Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #719583 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-12-19 20:14 -0800 |
| Last post | 2018-12-20 06:50 +0000 |
| Articles | 2 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Franz implies physicists of Gottingen Drs. Ansgar Reiners,Angela Rizzi,Claus Ropers,Tim Salditt too stupid to understand AP's theory that true real proton is 840MeV, electron=muon, in order for Angular Momentum to allow for Chemistry bonding Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 20:14 -0800
Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-20 06:50 +0000
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-19 20:14 -0800 |
| Subject | Franz implies physicists of Gottingen Drs. Ansgar Reiners,Angela Rizzi,Claus Ropers,Tim Salditt too stupid to understand AP's theory that true real proton is 840MeV, electron=muon, in order for Angular Momentum to allow for Chemistry bonding |
| Message-ID | <0682d9b9-cd8d-4edd-b3ed-5e9dc0583463@googlegroups.com> |
On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 10:00:49 PM UTC-6, Me wrote: >you might better try to point out the errors in the following proof About Franz-- a crank spammer who keeps spinning the very same b.s.-- which forces me to have to spin a true proof back at him and call for German professors to put their barking dog on a leash. Franz implies physicists of Gottingen Drs. Ansgar Reiners,Angela Rizzi,Claus Ropers,Tim Salditt too stupid to understand AP's theory that true real proton is 840MeV, electron=muon, in order for Angular Momentum to allow for Chemistry bonding Me <franz.fri...@gmail.com> > 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 > > > Hence it's justified that > > > all math teachers continue to teach [this fact]. > > > Now let's talk about > > > the idea that 5 OR 2 = 7 ... > > Well, the programming language Python says the same: > > print(operator.or_(5, 2) == 7) > > => True .. .- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-.. , . `.' ' `. .' .' ` ` ' `.. ; . ; .' . `. ; ; . ' `. . ' . ' ` `. | . '. ' . 0 0 ' `. ' ` ; ` .' ` ; U ` ; '; ` : | ;.. :` ` : `;. ```. .-; | ' '. ` ``.., .' :' ' ; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' Hi, I am mindless German, Franz who doesn't know a proof from an arsehole, and wonder if the professors of mathematics at Gottingen are in the same boat as me. ` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' ' ` ` ; ; ' ' ` ` ; ; ' ' ` `. ````'''''' ' ' ` . ' ' / ` `. ' ' . / ` .. ..' .'"""""...' / .` ` ``........-' .'` .....''' / .'' ; ` .' ` ...'.' ; .' ` .' ` "" .' .' | ` .; \ ` ; .' | `. . . . ' . \ ` :' | ' ` , `. ` | ' ` ' `. ` ` ' ` ; `. | `.' ` ; `-' `...' AP writes: a shame, really a shame that Germany lets such feeble imps advertise as to how pathetically dumb is Germany in mathematical proof, or even comprehension of mathematics. One would have thought Germany would shine in math and science-- instead it appears like a slum of the intellect. Goethe Universitat Physics dept Brigitta Wolff president Jurgen Habermass Horst Stocker Gerd Binnig Horst Ludwig Stormer Peter Grunberg math Alex Kuronya Martin Moller Jakob Stix Annette Werner Andreas Bernig Esther Cabezas-Rivas Hans Crauel Thomas Gerstner Bastian von Harrach Thomas Mettler Tobias Weth Amin Coja-Oghlan Raman Sanyal Thorsten Theobald Yury Person Gottingen Univ physics Prof. Dr. Karsten Bahr Prof. Dr. Peter Bloechl Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bodenschatz Prof. Laura Covi, PhD Prof. Dr. Andreas Dillmann Prof. Dr. Stefan Dreizler Prof. Dr. Jörg Enderlein Prof. Dr. Laurent Gizon Prof. Dr. Ariane Frey apl. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Glatzel Prof. Dr. Fabian Heidrich-Meisner Prof. Dr. Hans Christian Hofsäss Prof. Dr. Andreas Janshoff Prof. Dr. Christian Jooß Prof. Dr. Stefan Kehrein Prof. Dr. Stefan Klumpp Prof. Dr. Sarah Köster Prof. Dr. Reiner Kree Prof. Dr. Matthias Krüger Prof. Dr. Stanley Lai Prof. Dr. Stefan Mathias apl. Prof. Dr. Vasile Mosneaga Prof. Dr. Marcus Müller Prof. Dr. Jens Niemeyer apl. Prof. Dr. Astrid Pundt Prof. Dr. Arnulf Quadt apl. Prof. Dr. Karl-Henning Rehren Prof. Dr. Ansgar Reiners Prof. Dr. Angela Rizzi Prof. Dr. Claus Ropers Prof. Dr. Tim Salditt Prof. Dr. Konrad Samwer Prof. Dr. Christoph Schmidt apl. Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann Prof. Dr. Simone Techert apl. Prof. Dr. Michael Seibt Prof. Dr. Peter Sollich Prof. Dr. Andreas Tilgner Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert Prof. Dr. Florentin Wörgötter Prof. Dr. Annette Zippelius Gottingen Univ math Dorothea Bahns, Laurent Bartholdi, Valentin Blomer, Jorg Brüdern, Stefan Halverscheid, Harald Andres Helfgott, Madeleine Jotz Lean, Ralf Meyer, Preda Mihailescu, Walther Dietrich Paravicini, Viktor Pidstrygach, Thomas Schick, Evelina Viada, Ingo Frank Witt, Chenchang Zhu 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 EF. 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 And, even though you-- professors of physics/math, want to remain silent and stupid in Real Electron = muon, starpower is only 10% fusion, 90% Faraday Law of its atoms. And, even though you-- professors of physics/math, want to remain silent and stupid in Real Electron = muon, and true real Calculus with a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, your students deserve better. Yes, there Franz?, 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 is105 MeV. What answer did they give? 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 | 2018-12-20 06:50 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test |
| Message-ID | <pvfe4c$907$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #719583 |
Crank spammer Archimedes "Village Idiot of Mathematics" Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> blithers:
>On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 10:00:49 PM UTC-6, Me wrote:
>>you might better try to point out the errors in the following proof
>About Franz-- a crank spammer who keeps spinning the very same b.s.-- which
>forces me to have to spin a true proof back at him
So when do you plan to spin a true proof back at him? Before the end of
the year? End of the decade?
> and call for German professors to put their barking dog on a leash.
Do you think any German professors even read your posts, much less heed
your call for anything, esp. since they probably have nothing to do with
Franz at all?
I think Franz came up with a wonderful proof. Why can't you find any flaws
with it? Here is Franz's excellent proof again, in case you missed it.
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