Discussion:
Oval is conic section, never ellipse; ellipse is cylinder section// Failures of geometry conic sections-- Wiles, Hales, Conway, Hartshorne
(too old to reply)
Archimedes Plutonium
2017-08-12 06:58:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
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.

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

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
b***@gmail.com
2017-08-12 09:55:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Must be a very srange paper cutter. Is it the same
peper cutter you use to prepare your crystal meth?

AP brain farto, as usually haluzinating over his own
nonsense, not a single line of math for 30 years,

only spamming sci.math with his imbecil drivel.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
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.
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
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
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
Al Mostright
2017-08-12 12:56:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
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.
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
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
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
You know, you are almost right, but not totally. The problem is a matter of point of view. Ellipse IS a conic section. To see the ellipse after you cut a cone, you must look perpendicularly to the cutting plane. If you don't, then the only thing you'll see is an oval.

You're not convinced? Don't trust my word. Experiment by yourself. Don't thank me. Enjoy!
b***@gmail.com
2017-08-12 14:17:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Nope.

Perspective is also a conic section. You will also ideally
"see" an ellipse, and not an oval. You would probably need
some fish-eye lens objective (and the human eye might have such
properties), to see something else than an ellipse,

but from using a normal film plane/camera lens it is an ellipse:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_%28graphical%29

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisheye_lens

Its just the same problem again. A conic section, over a
cone of the ellipse on the plane. Here is a little computation,
assume on the plane was an ellipse such as and a cone over it:

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

Assume we incline it and intersect it with z=0. We will
again get an ellipse. 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+2*Y^2-(1-Z)^2, X, (2*X2-Z2)/sqrt(5)),
Z, (2*Z2+X2)/sqrt(5)).
A is - 1+2*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+2*Y^2+sqrt(4/5)*X2+3/5*X2^2

Looks like a perfect ellipse to me:

- 1+2*y^2+sqrt(4/5)*x+3/5*x^2=0
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=-+1%2B2*y^2%2Bsqrt%284%2F5%29*x%2B3%2F5*x^2%3D0

On the otherhand for sections of a hyperbolic cone, you
get indeed an oval. Namely see here:

Norbert Harthun, Iris Rennert:
Die Ei-Kurve als Schnitt des Hyperbolischen Kegels (PDF; 158 kB)
https://www.yumpu.com/de/document/view/4625767/ei-kurve-als-schnitt-des-hyperbolischen-kegels-pks/7

But I don't know right now whether there is a relationship
between non-perspective lenses and hyperbolic cones. Maybe,
Possibly, you can find such things. Even explain

some of Einsteins distortions this way.
Post by Al Mostright
You know, you are almost right, but not totally. The problem is a matter of point of view. Ellipse IS a conic section. To see the ellipse after you cut a cone, you must look perpendicularly to the cutting plane. If you don't, then the only thing you'll see is an oval.
You're not convinced? Don't trust my word. Experiment by yourself. Don't thank me. Enjoy!
b***@gmail.com
2017-08-12 14:32:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
For an egg curve, you need to leave the quadratic,
for example a curve with the following algebraic
equation does the job:

x^2+y^2*t(x)=1

Example: t(x) = 2*(1+(x-1)^2/4)

http://www.mathematische-basteleien.de/eggcurves.htm

But perspective of an ellipse doesn't give this term t(x).
But with this term, we indeed get non-ellipses, here
is the curve from above in Wolfram alpha:

x^2+y^2*2*(1+(x-1)^2/4)=1
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=x^2%2By^2*2*%281%2B%28x-1%29^2%2F4%29%3D1
Post by b***@gmail.com
Nope.
Perspective is also a conic section. You will also ideally
"see" an ellipse, and not an oval. You would probably need
some fish-eye lens objective (and the human eye might have such
properties), to see something else than an ellipse,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_%28graphical%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisheye_lens
Its just the same problem again. A conic section, over a
cone of the ellipse on the plane. Here is a little computation,
x^2 + 2*y^2 = (1-z)^2
Assume we incline it and intersect it with z=0. We will
again get an ellipse. Do a rotation from (x,y,z) to (x2,y,z2),
by substituting x = (2*x2-z2)/sqrt(5) and
?- A is subst(subst(X^2+2*Y^2-(1-Z)^2, X, (2*X2-Z2)/sqrt(5)),
Z, (2*Z2+X2)/sqrt(5)).
A is - 1+2*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),
?- 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+2*Y^2+sqrt(4/5)*X2+3/5*X2^2
- 1+2*y^2+sqrt(4/5)*x+3/5*x^2=0
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=-+1%2B2*y^2%2Bsqrt%284%2F5%29*x%2B3%2F5*x^2%3D0
On the otherhand for sections of a hyperbolic cone, you
Die Ei-Kurve als Schnitt des Hyperbolischen Kegels (PDF; 158 kB)
https://www.yumpu.com/de/document/view/4625767/ei-kurve-als-schnitt-des-hyperbolischen-kegels-pks/7
But I don't know right now whether there is a relationship
between non-perspective lenses and hyperbolic cones. Maybe,
Possibly, you can find such things. Even explain
some of Einsteins distortions this way.
Post by Al Mostright
You know, you are almost right, but not totally. The problem is a matter of point of view. Ellipse IS a conic section. To see the ellipse after you cut a cone, you must look perpendicularly to the cutting plane. If you don't, then the only thing you'll see is an oval.
You're not convinced? Don't trust my word. Experiment by yourself. Don't thank me. Enjoy!
b***@gmail.com
2017-08-12 14:37:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
You see in math, you can even do your eggs by yourself,
even when you live in the city and not on the country side,
(last but not least without any Fipronil in it):

Ich wollt' ich wär' ein Huhn (original - Glückskinder) 1936

Post by b***@gmail.com
For an egg curve, you need to leave the quadratic,
for example a curve with the following algebraic
x^2+y^2*t(x)=1
Example: t(x) = 2*(1+(x-1)^2/4)
http://www.mathematische-basteleien.de/eggcurves.htm
But perspective of an ellipse doesn't give this term t(x).
But with this term, we indeed get non-ellipses, here
x^2+y^2*2*(1+(x-1)^2/4)=1
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=x^2%2By^2*2*%281%2B%28x-1%29^2%2F4%29%3D1
Post by b***@gmail.com
Nope.
Perspective is also a conic section. You will also ideally
"see" an ellipse, and not an oval. You would probably need
some fish-eye lens objective (and the human eye might have such
properties), to see something else than an ellipse,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_%28graphical%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisheye_lens
Its just the same problem again. A conic section, over a
cone of the ellipse on the plane. Here is a little computation,
x^2 + 2*y^2 = (1-z)^2
Assume we incline it and intersect it with z=0. We will
again get an ellipse. Do a rotation from (x,y,z) to (x2,y,z2),
by substituting x = (2*x2-z2)/sqrt(5) and
?- A is subst(subst(X^2+2*Y^2-(1-Z)^2, X, (2*X2-Z2)/sqrt(5)),
Z, (2*Z2+X2)/sqrt(5)).
A is - 1+2*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),
?- 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+2*Y^2+sqrt(4/5)*X2+3/5*X2^2
- 1+2*y^2+sqrt(4/5)*x+3/5*x^2=0
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=-+1%2B2*y^2%2Bsqrt%284%2F5%29*x%2B3%2F5*x^2%3D0
On the otherhand for sections of a hyperbolic cone, you
Die Ei-Kurve als Schnitt des Hyperbolischen Kegels (PDF; 158 kB)
https://www.yumpu.com/de/document/view/4625767/ei-kurve-als-schnitt-des-hyperbolischen-kegels-pks/7
But I don't know right now whether there is a relationship
between non-perspective lenses and hyperbolic cones. Maybe,
Possibly, you can find such things. Even explain
some of Einsteins distortions this way.
Post by Al Mostright
You know, you are almost right, but not totally. The problem is a matter of point of view. Ellipse IS a conic section. To see the ellipse after you cut a cone, you must look perpendicularly to the cutting plane. If you don't, then the only thing you'll see is an oval.
You're not convinced? Don't trust my word. Experiment by yourself. Don't thank me. Enjoy!
Archimedes Plutonium
2017-08-12 17:00:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Al Mostright
You know, you are almost right, but not totally. The problem is a matter of point of view. Ellipse IS a conic section. To see the ellipse after you cut a cone, you must look perpendicularly to the cutting plane. If you don't, then the only thing you'll see is an oval.
You're not convinced? Don't trust my word. Experiment by yourself. Don't thank me. Enjoy!
What this creep is saying, is, you don't like AP's correction of flawed math, then just muster in Projective Geometry to hide away the flaw of Old Math.

Redefine the ellipse and oval.

Just do anything, so long as never give AP credit.

This is what I mean that math community at present is a dishonest, and corrupt community. It is not objective, but rather, 110% subjective.

AP
b***@gmail.com
2017-08-12 17:07:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
AP brain farto, for what do you want credit?
For being studpid? You got this credit already. (*)

For non-planar projection, like for example spherical
projections, like in a fish-eye camera or as an

approximation for the human retina, you might possibly
get ovals, and not what you can measure when you

take your hands and touch the conic sections. Or
are the rules in your mongo math home also bent?

(*)
Its all over the internet. Not a single line of
math, only spamming sci.math by creepy a**hole AP.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Post by Al Mostright
You know, you are almost right, but not totally. The problem is a matter of point of view. Ellipse IS a conic section. To see the ellipse after you cut a cone, you must look perpendicularly to the cutting plane. If you don't, then the only thing you'll see is an oval.
You're not convinced? Don't trust my word. Experiment by yourself. Don't thank me. Enjoy!
What this creep is saying, is, you don't like AP's correction of flawed math, then just muster in Projective Geometry to hide away the flaw of Old Math.
Redefine the ellipse and oval.
Just do anything, so long as never give AP credit.
This is what I mean that math community at present is a dishonest, and corrupt community. It is not objective, but rather, 110% subjective.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2017-08-13 19:59:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
My detractors are caught between a pillow and a soft place, for they want the ellipse be a conic section even though it really is a oval, for that leaves them in the gruesome predicament of trying to explain what the cylinder section else.
Archimedes Plutonium
2017-08-14 18:00:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
My detractors are caught between a pillow and a soft place, for they want the ellipse be a conic section even though it really is a oval, for that leaves them in the gruesome predicament of trying to explain what the cylinder section else.
Look at that, my detractors pander the Dandelin Spheres as proof that the ellipse is a conic.

Shame they have no logical mind to even evaluate the Dandelin argument. For if they had a logical mind, would see that Dandelin ASSUMED the section was a ellipse. And in math proofs, when you assume something in error, your proof is nothing more than error.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2017-08-14 23:22:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 16:12:42 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Re: Displacement current replaced by Capacitor current Re:
PreliminaryPage22, 3-7, AP-Maxwell Equations of New Physics/
Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 23:12:43 +0000

Re: Displacement current replaced by Capacitor current Re: PreliminaryPage22, 3-7, AP-Maxwell Equations of New Physics/ Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed

***@gmail.com        
5:42 PM (27 minutes ago)


This may also be regarded as a continuation,,,,,,,,,

--------

Hey, Rockbr, thanks, I was hoping someday, someone would post the Maxwell Eq, so I did not have to track down the symbols::



∇⋅B = 0

∇⋅D = ρ

∇×E = - ∂B/∂t

∇×H =  ∂D/∂t + J
q***@gmail.com
2017-08-12 16:25:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
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
OR you can use a teeny tiny bit of math that is hopefully barely within
your small and rapidly diminishing abilities and demonstrate with the
precision of algebra that a conic section is an ellipse and not an oval.
But that would leave you one less thing to crank screech about.

OR you can do as I have repeatedly suggested and have a truly fine
machine shop cut this out of steel so that you can see this without
needing to fondle your toilet paper. And you can measure this down
to a thousandth of an inch to verify that it is an ellipse.
But that would leave you one less thing to crank screech about.

OR your mental illness can crank screech your delusion over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
and hope that this somehow makes you think that your life is worth living.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
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.
Wrong. The only mistake is Archie.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
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.
Everything in Archie's head and Archie's toilet paper is certainly wrong.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
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.
One person very recently did bother to carefully do your experiment and
he posted that he did in fact see that the intersection was an ellipse.
And you simply ignored this and continued your crank screeches.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
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
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.
It is clear that no conventional convincing (to everyone but you) math
proof is ever going to pierce your dementia. It is equally clear that
no calculations showing a counter example is ever going to pierce your
dementia. And toilet paper fondling is never going to convince anyone
else.

What if we made it worth people's time? And that the result would be
absolutely conclusive? What if we bet enough money on this that the
outcome would seriously hurt one side? But not so much money that anyone
would begin to feel regret about taking advantage of the mentally ill?
We don't want anyone to ever start feeling sorry for abusing a crank.

So what experiment done right in front of you, what result, what
measurement would be sufficient to absolutely settle this for you,
to absolutely definitely finally answer for you whether this is an ellipse
or is an oval? AND would be sufficient for everyone else to accept the test?

You come up with a test that will finally settle this for you. And you
come up with $10,000 in nice clean new $100 bills. For that we will do this.
BUT you need to think VERY hard and come up with the exact precise
experiment that BOTH sides will accept and which will convince BOTH sides.
AND not endlessly crank screech about this. When you have done all this
then we will do this and finally end this. (Like I'm delusional enough
to believe that this can ever happen)
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
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.
When in clear correct precise understandable CONVINCING detail you prove
even one of your astonishing claims that overturns thousands of years
THEN people will be grateful. That has never happened and never will.
Partly because it is impossible to have a correct proof of a false
conjecture. And mostly because you have never demonstrated in thirty
years that you can produce a CONVINCING correct detailed proof of anything.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
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.
I always thought that in the last 25 years that someone would lock up the
mentally ill, to protect the world from them and vice versa.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
It has been a year since the discovery of Oval is ellipse, and still not a peep out of math community.
Nonsense Archie. There have been LOTS of peeps. People have told you
over and over and over that you are crank brain wrong. People have shown
you algebra demonstrating that you are crank brain wrong. People have shown
you proofs demonstrating that you are crank brain wrong. People have shown
you calculations demonstrating that you are crank brain wrong. None of which
has any effect on your mentally ill crank brain wrong mind.

This is exactly precisely like your hundreds of other astonishing claims
that you have overturned thousands of years of mathematics. Each of those
lacks one tiny little item, a precise correct clear understandable
CONVINCING (to OTHER people, not you, you don't count) mathematical proof.

Toilet paper fondling is only going to further your delusions.

Now let's see... what Archie going to do now...
He certainly won't play the math card, he can't do this math.
He certainly won't play the proof card, he can't prove this.
He will certainly play the hate card, everyone who disagrees
with him hates him and are false foggy fools and failures.
He will dismiss everything that disagrees with his claim.
He won't come up with the $10,000 or an acceptable experiment.
He definitely won't accept anything that would finally settle this.
And he will continue screeching mentally ill crank brain nonsense.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
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
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.
Attention?!? You have spewed 30,000 crank screeches at the world in the
last 30 years desperately trying to convince the world that they should
pay attention to you! Unfortunately none of those are hidden from the world.
And unfortunately you have not been able to convince a single person in
the world that they are anything other than crank screech nonsense.

You want attention? Write a clear understandable detailed correct
CONVINCING (to others, not you) proof of a single one of your astonishing
claims.

And, just for novelty, you might consider trying to not piss off exactly
the people who you desperately want to accept your claims.

Never bring a mentally ill crank to a brain fight
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
AP
Jan
2017-08-13 23:57:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
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
Ellipse is a conic section. Proof (one of many possible ones): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dandelin_spheres

--
Jan
Archimedes Plutonium
2017-08-16 01:06:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jan
Ellipse is a conic section.
Why cannot Jan do the experiment, at least Don Redmond did it, still waiting on his results (kinda slow these days, Don must be preparing for the new incoming classes).

But anyway, Jan Bielawski is a burnt out failure of math and seems unable to do a Experiment.

Roll up a stiff wax paper into a cone, tape it, cut at diagonal. Inspect the cut and see it is a oval-------never------never ever--------an ellipse.

Ask you fellow Californian there Jan, Terry Tao to help you in the experiment.
Me
2017-08-16 01:22:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Roll up a stiff wax paper into a cone, tape it, cut at diagonal. Inspect the
cut and see [that it is] an ellipse.
Yeah, see:


and

Jan
2017-08-16 01:29:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Post by Jan
Ellipse is a conic section.
Why cannot Jan do the experiment,
I don't need to since there exists a proof already.

--
Jan
Archimedes Plutonium
2017-08-17 00:12:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jan
I don't need to since there exists a proof already.
--
Jan
Ask Robert Williams if you can assume the conic section is an ellipse for Dandelin, that Dandelin has not proven the section is in fact an ellipse

Ask Peter McMullen if you can assume in Dandelin the cut is an ellipse, and then prove that the cut is an ellipse.

Ask Richard Hamilton that if you assume something, you have not proven it to be the case.

Ask Roger Burrows why Dandelin assumed his cut was an ellipse? Did he not know that he should prove it is a oval or ellipse before embarking?

Ask Rudy Rucker why a entry point in the conic cut on one side is not equal not symmetry to the exit point on opposite side, and thus, not an ellipse.

Ask Michael Freedman whether a mathematician can accept the idea that a cylinder section is a ellipse and whether they can also accept a conic section as an ellipse-- maybe in bozoland logic can you have that.


Ask Egon Schulte why the Ancient Greeks, not anyone in modern times ever spent time on making a model cut of a rolled up piece of paper, tape, and scissors. Was everyone just too busy to check

Ask Karoly Bezdek whether or not it is a hypocrite contradiction to think the cone section is the same as the cylinder section is equal to ellipse.

Ask Simon Donaldson is there anything to save from the fakery of the Dandelin proof, is it a total flop or can we save something out of it by nesting the conic inside a cylinder and focusing attention on the ellipse formed from cylinder, as to whether the Dandelin spheres point out the foci.

Yeh, Jan, you are a real stalking bozo, in my opinion, check yourself into a California asylum and hang on the wall "I stalked for 24 years".

AP
b***@gmail.com
2017-08-17 00:15:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Name dropping cunt.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Post by Jan
I don't need to since there exists a proof already.
--
Jan
Ask Robert Williams if you can assume the conic section is an ellipse for Dandelin, that Dandelin has not proven the section is in fact an ellipse
Ask Peter McMullen if you can assume in Dandelin the cut is an ellipse, and then prove that the cut is an ellipse.
Ask Richard Hamilton that if you assume something, you have not proven it to be the case.
Ask Roger Burrows why Dandelin assumed his cut was an ellipse? Did he not know that he should prove it is a oval or ellipse before embarking?
Ask Rudy Rucker why a entry point in the conic cut on one side is not equal not symmetry to the exit point on opposite side, and thus, not an ellipse.
Ask Michael Freedman whether a mathematician can accept the idea that a cylinder section is a ellipse and whether they can also accept a conic section as an ellipse-- maybe in bozoland logic can you have that.
Ask Egon Schulte why the Ancient Greeks, not anyone in modern times ever spent time on making a model cut of a rolled up piece of paper, tape, and scissors. Was everyone just too busy to check
Ask Karoly Bezdek whether or not it is a hypocrite contradiction to think the cone section is the same as the cylinder section is equal to ellipse.
Ask Simon Donaldson is there anything to save from the fakery of the Dandelin proof, is it a total flop or can we save something out of it by nesting the conic inside a cylinder and focusing attention on the ellipse formed from cylinder, as to whether the Dandelin spheres point out the foci.
Yeh, Jan, you are a real stalking bozo, in my opinion, check yourself into a California asylum and hang on the wall "I stalked for 24 years".
AP
Jan
2017-08-17 01:27:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Post by Jan
I don't need to since there exists a proof already.
--
Jan
Ask Robert Williams if you can assume the conic section is an ellipse for Dandelin, that Dandelin has not proven the section is in fact an ellipse
He did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dandelin_spheres
If you think there is a mistake in this proof, just point it out. There is no need for rhetoric.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Yeh, Jan, you are a real stalking bozo, in my opinion, check yourself into a California asylum and hang on the wall "I stalked for 24 years".
Stop that "stalking" nonsense already. You've been polluting this newsgroup for more
than 20 years and suddenly get bent out of shape when someone calls your bluff.

--
Jan
Archimedes Plutonium
2017-08-18 06:17:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jan
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Ask Robert Williams if you can assume the conic section is an ellipse for Dandelin, that Dandelin has not proven the section is in fact an ellipse
He did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dandelin_spheres
If you think there is a mistake in this proof, just point it out. There is no need for rhetoric.
Hey Jan Bielawski, Burse points out your mistake here
Post by Jan
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
Doesn't explain how the dandelin spheres
are justified. But we find a picture of two
dandelin spheres for a cylinder on page 7.
So both cylinder and cone have two dandelin
spheres, and showing that the section is
an ellipse, can be done the same way for
cylinder and cone. Justification of dandelin
spheres for cylinder is probably a little
simpler, than for cone.
Jan
2017-08-18 21:11:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Post by Jan
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Ask Robert Williams if you can assume the conic section is an ellipse for Dandelin, that Dandelin has not proven the section is in fact an ellipse
He did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dandelin_spheres
If you think there is a mistake in this proof, just point it out. There is no need for rhetoric.
Hey Jan Bielawski, Burse points out your mistake here
No, YOU post where the error on that Wikipedia page is.

What someone thinks about some book is irrelevant. You claim the proof
is wrong. Just post why it's wrong. Is it a secret or something?

--
Jan
Archimedes Plutonium
2017-08-18 21:41:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 4:11:45 PM UTC-5, Jan wrote:

Jan Bielawski trying to save his fellow kook Jan Burse, from becoming a traitor and going to the other side--- IT IS A OVAL, never ellipse

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 16:46:52 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Crazies trying to save the crazy Jan Burse //if he had a concept of
entry-exit cut, he would have been saved
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 23:46:53 +0000


Crazies trying to save the crazy Jan Burse //if he had a concept of entry-exit cut, he would have been saved

  BIG CRACK IN THE CRAZIES OF MATH
Nobody denies that the conic is an oval.
But it is also an ellipse. You suck at math.
***@gmail.com        
4:39 PM (1 hour ago)

Re: 2017 "year it sucks being a math professor" Re: Dandelin huge mistake//if he had a concept of entry-exit cut, he would have been saved

Nobody denies that the conic is an oval.
But it is also an ellipse. You suck at math.

-----------

QUICK, Don Redmond, revive the crazy Jan Burse, that the Conic cut is an ellipse, not an oval. For it was Lincoln, your home state of Illinois hero that said a house divided will not stand, that means crazies also.

Quick Jan Bielawski, repeat over and over again the Dandelin fakery, until Jan Burse repeats it as often as your insane mind repeats it.

Quick Franz, steer Burse to your malware infested film clips and pseudo math projections of conic sections, it worked the trick of keeping Jerry Krauss crazy over conics, should work for pulling back Burse from the brink of truth and being sane.

Quick Dan Christensen, give Burse endless lectures on how a vertex has a derivative to pull Burse from the brink of Truth and Reason, and get him back into the shadows of craziness and attack ads.

Quick QBRFmix, whatever, quick in lecturing Burse on the pleasantness of being in a coma-depression for all of your life, that living with depression makes living being crazy all the more palatable.

Quick, quick, you crazies, help save one of your own to be as crazy as you are.

               __|     \ /     |__
   _ o   ___\o    \o    |    o/    o/___   o _
    /\  /)  |     ( \  /o\  / )     |   (\  /\
___|_\______                          _____/_|__
before I straighten out conics, straighten out my back
Jan
2017-08-18 22:29:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Jan Bielawski trying to save his fellow kook Jan Burse, from becoming a traitor and going to the other side---
Oh stop that already. You keep saying that cross-section is not an ellipse.
All you have to do is to point out where, specifically, the error in
the Wikipedia proof is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dandelin_spheres

--
Jan
Archimedes Plutonium
2017-08-19 07:20:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jan
Oh stop that already. You keep saying that cross-section is not an ellipse.
All you have to do is to point out where, specifically, the error in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dandelin_spheres
--
Jan
Refresh my mind Jan Bielawski, was you who said in sci.math years ago that a vertex has a derivative, or was it Jan Burse?
Jan
2017-08-19 16:35:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Post by Jan
Oh stop that already. You keep saying that cross-section is not an ellipse.
All you have to do is to point out where, specifically, the error in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dandelin_spheres
--
Jan
Refresh my mind Jan Bielawski, was you who said in sci.math years ago that a vertex has a derivative, or was it Jan Burse?
And the relevance of this to the ellipse as conic section is... what?

It wasn't me. But you'd have to quote the entire context if you want to assign "guilt"
that way. In some context (e.g. B-splines) people may refer to certain finite differences
at certain polygonal vertices as "derivatives" to save time or simply by tradition in
that particular field.

--
Jan
Archimedes Plutonium
2017-08-15 06:01:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Add Roger Penrose to the list, of math persons that should have known better, sensed better, every time they went into a conic section, that the ellipse does not exist as a conic, only as a cylinder section. If you are driving down the street on the wrong side of the road, you should sense it in your psyche, something is wrong here.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
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.
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
Roger Penrose
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
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
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
b***@gmail.com
2017-08-19 21:01:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I guess this line is also not a line, but a sasquash,
richt AP? Not a line, no no, never a line:

A virtual model of a mechanical device that draws a straight line.


Here is the math:

x=cos(t)-1/2*cos(t)+1/2*cos(t)=cos(t)

y=sin(t)-1/2*sin(t)-1/2*sin(t)=0

Right?
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
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.
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
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
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
b***@gmail.com
2017-08-19 21:24:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The Muckefunk Pizza, Bon Appétit,
infinity doesn't exist for me Pizza:

Conic Sections - Pizza

Post by b***@gmail.com
I guess this line is also not a line, but a sasquash,
A virtual model of a mechanical device that draws a straight line.
http://youtu.be/ZN9o857_YMs
x=cos(t)-1/2*cos(t)+1/2*cos(t)=cos(t)
y=sin(t)-1/2*sin(t)-1/2*sin(t)=0
Right?
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
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.
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
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
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
Me
2017-08-19 21:31:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
The Muckefunk Pizza, Bon Appétit,
Conic Sections - Pizza
http://youtu.be/rQTqEhWXKbQ
As a dessert watch this!
Me
2017-08-19 22:52:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
The Muckefunk Pizza, Bon Appétit,
Conic Sections - Pizza
http://youtu.be/rQTqEhWXKbQ
As a dessert watch this!

FromTheRafters
2017-08-20 00:06:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Me
Post by b***@gmail.com
The Muckefunk Pizza, Bon Appétit,
Conic Sections - Pizza
http://youtu.be/rQTqEhWXKbQ
As a dessert watch this!
http://youtu.be/1v5Aqo6PaFw
That was a good find. It looks like the wheel version captured Kepler's
Law too.

Loading...