same 
One Table be 3 of the same 
One Table be 2 of the same 
And to get division by 0 in mathematics, one table with a unknown variable. 

So, how did Old Logic get it all so wrong so bad? I think the problem was that in the 1800s when Logic was being discovered, is that the best minds of the time were involved in physics, chemistry, biology and looked upon philosophy and logic as second rate and that second rate minds would propose Old Logic. This history would be from Boole 1854 The Laws of Thought, and Jevons textbook of Elementary Lessons on Logic, 1870. Boole started the Old Logic with the help of Jevons and fostered the wrong muddleheaded idea that OR was ADD, when it truly is AND. 

Now the way people actually live, is an indicator of how well they thought and how well any of their ideas should be taken seriously. In the case of Boole, he went to class in a downpour rain, why without a raincoat? And reaching class, instead of changing into dry warm clothes, stood for hours in front of students, sopping wet and shivering. Of course he caught pneumonia, but instead of being sensible, common sense that even a fly would have, he insisted his wife give him cold showers and make the bed all wet and freezing. Of course, he would die from this. Now, does anyone today, think that a mind like that has anything to offer Logic or mathematics, is as crazy as what Boole was. 

But once you have textbooks about Logic, it is difficult to correct a mistake because of the money making social network wants to make more money, not go around fixing mistakes. So this nightmarish mistakes of the truth tables was not seen by Frege, by Russell, by Whitehead, by Carnap, by Godel, and by 1908 the symbols and terminology of the Old Logic truth tables were so deeply rooted into Logic, that only a Logical minded person could ever rescue Logic. 

by Archimedes Plutonium

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

#716720 — Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

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

>On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 4:52:40 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium failed at math

>Subject: Re: Insane kook Moroney mocking MIT, Harvard, Cornell

No, Failure Plutonium. We mock stupidities like the Plutonium Stupidity
Theory, the unstable muon existing in atoms (for more than 2.2 microseconds,
anyway), the sine wave not being a sine wave, 8.88 muons = 9 muons, and 
the rest of the stupidities you have posted over the past quarter century!

Not to mention your stalking professors and stupid '90s ascii art.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web