Archimedes Plutonium

2017-08-12 17:05:09 UTC

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.

So, this is a major mistake in geometry started since Ancient Greek times way back to Euclid.

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.

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.

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.

Now here is a short list of math failures who just cannot be bothered to hands on experiment but rather are failures of mathematics 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 on conics is really true, or, just memorized crap.

Markus Klyver

Jan Burse

Dan Christensen

Jan Bielawski

Terry Tao

Andrew Wiles

John Conway

Appel & Haken

qbwrfmix

Eastside

Konyberg KON

Beal, of Beal conjecture

Robin Hartshorne

John Milnor

All of them, failures of mathematics, for they never are able to get beyond memorization of mathematics, whether utterly false math, and worst yet, they preach this crap to younger generations and scold the young students-- who are smarter than the mathematician on conics.

So, I discovered the oval was the conic section, never the ellipse and I discovered that in 2016, and yet, here it is 2017, and one would think the math community would be grateful for the correction to their error. Instead, the math community continues to ignore anyone outside the inner circle of mathematics, who shows where they are fully mistaken.

I always thought until the last 25 years that mathematicians are some of the most honest people in the world, when it comes to truth, but in fact, I keep finding out that mathematicians are one of the most corrupt crazy minds in science.

It has been a year since the discovery of Oval is ellipse, and still not a peep out of math community.

Newsgroups: sci.math

Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 13:25:46 -0800 (PST)

Subject: getting an ellipse from a conic cut-- possible or impossible??

probably a unique cut

From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>

Injection-Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 21:25:47 +0000

Discoveries like this deserve attention, and not hidden by suppression fools with their own greedy axes to grind. So, I list the names of everyone in geometry, who should have cleared up and cleaned out the mistake, but is hiding and ignoring, and failing mathematics with their ignoring.

AP

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.

So, this is a major mistake in geometry started since Ancient Greek times way back to Euclid.

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.

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.

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.

Now here is a short list of math failures who just cannot be bothered to hands on experiment but rather are failures of mathematics 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 on conics is really true, or, just memorized crap.

Markus Klyver

Jan Burse

Dan Christensen

Jan Bielawski

Terry Tao

Andrew Wiles

John Conway

Appel & Haken

qbwrfmix

Eastside

Konyberg KON

Beal, of Beal conjecture

Robin Hartshorne

John Milnor

All of them, failures of mathematics, for they never are able to get beyond memorization of mathematics, whether utterly false math, and worst yet, they preach this crap to younger generations and scold the young students-- who are smarter than the mathematician on conics.

So, I discovered the oval was the conic section, never the ellipse and I discovered that in 2016, and yet, here it is 2017, and one would think the math community would be grateful for the correction to their error. Instead, the math community continues to ignore anyone outside the inner circle of mathematics, who shows where they are fully mistaken.

I always thought until the last 25 years that mathematicians are some of the most honest people in the world, when it comes to truth, but in fact, I keep finding out that mathematicians are one of the most corrupt crazy minds in science.

It has been a year since the discovery of Oval is ellipse, and still not a peep out of math community.

Newsgroups: sci.math

Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 13:25:46 -0800 (PST)

Subject: getting an ellipse from a conic cut-- possible or impossible??

probably a unique cut

From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>

Injection-Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 21:25:47 +0000

Discoveries like this deserve attention, and not hidden by suppression fools with their own greedy axes to grind. So, I list the names of everyone in geometry, who should have cleared up and cleaned out the mistake, but is hiding and ignoring, and failing mathematics with their ignoring.

AP